Quotes of the week...

From The Patriot Post:

David Horowitz on the Left

“The Democratic party is very close to being the [Communist-controlled Progressive] party of Henry Wallace... Today’s left sees the world pretty much in the same terms as the Stalinists did. What has happened is that it has lost its faith in the working class, so its agenda is entirely negative. They’ve dropped the dictatorship of the proletariat and they all say they’re democrats, but so did Lenin. The vast bulk of the American left is a Communist left and they’ve introduced some fascist ideas like ‘identity politics,’ which is straight out of Mussolini. They don’t talk about the working class, they talk about women and race. There’s not much that they’ve learned from the history of the 20th century.” —David Horowitz

David Mamet from his recent announcement of his conservative realization.

Prior to the midterm elections, my rabbi was taking a lot of flack. The congregation is exclusively liberal, he is a self-described independent (read ‘conservative’), and he was driving the flock wild. Why? Because a) he never discussed politics; and b) he taught that the quality of political discourse must be addressed first—that Jewish law teaches that it is incumbent upon each person to hear the other fellow out. I, like many of the liberal congregation, began, teeth grinding, to attempt to do so. And in doing so, I recognized that I held two views of America (politics, government, corporations, the military). One was of a state where everything was magically wrong and must be immediately corrected at any cost; and the other—the world in which I actually functioned day to day—was made up of people, most of whom were reasonably trying to maximize their comfort by getting along with each other (in the workplace, the marketplace, the jury room, on the freeway, even at the school-board meeting).

I realized that the time had come for me to avow my participation in that America in which I chose to live, and that that country was not a schoolroom teaching values, but a marketplace. I began reading not only the economics of Thomas Sowell (our greatest contemporary philosopher) but Milton Friedman, Paul Johnson, and Shelby Steele, and a host of conservative writers, and found that I agreed with them: a free-market understanding of the world meshes more perfectly with my experience than that idealistic vision I called liberalism.”

Just ask me and I'll tell you...

Oleg Volk is a a national treasure. Click the link to see much more. He's referring to TN law, but it's a felony in Kentucky, too.

Way to go, Jack. I hope you're paying attention, Poodles. (but I'm not holding my breath)

The column by Nicole Brochu in The Sun-Sentinel is the usual mass of PSH cliches. And as usual, the comments are lively. Some not very well thought out, but lively

Poodles comments:

"A person would only have a split second to react, and that's only if they KNEW what was going on. If you listen to the witness statements, you'll notice that most folks weren't really sure what was going on until it was almost over. I don't know what the answer is, maybe we should start licensing guns the way we do cars, with titles and yearly fees - not that it would help if a deranged person wanted a gun, but we gotta start somewhere. Do they still have the gun buy-back program? We also need more AFFORDABLE mental health care. The average person struggling from check to check cannot afford it, and if they do have insurance, it's still so expensive that many feel it's out of reach for them. The free mental health care is often un-advertised to the point that most people don't know it exists.

And Jack Burton replies in the comments...

Do I need the governments permission to buy a car? No.
Do I need to buy the car from only certain people with licenses to sell cars? No.
Can I buy as many cars as I want each week/month/year. Yes
Can I buy small cars, big cars, slow cars, fast cars, cars that look dangerous? Yes
Can I buy Hummers virtually like the troops use? Yes.
Do I have to wait from 5 to 15 days to pick up my car. No
If I traded in one car for a newer model do I still have to wait five to ten days to pick the new one up. No
Can I modify my car to allow more fuel, more performance, or better cornering. Yes
Would I have to turn over to the government without compensation some models of automobiles that might be banned years after I buy them. No
Do I need a license to buy a car? No
(in most states)
Can I buy a car at age 16? Yes.
Are driving lessons mandated in most high schools? Yes
Can I buy a car from anyone in any state? Yes.
Can I sell my car to anyone in any state? Yes
Can convicted felons buy, own or drive a car. Yes
In some places (e.g. NYC or New Jersey) would I first need a permit to buy from the police department which sometimes takes up to 2 years to obtain. No
In some cities (e.g. Washington D.C.) would I have to store my car partially disassembled. No
Do I need to register a car that I own? No (as long as I keep it on my own property)
Do I need a background check or waiting period to buy a car? No
Is my car held responsible if I misuse it? No
Would failure to register my car be a federal felony (prevents me from owning another one). No
Do I need to "safe store" my car even though many are stolen and used for criminal purposes? No
Will I lose my driver's license if I violate the law with my car? Most likely not
Can I legally drive my car into any state/city in the nation with every jurisdiction honoring my registration/license? Yes
Shall I go on? Or do you really, really want to treat guns like cars?

D'oh! They said what?!?

Mostly what Novak's article shows is that the GOP may have known how to  win the elections, but still don't have a clue how to govern.

The president and his senior staff were stunned to learn, on the day it was issued, that Clement's petition called on the high court to return the case to the appeals court. The solicitor general argued that Silberman's opinion supporting individual gun rights was so broad that it would endanger federal gun control laws such as the bar on owning machine guns. The president could have ordered a revised brief by Clement.

and

The more plausible explanation for Clement's stance is that he could not resist opposition to individual gun rights by career lawyers in the Justice Department's Criminal Division (who clashed with the Office of Legal Counsel in a heated internal struggle). Newly installed Attorney General Michael Mukasey, a neophyte at Justice, was unaware of the conflict and learned about Clement's position only after it had been locked in.

Ken Blackwell and Sandy Froman on D.C. v Heller

from Townhall.com

Part I
Judging Gun Rights: Are They Inalienable?

Part II
The Roe v. Wade of Gun Rights

Tuesday looms, and I am getting nervous. Waiting until June for the ruling will seem interminable.

He should get another five years for stupidity...

Let's see. (from WYMTnews.com)

Jury Rejects "Wrong Person" Claim In Drug Trial

WHITESBURG - A former Letcher County resident was convicted of drug trafficking after failing to convince a jury that police had arrested the wrong person.

Following a two-day trial before Letcher Circuit Judge Samuel T. Wright III, 31-year-old James Holland was found guilty of second-degree trafficking.

Holland, who now lives on Sama Road in Burnside (Pulaski County), had turned down a plea offer that would have given him probation.

Police arrested Holland on May 22, 2007, for selling Hydrocodone pills to an undercover UNITE detective on September 23, 2005.

During the trial, which began Monday, March 11, Holland's attorney argued that someone else had made the sale that police had arrested the wrong person.

Although Holland had changed his appearance, Assistant Commonwealth Attorney Kevin R. Mullins presented evidence linking him with the crime.

Mullins showed that the vehicle used at the time of the sale was registered to Holland, that Holland had given the undercover detective directions to his home if he wanted to purchase more pills, and that Holland had stated he was behind on his child support payments - which was confirmed through court records.

Jury members recommended Holland receive the maximum 5 years in jail when he is formally sentenced at 9 a.m. Wednesday, April 23.

 

National Academy of Sciences Says Ballistic Imaging Database "Should Not Be Established"

Anti-Gun Politicians, Are You Listening? NAS Says Ballistic Imaging Database "Should Not Be Established"

Friday, March 07, 2008

On March 5, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) released Ballistic Imaging, the report of a committee it assigned to evaluate the feasibility, accuracy, and technical capability of a possible national database of so-called “ballistic” images from all new guns sold in the United States.

The committee considered dozens of factors, including the uniqueness of images, the ability of imaging systems to capture images, the odds against images in a database being matched with cartridge cases and/or bullets found at crime scenes, the fact that “there is a huge existing supply of weapons and ammunition that would not be entered into the database,” and the fact that criminals can beat the system by using guns that do not leave brass at crime scenes, such as revolvers. After all was said and done, the committee concluded, “A national reference ballistic image database should not be established.”

The committee’s chairman, John Rolph, a professor of statistics at the University of Southern California’s Marshall School of Business, additionally explained, “current technology for collecting and comparing toolmarks [left on bullets and brass cases] is not sufficiently precise in distinguishing extremely fine marks among so many images.” Among other limitations, “the type or brand of ammunition used in the initial firing of a gun would not necessarily be the same as the ammunition later used in a crime [and the] difference could be a significant source of error.”

Instead of an imaging database, the report recommended ways to improve BATFE’s existing database of crime-related ballistic evidence, called the National Integrated Ballistic Information Network, or NIBIN.

The good news for gun owners is that a highly regarded committee of experts, including some who are known supporters of gun control, have concluded--as NRA has been saying all along--that an image database is not necessarily capable of the crime-solving solutions its advocates have long claimed.

On the other hand, the report also recommended research on micro-stamping of both guns and ammunition, noting that studies have not yet determined how durable micro-stamped marks are under various firing conditions, how susceptible they are to tampering, or what their cost would be for manufacturers and consumers.

That portion of the report will likely be cited by anti-gun groups and politicians as evidence in favor of requiring that bullets and brass cases be micro-stamped with unique codes, either by the manufacturer during production (proposed in 13 states recently), or by guns mandatorily equipped with special breech faces, firing pins, or other internal parts (mandated in California last year and proposed in Congress by Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., in February).

The danger, in addition to the fact that neither imaging nor micro-stamping has been proven to be able to help police solve crimes, or is in any way necessary for that purpose, is that neither could be effective without the imposition of laws that are anathema to the right to arms, such as registration of guns and ammunition to their purchasers and owners; a ban on private sales of guns and ammunition; and a ban on the manufacture, importation, sale and possession of guns from which images have not been taken, guns that do not stamp codes on fired ammunition, and ammunition that has not been stamped with a code.

Copyright 2008, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.

Liberty?

“The fact that an obese person becomes ill, or a cyclist has an accident, and becomes a burden on taxpayers who must bear the expense of taking care of him, is not a problem of liberty. It’s a problem of socialism where one person is forced to take care of another. There is no moral argument that justifies using the coercive powers of government to force one person to bear the expense of taking care of another... Forcing one person to bear the burden of health care costs for another is not only a moral question but a major threat to personal liberty. Think about all the behaviors and lifestyles that can lead to illness and increase the burden on taxpayers. A daily salt intake exceeding 6 grams can lead to hypertension. A high-fat diet and high alcohol intake can also lead to diabetes. A sedentary lifestyle can lead to several costly diseases such as hypertension, diabetes and heart failure. There are many other behaviors that lead to a greater health care burden, but my question is how much control over your life you are willing to give government in the name of reducing these costs? Would you want government to regulate how much salt you use? What about government deciding how much fat and alcohol you consume? There are immense beneficial health effects of a daily 30-minute aerobic exercise. Would you support government-mandated exercise? You might argue that it’s none of government’s business how much fat, salt or alcohol a person consumes, even if it has adverse health care cost implications. I’d ask: Wouldn’t the same reasoning apply to helmet laws and proposed obesity laws?” —Walter Williams

Write this 1000 times

An exemplary exercise for Members of Congress.

“I favor a policy of economy, not because I wish to save money, but because I wish to save people. The men and women of this country who toil are the ones who bear the cost of the government. Every dollar that we save means that their life will be so much the more abundant. Economy is idealism in its most practical form.” —Calvin Coolidge

Gun-Free Zone sign.

from Rob over on Sharp as a Marble.

I have an "evil" handgun.

It's been 31 years, 119 days since this evil handgun came into my possession. I keep waiting for someone to knock on my door and tell me my handgun has killed someone, but it hasn't happened. Yet.

I'm sure it will. Handguns are evil. Handguns kill people. It's just a matter of time before my handgun kills someone. It has to happen. Blood will run in the streets. It's inevitable. That's what Mr. Helmke and his ilk tell us over and over. They've said it so long it must be true.

Apparently, it doesn't make any difference that the handgun's owner is a responsible, law-abiding adult who's never had more to do with LEOs than a few traffic tickets and benevolent association donations. That gun will kill. It has to happen. It's just a matter of time.

So, I'm waiting for that knock on the door or the article in the paper that reveals the true nature of my handgun. An object so bloodthirsty and evil by its very nature cannot hide its essence forever. It must rise up. It has to happen. It's inevitable. It's just a matter of time.

But, it has been a matter of many years. Maybe my handgun just doesn't have the force of will of those handguns who have killed. Yeah, that's it. My handgun must be one of those that has to simmer for a really, really long period of time before it boils over into violence. It must. It's evil. They've said it so long it must be true

Profiles of valor: Master Sgt. Woodrow Wilson Keeble

From The Patriot Post:

On Monday, President Bush posthumously awarded Master Sgt. Woodrow Wilson Keeble the Medal of Honor. Keeble, the first Sioux Indian to receive the nation’s highest award, died in 1982. “On behalf of our grateful nation, I deeply regret that this tribute comes decades too late,” President Bush said. Though fellow soldiers, family and friends had been trying for years—twice the paperwork was lost—the deadline for the award eventually passed. This year, Sens. Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad (D-ND) and Tim Johnson (D-SD) and John Thune (R-SD) introduced legislation to ensure the rightful awarding of this medal.

Keeble was a veteran of World War II and Korea, where he received more than 30 citations, including the Distinguished Service Cross, the Silver Star, the Bronze Star with combat “V” for Valor and two Purple Hearts. It was in Korea that his actions earned the Medal of Honor. In 1951, Keeble was fighting with George Company of the 164th Infantry Regiment. He was wounded in battle on 15 October, and then again on 17, 18 and 20 October. He received the Silver Star for his bravery on the 18th, and on the 19th doctors removed 83 pieces of shrapnel from his body, including his face, and tended to two rifle wounds in his left arm. On the 20th, Keeble was back in action; he killed a dozen enemy soldiers and took out three machine-gun bunkers, saving a number of his men. His men recommended him for the Medal. During Monday’s ceremony, the President concluded, “We can tell his story, and we can honor his memory, and we can follow his lead.”

Multiple gunmen attack Jerusalem seminary killing at least seven...

Full story here. I don't think the police ever got a shot at them because...

Yitzhak Dadon, a seminary student, said he was armed with a rifle and waited on the roof of a nearby building during the attack.

"He came out of the library spraying automatic fire. ... The terrorist came to the entrance and I shot him twice in the head," he said.

Medic Yaron Tzuker said he arrived as the gunfire was still going on.

"They were still shooting when we got here," he told Channel 10 TV. "We took cover and the ambulance was hit. It's horrible inside - dead bodies and wounded - it's horrific."

Another witness told Israel TV that he heard both single shots and automatic gunfire from inside the building, and it lasted for about 10 minutes.

Jerusalem police spokesman Shmuel Ben Ruby said one of the gunmen who attacked the seminary was wearing what at first appeared to be an explosives vest but turned out to be a belt holding extra ammunition.

"One or two terrorists infiltrated the Mercaz Harav seminary and opened fire in all directions," the police spokesman said. "One terrorist was killed in an exchange of fire, and apparently he had an explosives belt."

The Israelis understand you must protect yourself. It is often death to depend on others to protect you.

Update: Eight deaths are now reported. gbw

It's not about "school security", it's about personal security and self-defense.

This cartoon by Bruce Plante ran in the Tulsa World

Reader comment #10 from TU Student was

I dont think that the question is should be be able to carry guns but rather how can we reform security on campus. Maybe reinventing school security into a stronger force will quell the pro gun students after all isnt this topic just a question of school security? However i dont call for every security officer on campus to carry an assualt rifle but rather be trained in the proper use of firearms and have a somewhat selfless attitude while on the job unlike the police around the country that stand by and watch the situation play out. (sic)

TU Student, this is not a problem of "school security". It is a problem of personal security and self-defense. No school can ever be secure. Weapons, sometimes firearms, are found in "secure" prisons on a daily basis.

And as so many have said before, unless you have a personal security officer assigned to you 24/7, if something happens you still have to call them (if you're able) and wait for them to get there.

Suppose you are sitting in class, and someone walks through the door, shoots the teacher, and turns and points his weapon at the class. Your mobile phone is on your desk. While the gunman is deciding who to shoot, you pick up your phone, dial 911 to call the police (or perhaps you have a speed dial to campus security), and wait for them to answer the phone. You give your name and location and describe the situation to the operator who immediately dispatches someone to your location.

Suppose there is a police car with two officers on the next block and they respond immediately. How long from the time you dialed the phone until they pull up out front? How many people will die before the officers know enough about the situation to do anything about it? Will you be one of them? Would it be a stretch to assume the gunman might target anyone making a phone call? Wouldn't it be more likely that no one would be making that call, but trying desperately to get away and thereby increasing the time that initial call is made?

Beefing up security isn't a bad idea. But wouldn't you much rather be able to, if you choose, have the ability to defend yourself instead of waiting for help that will always come too late?

Responsible, law-abiding adults should be able to carry anywhere they have a right to be.

Massive NRA conspiracy: gun blogger talking points revealed

I just received the new talking points from the National Rifle Association with my latest check. (Yes, the NRA is so desperate they even pay bloggers with only a handful of regular readers) Though I fully expect to be removed from their payroll, I feel I had no choice but to reveal this massive conspiracy.

In good conscience, I can no longer abide by the code of silence and so list these points publicly.

1. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
2. All firearms are loaded. Always.
3. Never point a firearm at anything you are not willing to destroy.
4. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.
5. Be sure of your target and what is behind it.

I'm sure every anti-gun blog will immediately jump on this and publish these talking points on their sites. Surely, anyone who reads gun blogs will see that we all follow this same script. Of course, everyone embellishes freely so it seems we are coming from different directions, but close examination will certainly reveal the above similarities.

Now I can sleep at night.

Correct me if I'm wrong...

but aren't most of the folks who are so excited about Obama the ones that usually don't make the effort to turn out on election day in November?

The only good cockroach is a dead... Huh?

Hard to take.

The Asian cockroach, Blattella asahinai, is almost identical in appearance to the German variety and is also active at night. But instead of leftover pizza, it feasts on insects harmful to crops.

Cornell Daily Sun editorial puts "shoot me" sign on students' backs

"Way off Target" describes the editorial much better than they realize.

Some may feel comforted by guns; for most, they are instruments of fear. More than anything, a university is an open society — it is a place that values free inquiry, unhindered debate and giving full credence to the kind of opinions that make people cringe.

In this spirit, weapons of intimidation have no place here. If, in the last analysis, we remain less safe, it is a risk well worth taking. ...

There are certainly areas in which Cornell can do better. More CUPD officers walking beats would go a long way towards fostering a sense of safety on campus. And adding to Cornell’s impressive record on mental health services would do much towards preventing potential shooters from developing in the first place. Cornell ought to be a place where no community member ever feels so despondent, so forlorn, so unloved as to resort to violence.

And a response from the Cornell Repulicans' treasurer.

Instead, The Sun prefers to live in a fantasy utopia, valuing “the comfort that comes with the assumption that your lab partner isn’t packing heat” and a “sense of safety.”

It would behoove The Sun to enter the real world. Assumptions do not reality make, and safety is not achieved simply by perceiving it.

I don't think the responsible, law-abiding adults who desire to carry on campus are going to let this die. And shouldn't they have a right to carry any place they have a right to be?

Thx to GunPundit for the tip.

Improve the odds

In a letter to the Topeka Capital-Journal, Kansan Ken Smith says, and quite well, too...

I take issue with Pete Goering's comments in his column Feb. 17, which related a few of the recent killings on campus under the headline "Violence becoming way too common," then concluded that what really concerned students here was passing finals.

Pull your head out of the sand. Kansas has now and for the foreseeable future will have a significant population of potential active shooters. The headline might more accurately said "Violence becoming way too easy."

What can we do about increasing public safety given that the risk is common? The policy of creating "gun-free zones" to prevent concealed carry on campus increases the risk to students, staff and visitors. People who seek notoriety by mass killing want helpless victims and time to do their work. Gun-free zones dramatically increase both. It isn't by accident that these attacks occur most frequently in schools and malls, the preeminent gun-free zones.

Allowing people to carry concealed on college campuses won't stop attacks. It will, however, change the odds of surviving such an event.

We live in a world where bad people sometimes harm others, and a responsible government shouldn't actively assist the wolves by penning us like sheep. Gun-free zones on campus guarantee that some students will lose more than a final grade.

KEN SMITH, Hoyt

Humor and eggs

from James R. Carroll at the Courier-Journal comes this...

The Kentucky Farm Bureau's annual congressional breakfast last week produced a couple of good lines.

Rep. Geoff Davis, R-4th District, appearing after Rep. Hal Rogers, R-5th District, said he was dismayed to be following a head of state. Davis said southeastern Kentucky, which Rogers represents, is known as "Hal Rogerstan."

And Rep. John Yarmuth, D-3rd District, got one of the bigger laughs with this:

"I recently said to my wife, 'In your wildest dreams, could you have ever imagined I would be representing my hometown in the House of Representatives?' And she said, 'John, I'm sorry, you're not in my wildest dreams.' "

Now that's just funny. Being a former resident of "Hal Rogerstan" I agree with Mr. Davis' remark. I must admit feeling some kinship with Mrs. Yarmuth, too.

Read this!

HERE. Phlegmfatale will make you proud.

I'll say here what I said there. This is the spirit that makes America America.

Gun Control Claims More Victims...

From an essay, "Gun Control Claims More Victimes", by Benedict LaRosa on LewRockwell.com

...Consider that in all such incidents, the shooters are not so deranged as to attack police stations, shooting ranges, or gun shows. They have enough presence of mind to assail unarmed people in gun-free zones because they will encounter no effective resistance. (The one incident in which an individual was foolish enough to threaten to kill hostages where guns were prevalent was at a shooting club in California in July 1999. The gunman was promptly shot by an employee, without harm to the hostages.)...

...How many more victims must be sacrificed on the altar of gun control? How many more Virginia Tech incidents must occur before common sense prevails? Blaming inanimate objects for criminal acts and legislating barriers to self-defense is foolish and self-destructive. The hostile atmosphere to gun possession and training fostered by gun-control advocates is costing lives. Frustration, pain, and other emotions shouldn’t drive legislation; reason should. Though we may not be able to prevent such incidents, we can limit the damage they do.

Instead of listening to gun-control advocates whose advice brings death and injury, we would do better to abide by the Boy Scout motto: Be prepared!

My name is GreatBlueWhale, and I carry concealed

(This is used with permission from Mad Rocket Scientist who says, "I give leave to anyone to copy the damn thing verbatim, or tweak it to fit local laws, and sign your chop to it. Giving me credit is appreciated, but not required, as I feel the message is bigger than me.)

At any given moment, on any given day, I can legally conceal a firearm on my person for the defense of myself or others.

As a person who carries concealed, I have accepted an enormous responsibility to myself, my family, and to my community at large. I bear the responsibility to be aware, at all times, of my surroundings and of myself. I bear the responsibility of being trained and confident in the use of my firearm, and to take any and all measures to maintain control of myself, and my firearm, whether it is riding in the holster, or I have drawn it to confront a threat.

Before I can accept this responsibility, I had to be certain of my own moral center, to know that, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the two pounds of steel and plastic on my hip is more than an uncomfortable bit of weight. To know that should I reveal my weapon, the situation may escalate to a point where I must use deadly force in defense of myself or others, and to know that my skill and training may not be up to the task, and despite the firearm, I may die, and that I am OK with that

Before I can accept this responsibility, I must be old enough, I must have enough money for the permit fee, and I must subject myself to a complete background check, one that involves local, national, and possibly international police agencies. If I have any instances of violence in my background, or events that have demonstrated my inability to be careful, lawful, and responsible, I will be denied this responsibility.

Before I can accept this responsibility, I need to know how to use a firearm safely. I need to know the four rules and have them such a regular part of my daily regimen that I am always aware of them and never forget them. Depending on where I live, I may be required to bear the expense to attend firearms training, or demonstrate my skill with a firearm at the range, or demonstrate it during a mock combat scenario.

Before I can accept this responsibility, I have to have a firearm. I must do my research and choose a firearm that fits my needs, my lifestyle, and my hands. I must again have the financial resources to purchase this firearm, which can range from $200 to $2000. I must have a holster that can safely secure my firearm on my person for carry, and it is likely a good idea to have different holsters for different occasions or seasons.

Before I accept this responsibility, I must know the law governing it. I must know how I may carry, where I may or may not carry, and under what circumstances I may reveal, draw, or discharge my firearm; and I must know the consequences of being wrong in my ability to discriminate these circumstances.

As I accept this responsibility, I must understand that I will be expected to maintain a higher standard of behavior than my fellow citizen, and, it could be argued, a higher standard than even the Police, as should I make a mistake with my firearm, I will be required to defend myself against criminal charges, and I will not have the resources and influence of the Police Union to support me.

As I accept the responsibility, I must understand that I can not be allowed to make a mistake with my firearm, as one mistake will result, at the very least, in the suspension of my responsibility, and should I be convicted, the permanent revocation of that responsibility, and possible loss of my freedom.

As I accept this responsibility, I must understand the following:

• I cannot verbally reveal to anyone that I have a firearm in a manner that could be considered threatening, intimidating, or otherwise hostile without the existence of a credible threat.
• I can ot visually expose my firearm in a manner that could be considered threatening, intimidating, or otherwise hostile without the existence of a credible threat.
• I cannot draw my firearm in any manner without the existence of a lethal threat.
• I cannot discharge my firearm for any reason without the existence of a lethal threat.

As I accept this responsibility, I must understand that I can not allow myself to become involved in an easily avoidable physical, or even verbal, altercation while in possession of my firearm, and that I am required to attempt to leave or defuse a tense situation that may escalate. I must make every reasonable effort to "turn the other cheek" so that should I be forced to fight, it is only in self-defense. I must always stay in control and keep a cool head. I cannot give someone a piece of my mind in the parking lot, I can not belt the guy who is talking smack about my mother, I can not go drinking and get into a fight, I must avoid confrontation whenever possible.

As I accept this responsibility, I must understand that I can never be complacent as I carry, as I cannot allow another to gain control of my sidearm, nor can I ever place an innocent in jeopardy because I am careless. I must make every effort, and bear every expense, in order to improve my skill with a firearm and my ability to safely use it.

I have to be better than a model citizen, I have to an exemplary citizen.

I accept this responsibility not because I think "guns are cool" or because I want to be a gangsta, or because I want to make someone my "beyotch", or because I want to be a hero, or because I am expecting trouble and want to be tough; I am not so shallow in my self.

I accept this responsibility because the police, as honorable and courageous as they may be, cannot be everywhere. I accept this responsibility because criminals, and those that would do violence for their own purposes, respect no boundaries, and can ply their trade anywhere, from the slums to the gated communities.

I accept this responsibility because I firmly believe that the only person that is responsible for my defense is me, and that every citizen, not just the police, is responsible for the defense of the community. I accept this responsibility with the same honor and courage that calls me to the aid of others, whether they are in peril for their life, or they merely stumbled on the sidewalk.

I bear this responsibility willingly and with love because I am a citizen of this great nation, and I want to protect it and all her people, and this desire imposes on me a duty to defend her with my skill, my determination, and possibly my life.

My name is GreatBlueWhale, and I carry concealed.

Gun buybacks a noble idea that always misfires

From The Oakland Tribune. I really enjoyed his old sneaker analogy.

Alex Tabarrok is research director for the Independent Institute in Oakland, and associate professor of economics at George Mason University

02/23/2008

...

The buyback has been criticized as a poorly organized fiasco, but even the critics say it was "the right idea" and "a step in the right direction."

On the contrary, the buyback was a bad idea from the beginning. Gun buybacks have been tried before, in cities from Seattle to Washington, D.C., and they simply don't work.

In an authoritative study, the National Academy of Sciences reported that "the theory underlying gun buy-back programs is badly flawed and the empirical evidence demonstrates the ineffectiveness of these programs."

It doesn't take much insight to understand why gun buybacks don't work. Gun buybacks attract low-quality guns from people who aren't likely to use them to commit crimes. The Oakland police, for example, bought a dozen guns from seniors living in an assisted-living facility. Are you relieved to know that Don Perata has disarmed these dangerous senior citizens?

The Oakland buyback was especially absurd because of the high price offered: $250.

Did no one running the program think to look at the price of a new gun? In

fact, the first two people in line at one of the three buyback locations were gun dealers with 60 firearms packed in the trunk of their car.

One wonders why the police even bothered to buy the guns from Oakland residents. Why not buy directly from gun manufacturers? ...

#1 Brady state (California) has "unintentional" mass shooting...

Read about it here. (thx to ProGunProgressive)

Yes, all those anti-laws surely protected all those poor folks, didn't they?

Kentucky Gun Shows thru December 2008

Sep 13-14 Louisville, Kentucky Fair & Expo Center West Hall A&B RK Shows

Sep 27-28 Louisville, Kentucky Fair & Expo Center 2100 tbls National Gun Day
Dec 13-14 Louisville, Kentucky Fair & Expo Center 2100 tbls National Gun Day
Dec 26-28 Louisville, Kentucky Fair & Expo Center West Hall A&B RK Shows

Bronson of The (Cincy) Enquirer has another good article

Actual journalism strikes again.

'More Guns, Less Crime'
Why a convention center in Wilmington was Ohio's safest place last weekend by Peter Bronson

As I waited in the parking lot for the doors to open at 9 a.m., two guys pulled up next to me in a black Chevy pickup. They wore camo ball caps, jeans and sweat shirts. Nothing unusual there - until one slung a rifle over his shoulder as they headed for the door.

Anywhere else, people would grab their cell phones and dial 911. But this was the Pro Gun Show at the Roberts Centre in Wilmington. Dozens of guys were toting shotguns, rifles and handguns, not to mention swords and knives.

It looked like a not-very-well regulated militia from Red Dawn, reporting for duty.

As the line spilled out the door, each gun was carefully inspected and tagged to certify that it was unloaded, and safe to sell or swap.

"No cameras," said a sign. It occurred to me that I could get kicked out for carrying a Kodak, but nobody would blink if I flashed a Glock. Apparently, gun owners and dealers value their privacy.

I'd heard ads for these shows and always wondered about them. So when a guy in my concealed-carry class last month gave me a flier, I decided to find out what a gun show looked like. The pictures I couldn't take would show:

It looked sort of like a craft show. There were leather belts, German helmets from World War II, polished stones, wood carvings and special handbags for women who carry guns.

It looked sort of like an Army surplus store, with bayonets, canteens, Samurai swords and even a box of disarmed grenades that could make panic-inducing paperweights.

It looked sort of like a convention of hunters, with lots of bright orange and camouflage.

But mostly it looked like a gun show.

Once I got past the surprise of so many firearms in public, it was quite interesting. There were John Wayne Winchesters, Davey Crockett muzzleloaders and Dirty Harry magnums. A retired cop from Middletown showed me his WWII Colt Commando .38 in vintage condition: $425.

Nearby, new Glocks sold for $490. And for guys who need to have the biggest gun in the woods, there was a .50-caliber Barrett rifle for $11,500, with cartridges as long as ballpoint pens and as thick as broom handles.

Long tables displayed teddy bears, targets and nearly every kind of ammo known to mankind.

And everywhere in the crowded aisles, men talked guns; buying, trading, selling or just swapping bullet points about magazines, holsters and ammo.

They all were very polite - as people are prone to be around so many guns.

But there was one cringe-inducing item: a T-shirt that said, "One Person Can Change the World" on the front. Then on the back: "With Enough Ammunition."

Not the best message on a weekend after five college kids were killed by a deranged campus shooter at Northern Illinois University.

And that's a shame, because the gun owners I've met are among the nicest, most helpful, most law-abiding people anywhere. They're no scarier than collectors who hoard coins, baseball cards or Beanie Babies. In fact, gun shows are probably safer. Even the world's dumbest criminal is not stupid enough to hold up a gun show packed with armed NRA members.

The rules are stricter, too.

Private gun owners can sell guns to anyone of legal age (18 for long guns, 21 for handguns), without federal regulations or paperwork. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence wants to close that "gun-show loophole."

But the so-called loophole applies anywhere. You don't need paperwork to sell a gun to your neighbor. And you don't need a gun show to buy a "nine" in Over-The-Rhine.

The notion that gun-control laws can disarm law-breakers is so irrational there's no place to even begin that conversation. And when I see media stories about outlawing "assault weapons," I just wince.

I'm not a gun expert. But I'm not that ignorant. Yes, there were guns made to look like military M-16s at the gun show. But they're not automatic. Real automatics are regulated almost to extinction. The ones on sale at the show are no more deadly than any semi-automatic varmint gun. They might look scary. But a pellet gun in the wrong hands is scary enough.

The truth is, there's probably no way to keep mentally ill or dangerous people from getting a gun. But gun shows do their best. Gun-show dealers do instant, while-you-wait federal background checks. If there's a wrong answer to any of the 15 questions about mental health, criminal records, drug use and citizenship, the buyer has to walk away empty-handed or find a private seller.

Gun-phobics refuse to believe it, but researcher and author John Lott says state after state has proved that concealed-carry laws reduce shootings by putting more guns in the hands of law-abiding people. The title of his book says it all: "More Guns, Less Crime."

His comment on recent shootings: "At some point the news media might begin to mention the one common feature of these attacks: They keep occurring in gun-free zones. Gun-free zones are a magnet for these attacks."

I guess that gun show last Saturday might have been the safest place in Ohio.

Peter Bronson is a columnist for The Enquirer. E-mail pbronson@enquirer.com or call 513-768-8301

SCOTUS docket page for D.C. v Heller

Lot of info here.

Names and addresses for all counsel and all parties which have submitted amicus briefs.

March 8th looms.

John Lott can't find PSH* bugaboo...

From Investor's Business Daily comes an article from John Lott. A sample:

Indeed, despite the fears being discussed about the risks of concealed handgun permit holders, I haven't found one of these multiple-victim public shootings where a permit holder has accidentally shot a bystander.

With about 5 million Americans currently with concealed handgun permits in the U.S., and with states starting to have right-to-carry laws for as long as 80 years, we have a lot of experience with these laws and one thing is very clear: Concealed handgun permit holders are extremely law-abiding. Those who lose their permits for any gun-related violation are measured in the hundredths or thousandths of a percentage point.

We also have a lot of experience with permitted concealed handguns in schools. Prior to the 1995 Safe School Zone Act, states with right-to-carry laws let teachers or others carry concealed handguns at school. There is not a single instance that I or others have found where this produced a single problem.

Though in a minority, a number of universities — from large public schools such as Colorado State and the University of Utah to small private schools such as Hamline in Minnesota — let students carry concealed handguns on school property.

Many more schools, from Dartmouth College to Boise State University, let professors carry concealed handguns. Again, with no evidence of problems.

Few know that Dylan Klebold, one of the two Columbine killers, was closely following Colorado legislation that would have let citizens carry a concealed handgun. Klebold strongly opposed the legislation and openly talked about it.

No wonder, as the bill being debated would have allowed permitted guns to be carried on school property. It is quite a coincidence that he attacked Columbine High School the very day the legislature was scheduled to vote on the bill.

With all the media coverage of the types of guns used and how the criminal obtained the gun, at some point the news media might begin to mention the one common feature of these attacks: They keep occurring in gun-free zones.

Gun-free zones are a magnet for these attacks.

Lott,  a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland is the author of "Freedomnomics", "More Guns, Less Crime", and other books.

*PSH - pant soiling hysteric

Even crazy predators look for sheep...

I don't think for one minute that allowing concealed carry everywhere would stop shootings. It would only stop those shooters who had some idea of coming out of it alive. If you are going to kill yourself any way, getting shot at isn't that big a deal. And we have to realize, even crazy predators go where the sheep are, even if there's a sheepdog near.

As Dennis Miller said, "The nutters are always gonna get the drop on you." The only thing I would expect is that people would be allowed to have the means to protect themselves.

Responsible, law-abiding adults should be allowed to carry anywhere they have a right to be.

Another student heard from...

Zundel: Protecting oneself is a human right

from an opinion piece by Aaron Zundel from the Daily Utah Chronicle, an independent student newspaper at the University of Utah.

...

Until we have metal detectors and security guards posted at every entrance to every building on campus, the anti-gun (and current administration) position of "we'd rather risk everyone's lives than our own ideology by 'banning' guns on campus" is a hollow, selfish and moronic stance perpetuated by those who have never been required to check their ideas against the reality of the outside world.

"I'm willing to run the risk of being shot in a school massacre," the anti-gun students say. "So long as we take reasonable measures to keep guns off campus." That's fine. People get to make their own choices. What's not fine is to demand that everyone else make that same choice. That's called fascism.

When sufficient protection isn't provided by others, people ought to be able to protect themselves if they choose. It's a human right. What's not a human right is to demand that other people jeopardize their own safety so that we might all have a false sense of security.

That's just the way things are.

Mr. Zundel possesses an apparently rare skill seldom found in college student. The ability to think critically.

Wait, can I say that?

There has been much noise from the Left the last several years about "censorship" in the U.S.A. Of course, the world in which many of these folks live has very little in common with reality. Below is a bit of the real stuff, just for comparison.

Pakistan removed from the Internet by ZDNet's Richard Stiennon -- 4:30 PM Eastern (US). The telecom company that carries most of Pakistan’s traffic, PCCW, has found it necessary to shut Pakistan off from the Internet while they filter out the malicious routes that a Pakistani ISP, PieNet, announced earlier today. Evidently PieNet took this step to enforce a decree from the Pakistani government that ISP’s [...]

Ignoring all the facts, studies, and statistics, as usual

Found this little rant in the Chicago Daily Herald. I'm beginning to believe that projection stuff.

Once again, tragedy strikes and the NRA pops out of the woodwork -- Give every impulsive, low self-esteemed, road raging hot shot a pistol and we'll have peace on earth.

And this garbage about having safer streets when law-abiding citizens can carry weapons?

Murderers are usually law-abiding before they pull the trigger.

Familiarity with human nature is not an NRA strong-suit. Imagine the carnage at NIU if 20 or 30 armed and frightened students had opened fire.

Art Dulan

Palatine

Actual Journalism, says the Mikester...

And he's right.

Concealed-carry course graduates are armed but not dangerous

BY PETER BRONSON | PBRONSON@ENQUIRER.COM

On a cold and early Saturday morning, the class at Scarlet Oaks in Sharonville begins the usual way. Students take their seats and the instructor introduces himself.

Then he makes an announcement: "No guns today."

"Did anyone bring their gun in?" he asks. Nobody raises a hand. Good. The shooting starts Sunday morning.

A few plan to bring .22 revolvers. A man with a neatly trimmed gray beard says he and his daughter will use .38s. Others mention Colts, Smith & Wessons, a .32 Beretta. A big man across the room says he's bringing a 1911 Colt .45, and he's not talking about malt liquor.

"That's a man's gun," says the instructor, retired FBI agent Dennis R. Lengle.

I don't have a man's gun. I don't even have a woman's gun or a "mouse gun," which is what serious shooters call .22s. I don't have any gun at all. But the Great Oaks Police Academy Concealed Carry Course has a great deal. For $25, I can rent a Smith & Wesson .38 revolver and get 200 rounds - cheaper than cartridges alone.

There's a 20-something couple in the back, but most of my classmates are 40s and 50s, I'd guess. A man in bib overalls wants to legally carry the gun he uses on his farm. A husband and wife own a business. One man tells me his kids are grown and he's interested in shooting. Another guy says during a break that he worries about being mugged when he goes for walks. He says he has no doubt he'd use a gun if he has to.

But a few hours later, after we've been through the legal minefield and gritty details of what "controlled expansion" hollow-points do to a body, someone half jokes, "I'm not so sure I want to do this anymore."

I understand.

The course is excellent. We start by naming the parts of a cartridge, a revolver and a semi-automatic pistol, then move on to 25 true-false questions on dozens of topics. "Being armed is a tremendous responsibility," it says. True.

And while police cadets open fire at the indoor range across the hall, making muffled bangs like someone pounding a file cabinet with a ball bat, Lengle targets safety, safety and more safety.

He tells true stories of stupid gun tricks by trained lawmen who shot the carpet in their office, or put a 9mm round into their neighbor's car - through their own house and the garage next door. Lengle has our attention. During the state-mandated 12 hours of instruction, all 17 students are riveted.

In cover and tactics, Lengle warns that a doorway is a "vertical coffin," a "fatal funnel" for anyone silhouetted in its frame. If an intruder ignores warnings and keeps coming, "immediate incapacitation is your only goal."

And that requires accuracy.

So Sunday morning we go to the range. I start out jumpy, but get the hang of it and pass all the tests, hitting paper outlines of bad guys from five, 10, 15 and 20 feet.

Safety is drilled in as loud and clear as that booming 1911 Colt, which barks with deep authority, even through ear protection.

Everyone passes. Nobody gets hurt. From what I can tell, legal concealed carry is nothing like the anti-gun crowd made it sound when Kentucky and Ohio passed laws in 1999 and 2004. There are no cowboys. No wild shootouts. No blood in the gutters, as gun-banners predicted. Just law-abiding adults who want to exercise their Second Amendment right to self-defense.

As we're leaving, classmate Jim Hansel, who lives "out in the country," tells me about the night he woke up to a break-in. He called 911, told his son to take cover and waited on his couch with a shotgun. He warned he would shoot, but the guy kept coming until the cops arrived, 40 minutes later. "He had seven outstanding warrants for automatic weapons use," Hansel says, shaking his head.

Now Hansel has a certificate to get a concealed carry permit from his county sheriff. "It gives me knowledge and confidence," he said. "Most people are afraid of guns because of what they don't know."

If every gun owner took a class like this, we'd all be safer. But meth-heads, crack junkies and street muggers don't take classes. They don't get permits or certificates like the one Lengle gave me Sunday. They just grab a "nine" and use it against defenseless victims.

Each month another concealed-carry class graduates from Scarlet Oaks. And the bad guys are a little less sure their next victim is defenseless.

E-mail pbronson@enquirer.com or call 768-8301.

Virginia House of Delegates passes expanded concealed carry bill...

But they expect Governor Timothy Kaine to veto the bill. That should be expected. Governor Kaine is not a friend of responsible, law-abiding citizens who choose to carry concealed for personal protection. Read about it in The Daily Progress.

Here is the money quote for me.

Del. Harvey B. Morgan, R-Gloucester, said the legislation is years overdue. If someone is walking down the street with a legally concealed weapon “and someone says let’s get some lunch, what are you going to do, put it under an ash can?” he asked.

“Are you going to take it into a restaurant and say, ‘I wonder if the proprietor will hold this for me,’” Morgan said. “I’ve always thought it was absolutely insane to require someone legally carrying a firearm to somehow dispose of it before getting a bite to eat,” he said. He said experience in other states shows that “concealed weapons permits have reduced armed robberies.”

Nebraska "Assault Weapon" ban proposed to prohibit "inherently dangerous" firearms.

LINCOLN -- State Sen. Brad Ashford (Omaha) amended his proposed Gun Crime bill to remove everything, but to add the formation of a seven-member panel to meet every two years to decide what guns are inherently dangerous and should be prohibited from sale or ownership in Nebraska.

Preliminary attributes would criminalize a very large number of firearms.

This amendment comes AFTER the public comment period.

For the full story, please visit joemerchant24.blogspot.com

LINKS:
Omaha World-Herald article

Joe's Crabby Shack

Gee, I'm glad most of mine are in a safe. Who knows when they otherwise might jump up and attack me!

Another student opinion on campus carry from Boise State University in Idaho.

From Arbiteronline, Boise State University's independent student newspaper, comes a letter from the editor-in-chief, Dustin Lapray. Mr. Lapray approaches the issue of campus carry with more honesty than Linsen Li at the University of Kentucky's Kentucky Kernel, but reaches some contradictory conclusions. Here is the letter, with my comments in red.

Today on the quad The Arbiter is hosting a Free Speech Forum, with the topic "Guns on Campus."
We decided to open our media to students because we honestly are not sure how they feel about this. Our online forum flooded with pro-gun writers who bashed on everyone who refused to accept weapons on campus. Only a few comments online were from students. Anyone can post at arbiteronline.com, even people who are not students.
We want to know how students at Boise State University feel, so we will be on the quad today, rain or shine, asking you how you feel about allowing guns on campus. (Good idea, just don't get caught up in the "feeling" thing. Depend on critical thinking. gbw)
Our editorial board had such diverse and complicated opinions on this subject we were forced to write each of our opinions individually in Monday's paper. (Honest)
As state legislators work their way toward a solution, the students of this campus are left waiting, unsure of what this will mean to us.
One thing that is certain is the trend of violence we have seen on college and university campuses in the last year needs to stop. We cannot continue to kill each other. (Statistically, your age group is more at risk for murder. Humanly speaking, there are some very disturbed individuals out there who are unpredictable, and their actions are not preventable. In light of these two facts, wouldn't it make more sense to focus on protection in addition to prevention? gbw)
For those out there who have been calling college students cowards for not wanting guns on campus, I think you have us mistaken. It's not that we are afraid of guns, it's that we are honestly afraid of the people who wield them. Realize that, yes, if students are allowed to carry concealed weapons on campus, they will be able to stop would-be murderers from a continued rampage, but also that passage of this law would also allow those same criminals the same right to legally bring weapons on campus. (Well, not really. Responsible, law-abiding people act responsibly and obey the law. Criminals do what they want regardless of the law. No one has the right to use a weapon to commit a crime. Please remember, it isn't the weapon that's dangerous; it is the person who carries it with ill intent. gbw)
By legalizing concealed weapons on campus we are inviting anyone who wants to carry a gun to bring one. BSU is a metropolitan university, in the heart of an active city. I have seen dozens of homeless people and absolute creeps walking around campus, some of whom are sex-offenders and others are just people I misconstrue as dangerous. (It isn't an invitation, it's a warning; we are not sheep here. Wolves look elsewhere for victims. I could carry on your campus every single day, and your safety is not compromised by it. In fact, as you noted above, it might even save lives. Please do not make the mistake that criminals need an invitation to bring a firearm on campus. They will do what they want to do, remember? gbw)
I am always on the lookout for others willing and able to due harm to students at this campus. I think that as a student leader it is my responsibility to keep an eye out for my employees, to assure them of a safe working environment. (Awareness is the first and best tool of self-defense. Good for you. But as Dennis Miller says, "A nutter is always gonna get the drop on you." Awareness is not enough. gbw)
There are people willing to commit these crimes. Legalizing guns on campus would make them able. I don't want that atmosphere of kill or be killed to exist on this campus. That atmosphere should exist in open war (which is why the Second Amendment was added to the constitution, to assure that when push came to shove, Americans could protect their homes), but not on a university campus. There is no war in Idaho. (How does allowing responsible, law-abiding adult students the means to defend themselves if attacked enabling criminals? There is no logic to your statement. And the U.S. was not at war when the Constitution was written or ratified. Part of the security of a free state is also the safety and security of individual citizens. gbw)
I do agree that the police are not in position to stop this from happening. In both of these major shootings, the gunmen killed themselves. I have seen nothing from Boise Police to make me think things are different at BSU.
But the consensus of my staff is that guns are plum dangerous, that people who wield them are often irresponsible and that though there are people out there who are very responsible with their weapons, we don't want them here.
Sincerely,
Dustin Lapray
Editor-in-Chief

(OK. You have no confidence in the police to protect you. That's smart because police respond, they are seldom in a position to prevent or protect. "There are people willing to commit these crimes", so the crimes are obviously going to happen. But in spite of these facts, you want to limit the ability to responsible, law-abiding adults to protect themselves from the criminally irresponsible you readily admit are present in community. I'm sorry Mr. Lapray, but not wanting him there does not make the boogey man go away. gbw)

Now, just die like a good chap, and you'll stay out of trouble...

From Blue Crab Boulevard comes this.

A shopkeeper in the British town of Skelmersdale, Lancashire, fought back against a career criminal who was in the process of trying to carjack the man. Despite being stabbed himself in several places, the shopkeeper, Tony Singh, managed to wrestle the knife away from Liam Kilroe, a wanted fugitive with warrants out for his arrest. Singh stabbed Kilroe, killing him.

The police then promptly arrested Singh and charges of murder are being considered.

In the Comments, Lars says,

You have a civic responsibility to be assaulted in a location convenient to the police.

Yes, the police will protect us. Heh. And if you don't think that will happen in the U.S. after we're all disarmed...

I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.

"Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer."

-- Thomas Paine (Common Sense, 1776)

But, gee occifer, I didn't mean for anyone to get hurt...

How would you like a SWAT team to surround your home in the middle of the night, handcuff you and your spouse, put your kids in a police car, and search your home because some 19 yr. old punk 1000 miles away pulled a practical joke by spoofing a 911 call to Orange County, CA.?

In the Orange County case, (Randal) Ellis is facing five felony counts and one misdemeanor for the March incident, including computer fraud, assault with a machine gun and false imprisonment by violence, Emami said.

The last two charges offer a novel prosecution strategy for a crime that doesn't have much precedence. Prosecutors will argue Ellis is guilty of both crimes "by proxy," meaning that because of his actions, the responding officers acted, in effect, as an agent for him.

"Even though the defendant wasn't actually there in Lake Forest pointing weapons at them, he was directly responsible for what happened to these victims," Emami said.

Public caning before the jail time is what I say.

Public record? How about we publish everyone's tax records while we're at it.

Can someone, anyone, tell me how publishing the name and address of a concealed carry license holder serves anyone's purpose other than that of a thief looking to steal a weapon? Just how is it my neighbors are safer if they can look up this info?

"Lax gun control root of problem" Uh-huh.

In the University of Kentucky student paper, The Kentucky Kernel, opinion columnist Linsen Li gives us "Lesson from campus shootings: Lax gun control root of problem" which I include below, with my comments in red.

The tragic shooting at Northern Illinois University on Thursday that left five dead plus the shooter has instigated a new round in the campus concealed-weapon debate.

Just like after the Virginia Tech shooting last year, proponents of concealed weapons jumped onto the story as if it were a godsend. Donning the I-told-you-so attitude, they claim that had students been allowed to carry concealed weapons on NIU's campus, the tragedy would not have happened. Therefore, they conclude, UK and other universities should allow students and faculty to carry concealed weapons legally on campus.

I told you so attitude? Yes. Pearl, MS., Grundy, VA. and others make an "I told you so attitude" quite appropriate.

First of all, the notion that students should carry concealed weapons in class to stop campus shootings is ludicrous. It is the job of the police to protect us from these killers. And many of us would undoubtedly feel safer if the police, rather than gun-carrying students, were handling such a situation.

And I’m sure that there is a policeman in every classroom and on every campus corner 24/7. What? There isn’t? Then how can they protect you?

The police are not there to protect us and have no legal obligation to do so. At least, that’s what the courts have held every time someone says, “The police should have protected me!”T hey are there to investigate and draw the chalk outlines on the floor. Why carry a gun? Because it’s lighter than a policeman. I’d also like to point out that the recent shooting in Kirkwood, MO included two armed police officers among the victims.

If anything, the NIU shooting only increased my confidence in the police's ability to react to and manage school shootings quickly. According to a Friday article on CNN.com, the NIU police responded within seconds after the first shots were fired and placed the campus under "lockdown situation" four minutes later.

The police arrive at NIU two minutes after they were called (if that's accurate), and that is a very good response time. I’m sure the students in the lecture hall under fire from the murderer were very conforted that they were only being shot at for five or six minutes before the police arrived outside the building. And you got it right. The police "react", but protection requires proactive presence.

As for the “campus lockdown”, there were students who still didn’t know what was happening over 30 minutes after the events were reported to school administrators. Do a little more research and get your facts down.

Anyone not buried under blind zeal for firearms can recognize from these mass shootings that guns, not firearm restrictions, are the root cause of the tragedies. More specifically, irresponsible federal and state gun-control regulations armed these killers to commit atrocious acts of murder.

Yes, those guns just leaped out of storage into the hands of a perfectly innocent person who was compelled by their presence to commit unspeakable acts. If you believe that, you need to seek help. You may be experiencing a psychotic break yourself. I have owned firearms for over 30 years, and none of them have ever compelled me to shoot an innocent person.

Many proponents of gun rights fail to, or more often refuse to, realize that guns already cause too many deaths in this country, especially among our age group.

See above about “guns already cause” and really, consider some therapy.

Firearms caused 21 percent of deaths among people in the 15 to 24 age group, only second to motor vehicle accidents, according to a 2002 report by National Center for Health Statistics.

No, firearms may have been used in those deaths, but firearms didn’t cause any of them. (You’re really starting to sound a little hysterical about this now) And you should know these statistics also include all the gang-on-gang, criminal-kills-criminal, and even deaths of criminals at the hands of police officers.

Banning private ownership of guns would be too radical to be accepted at any level of the government, and it's not necessary. For many Americans, owning guns for hunting, protection or the joy of collecting is deeply rooted in the culture, and that can be respected. Instead, we should look to tighten gun control to prevent potential criminals from accessing these weapons.

What part of “it’s already illegal for these people to have guns” don’t you understand? And would you care to define “potential” criminal? That would be anyone who hasn’t committed a crime, wouldn’t it? You may want to refresh your understanding of due process as enumerated in the Constitution on this “potential” garbage. As I mentioned in a previous post, that darned Constitution just keeps getting in the way.

Loose regulations on firearms and even looser enforcement made these tragic shootings possible. Both shooters from the NIU and Virginia Tech shootings bought their weapons legally despite having histories of mental illness; not only that, they both purchased gun accessories online.

Now, I’ll cut you some slack on “looser enforcement” as Virginia was not supplying mental health information to NICS, but if you would, please tell me which regulations are “loose”. It is more difficult to legally obtain a firearm in this country than any time in it’s history. Of course, those who ignore the law to begin with have absolutely no difficulty whatsoever illegally obtaining guns from unregulated sources.

When people with alarming backgrounds can purchase murdering weapons legally at the click of a button, no one in this country should feel safe.

There you go again. Weapons don’t murder. People murder. There is not one single pistol, revolver, rifle or shotgun serving time for a murder conviction in any jail in the entire world. And you really show your ignorance with that “at the click of a button” comment. Even if you purchase a firearm from an out of state dealer via the Internet, the firearm must be shipped to a Federal Firearms Licensee in your state who will transfer the firearm to you after you fill out the required Federal (and state and local, if applicable)paperwork and pass the NICS background check.

More importantly, because the weapons available to these criminals include multi-shot shotguns and handguns with high-capacity magazines, these killers were able to murder innocent people on a mass scale.

Shotguns with higher than two-round capacity should be outlawed in all of the United States. Such action may bring some minor hindrance to avid hunters, but it would eliminate a fearsome killing tool for the criminals.

At which point all the responsible, law-abiding citizens who would obey the law will be horribly out-gunned by all the criminals who will, by definition, ignore and disobey the law. And you obviously haven’t heard of a concept we like to call “reloading”. Capacity limits had absolutely no effect during the so-called Assault weapons ban, and would have no effect if enacted again.

Handguns are especially dangerous in the hands of criminals because they are easily concealed and have a high round capacity. Hunting and self-protection (with the exception of concealed-weapon carriers) don't require a handgun, and frankly, I am willing to bet that most of the concealed-weapon carriers wanted the license not for self-protection, but for the self-sensed superiority from carrying a gun. Allowing handguns to flow loosely in the market only increases the dangers in our society. Therefore, regulations on handguns should be particularly strict.

Linsen Li, it isn't the handgun that makes the criminal dangerous. The criminal's intent to impose his desires upon me in violation of my rights makes him dangerous.  One is just as dead if stabbed, bludgeoned, or shot. It is not the tool, it is the intent. Personal firearms are used in excess of 2.5 million times a year for personal protection. Gee, it’s a good thing that when attacked by a criminal, those responsible, law-abiding citizens were carrying those guns because of the sense of superiority it gave them.

Allowing guns on campus is not the answer to campus shootings - tightening gun control is. If the politicians can only look beyond campaign contributions from the National Rifle Association's lobbyists, they'll see that the reckless handling of gun control must be stopped.

Yes, let’s just keep doing more of what has never worked. In spite of the hard evidence that arms in the hands of responsible, law-abiding adults reduces violent crime, let’s move in the other direction and create more sheep for the wolves to slaughter. Park your emotions and do some research before you write your next article, you being a journalist and all.

Doesn't this say it all?

Says Chicago Sun-Times columnist Mark Brown.

I'm anti-gun, so the conceal-and-carry crowd can save its breath for some other columnist. More guns is not the answer. I don't care what your study says.

Let us not make the error of assuming facts makes a difference. Makes you wonder why we bother. But at least Mr. Brown is not totally deluded.

But I've also learned that gun owners have two things going for them -- plenty of political support and the U.S. Constitution. Even in the face of another bullet-ridden classroom, it will be difficult to achieve anything more than puttering around the edges of the current gun laws.

Yeah, that pesky Constitution just keeps getting in the way. Darn!

The man behind Heller...

Interesting article on Bloomberg.com about Robert Levy, the man behind the Supreme Court challenge to the D.C. gun ban.

Bloomberg Mayor group setting up gun database.

Database will target illegal gun traffic. 

Yeah, right.

Folks, murder is murder, assault is assault, and it doesn't matter whether you use your hands or a tool, the crime is the same. It doesn't matter if a gun is legal or illegal. Imprison and/or execute convicted violent felons, and there will be a tipping point where most of the really bad guys will be in prison or dead. The 80/20% rule works here, too. If we get rid of the 20% that commit 80% of the crime...

"Violent crime, particularly gun crime, is not just a local problem," Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon said. "It's a national problem."

Mayor Giuliani reduced violent crime in New York City by enforcing all the laws on the books. I wonder why that hasn't caught on in cities like Baltimore. Obviously they prefer to demonize inanimate objects than do the difficult thing.

"..everything we could...?" Hardly.

My prayers to the families of the victims at Northern Illinois University.

"This is a tragedy, but from all indications we did everything we could when we found out," said Peters, the university president.

This should tell anyone everything they need to know about these shootings. "...we did everything we could...," says the university president. How about placing an armed guard in each classroom, and metal detectors and searches for everyone coming in and out of every campus and building entrance 24/7? But I would agree that those are not reasonable expectations. And they probably did do everything reasonable that could be expected, except  allow responsible, law-abiding adults to carry a weapon to protect themselves.

The university is not alone in this omission. The state of Illinois shoulders most of the responsibility for disarming citizens so they cannot legally protect themselves. Yes, Illinois, home of the FOID, a sweetheart state for the Brady Campaign to disarm America. is number 9 in the Brady state scorecard rankings. According to Brady, Illinois is in top 10 of states doing the most to curb gun violence. Really working, eh, Mr. Helmke?

By the way, when was the last time we heard of a mass shooting that wasn't in a gun-free victim disarmament zone(that anti-gun panacea is really working well for everyone, don't you know)?

My earnest hope is that someone in the fire zone who held an FOID (and could carry unloaded) but wasn't carrying because of the restrictions, will sue NIU.

Five Pro-Gun Bills Introduced in Alabama!

Alabama’s State Legislature began its 2008 session last week on Tuesday, February 5. So far, the following NRA-backed bills have been introduced:

Senate Bill 18, sponsored by State Senator Henry “Hank” Erwin, Jr. (R-14), authorizes a student at a state-supported college or university to carry a firearm on campus if he or she has a permit to carry a concealed handgun, is in good standing with the institution, and has completed an approved course on “gun skills.”

Senate Bill 27, also introduced by Senator Erwin, prohibits state-supported colleges and universities from adopting policies prohibiting professors from carrying a firearm on campus if they have a permit to carry a firearm.

Senate Bill 156, sponsored by State Senator Rusty Glover (R-34), would create a special disabled person's hunting license available for $1 during the period of total disability.

Senate Bill 271, also authored Senator Erwin, authorizes professors at state-supported colleges and universities to carry a firearm on the campus of the college or university at which the professor is employed, so long as they have a permit to carry a firearm.

Finally, House Bill 339, “Emergency Powers” legislation, sponsored by State Representative Marc Keahey (D-65), will protect our Second Amendment rights by prohibiting any government agency from confiscating or regulating the lawful sale, possession, transfer, transport and carry of firearms during a state of emergency, such as occurred in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

Vitter renews Sullivan complaints, continues to block nomination

from the Boston Globe via the NRA.

Senator David Vitter of Louisiana said yesterday that he met with Sullivan late last year to discuss what Vitter described as burdensome regulations imposed on gun owners and dealers by the bureau, which Sullivan has led as acting director since September 2006. Vitter asked Sullivan to address the concerns in writing.

"I recently received his answers to those questions, and I was disappointed in his responses, so I am going to continue to hold this nominee," Vitter said in a statement released to the Globe. "The nominee seems to support the ATF's current inadequate policies and exhibits a lack of willingness to address these problems."

Vitter's office did not release Sullivan's response, but the senator said the bureau holds gun dealers and owners to unreasonable licensing standards and subjects them to severe penalties if they make errors in paperwork.

"Al Gore's Current TV takes on Knob Creek Machine Gun Shoot"

From BuckeyeFirearms.org.

Recently, Buckeye Firearms Association was contacted by Evan B. Stone, Executive Director for Current TV:

     'I am a producer for Current TV and I produced a short documentary on "The Machine Gun Shootout" in Kentucky.

     Yes we are owned by former Vice President Al Gore but the piece is straight down the middle.

     I was wondering if you can review it in your web site or review it for any other media that you cover. It is a very well produced piece and I think it is pretty fair but you make the call."

We did take a look, and now you can too.

Knob Creek Gun Range Machine Gun Shoot information.