Gun Facts, Part Six

Myth: Every firearm leaves a unique "fingerprint" that
can pinpoint the firearm used

Fact: "Firearms that generate markings on cartridge casings can change with use and can also be readily altered by the users. They are not permanently defined like fingerprints or DNA."²³

Fact: "Automated computer matching systems do not provide conclusive results.”²⁴

Fact: “Because bullets are severely damaged on impact, they can only be examined manually”.²⁵

Fact: “Not all firearms generate markings on cartridge casings that can be identified back to the firearm.”²⁶

Fact: The same gun will produce different markings on bullets and casings, and different guns can produce similar markings.²⁷

Fact: The rifle used in the Martin Luther King assassination was test fired 18 times under court supervision, and the results showed that no two bullets were marked alike.²⁸ “Every test bullet was different because it was going over plating created by the previous bullet.”

²³ “Feasibility of a Ballistics Imaging Database for All New Handgun Sales”, Frederic Tulleners, California Department of Justice, Bureau of Forensic Services, October, 2001 (henceforth “FBID”)
²⁴ Ibid
²⁵ Ibid
²⁶ Ibid
²⁷ “Handbook of Firearms & Ballistics: Examining and Interpreting Forensic Evidence”, Heard, 1997
²⁸ “Ballistics 'fingerprinting' not foolproof”, Baltimore Sun, October 15, 2002

Current Mood: Awake
Current Music: None
Current Gun: EAA Witness .45ACP

Just a little comment from me

Regarding my previous post about the Harvard Study:

Since I seem to have drawn the attention of Mr. Tim Lambert, for picking on a "scientific" study that he apparently favors, as soon as I get paid (this coming Friday) I will purchase and read the article in question, and then I shall render a more informed, though obviously, less scholarly review.

After all, I'm not college educated.


Current Mood: Amused
Current Music: Rob Zombie - Dragula
Current Gun: EAA Witness .45ACP

More Junk Science from Harvard

link

States With Higher Levels of Gun Ownership Have Higher Homicide Rates

For immediate release: Thursday, January 11, 2007
Boston, MA -- Firearms are used to kill two out of every three homicide victims in America.. In the first nationally representative study to examine the relationship between survey measures of household firearm ownership and state level rates of homicide, researchers at the Harvard Injury Control Research Center found that homicide rates among children, and among women and men of all ages, are higher in states where more households have guns. The study appears in the February 2007 issue of Social Science and Medicine. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.09.024

Matthew Miller, Assistant Professor of Health Policy and Injury Prevention at Harvard School of Public Health, and his colleagues David Hemenway and Deborah Azrael, used survey data from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s 2001 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, the world’s largest telephone survey with over 200,000 respondents nationwide. Respondents in all 50 states were asked whether any firearms were kept in or around their home. The survey found that approximately one in three American households reported firearm ownership.
Matthew Miller, Assistant Professor of Health Policy and Injury Prevention at Harvard School of Public Health, and his colleagues David Hemenway and Deborah Azrael, used survey data from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s 2001 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, the world’s largest telephone survey with over 200,000 respondents nationwide. Respondents in all 50 states were asked whether any firearms were kept in or around their home. The survey found that approximately one in three American households reported firearm ownership.

Analyses that controlled for several measures of resource deprivation, urbanization, aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, and alcohol consumption found that states with higher rates of household firearm ownership had significantly higher homicide victimization rates for children, and for women and men. In these analyses, states within the highest quartile of firearm prevalence had firearm homicide rates 114% higher than states within the lowest quartile of firearm prevalence. Overall homicide rates were 60% higher. The association between firearm prevalence and homicide was driven by gun-related homicide rates; non-gun-related homicide rates were not significantly associated with rates of firearm ownership.

These results suggest that it is easier for potential homicide perpetrators to obtain a gun in states where guns are more prevalent. “Our findings suggest that in the United States, household firearms may be an important source of guns used to kill children, women and men, both on the street and in their homes,” said Miller.

This study was supported by the Joyce Foundation.

All I can say is...BULLSHIT!   To get the type of statistics THEY want to see, they divide the states into "quartiles." WHY? Because if they did it on an individual state level, or, as Prof. John Lott did, by county, they wouldn't get the "desired" results. Their desired results? They want to prove that more guns equal more crime, not less, as Dr. Lott has shown.

I also recommend you check out the Alphecca blog on this subject. I think Mr. Soyer says it more eloquently than I can. But then, I'm not college educated either.


Current Mood: Pissed Off
Current Music: None
Current Gun: EAA Witness .45ACP

Two Denver Nuggets players seeking permit to carry concealed

2 Nugs seek permits
Hodge, Evans filed paperwork to carry guns 2 months ago

By Cbs 4 News Reporter Brian Maass, Special to the News
January 13, 2007
A Denver Nuggets player who was shot nine months ago and traded this week was one of two Nuggets in the process of trying to obtain concealed handgun permits.

But apparently their desire to legally carry guns was not a response to the death of Denver Bronco Darrent Williams.

Guard Julius Hodge, who was traded Thursday to the Milwaukee Bucks as part of a multiplayer deal, and Nuggets forward Reggie Evans, began the process of trying to get permits about two months ago, well before the shooting death of the Broncos cornerback.

Asked about his application for a concealed weapons permit, Hodge said, "Who said that?"

Hodge did not deny applying for the permit but refused to answer questions about why he wanted to carry a gun. (For the rest of the story, click on article title.)

Ok, SO WHAT? What is the big effing deal? Two law-abiding citizens want to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon. WHO'S business is it, other than the issuing authority? Yet, this reporter, Brian Mass, is trying to make it seem like a big deal.

Colorado needs to alter their law on CCW permits to make that info confidential, like it is here in Michigan.

And Mr. Maass needs to go find a REAL story to report on, not the private business of two law-abiding citizens.

Current Mood: Awake (at 4:00AM!!!)
Current Music: None
Current Gun: EAA Witness .45ACP

Denied right to bear arms

Denied right to bear arms
From staff reports
Article Last Updated: 01/10/2007 11:32:15 PM PST

A few months ago, I made a life-changing decision.

After years of being a gun owner and an N.R.A. member, I decided to apply for a Carry Concealed Weapon (CCW) permit. The permit allows an individual to carry a concealed firearm on his or her person or inside of a vehicle. The reason for the permit is to provide law-abiding persons the ability to protect themselves and their loved ones in the event that a situation demands it. No one can be sure when such a situation will arise, a breakdown on a deserted highway or a car-jacking in a dimly lit parking lot, but regardless of the environment, crimes do take place and one should be ready for any possibility.

Being a resident of Lake County for 7 years and residing in a rural area such as Cobb Mountain with the local authorities at least 30 minutes away, I thought taking such an action to be appropriate. I had heard that Lake County Sheriff Rodney Mitchell believed that law-abiding individuals have a right to carry firearms and should be able to protect themselves if necessary, so I decided to file an application.

After completing the required two-day training session and an interview by a staff member of the Sheriff's Department, I was told that I would receive word on their decision in a few weeks or so. After a couple of months I received a disappointing letter from the Sheriff's Department stating that my application had been denied because "I was not a U.S. citizen".

I promptly wrote a letter of appeal stating that I was a Canadian citizen living here in the U.S. as a Permanent Legal Resident for 24 years now and I supplied them with the documentation to prove my claim. However, my application was still denied.

Now I know that the State of California has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country and acquiring a CCW permit here can be quite a task, but according to the representative that I spoke with at the California Department.of Justice in Sacramento, Legal Permanent Residents are treated no differently from citizens when it comes to firearm ownership and are issued CCW permits on a regular basis. In fact in most counties, in most of the states in the country, CCW permits are issued on a regular basis to Legal Permanent Residents.

After further research, I discovered that even though Lake County approves many more CCW applications than other counties such as Sonoma or Napa, they seem to have a reputation for denying ordinary individuals permits on the basis of not "being a longtime resident", or not being "a prominent member of the community". It seems to be part of a "good old boy mentality" that still exists in various communities in California where friends, relatives or neighbors are granted permits by the local agencies while the common everyday person is considered an outsider and is denied their rights. (Unfortunately in California the final decision is left up to the issuing agency and an application can be denied for any reason that they deem fit).

I see this whole experience not as a negative one but as an awakening to become more politically active in the drive to allow people "the right to bear arms". Individuals who apply for CCW permits are aware of the civil and criminal responsibility that goes along with using lethal force to protect one's life and take this responsibility very seriously. Criminals, however, are not inclined to apply for permits [thereby] subjecting themselves to fingerprints and background checks but they will carry weapons illegally and will commit crimes with them.

I encourage anyone who is a firearm owner or a person who is concerned about constitutional rights to challenge elected officials and representatives and perhaps one day California will become a "right to carry" state.

David W. Adams

Unfortunately, this is what can happen when you live in a Socialist state, such as California. EVEN when the person is charge is said to believe in the "Right to Bear Arms." It just goes to show, bigotry is STILL alive and well in the Lake County California Sheriff's office.

If Mr. Adams lived here in Michigan, he could not be turned down for a Concealed Pistol License, just because he's from Canada. As long as he's a legal resident, without any felony convictions, and no other disqualifying problems, the authorities here would HAVE to issue him a permit.

What a difference a few thousand miles and 3 time zones can make.

Current Mood: Awake
Current Music: None
Current Gun: EAA Witness .45ACP

General Wants Gay Ban Lifted

In an op-ed published in Tuesday's New York Times, John M. Shalikashvili, retired Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says Congress should give "serious reconsideration" to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the ban on openly lesbian, gay and bisexual military personnel. Shalikashvili, who supported the ban on open service in 1993, writes that "I now believe that if gay men and lesbians served openly in the United States military, they would not undermine the efficacy of the armed forces," and goes on to say that "Our military has been stretched thin by our deployments in the Middle East, and we must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job."

"'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' is out of step with both the American public and those within our armed forces," said C. Dixon Osburn, executive director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN). "The counsel of military leaders increasingly supports repeal of the law. Congress must, as General Shalikashvili urges, consider the overwhelming evidence of the past fourteen years. If they do, the clear answer is that we must lift the ban."

Read the rest of the story here.


Current Mood: Awake
Current Music: None
Current Gun: EAA Witness .45ACP

70 Million More Guns…38% Less Violent Crime

Data released by the FBI on Monday showed that in 2005, the nation’s total violent crime rate was 38% lower than in 1991, when violent crime hit an all-time high. Rates of the individual categories of violent crime were also much lower in 2005 than in 1991. Murder was 43% lower, rape 25% lower, robbery 48% lower, and aggravated assault 33% lower. The FBI’s report came on the heels of a Bureau of Justice Statistics crime survey that found that violent crime was lower in 2005 than anytime in the survey’s 32-year history.

Defying the anti-gunners’ claim that more guns means more crime, from 1991-2005 the number of privately owned guns increased by more than 70 million....(To read the rest, click on the title of this article, it will take you to the NRA's full article on this very important info)

Yup, that's right, 70,000,000 more guns equals 38% less crime. Sounds incredible doesn't it? I mean, the anti-Freedom crowd is always telling us "there are too many guns on the street." Problem is, they REFUSE to distinguish between legally owned guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens, and guns in the hands of criminals.

Oh, and guess where the highest murder rate is? Yup, the murder capitol of the USA, is the Capitol of the USA, Washington, D.C. A city with some of, if not the toughest anti-gun laws in our country, and yet, murder and mayhem continue unabated in this city.

Don't you think it's time something that has proven to be effective, should be tried in our nation's capitol, to stem the tide of crime? Yes, I referring to Right To Carry. I think it's past time when the handgun ban should be lifted, and concealed pistol licenses should be given out as in any other shall issue state. They've tried outlawing guns, and it doesn't work. The statistics PROVE that, beyond a shadow of a doubt. How about we go with something proven by FBI statistics to work, legal, concealed carry.

It's an idea who's time has come, and is still waiting to be implemented.

Current Mood: Awake
Current Music: Rob Zombie - Dragula
Current Gun: EAA Witness .45ACP

Concealed gun era under way in Kansas

Concealed gun era under way in Kansas
State is the 47th to have a conceal-carry law. Applicants must undergo training.
By LAURA BAUER and BENITA Y. WILLIAMS
The Kansas City Star

Today, Kansas will begin issuing permits to the nearly 3,000 Kansans eligible to carry concealed weapons in the state.

On Monday, Kansas became the 47th state to adopt a conceal-carry law, with permits available on the first business day of the new year. Because of the day of mourning Tuesday for former President Gerald Ford, the first wave of successful applicants had to wait until today to pick up their permits at Department of Motor Vehicles driver’s license offices.

Just after Christmas, the Kansas attorney general’s office mailed approval notices to 2,981 residents who had requested a permit by Oct. 31.

Others, who completed applications later, must wait a few weeks before they are notified.

More than 4,800 Kansans have applied to carry concealed guns, state officials say, and most have been approved.

“We’ve been working hard to get the notifications out,” said Chuck Sexson, director of conceal-carry services. “It’ll be pretty busy in our shop for the next few weeks.”

The office still must release a guide for law enforcement agencies on the procedures that licensees must follow.

Earlier this year, Attorney General Phill Kline approved a sign for establishments to post if they don’t want concealed weapons on the premises. Concealed weapons will not be allowed in libraries, courtrooms, government buildings, schools, bars, sporting events, places of worship and buildings that post the approved sign.

The application period began in July, and law enforcement officials across the state are beginning to see an upswing in applications.

“I imagine at least for another year we’ll still get a high level of traffic,” said Deputy Tom Erickson of the Johnson County Sheriff’s Department.

Initial predictions had 20,000 to 48,000 Kansans seeking permits in the first four years.

Before they can get a permit, Kansans must pass a background check and take a training course.

The training prepares people to know when a shooting would be justified.

“It’s not like you just sign up and here’s your permit,” said Ed Daniels, a certified firearms instructor from Olathe who has provided training for conceal-carry permits.

In the eight-hour course, students learn everything from breaking down a gun and cleaning the parts to firing the weapon properly and knowing where the guns are allowed. Students spend time on the firing range.

“A lot of the people who take the class have backgrounds in shooting as hobbyists,” Daniels said.
Getting a permit

To carry a concealed weapon in Kansas, you must:

•Be a Kansas resident older than 21, without a criminal history or record of multiple DUIs, drug arrests or domestic violence. Those involuntarily committed for mental illness or substance abuse are disqualified for five years.

•Take a certified conceal-carry training course.

•Submit an application to the local sheriff’s department along with a training certificate, a color photo and a $150 fee. You will be fingerprinted.

•Pass the application review by the attorney general’s office and the background check by the Kansas Bureau of Investigation.

•Take your driver’s license and the approval notice you receive from the state to a Kansas Department of Motor Vehicles driver’s license office. An examiner will check the information and take your picture. You can have your conceal-carry status noted on your driver’s license or request a separate card.

Your conceal-carry permit will arrive in the mail within 10 days and is good for four years.

Current Mood: Awake
Current Music: No Music, watching NYPD: Blue
Current Gun: EAA Witness .45ACP

George Bush Is a Hero

George Bush Is a Hero
Edward I. Koch
Wednesday, Dec. 27, 2006

President George W. Bush, vilified by many, supported by some, is a hero to me.

Why do I say that? It's not because I agree with the president's domestic agenda. It's not because I think he's done a perfect job in the White House.

George Bush is a hero to me because he has courage.

The president does what he believes to be in the best interest of the United States. He sticks with his beliefs, no matter how intense the criticism and invective that are directed against him every day.

The enormous defeat President Bush suffered with the loss of both Houses of Congress has not caused him to retreat from his position that the U.S. alone now stands between a radical Islamic takeover of many of the world's governments in the next 30 or more years. If that takeover occurs, we will suffer an enslavement that will threaten our personal freedoms and take much of the world back into the Dark Ages.

Our major ally in this war against the forces of darkness, Great Britain, is still being led by an outstanding prime minister, Tony Blair. However, Blair will soon be set out to pasture, which means Great Britain will leave our side and join France, Germany, Spain, and other countries that foolishly believe they can tame the wolf at the door and convert it into a domestic pet that will live in peace with them.

These dreamers naively believe that if we feed the wolves what they demand, they will go away. But that won't happen.



Appeasement never works. The wolves always come back for more and more, and when we have nothing left to give, they come for us.

Radical Islamists are very much aware that we have shown fear. For example, we have allowed the people of Darfur — dark skinned Africans — to be terrorized, killed, raped, and taken as slaves by the supporters of the Sudanese government, radical Islamists.



The countries surrounding Iraq — Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan — made up of Sunni Arabs, know that for them, the wolves who are the radical Shia are already at their door. The New York Times reported on Dec. 13, 2006, "Saudi Arabia has told the Bush administration that it might provide financial backing to Iraqi Sunnis in any war against Iraq's Shiites if the United States pulls its troops out of Iraq, according to American and Arab diplomats . . .


"The Saudis have argued strenuously against an American pullout from Iraq, citing fears that Iraq's minority Sunni Arab population would be massacred . . . The Bush administration is also working on a way to form a coalition of Sunni Arab nations and a moderate Shiite government in Iraq, along with the United States and Europe, to stand against ‘Iran, Syria and the terrorists."


This Saudi response will take place notwithstanding that until now, according to the Times, "The Saudis have been wary of supporting Sunnis in Iraq because their insurgency there has been led by extremists of al-Qaida, who are opposed to the kingdom's monarchy. But if Iraq's sectarian war worsened, the Saudis would line up with Sunni tribal leaders."


The Times article went on to state the opinion of an Arab expert, Nawaf Obaid, who was recently fired by the Saudi foreign minister after Obaid wrote an op ed in The Washington Post asserting that the Saudis were prepared in the event of an American pullout to engage in a "massive intervention to stop Iranian-backed Shiite militias from butchering Iraqi Sunnis."


Obaid went on "suggest[ing] that Saudi Arabia could cut world oil prices in half…a move that would be devastating to Iran."

The Times reported, "Arab diplomats . . . said that Mr. Obaid's column reflected the view of the Saudi government." When writing about affairs of state in distant places, unless you are on the scene talking to knowledgeable participants, the most reliable sources to support conjecture with "facts" are the superb reporters of the great international newspapers like The New York Times.

Surely this turn of events in Saudi Arabia undoubtedly replicated in other Sunni-dominated countries — Sunnis are 80 percent of the world's Muslim population. This will give support to my proposal, advanced nearly a year ago, that we tell our allies, regional and NATO, that we are getting out of Iraq unless they come in.


That may well work, and they will come in, in large part and share the casualties of combat and the financial costs of war.

Doing what I suggest is far better than simply pulling out, which is the direction in which we are headed, notwithstanding the president's opposition. I think at the moment simply getting out and not making an attempt to bring our allies in is supported by a majority of Americans and would be supported by a majority of Democrats in the Congress.


For me, staying is clearly preferable, provided we are not alone and are joined by our regional and NATO allies, aggressively taking on the difficult but necessary task of destroying radical Islam and its terrorist agenda if we don't want to see radical Islam destroy the Western world and moderate Arab states over the next generation, or as long as it takes for them to succeed.

Two other requirements are needed to bring the war in Iraq to a successful conclusion: First, require the Iraqi government to allow greater autonomy for the three regions — Kurd, Sunni, and Shia. The second requirement is that the national Iraqi government enact legislation that will divide all oil and natural gas revenues in a way similar to that of our own state of Alaska.

The Alaskan state government takes from those revenues all it will need to finance government and provide services and the balance is divided among the population of Alaska, in a profit sharing program. That would settle the major Sunni problem which has been being cut out of oil revenues because the country's oil is located only in Kurdish and Shiite areas.

If the Iraqi government refuses our demands, our reply should be "Goodbye. You're on your own." This proposal was suggested to me by Mike Sheppard in Chapel Hill, N.C.

It won't be easy to implement this proposal. But President Bush has courage.

Now is the time to use it.

Edward I. Koch, author, lawyer, and talk-radio host, was a member of the U.S. Congress and, for 12 years, the 105th mayor of New York City.

Current Mood: Awake
Current Music: None
Current Gun: EAA Witness .45ACP

Ding, Dong, the Witch is dead

CNN reported at 10:35PM Eastern Daylight Time, that former Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein is dead. Execution by hanging was the chosen method. Frankly, I think it was TOO humane for him. If there was ever a reason to bring back the old "hanged, drawn and quartered" method, this man WAS the reason.


Current Mood: Happy
Current Music: NONE
Current Gun: EAA Witness .45ACP

I have a new hate

In case you've not run into it, SORBS is my new hate. Under the guise of "fighting SPAM," SORBS has made it impossible for me to send email. For some odd reason, my web hosting service is using SORBS, why? I don't know.

I found out rather rudely when I tried to send an email and got the following response:

An error occurred while sending mail. The mail server responded: Dynamic IP Addresses See: http://www.sorbs.net/lookup.shtml?00.000.00.000. Please verify that your email address is correct in your mail preferences and try again.

Naturally, the zeros were not what was in the message. It had my actual IP address. Thing is, I KNOW my IP address is a dynamic address. My normal ISP is AT&T (Formerly SBC). It seems that SORBS is blocking the entire line of IP addresses from AT&T, as possible SPAM spewers.

Frankly, I find this whole thing insulting. Since today is Christmas, I will give my web hosting service time to sort it out, but if this is not taken care of soon, I'll be moving my domains and my email service somewhere that doesn't use SORBS.

It's really a shame. I like my webhosting service, otherwise.


Current Mood: Pissed off
Current Music: None
Current Gun: Taurus PT92AFS 9x19mm

A letter to the editor

This is a copy of an email I sent to the Nanaimo News, concerning a story titled, " Something completely un-Christmas." (Hint: The title of this article is a direct link to the story.)

From the story published on December 23, 2006, I read the following comments.
------------------------
"I know I’d hardly feel safe knowing that someone (anyone – given our equal rights climate, it would undoubtedly be unconstitutional to give the right to bear arms to women only) walking towards me on the sidewalk could be packing heat.

Putting more guns and hot lead into more people’s hands – even legally – isn’t going to make anybody safer. It’ll do exactly the opposite.

We've got enough problems already with illegal possession of firearms.

And given society’s ever-increasing inclination toward uncontrolled extreme anger (road rage, anyone?) putting firearms within easy and legal reach is a recipe for disaster."
----------------------------------
These comments above are the same, stupid statements we heard here in Michigan over 5 years ago, when we were preparing to go from being a "May Issue" state to a "Shall Issue" state, with regard to concealed carry permits. Practically every state in the union has heard the same lame arguments when they considered going with Shall Issue concealed carry permits.

The overwhelming fact that most of the left wing liberals (US Liberals, not the Canadian Liberal Party) seem to overlook, those of us who apply for such permits are generally law-abiding citizens. Statistically, we have a higher rate of obeying the law, and a much lower rate of breaking the law than the general public. No, we're not perfect, no one is, including the much vaunted police forces. But, in general civilians have a higher rate of stopping criminals than law enforcement officials do, and a much lower rate of hitting the wrong person, than law enforcement officials also.

Yes, Canada does have a method of distributing concealed carry permits to it's citizens. However, so far, only those with real connections ever get one. And generally speaking, it's not the person with the LEGAL permit to carry you have to worry about. It's the criminal element who don't worry about getting a permit, that carry regardless, that you SHOULD be worrying about. It's like having a sea of sheep, with many wolves in sheep's clothing, and hardly any sheep dogs to protect the real sheep.

The USA is not perfect either, but the right to bear arms is not one of our imperfections. Only the haphazard way in which it is afforded to us, is in need of fixing. Canada has a chance to get it right on a national level, something I fear we will never do.

The right of self defense is a natural, basic HUMAN right. It needs no enumeration in a constitution. It exists, whether we acknowledge it or not. Along with that right is the ability to implement it. If we have the right of self-defense, then we MUST have the right to own the tools necessary to exercise that basic human right. Therefore, we MUST have the right to keep and bear arms, as many of our (USA) state constitutions say, "for the defense of themselves and of the state."

To deny these basic rights, you may as well surrender now, to some fascist/socialist dictator, and submit yourself to slave status. Because, that is what will eventually happen anyway. Our world is full of such examples. All you have to do is look.

Current Mood: Awake
Current Music:None
Current Gun:Taurus PT92AFS

Interesting quote, from a Kansas State Lawmaker

The quote below is in reference to carrying a gun in court. On Jan. 1, Kansas plans to permit judges and whomever they designate to carry concealed firearms in the courtroom. State senator Phillip Journey introduced the bill, and he is a practicing attorney.

"If I had a judge's permission, I'd do it every day," he said of bringing a gun into the courtroom. "Guns are like lawyers: Better to have one and not need it than need one and not have it."

I would not be one to say that Judges should not have the right to protect themselves. But what about the rest of us? Even in states that HAVE to issue a CCW permit (SHALL ISSUE, i.e., unless the issuing authority can show you are dangerous, or have some hidden infraction that would keep you from carrying) they still keep most, if not all of us untermensch* from carrying in places like courtrooms, schools and such. For some reason, unless you're one of the Übermensch**. You know, police, judges, district attorneys, actors and actresses, Chicago City Aldermen and women, and such.

Oh, but "we don't need protection, we're not Special!" I don't mean to belittle the jobs these people do (except for the actors and actresses, THEY are no better than I am. They just have "special" connections.), But that doesn't make their lives more precious than mine. By the same token, any cop or judge can go crazy just as much as I can. So why am I being deprived of my right to self defense in their presence?

*=under, or Sub human
**=Super human,

Current Mood: Amused
Current Music: Patti Smith - Because the Night
Current Gun: EAA Witness .45ACP

About Free Speech

Forbidden sale sign is focus in free speech case

BY JANICE MORSE
CINCINNATI ENQUIRER

December 6, 2006

CINCINNATI -- The car Chris Pagan wanted to sell is long gone. But he kept the "For Sale" sign in case he might need it as evidence in a three-year federal court battle over his right to use the sign on a public street.

Today, Pagan's case will be debated in an unusual hearing before all 14 judges of the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Lawyers helping Pagan with his case predict its outcome will gain national influence over freedom of speech issues and could redefine commercial speech rights for 32 million people in the court's four-state territory -- Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee.

The case stems from Pagan's 2003 attempt to sell his 1970 Mercury Cougar. He put a "For Sale" sign in the car's window and parked the car in front of his home in Glendale, Ohio, a Cincinnati suburb.

Glendale police threatened to cite him under an ordinance forbidding such signs on vehicles in public areas. Pagan, who practices law, tried to negotiate, but village officials wouldn't budge.

Pagan removed the sign. Inquiries about the car dried up because nobody knew it was for sale, Pagan said.

"I sold it under market value, because it was the best deal I could get," he said.

Pagan filed a federal lawsuit, launching a freedom of speech crusade against the village's half-century-old sign regulation.

"This is not a trivial thing. Glendale was seeking to throw me into the criminal justice system and subject me to jail time -- and they can't do that when they're violating the First Amendment," said Pagan, who could have been fined up to $250 and sentenced to 30 days in jail.

The Arlington, Va.-based Institute of Justice said it believes that if the village of Glendale wins the case, then "governments will be able to ban even the most harmless speech just because they feel like it," said Jeff Rowes, an institute lawyer.

"If they can ban totally harmless speech on a whim, what happens when more controversial speech comes along? If we decide that putting someone in jail is the right way to deal with ordinary speech like a 'For Sale' sign, the First Amendment is in grave jeopardy."

Glendale's attorney, Larry Barbiere, did not return telephone requests seeking comment.

Copyright © 2006 Detroit Free Press Inc.

This has to make you wonder. If you can't advertise your car, by putting a sign in it's window, what's next?

Current Mood: Awake
Current Music: None
Current Gun: CZ-52 7.62x25mm

A gun in every home

Small-town Pa. councilman calls for a gun in every house
By DANIEL LOVERING, Associated Press
Posted Tuesday, December 5, 2006 at 5:53 pm

CHERRY TREE, Pa. — In this tiny community of clapboard houses nestled along the banks of a Pennsylvania river, many residents own guns for hunting or self-defense.

But a local councilman, inspired by steps taken by an Idaho town, has proposed an ordinance that recommends all households keep the weapons and ammunition to ward off would-be burglars and prevent crime from creeping into the area.

Council members in Cherry Tree, a borough of about 430 people, are set to meet Wednesday to discuss the Civil Protection Ordinance put forth by Henry Statkowski, a 59-year-old retired U.S. Army master sergeant and Vietnam veteran.

Talk of the proposal, which also seeks to offer firearm training at the borough hall, has elicited cautious support and bitter rebukes from area residents, many of whom commute to jobs elsewhere.

Gun-control advocates say such a measure would risk putting guns into the hands of criminals and increase gun violence.

Statkowski maintains the ordinance would keep crime down — “way down” — in Cherry Tree, a quiet village where streets are marked with wooden signs and residents say crime is largely limited to drugs, vandalism, trespassing and speeding drivers.

“This is rural America,” Statkowski said in a phone interview. “You want to break into someone’s house here, you might not like the consequences.”

The ordinance is meant to be a proactive measure to complement the borough’s police force, which consists of a handful of part-time officers who also have day jobs, Statkowski said.

“They can’t be everywhere,” he said. “When you need help, you need it now.”

Statkowski said he decided to float the idea after learning of a similar ordinance passed last month in Greenleaf, Idaho, a town of about 850 residents where an estimated 80 percent of adults already own guns.

That ordinance asks people in the pacifist Quaker-founded town who do not object on religious or other grounds to keep a gun at home in case they are overrun by refugees from disasters like Hurricane Katrina.

Based on an unenforced 1982 law in Kennesaw, Ga., Greenleaf’s law originally required all homeowners to own and maintain a firearm. The town of Bowerbank, Maine, enacted a similar regulation 12 years ago.

The Cherry Tree measure would not be the first gun-related ordinance in Pennsylvania. In 1994, Franklintown repealed a law enacted 12 years earlier requiring each household to own a gun and ammunition.

Statkowski acknowledged that Cherry Tree, a one-time logging center about 70 miles northeast of Pittsburgh, does not have a crime problem.

“We don’t want one,” he said, citing a recent break-in 12 miles from the borough and a drug raid five miles away.

Gary Talerico, co-owner of a local insurance agency, said he saw no need for such a measure. He described the borough as a bedroom community that relies mostly on state police for law enforcement.

“When I first heard it, I had to stop and think if we were going back to the Western days, when everybody carried a sidearm,” he said. “Pros and cons? In the business we’re in, I can see a lot of cons,” including possible vigilante shootings.

But Esther Long, 59, a retired caregiver from neighboring Clymer, said she supported the idea, and that her two brothers and their children — all Cherry Tree residents — already have guns for hunting or protection.

“You just feel safer,” she said. “All of them keep a loaded pistol. I even do, and I live in an apartment complex.”

Retired coal miner Bill Schrock, 66, said he believes everyone should own a gun, but that the proposed ordinance was unnecessary.

“I think that guy just wanted to get on TV,” said Schrock, who lives in a nearby town. “It ain’t that bad around here. Might have a few sticky fingers around, that’s all.”

Diane Edbril, executive director of the gun-control advocacy group CeaseFirePA, said that “increasing the number of households with firearms will only increase the number of tragedies involving firearms in that community.”

She said it would also create the potential for burglars to steal guns when they otherwise might have taken only a stereo.
Copyright ©2006, The News Journal.

Sounds like a good idea to me. Now if we could get a much bigger town to enact such a law, that would REALLY make a statement.

Current Mood: Hopeful
Current Music: None
Current Gun: EAA Witness .45ACP

Common sense, from the Chicago Tribune???

Concealed weapons in the wilderness
by Steve Chapman

Published November 26, 2006

Lots of kids, when very young, worry about monsters under the bed. Even when Mom or Dad comes in to reassure them, the kids may still worry. But as they get older, they begin to check under the bed themselves. And eventually, after many monster-free nights, they figure out that the danger is purely imaginary, and they stop worrying.

You would think by now gun-control supporters would have made the same progress on one of their most fearsome demons: the licensing of citizens to carry concealed firearms. But they seem to be trapped in a recurring nightmare that exists only in their minds.

So imagine their alarm at a bill recently introduced in Congress that would allow people with concealed-carry permits to take weapons into their home state's national parks. The indefatigably anti-gun New York Times warned that the measure is a step toward "nationalizing the armed paranoia that the National Rifle Association and its cohorts stand for" and "can only endanger the public."

Such fears may have been plausible once upon a time--when Americans were generally not allowed to carry firearms. But since 1987, when Florida decided to let law-abiding citizens get concealed-carry permits, that has changed. Today, some 40 states have such "shall-issue" laws. They've become the norm, and the fears they inspired have proved unfounded.

As it happens, serious crime has waned in the intervening years. Murders are now at their lowest level since the 1960s. Violent crime has been cut by nearly 60 percent since the peak year of 1994. Gun crimes have plunged as well.

It may not be true, as some experts believe, that America has gotten safer because more people are legally packing heat. But it's impossible to claim that the change has made us less safe.

At the outset of this experiment, gun opponents forecast that hot-tempered pistoleros would spray bullets at the slightest provocation, requiring the rest of us to wade through rivers of blood just to cross the street. In fact, one of the most conspicuous facts about handgun licensees is their mild temper. It's rare for them to commit crimes, and even rarer for them to use their firearms to commit crimes.

A report by the Texas Department of Public Safety found that in a state with more than 200,000 people licensed to carry guns, only 180 were convicted of crimes in 2001, and most of those crimes didn't involve firearms. Only one licensee was convicted of murder. Florida, which has nearly 400,000 permit holders, revoked only 330 licenses last year--about one out of every 1,200.

This record should not be surprising. As a rule, concealed-carry licenses are off-limits to anyone with a history of crime, substance abuse, drunken driving or serious mental illness, and most states require safety training. In any case, people who are inclined to commit mayhem generally don't seek state licenses to carry guns, any more than they ask permission to break into houses or beat up girlfriends. It's the law-abiding folks who apply for licenses.

Why would these peaceable souls want to take their guns when hiking or camping in a national park? Same reason they might take them other places: a desire to protect themselves. Though federal lands are mostly safe, they sometimes play host to crime. In fact, park rangers are far more likely to be assaulted or killed than FBI agents.

The Times says, "If Americans want to feel safer in their national parks, the proper solution is to increase park funding, which has decayed steadily since the Bush administration took office." Maybe that would help, but we can't put a park ranger at every bend in the trail. And if you run into a thug in the backcountry, you can't expect the police or anyone else to come to the rescue.

For some people--solitary women in particular--having the means of self-defense in the woods can be not only a comfort but a lifesaver. It's fine to trust in one's fellow man. That doesn't mean it's paranoid to have a Plan B.

Judging from a wealth of experience, adopting this new policy would be a non-event, with no unwanted repercussions. The only danger it poses is to criminals, who would lose some easy prey, and anti-gun zealots, who would once again be proven wrong.

----------

I hope that this guy keeps on working for the Chicago Tribune.

Current Mood: Surprised
Current Music: Heavy Metal (Takin a Ride) Don Felder
Current Gun: EAA Witness .45ACP

Good Thing Michael Moore wasn't around in 1945, we'd have lost WWII!!!

Cut and Run, the Only Brave Thing to Do

Sunday, November 26th, 2006

Friends,

Tomorrow marks the day that we will have been in Iraq longer than we were in all of World War II.

That's right. We were able to defeat all of Nazi Germany, Mussolini, and the entire Japanese empire in LESS time than it's taken the world's only superpower to secure the road from the airport to downtown Baghdad.

And we haven't even done THAT. After 1,347 days, in the same time it took us to took us to sweep across North Africa, storm the beaches of Italy, conquer the South Pacific, and liberate all of Western Europe, we cannot, after over 3 and 1/2 years, even take over a single highway and protect ourselves from a homemade device of two tin cans placed in a pothole. No wonder the cab fare from the airport into Baghdad is now running around $35,000 for the 25-minute ride. And that doesn't even include a friggin' helmet.

Is this utter failure the fault of our troops? Hardly. That's because no amount of troops or choppers or democracy shot out of the barrel of a gun is ever going to "win" the war in Iraq. It is a lost war, lost because it never had a right to be won, lost because it was started by men who have never been to war, men who hide behind others sent to fight and die.

Let's listen to what the Iraqi people are saying, according to a recent poll conducted by the University of Maryland:

** 71% of all Iraqis now want the U.S. out of Iraq.

** 61% of all Iraqis SUPPORT insurgent attacks on U.S. troops.

Yes, the vast majority of Iraqi citizens believe that our soldiers should be killed and maimed! So what the hell are we still doing there? Talk about not getting the hint.

There are many ways to liberate a country. Usually the residents of that country rise up and liberate themselves. That's how we did it. You can also do it through nonviolent, mass civil disobedience. That's how India did it. You can get the world to boycott a regime until they are so ostracized they capitulate. That's how South Africa did it. Or you can just wait them out and, sooner or later, the king's legions simply leave (sometimes just because they're too cold). That's how Canada did it.

The one way that DOESN'T work is to invade a country and tell the people, "We are here to liberate you!" -- when they have done NOTHING to liberate themselves. Where were all the suicide bombers when Saddam was oppressing them? Where were the insurgents planting bombs along the roadside as the evildoer Saddam's convoy passed them by? I guess ol' Saddam was a cruel despot -- but not cruel enough for thousands to risk their necks. "Oh no, Mike, they couldn't do that! Saddam would have had them killed!" Really? You don't think King George had any of the colonial insurgents killed? You don't think Patrick Henry or Tom Paine were afraid? That didn't stop them. When tens of thousands aren't willing to shed their own blood to remove a dictator, that should be the first clue that they aren't going to be willing participants when you decide you're going to do the liberating for them.

A country can HELP another people overthrow a tyrant (that's what the French did for us in our revolution), but after you help them, you leave. Immediately. The French didn't stay and tell us how to set up our government. They didn't say, "we're not leaving because we want your natural resources." They left us to our own devices and it took us six years before we had an election. And then we had a bloody civil war. That's what happens, and history is full of these examples. The French didn't say, "Oh, we better stay in America, otherwise they're going to kill each other over that slavery issue!"

The only way a war of liberation has a chance of succeeding is if the oppressed people being liberated have their own citizens behind them -- and a group of Washingtons, Jeffersons, Franklins, Ghandis and Mandellas leading them. Where are these beacons of liberty in Iraq? This is a joke and it's been a joke since the beginning. Yes, the joke's been on us, but with 655,000 Iraqis now dead as a result of our invasion (source: Johns Hopkins University), I guess the cruel joke is on them. At least they've been liberated, permanently.

So I don't want to hear another word about sending more troops (wake up, America, John McCain is bonkers), or "redeploying" them, or waiting four months to begin the "phase-out." There is only one solution and it is this: Leave. Now. Start tonight. Get out of there as fast as we can. As much as people of good heart and conscience don't want to believe this, as much as it kills us to accept defeat, there is nothing we can do to undo the damage we have done. What's happened has happened. If you were to drive drunk down the road and you killed a child, there would be nothing you could do to bring that child back to life. If you invade and destroy a country, plunging it into a civil war, there isn't much you can do 'til the smoke settles and blood is mopped up. Then maybe you can atone for the atrocity you have committed and help the living come back to a better life.

The Soviet Union got out of Afghanistan in 36 weeks. They did so and suffered hardly any losses as they left. They realized the mistake they had made and removed their troops. A civil war ensued. The bad guys won. Later, we overthrew the bad guys and everybody lived happily ever after. See! It all works out in the end!

The responsibility to end this war now falls upon the Democrats. Congress controls the purse strings and the Constitution says only Congress can declare war. Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi now hold the power to put an end to this madness. Failure to do so will bring the wrath of the voters. We aren't kidding around, Democrats, and if you don't believe us, just go ahead and continue this war another month. We will fight you harder than we did the Republicans. The opening page of my website has a photo of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, each made up by a collage of photos of the American soldiers who have died in Bush's War. But it is now about to become the Bush/Democratic Party War unless swift action is taken.

This is what we demand:

1. Bring the troops home now. Not six months from now. NOW. Quit looking for a way to win. We can't win. We've lost. Sometimes you lose. This is one of those times. Be brave and admit it.

2. Apologize to our soldiers and make amends. Tell them we are sorry they were used to fight a war that had NOTHING to do with our national security. We must commit to taking care of them so that they suffer as little as possible. The mentally and physically maimed must get the best care and significant financial compensation. The families of the deceased deserve the biggest apology and they must be taken care of for the rest of their lives.

3. We must atone for the atrocity we have perpetuated on the people of Iraq. There are few evils worse than waging a war based on a lie, invading another country because you want what they have buried under the ground. Now many more will die. Their blood is on our hands, regardless for whom we voted. If you pay taxes, you have contributed to the three billion dollars a week now being spent to drive Iraq into the hellhole it's become. When the civil war is over, we will have to help rebuild Iraq. We can receive no redemption until we have atoned.

In closing, there is one final thing I know. We Americans are better than what has been done in our name. A majority of us were upset and angry after 9/11 and we lost our minds. We didn't think straight and we never looked at a map. Because we are kept stupid through our pathetic education system and our lazy media, we knew nothing of history. We didn't know that WE were the ones funding and arming Saddam for many years, including those when he massacred the Kurds. He was our guy. We didn't know what a Sunni or a Shiite was, never even heard the words. Eighty percent of our young adults (according to National Geographic) were not able to find Iraq on the map. Our leaders played off our stupidity, manipulated us with lies, and scared us to death.

But at our core we are a good people. We may be slow learners, but that "Mission Accomplished" banner struck us as odd, and soon we began to ask some questions. Then we began to get smart. By this past November 7th, we got mad and tried to right our wrongs. The majority now know the truth. The majority now feel a deep sadness and guilt and a hope that somehow we can make make it all right again.

Unfortunately, we can't. So we will accept the consequences of our actions and do our best to be there should the Iraqi people ever dare to seek our help in the future. We ask for their forgiveness.

We demand the Democrats listen to us and get out of Iraq now.

Yours,

Michael Moore
www.michaelmoore.com
mmflint@aol.com

Just an FYI, in WWII, we had a few more allies, INCLUDING Russia. And, in case no one realizes it, WWII was a TOTAL war, with all our military might involved, ALL of our production, and also that of our allies as well. The Iraq situation is not quite the same. We MIGHT be in a war, but it feels no different, generally than before 09/11/01, to me. Then again, I don't travel by air very much, either.


Current Mood: Disgusted
Current Music: Propaganda - Sparks
Current Gun: Taurus PT92AFS 9x19mm

Gun Facts, Part Five

Myth: Police are against concealed carrying by citizens

Fact: 66%of police chiefs believe that citizens carrying concealed firearms reduces rates of violent crime.²⁰

Fact: “All the horror stories I thought would come to pass didn’t happen . . .I think it’s worked out well, and that says good things about the citizens who have permits. I’m a convert.”²¹

Fact: “I . . . [felt] that such legislation present[ed] a clear and present danger to law-abiding citizens by placing more handguns on our streets. Boy was I wrong. Our experience in Harris County, and indeed statewide, has proven my fears absolutely groundless”.²²

Fact: Explain this to the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, Second Amendment Police Department, and Law Enforcement for the Preservation of the Second Amendment, all of whom support shall-issue concealed carry laws.


²⁰ National Association of Chiefs of Police, 17th Annual National Survey of Police Chiefs & Sheriffs, 2005
²¹ Glenn White, president, Dallas Police Association, Dallas Morning News, December 23, 1997
²² John B. Holmes, Harris County Texas district attorney, Dallas Morning News, December 23, 1997

Current Mood: Happy
Current Music: In The Navy - The Village People
Current Gun: Taurus PT92AFS 9x19mm

Some basic info about the Pink Pistols

Based on a now deleted comment, it's now obvious to me that some people may be mis-informed about the make-up and purpose of the Pink Pistols.

First, the Pink Pistols is not an exclusively GLBT (Gay, Lesbian, Bi-sexual, Trans-Gender/Sexual) organization. You do NOT have to fit into any of the preceding categories to join the PP. The idea of the PP is for people of "alternative lifestyles" to engage in shooting sports in an atmosphere free from animosity that frequently greets some people.

If you go the PP FAQ, you can see that you do not have to be Gay ( or any of the rest of the GLBT group) to join PP. And, the idea of "alternative lifestyles," covers more than just the four letters (GLBT). And, you don't have to be into alternative lifestyles to join. Many of our members are just straight, regular people. However, they are people without the prejudices of some of the more uptight people in society. (The person who posted a comment I removed is one example.)

And for that person, (and anyone else who fits the mold) I have a response for him.

Asshole: a stupid, mean, or contemptible person.
Add to above, also cowardly anonymous poser. :D


Current Mood: Awake
Current Music: Bad To The Bone - George Thorogood
Current Gun: Taurus PT92AFS 9x19mm

Thanks to Cowardly ANONYMOUS drive by comments

I have no choice but to moderate any and all comments to this blog. I wish it were not so, but some people are so cowardly as well as OFF TOPIC in their comments, I can do nothing else at this time to assure my readers they won't be subject to these off topic and cowardly comments.


Current Mood: amused
Current Music: YMCA - The Village People
Current Gun: Taurus PT92AFS 9x19mm