Well, NO WONDER Maryland is so Anti-Gun

"Really, if I had an opportunity to shoot BRITNEY SPEARS, I think I would."

-- Maryland first lady KENDEL EHRLICH

Don't let her near a gun.

Isn't This Interesting?

Seems recent serial-commenter JadeGold is a serial Troll. Found in the comments of this Balloon Juice posting, dear Jade comes off (as (s)he does here) rather on the losing side:

Quagmire

Say 'g'bye' to the Moron from Midland...


Posted by: JadeGold on October 10, 2003 06:06 PM

Shows youhow Democrats think- polls to dtermine whether something is a quagmire. You make me laugh JKadeGold.

After you were laughed off of Calpundit's site because of your fraudulent smear of me regarding McVeigh, I thought you would be too embarassaed to show your face here. I guess you are too stupid to experience shame.


Posted by: John Cole on October 10, 2003 06:29 PM

Laughed off? Hardly. You'll still be McVeigh's #1 fan; hell, you might even have his ashes on your mantle. No, Timmy McCole, real shame is your knowledge I'm right.

I guarantee Karl Rove is looking at those poll numbers (especially the way they're trending) and thinking 'quagmire.'

And poor Rummy! Poor bastard isn't even told he's no longer Head Poohbah of Iraq--he finds out from a reporter. But not to worry, come Thanksgiving Clueless Condi will likewise be toppled without so much as a phonecall from Karl.


Posted by: JadeGold on October 10, 2003 06:52 PM

Heya JadeGold, before I ban you for accusing me of being a McVeigh fan or supporter, I am going to give you one more chance to back up your claim. Hint- you might even find the search tool on this website useful.


Posted by: John Cole on October 10, 2003 07:15 PM

JadeGold ain't worth your time/energy, John. Spend that finding more wonderful things to write.

Thanks for the post.

hln


Posted by: hln on October 10, 2003 07:49 PM

I'm tempted to take hln's advice myself, but so far (s)he's only been amusing, not outright insulting.

Separated at Birth?

"Mary Rosh" and now "Benny Smith?"

The Emory Wheel has the scoop.

What is it with academics and alternate on-line personalities?

(At least Bellesiles stayed male.)

Rush Confesses

Believe it or not, I don't listen to Rush all that much, though I find him entertaining on occasion. I've listened this week because of the drug abuse accusation and because of the recall vote. Well, as I type, Rush is confessing to being an addict and announcing that he will be in rehab for the next 30 days.

I cannot help but wonder if his hearing loss was due to his drug abuse, as I have read is possible.

And I cannot help but wonder if he will go to jail and for how long. After all, I will be the first to admit that America is a country where you can often get all the justice you can afford. And he can afford.

The recall was interesting. This will be too.

"Because the gun industry is under special attack"

Eugene Volokh comments on this article in the Washington Post. Specifically on this question from The Violence Policy Center's legal director, Dennis Hennigan:

"Why does the gun industry deserve special protection?"

Here's what Prof. Volokh said (and I fully concur:)

Because the gun industry is under special attack.

If when someone drunk on Coors crashes his Mustang into me, I were able to successfully sue Coors and Ford for selling their products knowing that they cause death, or for recklessly and wantonly refusing to (for instance) install breathalyzer ignition overrides that would (maybe) help prevent drunk driving, then I'd see the bill as being about "special protection" (though then I'd just want it broadened to cars and alcohol, too). But right now, the bill is simply aimed at making sure that the tort liability system treats guns like other lawful but dangerous products.

He has more to say here.

Can I Get an "AMEN!"

Bill Whittle comments on the Democrat reaction to the California recall vote, but his last paragraph is the heart of it:

As I say when I watch a key football player on the opposing team get carried off the field: I hope he makes a speedy and complete recovery – next week. Right now, that’s how I feel about the radical left wing of the Democratic Party. I hope they continue to take that Party into flames and ruin, deep and severe enough to shake the serpents out of the tent, because that hateful, elitist group of social engineers that despise America also loathe and fear real democracy – and rightfully so, seeing how it keeps treating them. These people need to be confronted, ridiculed, challenged and discredited at every turn and in the bright light of day. Then, perhaps, the Democrats can return to the party claimed by Jefferson and Truman, and many millions of other decent, patriotic Americans, people of integrity with whom it is a pleasure – sometimes an honor – to disagree.

Holy Sweet Freakin' Jebus!

I was perusing the Right Wing News and saw his post about the DU hysteria over Arnold's victory (see my post below for more) and in the comments I found this link to the DU post of the century: (Link left dead on purpose - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=495887&mesg_id=495887)

What we MUST realize in order to win - Americans are stupid and uninformed

This is very important because in order to win we must understand the way the average American thinks. I'm afraid WE have nothing in common with them.

Gee, YA THINK??? Yet you want to run the country! And call yourselves DEMOCRATS. I call you HYPOCRITES

I came to the two following conclusions when I saw the large number of people who voted for Bush back in 2000.

#1 - I would dare to assume that most of us here are in the upper 1%-20% of the population intelligence-wise. We must come to the realization that the majority of the population is in the lower 80% to 99% percent of the bell-curve. WE are not the norm.

In other words "WE'RE THE ELITE AND DESERVE TO RULE!"

The Republicans understand that the average American is not very bright. They cater and pander to the masses. The Democratic Party tries to appeal to the population about "issues" that these people just don't understand.

Yes, government by majority rule doesn't work because the majority is too stupid to vote right. Except, as I recall, it was the supporters of the DEMOCRATIC candidate for President who were too stupid to use a punchcard ballot correctly, no?

I've heard it said that the reason that Clinton's sex scandal resonated so strongly among "the people" was because it was a scandal that the average American understood. The average person can't understand a financial scandal.

No, we're just used to those.

In addition, people of average or lower intelligence tend to not be as logical or reasoned as those of higher intelligence - they deal with emotion. Therefore they are more likely to get riled up about someone burning a flag rather than a illogical tax cut.

Give me a hundred engineers, a hundred programmers and a hundred Fine Arts majors and three hundred IQ tests. The engineers and programmers will score higher and will be overwhelmingly conservative.

#2 - The majority of people do not read the newspaper OR listen to the news, CNN, etc. Therefore -they get their news from the Tonight Show, Letterman, Oprah and Saturday Night Live. Or, they get their news from talking to their co-workers at the water cooler.

Also, for the few people who DO listen to the news - who do they hear it from? Fox News and Bill O'Reilly are the most popular. Most newspapers and media outlets are owned by Republicans.

And most newspapers and media outlets are staffed by liberals - check their voting records.

THIS is what we are fighting against people. In order to win we will need to start pandering to the masses.

Yes, you must try to "reach" the "little people" you just spit all over.

For all of your vaunted intelligence there "janekat" you just exposed yourself for what you really are - an elitist, snobbish, statist. Thanks.

(To their credit, many of the responders slammed "janekat" for being elitist. But many more did not. Go read if you're not easily nauseated.)

UPDATE: Ravenwood comments on the same topic. Be sure you click on the "Would you like to know more?" button for the perfect illustration of "jadekat's" mentality.

"Easy Availability?"

Seems that one Dave King, body-builder, security-type, guy with a known "record of 'considerable criminality'" was shot to death on September 5. He was sitting in his car when two masked men drove by and opened up with an AK-47 automatic rifle. Twenty-five rounds of "armor piercing" (probably just standard military-spec steel-core stuff) 7.62x39 Russian were fired at the car, killing him, and wounding another.

Damn, just another case of those awful assault weapons that ought to be banned, BANNED I say!

Oh, wait...

This happened in ENGLAND. You know, where automatic weapons have been illegal since the 30's and semi-automatic weapons since the mid 80's.

As an interesting addendum, the story has a sidebar that says:

Appeal to underworld

OFFICERS leading the hunt for Mr King’s killers this week identified the weapon and ammunition used in the murder.
They are almost certain the weapon used was an AK47 Kalashnikov Russian-built military assault rifle and the ammunition was armour piercing.

Senior investigation officer Det Chief Supt Steve Read said: “Preliminary detailed examinations have confirmed that at least 25 rounds of 7.62mm x 39mm armour piercing ammunition was used in the murder of David King.

“I am keen to hear from members of the criminal fraternity who, although they may have a high tolerance to the use of firearms, would probably be shocked that a weapon designed for battlefield use which discharges high velocity armour piercing rounds has been used on a public street in suburban Hertfordshire.”

Really? Why? Automatic weapons are turning up in England fairly often. A submachine gun was used not so long back to gun down two young women, Charlene Ellis, 18, and Latisha Shakespear, 17, on New Year's day, and police seize "assault weapons" repeatedly in raids.

If criminals want them, they'll get them. "Easy availability" is not the problem.

Hell, in March a gang used automatic rifles and an anti-tank rocket to bust a gangster out of a Paris jail! I don't believe those are all that "easily available" in France, either.

Any News on Roderick Pritchett?

His twice-delayed trial was supposed to start on Oct. 7.

Did it? Anybody in Illinois have any news? Google is useless on this one.

What?! Someone in England Advocating RESISTANCE?!?

In the UK paper The Telegraph comes this story (registration may be required)

How to bring out the Lara Croft in you

Helen Kirwan-Taylor takes kung fu lessons and learns that the contents of her handbag can be lethal

Especially if there's a .38 in it. But not in England.

You really want to believe that Kung Fu for Girls: Self-Defence for Divas by Simon Harrison is just another violent comic book. The heroine, a sexy, Lara Croft-style character, uses stunts, such as gouging out the eyes of a psychotic-looking mugger, to defend herself.

Sadly, however, as Harrison, a second degree black belt in Shaolin Ngor Chor kung fu and full-time martial arts coach, knows, street crime - and the scenes depicted in the book - is real. According to Metropolitan Police statistics, 4,558 people were robbed of, or had their personal property snatched in August alone.

It hadn't occurred to me to learn self-defence until I witnessed a mugging from my window.

It's never real to people until it happens to THEM, for some reason.

Our neighbour was attacked at 6pm by two young boys wanting his Rolex. It was terrifying. Then, one night, we woke to find a man in our hallway. He only managed to take my husband's bike, but he left us all in a state of heightened anxiety. That same week, as a friend unloaded her shopping bags, a man attacked her from behind and stole the car.

One person, three personal stories of recent victimization. Sure is safe over there, isn't it?

It was such stories, where the victims are defenceless, that inspired Harrison to write the book. "There are no accessible martial arts books available, and certainly none specifically targeted at women," he says. Although there is a clear disclaimer at the front, each of the moves and techniques, which are given humorous names such as "Folding Villain" and "Bashing Barry", are meant to be used only after everything else has failed.

According to Harrison, the first lesson of self-defence is to use no defence at all, but to run away: "A moving target is much harder to hit."

Good advice, if you can take it.

The other best measure is to prevent the attack. "The most important weapon you can have is a preventative attitude," he says. This means paying attention to "transitional phases" - when an individual is most vulnerable. "A woman will be driving and talking on a phone. She'll open the car door, still talking, and whack, she's attacked from behind," he says.

This is called "situational awareness" - and most people go around in the state described.

Instead, the smarter move would be to: "Stay in the car and to have a good look round before you get out. Otherwise, stay in the car, where you're protected, and finish the conversation."

Muggers are usually opportunists. "If you throw an obstacle in the way of the attacker, he'll pick another victim," says Harrison. "The purpose of martial arts is to teach you to overcome the fear of violence, but not to foolish ends. If they want your watch, give it to them. Is a Rolex worth dying for?"

No, but stopping a criminal may be worth the risk of your life. That's a decision that should be left to the individual - not pre-empted by the government. After all, if he's willing to kill to steal my Rolex, his next crime might be to murder someone for one, no? And I will have not prevented a possible murderer from committing that heinous crime.

It's not a matter of equivalence, it's a matter of value. The attacker sets the value - to him my life is worth my watch. He's apparently willing to kill me to get it. Well, my life is worth considerably more than that, but he is risking his life to get it. Except in England, where the possibility of him actually getting killed or injured is almost nil because of the laws there that require the attacked to respond with "an appropriate level" of resistance. Sorry. I think three rounds from a .45 is an "appropriate level of resistance." So is kicking him in the nuts and beating him to a bloody pulp.

If preventative action fails, there are simple and effective moves to try. An obvious manoeuvre is to attack the groin - the most vulnerable part of the male anatomy. This explains why martial arts experts walk in a funny circular fashion, called circle stepping moves.

Harrison teaches me my first lesson in the park. We start with a move known as "Give Him Five". For this, you assume the guard position, with one leg in front of the other (like a boxer), and use one arm to block the assailant's arm, while using the palm of your other hand to push his head away. This is followed by a front kick to the groin and a secondary elbow attack to the side of the head.

The second position that Harrison teaches me is the "Back Seat Special". It's for use when, "You're sitting on a bench and someone wraps their arm around your neck, attempting to drag you away". This move, which is particularly vicious, again, involves using your palm to push his head back. Then, grab his nostrils, or eyes, to keep the head in place while hitting the throat with hand strikes.

Sounds effective. It'd be more effective if she had some sort of weapon in her hand. A 120 lb. woman being attacked by a 250 lb. man doesn't have much in the way of advantage.

It took me several trial runs, but once I got the hang of it, I felt invincible.

Trial runs you won't get if you're actually attacked.

Practice, practice, practice.

If you learn to protect the centre of your body - which is where an attacker generally strikes - with a combination of arm blocks and kicks, you can proceed to the more advanced moves.

Protection is not just about Bruce Lee-style stunts. Harrison has an alternative set of self-defence weapons. For example, he suggests using the "awkward little tables" in bars as a shield against flying bottles and drunken attackers. The contents of a handbag are also lethal: a mobile phone can be used to beat an attacker over the head. Keys, too, can be used as a spiky assault weapon, when held between the knuckles. Even coins have a function: you can throw them in an attacker's face as you flee. Stilettos are useful, too - the heel can be used to stomp on a shin bone.

Remember when "Stilletto" meant a long, slim-bladed knife?

Let me expound for a moment. England is suffering its high level of contact crime not because they have a handgun ban, but because the law since the 1950's has made it legally hazardous for the victim to defend himself. Use force to defend yourself and you will risk being arrested and charged with use of "excessive force." Use a weapon and you WILL be, and you'll be charged with "carrying an offensive weapon" - and even if you win, going to trial is not cheap. The law has made the population of England sheep ready to be sheared.

Here in America much moaning and writhing and gnashing of teeth occurs whenever concealed-carry legislation is proposed where the gun-phobes and the pundits claim that "arming everyone" will make the streets much more dangerous. And it never happens. The streets get safer, and not everyone is armed. Usually only a small percentage of people eligible for concealed carry get the permits. Usually only a small percentage of the permitted actually carry.

But the criminals don't know who is or who isn't armed, they just know that mugging someone might get them shot. And THAT is "an obstacle in the way of the attacker" that will cause him to choose another victim - or another occupation. Contact crimes in England are only dangerous to the victims. That must change, or their crime rates will never go down.

Perhaps now that the levels have reached the point where there are so many victims, the attitude may finally change. When it does, and someone witnesses a mugging in progress, the mugger will be attacked by everyone around, and when the Bobbies show up, there will be a mugger's bloody corpse on the ground and no one will have seen anything...

Update on the Ecodinnerswarriors Killed in Alaska

According to Yahoo! News there's an audio tape of the incident. (Oh, and Amie Huguenard was a woman, not a man, as I'd mistakenly assumed.)

"They're both screaming. She's telling him to play dead, then it changes to fighting back. He asks her to hit the bear," Hill said. "There's so much noise going on. I don't know what's him and what might be an animal."

Well, they're now "one with the bears."

Remember kids: Stupidity kills.

Or as Robert Heinlein put it: "Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, or by legislation. Stupidity is not a sin, the victim can't help being stupid. But stupidity is the only universal capital crime; the sentence is death, there is no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without pity."

Hey! I'm Voting for Kucinich in the Primary!

Jebus, this one's hilarious!

Check out Kucinich behind the podium. And where's Carol? Did she drop out while I wasn't paying attention?

(Though I'd think Clark would trump Kerry's military experience.)

Artist, Robert Ariail, of South Carolina's The State.

The SciFi Channel Weighs in on the Recall

With an Arnie double-feature: Terminator II: Judgement Day, and Total Recall

They were advertising this last night. I literally laughed out loud.

And Another One

Ravenwood illustrates again that the power to regulate is the power to prohibit.

I don't have a problem with requiring a permit for concealed-carry* - I think that the legal history indicates that the contemporaries of the Founders (original intent) would not have found this Constitutionally objectionable (a majority of them, anyway.) BUT - it does raise the specter of government denying the right to self-defense through denial of due process, which is what Ravenwood's piece illustrates.

* Open carry on the other hand should not be legally restricted. All the early court cases were quite clear on this.

More Linkage

Once again Steven Den Beste whips out the million-candlepower spotlight in his peice on media influence entitled Demonstration of Power. Excerpts:

(M)any in the media think they are, or should actually be, our true leaders. They see their job not merely to serve as the eyes and ears of the public, but also as its brain. This isn't new, of course, and when it's managed well it's valuable. When news reporting is isolated from editorializing then it works quite well.

But when the two are no longer segregated, and when there's a concerted attempt to deceive the public through deliberate selection of what to report and by deliberate distortion in how it's reported, then it actually threatens our system.

Many in the press deny that anything like this happens. Some are naive, others are disingenuous. But it's beyond dispute that it happens.

When it happens in peace, it's a problem. But when it happens in war, it can threaten the existence of the nation.

--

In yesterday's election the people of this state voiced their opinion about how their government was being run. And from Kuntzman's point of view, they said the wrong thing. It appears that he thinks this is much too important an issue to be left to the people to decide. He feels that the press failed because it didn't work hard enough on supporting Davis by trying to prevent recall, or in trying to defeat Schwarzenegger.

As always, RTWT.

Publicola On a Rant

Fellow blogger Publicola has a lot to say, and does it well in this piece. Excerpts:

Republicans. Not worth a damn. Not the individuals who call themselves republicans, but The Republican Party. Only thing worse is the Democrat Party. But not by much.

--

In D.C. we have a republican in the White House who lowered taxes. That's it. That's all he's done that the Republican Party is supposed to stand for.

Not that he's not done anything else; he just hasn’t done anything else that's supposed to be 'republican'.

--

He (& the Republican Party in general) is too devoted to the idea of government fixing all our problems. They have totally abandoned the political philosophy that set them apart from the Democrat Party. Bush may not have caused this situation himself, but he is in a position to affect a positive change. He won't.

Much more - mostly about illegal immigration. Go read. It's worth your time.

Damn, but That Man Can WRITE

Thursday's Bleat. Excerpts:

South of the WTC site is the Deutsche Bank building, now wrapped in black fabric, abandoned. There was no one here, and there were no sounds. I’ve never ever been anywhere in Manhattan where it was this quiet. No horns, no voices, no car alarms, nothing. Absolute silence. The wind had picked up, and was rippling the shroud over the DB tower. All the ripples went up. It looked as if the building was still shedding souls, and they were running beneath the thin dark blanket, looking for the way out.

--

I walked around and saw the other giants of lower Manhattan - 40 Wall, Cities Service. The Woolworth building. One after the other - giant monoliths old and new, gargantuan towers assembled in the sky by human hands, each one just another piston stroke in the motor of American commerce.

--

The men who brought down the towers did nothing more than take a hammer to the tooth of a sleeping lion. Oh, you can do that.

But you can only do it once.

--

I think this was the New York trip I wanted all those years I was a dorkboy in Fargo, reading ancient New Yorkers and wishing I could be a bitter alcoholic at the Algonquin.

Just tell us when the book comes out, James. I'll be buying it.

Five Reasons Why it ISN'T

The Consumer Federation of America (which, as far as I can tell is a bunch of trial lawyers interested in suing anyone that can make them rich) has this nifty little two-page handout on why you should support the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act. Let me fisk:

The Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act would give the Department of Justice consumer protection authority to regulate the design, manufacture, and distribution of guns and ammunition.

Right. Regulate them right out of existence.

Here are the top five reasons why this bill is good for America’s gun consumers:

1) This bill would protect gun consumers from being ripped off or injured.

Many gun consumers and bystanders have been injured or killed by defective or hazardously-designed guns. For example:

• One gun consumer took his .22 Ruger revolver with him on a fishing trip. He was sitting on a rock when the gun fell from his holster, struck a rock, and discharged. The bullet lodged in his bladder, damaging vital nerves and rendering him impotent.

The user's manual specifically recommends leaving the chamber under the hammer empty - precisely for this reason. I'd imagine that was an old-model Single-six. Gun enthusiasts know it, the instruction manual is pretty clear about it. And the manufacturer has since changed the design - voluntarily - and converted all of the older models that customers have sent in for conversion - for free. It's not the gun's fault, it's user error.

• Mike Lewy was unloading his Remington Model 700 rifle in his basement apartment. As he moved the safety to the fire position in order to lift the bolt handle to eject a chambered cartridge, the gun discharged. The bullet went through the ceiling and struck his mother, who was shot in the upper left leg and required hospitalization for more than a month.

User error again. Mike's an idiot. Rule #1 - always keep a firearm pointed in a safe direction. He didn't. Rule #5 - don't trust mechanical safeties - they can fail. He should have cleared the weapon outdoors, safely and not tried to do it where it wasn't safe.

• Carlton Norrell was changing a tire when a close friend, William Kerr, accidentally dropped his .41 Magnum Old Model revolver. The bullet struck Mr. Norrell in the temple and drilled in a straight line across the front of his skull. Mr. Norrell died eight days later.

A .41? I'm amazed he wasn't dead on the spot. These guys really have it in for Ruger single-actions, don't they? (And what's with the dropsies?) It's a design characteristic of old revolvers. ALL old revolvers. Ruger has since changed the design voluntarily (much to the disgust of purists, many of whom did not have theirs converted.) The modern copies of the Colt Single Action Army will do the same thing if you have a live round under the hammer. The transfer-bar ignition system and the hammer block are relative newcomers to gun design. Frame or hammer-mounted firing pins are found on all older revolvers (single or double-action), and there are a huge number of revolvers out there without either. It's not a design flaw, and you cannot convince me that a Federal bureaucracy would have accelerated the implementation of the design change. But this legislation could force, for example, Smith & Wesson to retrofit literally millions of old guns at their own expense, thus bankrupting the company. But we're not supposed to understand that.

This bill would give the Department of Justice authority to set safety standards; require gun manufacturers to repair, replace, recall, or refund the purchase price of defective guns; and to mandate warnings.

And the Department of Justice is qualified to set those standards, why? The gun industry already repairs, replaces, and recalls defective guns voluntarily. Read some of the gun magazines sometime. The recall notices are not common, but they are there. For example this recall of the Vektor pistol. Now THAT's a defective gun, and why the CFA didn't use it as an example is beyond me (unless, of course, no one was actually SHOT with one accidentally.) Now, why is it necessary for the Justice Department to get involved again?

This bill would also require that all guns be labeled to ensure that defective guns could be identified and traced.

They are already. By federal law all firearms are marked with a serial number that is recorded with the BATFE. But you're not supposed to know that.

Currently, the only protection gun consumers are afforded against manufacturers of defective guns is to file a lawsuit after the victim has been injured or killed.

Excuse me, but isn't that "the only protection" consumers have for defective products now? You're not changing anything except adding another layer of bureaucracy on top. But that's the point, isn't it?

2) This bill would provide gun consumers with much-needed information.

Currently there exists no coordinated data collection on gun injuries and deaths that includes vital information such as the specific type of gun, caliber and source. This legislation would create a Firearms Violence Information and Research Clearinghouse to collect and analyze data regarding gun-related death and injury. This kind of data is essential to identify guns that are exceptionally likely to be involved in gun-related injury or death, and to notify gun consumers of the risks associated with such guns.

Yes, I'm sure that would be it's only purpose. Let's spend a few hundred million to find out that most gun deaths are attributable to old Smith & Wesson .38's and inexpensive 9mm automatics (homicide and suicide), and that most accidental gun deaths are hunting related. That'll be swell.

3) This bill would give gun consumers a voice in the regulatory process.

Currently, gun consumers have no say in the few voluntary standards developed by the industry. This legislation gives gun consumers a voice in the regulatory process by allowing them to petition the Attorney General of the Justice Department to amend or enforce specific regulations.

Um, I'm a "gun consumer" and the last thing I want is a bill allowing the general public "a voice in the regulatory process." We're outnumbered by the general population and this is an open door to regulating firearms out of existence. Maryland, for example, is doing exactly that with its performance requirements that restrict what guns can be sold there. The requirements have cause Beretta, for example, to stop selling there. You know - Beretta. The company that makes the sidearm carried by US military forces worldwide. Not safe enough for Maryland.

4) This bill would shield gun consumers from unreasonably unsafe products.

Currently, no federal agency has the authority to ban firearms technology that poses an unreasonable threat to gun consumers and the public. The bill authorizes the Department of Justice to ban the manufacture and transfer of specific guns and related products only if the agency determines that no other remedy would prevent unreasonable risk of injury.

(Deep breath:)THEY'RE FIREARMS! THEY ARE DEVICES DESIGNED TO HURL SMALL METAL PROJECTILES AT HIGH VELOCITY IN THE GENERAL DIRECTION THE BARREL IS POINTED! Now, define "unreasonably unsafe." I'd imagine that, for the Department of Justice, that would eventually end up meaning "going BANG! when the trigger is pulled."

Currently, gun manufacturers get around federal limits by cosmetically altering restricted guns to pass a basic “sporting purposes” test. This bill authorizes the Department of Justice to set uniform standards for guns with legitimate sporting purposes to distinguish them from guns prone for criminal use, such as modified assault weapons.

THERE we go! Let me translate that for you: "The legislature wasn't able to pass a bill that really outlawed those eeeeevil assault weapons, so we need to set up a bureaucracy that can, without legislative oversight, ban any gun they decide looks too eeeeeevil. " For instance, the recently introduced Smith & Wesson X-frame .500 S&W Magnum revolver that got so many gun-grabbers panties in a wad would be fodder for this kind of "uniform standards" restriction.

5) This bill would safeguard access to guns with legitimate sporting purposes.

And last I checked, the Second Amendment doesn't say a damned thing about "sporting purposes."

Just say "NO" to the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act. It's not about safety, and it's not about protecting firearm consumers. It's about restricting the right to arms some more.

That Reminds Me of a Joke

The Darwin Award post below reminds me of a joke I heard a while back. Seems that the Yellowstone Park Service made up a handout for hikers in the park that went a little something like this:

Advisory to Hikers

Yellowstone National Park is home to a wide variety of wildlife, some of which can be dangerous to hikers. Yellowstone has a significant population of two species of bear: the American Black Bear (Ursus americanus) and the Grizzly (Ursus arctos horribilis). Normally these bears will avoid people, but there are several practices the Park Service recommends to hikers to reduce the chance and the severity of an encounter.

STAY ON THE TRAILS - Bears tend to avoid the marked trail areas.

SCENT Bears are attracted to scent, so:

1) Dispose of all foodstuffs and wrappings in airtight containers, and preferably dispose of them in the Park provided bear-proof trash recepticles. If in primitive camping areas, burn or bury the materials rather than carry them on your person.

2) Refrain from wearing perfume or cologne when on the trail, and don't chew gum.

An encounter with a bear may result in an attack if the bear is startled or if young cubs are present. To reduce the possibility of surprising a bear, the park recommends attaching small bells to your boot laces. The unnatural noise of the bells may alert bears (which have an acute sense of hearing) that you are in the area, and they should avoid you.

DEFENSE IN CASE OF ATTACK

The National Park Service prohibits visitors from carrying firearms for self-protection. If attack seems imminent, the use of oleoresin capsicum sprays (pepper sprays) can be effective.

Do not run. Bears are much faster than humans and they can run you down.

Do not attempt to climb a tree. Bears climb better than humans as well, and can be quite tall when standing upright.

DROP TO THE GROUND AND PLAY DEAD - it is your best chance to avoid serious injury or death. If you do not appear to be a threat, the bear may leave you alone.

BEAR SIGN

If, while hiking, you come across bear spoor it may be helpful if you can identify what type of bear is in your vicinity. Using a stick or similar instrument, break up the spoor and identify the contents. Black bear spoor may contain partially digested berries, insect parts, and vegitation. Grizzly bear spoor may contain small bells and smell like pepper.

Hmmmm....

Read this.

Anthrax vaccine worse than getting the disease?