Target acquired. Ron gets some jabs in on Mr. Vitello:

Yesterday, Vitello published another column, this time covering the deluge of reader feedback. However, instead of merely correcting his errors and issuing a mea culpa, Vitello tries to don the persona of a persecuted victim of the gun lobby. Big mistake there, Paul.

Chuck addresses Alabama’s Eminent Domain of the Month (it seems to occur that often).

Tommy is still trying to solve the mystery of who or what is going around killing all the world’s oldest people.

So, that DC sniper guy has been sentenced to death, again. Didn’t a jury do that already? And shouldn’t juries (you know, the people) decide? I’m obviously not up on my sentencing laws.

A gay couple in Chattanooga got hitched in San Francisco. They went to their DMV to renew their licenses and were denied. On the bright side:

The openly gay couple say they have encountered no criticism or ugly reactions to their February 23rd marriage or the publicity they have generated.

A program is going to start to teach kids about gun safety in school. Good. Sadly, most adults don’t talk about guns around their children. This can be fatal.

Update: A second school is doing it too.

An article in the news that states what the Assault Weapons Ban is really about:

The debate is not really about so-called “assault weapons.” It’s about banning guns. It’s about gun prohibitionists searching for the easiest target of opportunity. They’re going after guns claiming, without a shred of credible evidence, that these guns are the “weapons of choice” of criminals. It’s a lie. A day after Clinton signed his gun-banning crime bill into law, a Washington Post editorial admitted: “Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.”

That about nails it.

I recently saw this story about a Nashville filmmaker who thinks the Apollo moon landings were fake. I’ve met two such people before; in fact, they were from Murfreesboro, TN.

They spent about an hour explaining to me all the evidence: how some of the pictures were suspicious, how the astronauts wouldn’t have survived passing through the Van Allen belts, and all kinds of stuff.

It still seems unlikely to me that it was a hoax. I mean, surely the Russians would have said something. Right?

So, yeah, I’m pretty sure our guys made it the moon. Or did they?

Even among people who support a right to keep and bear arms, there is still room for debate on the details, including the following two parameters:
1) Who should NOT be allowed to keep and bear arms?
2) What steps shall be taken to make it so?

Most “common sense” answers to #1 are children, criminals, people with mental problems, and lately the villains du jour: terrorists. The answer to #2 varies quite a bit, and usually includes such things as mandatory child-safety devices, background checks, and even outright bans on the villains’ “weapon of choice.” I’d like to examine these in some detail and engender some discussion.

First, take children. Now, I think it’s possible to make the case that children need guns more than ANYBODY. After all, should a child be threatened by an adult (say a criminal or a terrorist), the child is at a serious physical disadvantage. Nothing like an “equalizer” when your attacker is twice your size. I’m willing to concede that giving very young children access to firearms is not a good idea. However, after a certain age, I’d say that most children, given the proper training, could be trusted to use firearms safely and responsibly.

Let’s just say, for the sake of argument, that children younger than 16 (to choose a completely arbitrary age that just happens to be a common legal driving age) shall, by law, not be allowed to use firearms unless under the supervision of an adult. Now, is it sufficient to pass such a law, or must we also take proactive measures, such as requiring all firearms to be sold with a “child-safety device,” or requiring that all firearms in a home be stored using such a device, with all ammunition locked away separately? To what lengths should we go?

We currently have laws prohibiting the purchase and consumption of alcohol by children (and adults under 21—that’s a topic for another day). Should the government require that six-packs of beer be sold with a “child-safety device?” Should parents be required to store their alcohol in a lock-box? We also have laws prohibiting children under the age of 16 (in many states) from driving on public roads. Should we require that cars, when parked, be de-fueled, with the fuel stored under lock in a separate location?

Yes, yes, analogy is always suspect, but I’m trying to make a point: we wouldn’t accept such micromanagement from the State in our other affairs; why should we accept it when the issue is guns?

All right, that’s a good start for now. I’ll see how this one goes over before I move on.

Phelps is one unique link away from becoming a large mammal. So, someone link that man.

Bloggers, pundits, and letters get results. Mr. Vitello has issued some corrections to his factually inaccurate article that I addressed here. He did issue them in that smarmy, condescending way that lets you know he was beaten. Some key quotes:

“Personally, I think you are a dumb –, but as long as you are fighting against the freedoms of all Americans, I wouldn’t have you any other way.”

“I once heard that it is better to remain quiet and seem a fool than speak and remove all doubt. Never have those words been more accurate”

“When you only tell half a story it’s the same as lying

My favorite:

The letters and e-mails were angry and contemptuous and, I regret to say, too well-written for my taste.

All this could have been avoided with a modicum of research. But then again when one actually researches the gun issue, one finds that gun control doesn’t work.

So, hats off to you Mr. Vitello. Sure, you’re a smarmy, condescending prick in defeat but you admitted your errors. For that, you have my respect.

Update: Oh my! Kevin is not at all enthused and trashes Vitello some more.

Manish is hopping on the bandwagon and looking for a co-blogger or two. If interested, check him out.

Kevin, who is on a roll lately just go here and scroll, tears one of those law enforcement guys a new one.

He’s pulling out the selected not elected, tinfoil hat stuff.

Ravenwood tells the tale of the NRA siding with gun control and blaming libertarians. Note, in light of my earlier post, I am playing nice. I criticize the action but am not doomsaying the NRA.

I haven’t read the entire Iraqi constitution that was referenced here, but I saw another website with some info on it. It looks like the Iraqis also aren’t free from unwarranted searches and seizures. Additionally, the entire tone is not of presumptive rights (like our Constitution, which assumes the rights exist and limits government infringement upon them) but the tone is entirely what is and isn’t allowed:

It shall not be permitted to possess, bear, buy, or sell arms except on licensure issued in accordance with the law.

Not permitted?

And that whole Islam is the official religion nonsense?

And my favorite:

The individual has the right to security, education, health care, and social security.

I guess Kucinich is campaigning there. Iraq is in trouble.

The Director of KABA, Angel Shamaya, has an essay on what the NRA has done in support of gun control. He details the hand the NRA played in allowing the 1994 Ban to become law. He is right that the NRA has forsaken gun owners in the past but this needs to stop.

Gun owners need to be united in the gun control issue. There can’t be the division of all these factions that oppose each other. GOA, KABA and the NRA are fighting the same fight. Obviously, some of those groups are more willing to compromise than others.

Gun owners have been divided for a long time.

The hunters vs. the competition shooters: You’ve heard hunters say no one needs an AR15 because politicians get them to say that. This is dividing the gun owners.

The sportsmen vs. the handgunners: There are many hunters and sportsmen who have come out against handguns, after all you don’t need one.

Now, it’s the heavily compromising NRA vs. the uncompromising gun owners, both of which will sell the other down the river in a moment.

If this division continues, we will lose. Yes, I have issues with the NRA (someone asked me why I don’t link to them recently) but the fact is they are the gun lobby that congress listens to. You need to make the NRA aware of your position and when you disagree with them. And by all means keep an eye on them. But do not get so carried away at destroying their credibility that you harm the greater cause.

From here, although I’m sure it’s available elsewhere:

Article 17.

It shall not be permitted to possess, bear, buy, or sell arms except on licensure issued in accordance with the law.

This is one reason I would fear a movement for a Constitutional Convention in this country.

UPDATE: Here is the official (I guess) site:
http://www.iraqcoalition.org/government/TAL.html

Mrs. Uncle caught a part of an episode of Scare Tactics. This is a Shannon Doherty vehicle wherein they play pranks inspired by science-fiction and horror films. Such pranks will feature “victims” in situations involving haunted houses, alien abductions and more.

Apparently, the wife saw ads for pranks about attempted kidnapping. Work with me, here. Hypothetical situation: SayUncle is crashing on his couch watching The Sopranos (last night’s episode wasn’t all that, by the way) when the dogs start raising hell. SayUncle tells his dogs That’ll do, which is the command for stop barking but they continue. SayUncle investigates and sees people congregating around his windows. SayUncle retrieves his Glock 30 and, about that time, the kidnapping joke starts. They bust in my window. I guess you can see where I’m going with this. Next day’s headline reads Local Man Takes Out Actor and Three Cameramen.

Dumb idea. Accident waiting to happen. You’ve been warned.

Update: Who am I kidding? It’s the media, the headline would read Local Man Shoots Cameramen; Pit Bull Mastiff Mauls Actor; SUV Kills Sound Tech.

And what about lawsuits?

Jeff has the weekly check on gun bias up.

This article says:

A woman had the clothes and flesh ripped from her body trying to stop a pit bull mastiff savaging her two-year-old niece.

I have heard of pit bulls and I have heard of bull mastiffs. I have never heard of a pit bull mastiff. Anyone out there confirmed this new breed? Or is it just hype in the media?

First, it was libertarian movies at Heretical Ideas and Hit & Run. Now, it’s libertarian songs over at the Volokh’s.

My vote for movie was Open Range. It is conflicting as it sets two libertarian ideals against one another. Property rights (the land owning rancher) vs. right to defend a way of life (the free-grazers).

For a song, going to pick Megadeth’s Peace Sells, with lyrics like:

What do you mean, “I don’t support your system”?
I go to court when I have to.

and

What do you mean, “I couldn’t be president, of the United States of America”?
Tell me something, it’s still “We the people”, right?

Cool! Here and here.

Said Cheney recently:

“The Administration takes this development seriously. Botox, of course, is related to the botulism toxin, which can be processed into high-grade biological weapons. We have dispatched Dr. David Kay . . . to search for the bio-warfare agents we believe hidden in Senator Kerry’s forehead. If Senator Kerry has used botox as part of a wrinkle enrichment program, he is in violation of U.N. Resolution 752. Upon receiving Dr. Kay’s report, the weapons of mass destruction that Senator Kerry so adamantly insists do not exist . . . may well be above his very nose.”

To which Kerry responded Oh yeah, your daughter’s gay.

This article about the NRA opposing the assault weapons ban contains this quote:

The NRA’s unyielding opposition to laws regulating firearms is based on the oft-heard claim that such laws violate the Second Amendment. This claim has absolutely no legal basis, however. The U.S. Supreme Court addressed the meaning of the Second Amendment 65 years ago in United States vs. Miller (1939). In that case, the court held that the “obvious purpose” of the amendment was to “assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of” the state militia. Since that time, nearly 200 appellate courts have considered Second Amendment challenges to gun laws. Not one of those challenges has been successful. Nonetheless, the NRA relentlessly argues that gun ownership is an individual constitutional “right.”

Obvious purpose? Go to the text of US v. Miller and you get:

With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made.

Miller also states:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

And the United States Code tells us that:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are –

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia

And the misleading assertion that 200 cases have challenged gun laws have not been successful may be on the surface true. But many of those cases have stated that there is an individual right to arms. Such as, US v. Emerson. Even the Emerson case concludes that Miller is unclear.

Despite what Juliet Leftwich thinks, we the people are the militia and we can own military weapons.

Spoons points out that we gun bloggers are lacking in our duty over at the Shooters’ Carnival. So, let’s have it guys.

Otherwise I’d be blogging up a storm, you bet.

Hope everybody’s weekend turned out as nice as ours did.

UPDATE: Me and my big mouth….

SEVERE THUNDERSTORM WARNING UNTIL 845 PM EST

A SEVERE THUNDERSTORM CAN PRODUCE LARGE DAMAGING HAIL… DAMAGING WINDS IN EXCESS OF 58 MPH… DEADLY LIGHTNING… AND VERY HEAVY RAIN. GO INSIDE A STURDY SHELTER. MOVE TO AN INTERIOR ROOM AND STAY AWAY FROM WINDOWS.

This time, it’s about the evil gun shows. Kevin has the scoop.

He’s a hoss when he wants to be. Otherwise, he’s generally goofy. 70 pounds of pure muscle and affection. This is my dog, not Petey from The Little Rascals.

After running some errands, we decide we’re going to grill out this evening. In between errands, my job is to replace the burner on the gas grill. I run to Home Depot and get the part. Then get out the old toolbox for some work. I hook the burner up with no problem.

I notice a wire hanging from my grill. Curious, I grasp the wire and realize that it is connected to the grill. For whatever reason, I decide that I need to check the starter button while holding the wire. I now know the way a starter works is that the button sends a minor electric charge through the wire that ignites the gas for the grill. Turns out, my starter is broken. I was holding the wire in my hand, hit the button and Zzzzt! Not smart.

Household appliances: 1
SayUncle: 0