CCRKBA has filed a complaint against the Brady Campaign and the Million Er Twenty Four Mom March for lying in their advertisements:

“Since at least three national law enforcement or police organizations, the American Federation of Police & Concerned Citizens, the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, and the National Association of Chiefs of Police, did not provide such support,” wrote Snyder, “it is evident that the Center has engaged in deceptive advertising.”

Maybe they can take on the VPC’s supposed studies next?

Congrats to The Comedian for his mention in Time Magazine.

ABC News:

Information on passengers who took a commercial flight within the United States in June will be turned over to the government so it can test a new system for identifying potential terrorists.

I don’t think there were any attacks in June so how exactly will that data test the system?

People will have a chance to tell the government what they think about the plan during a 30-day comment period, federal officials said on Tuesday.

Ok, I’ll start. It’s an unnecessary invasion of privacy; it has already cost $103M; it will cost much, much more to keep going; and it will not prevent a single terror attack.

How was that?

In other news, Blount County has adult oriented businesses? It seems after public outcry (which probably consisted of ten people from a church), my fair county is making an attempt at regulating such businesses. And by regulate, I’m sure they mean put out of business:

Adult entertainment businesses in Blount County will now be regulated by a local board.

In its first meeting, Blount County’s Adult-Oriented Establishment Board selected a chairman and reviewed the application process prospective business owners will have to follow under state law.

The county’s unlicensed businesses owners will have 120 days to apply. That will include two adult-oriented businesses now operating in Blount County, one on U.S. 411 and the other on East Lamar Alexander Parkway.

The deadline for existing businesses to file will be Jan. 5, 2005.

One business, Sunshyne Video Two, prompted community protest and led to Blount County Commissioners adoption on Sept. 9 of the Adult-Oriented Registration Act of 1998 and approval of a five-member board to regulate adult-oriented businesses.

Committee members also wrestled with which county offices should give out the license applications and who would take them once completed.

Keith McCord, an attorney and the committee’s new chairman, said the application process is 30 days long. Applications are reviewed by the Blount County’s Sheriff’s Office in the first 20 days, and the committee has 10 days to review and vote on the application.

The committee settled on the Blount County mayor’s office as the location to distribute and receive the applications.

Quote:

In my opinion the reason for the assault weapons ban can be summed like this: These guns look scary.

This is perhaps the dumbest breed specific legislation I have ever seen and I think all BSL is stupid:

It is now illegal to have more than one pit bull at a location in the city of Tiffin for more than 90 days.

Tiffin City Council approved an ordinance to limit one pit bull – full or or mixed breed – per household, giving the owner three months to find another home for puppies.

Why? Because . . .

Tiffin Police Chief David LaGrange said D’Andre Woods of Tiffin was charged twice with letting pit bulls run loose. He said the second charge, a felony, is pending in the Seneca County Common Pleas court.

And somehow that law will solve the problem? More proof that the desired impact of a law is the appearance of doing something rather than, you know, actually doing something.

Have we gone too far? I’d say the answer is yes:

Gun control is the ultimate extension of the “government-as-parent” scenario which posits that Americans are either too stupid or too ignorant to take care of themselves. While I won’t argue that our nation is plagued with an overabundance of idiocy, it is not the responsibility of the government to baby-sit everyone and make sure they don’t stick a fork in a light socket.

Such a mentality towards gun regulation only punishes the average citizen by depriving themselves of the right to defend their person and their property. Criminals aren’t likely to care about where they find their firearms because, hey, they’re criminals. When they rob a store the last thing they’re worried about is whether or not their handgun is licensed.

Yet that reaction is what we’ve come to expect from our society. When one lone nutjob storms into a school and kills five people, public outcry doesn’t lay blame on the criminal who committed the crime, it lands on the society that gave him free access to a semi-automatic weapon and the legislators who, despite campaign promises to the contrary, cannot see the future and foretell every human tragedy that will ever occur in his or her jurisdiction.

This article on manly men running for office says:

The powerhouse lobbying group in the race is the National Rifle Association, which has nearly 4 million members and a $20 million budget for ads and other political activities. The group is running a 30-minute infomercial about Bush and Kerry on local network affiliates in seven or eight battleground states.

The NRA, which has endorsed Bush, calls Kerry “the most anti-gun presidential nominee in United States history” because of his votes for gun-control legislation. Kerry supports mandatory child-safety locks on handguns; Bush does not. Bush would protect gunmakers from liability lawsuits; Kerry would not. Kerry and Bush both would close a loophole that lets people buy guns at gun shows without a background check. Kerry voted for the 10-year ban on certain assault weapons that expired this month; Bush said he would sign an extension but did not lobby Congress to send him one.

The infomercial is anti-Kerry. I don’t know that it is pro-Bush. And, to my knowledge, the NRA hasn’t endorsed Bush yet.

Speaking of, a while back I pledged that if the ban sunsets, I’ll join the NRA. I guess I should probably do that now.

Sure, it’s not a significant operational link, but how long before the New York Times draws us a handy little chart/map detailing the relationship between CBS and the Kerry campaign?

Update: that was fast.

Earlier, I ragged the claim that DC’s gun laws were effective because DC is the murder capital of the world. I was wondering how the anti-gun folks could possibly spin that. Turns out, they did:

The effectiveness of the District’s current ban on handgun possession is demonstrated by the fact that virtually none of the guns used in crime in the District originated here.

You’ve got to be kidding me. Yes, they do think people are stupid.

Go to Kevin’s, who is asking people to contact their congressmen to urge the repeal of DC’s ridiculous gun laws ban.

Alphie deals with the prevalence of crimes with rifles in New York. I wonder why that report is unpublished?

The latest media kerfuffle is the allegation that CBS News and the Democratic National Committee staged a coordinated attack against the President. Kerry Spot is trumpeting the dump Kerry angle.

Said the White House:

The fact that CBS News would coordinate with the most senior levels of Sen. Kerry’s campaign to attack the president is a stunning and deeply troubling revelation

No wonder there are reports (from Drudge, so take it for what it’s worth) that the Bush admin is calling for a CBS moderator to be removed from the debate.

I think today marks the first time I have seen more articles against the assault weapons ban than for it. A few examples:

Good little read on the politics involved and some truth about the ban:

Slipping in the polls, Senator John Kerry deceitfully accuses President George Bush of not pushing for an extension of the 1994 federal ban on so-called “assault weapons,” which has just expired. Bush deceitfully responds that he supported the ban’s extension and would have signed it but for Congress’s failure to pass it. Both Kerry’s and Bush’s statements are half-truths calculated to mislead voters.

It has been clear for many months that Congress would not bring the extension of the “assault weapon” (AW) ban up for a vote. Neither Congress, the Democrats, nor Bush were willing to make this a major policy issue for the same two reasons. The first reason is purely political.

In the election two months after the AW ban was originally enacted in September of 1994, gun-owners were so successful in retaliating against its supporters (mostly Democrats) that the Republicans gained control of Congress for the first time in 50 years. Then in the 2000 election, Al Gore lost his own state, Tennessee, and had close contests in others, because gun-owners viewed the Democrats as anti-gun.

[snip]

The second reason for non-support of the extension of the ban is that there is no such thing as an assault weapon. This is why the courts have regularly held ”assault weapons” bans as unconstitutionally vague unless specific guns or features are named.

Anti-gun advocates have confessed that they deliberately used the term “assault weapon” to confuse people into thinking that semi-automatic civilian firearms are the same as assault rifles (i.e., machine gun-type weapons that are used by the military and have long been illegal to manufacture and sell to civilians). In fact, armies don’t use AWs because, being only civilian-type arms, they are far less lethal than actual assault rifles.

Just go read the whole thing. It’s good to see the point many bloggers make actually in the press.

Another truthful article about the ban:

Only evil people purposely use weapons against their fellow citizens. Primitive Stone Age tribes were afraid of things such as curses, spells and black magic whatnot. But they did not know any better. We do. Or at least we should.

One of the most absurd gun-grabber advertisements opposing the end of the assault weapons ban featured Osama bin Laden with the caption “Terrorists of 9-11 can hardly wait for 9-13.”

Presumably, terrorists are just as law-abiding as you and I.

Bin Laden probably had every “i” dotted and every “t” crossed on his application forms to purchase the guns. He probably spent the night before the ban ended camped out outside a gun store to be first in line to exercise his re-won Second Amendment right.

How stupid do they think we are?

They (and the press) obviously think people are quite stupid about the ban. Actually, the press is probably just stupid too.

Finally, this one:

Last week, the ten-year-old Federal assault weapons ban expired amid much hype from gun opponents and the national media that the law’s disappearance would suddenly escalate gun-related crime in America. These alarmists claims ring hollow when one looks at the actual facts about the gun ban. The U.S. House leadership has already made it clear that this weapons law will not be renewed.

Gun rights opponents have long made no secret about their intent to limit Americans’ ability to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms. Any way they can block gun access and ownership is a victory for them and a defeat for law-abiding citizens who wish to have guns for their own protection and recreation. The 1994 Federal assault weapons ban is a classic example of why gun control does nothing to stop violent crime.

Yup.

Craig has abandoned his effort at repealing the DC gun ban, for now:

Idaho Republican Sen. Larry E. Craig announced yesterday that he has abandoned a bid to seek a repeal of D.C. gun laws in a Senate committee, and Senate GOP leaders indicated that they did not have time to get bogged down in a debate over gun limits in the weeks before Congress adjourns for the fall elections.

Craig dropped his effort as opponents of the proposed repeal, including parents of District residents killed by gunfire, lobbied senators and held a news conference on Capitol Hill. A similar proposal has been introduced in the House and has more than enough co-sponsors to pass that chamber.

This quote caught my eye as well:

“If the U.S. Capitol can be handgun-free, why can’t we?” asked Hannah Hawkins, director of the Children of Mine Center, a youth services agency in Anacostia.

And how’s that working out for DC? Not good.

The Saratogian:

Last week’s lapse of the 10-year federal ban on assault weapons is great news — for people who make and sell the weapons and for gangs and criminals who get a thrill out of military-style weapons.

Police, who are the usual target of such weapons, are not so happy.

Most cops I know think the ban was a bunch of crap. Additionally, cops are twice as likely to be shot by their own handgun than an assault weapon.

There is absolutely no reason on earth for those weapons to be legal anywhere in the United States.

The ban had nothing to do with allowing people to hunt or own handguns. Rather, it banned weapons that police don’t want on the streets. The International Association of Chiefs of Police, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers and the Fraternal Order of Police all wanted the ban to continue.

Are implying that these are machine guns? Otherwise these weapons are identical in function to any semi-automatic rifle.

This one is just a bunch of outright lies:

Thanks to the end of the U.S. ban on assault weapons, I now am legally able to own a “Street Sweeper” or a “Striker 12” revolving-cylinder semiautomatic shotgun.

Lie number one. Revolving cylinder shotguns are regulated as destructive devices and subject to the same regulation as machine guns.

The guns, as the Associated Press explained last week, are among 19 types of military-style assault weapons previously outlawed in the United States. No longer am I limited by law to 10 rounds — 10 shots at it worries me what — and I’m also allowed to own a firearm that has a bayonet mount.

Lie number two. The weapons were never outlawed, just prevented from manufacture. The ban also did not affect military-style assault weapons. The ban only impacted semi-automatic guns (one shot per pull of the trigger) that looked like military-style assault weapons.

Let Gary Brown know he’s full of it.

The push for renewal is upon us.

Drug War rant gives some good advice: Know your rights. He also gives you resources to determine what those rights are.

I’ll repeat my advice on this issue from a while back: Keep your mouth shut.

From this:

I have seen more inaccurate stories about the 1994 “ban,” both before it was enacted and now that it has met its well-deserved demise, than any other such issue in recent memory. Most of the inaccuracies seem to stem from a general lack of understanding about the ban and firearms in general. Before the 1994 ban, the term “semi-automatic assault weapon” had previously been used only as a slang term by gun control advocates to describe any weapon they simply didn’t like the looks of. Such a definition only became an “official class” of firearms after the ban was adopted in 1994.

This article discusses Kerry’s attempt at courting both sides of the gun issue:

Democrats in West Virginia know that many of their state’s voters guard their gun rights jealously, and that their fear in 2000 that Al Gore was out to take their weapons — stoked by Republicans and the National Rifle Association — helped seal the former vice president’s defeat.

Then later in the same piece:

Last week in Washington, Kerry attacked President Bush for failing to push for an extension of the federal assault-weapons ban, a measure that gun rights groups have fiercely opposed. The Massachusetts Democrat had rarely mentioned his support for gun control laws until the ban was about to lapse, aware that many members of his own party who represent rural areas oppose such restrictions.

Kerry has worked aggressively to stake out a centrist position on the gun issue. He has been outspoken about his own experience with guns — going pheasant hunting with a local sheriff in Iowa last year, forming a group in April called Sportsmen for Kerry, and putting forth a “Sportsman’s Bill of Rights.” That list includes support for gun rights, easier access to hunting areas, and environmental measures to preserve wildlife.

I don’t find it odd that centrists favor gun control because most people don’t know what current gun laws are. For example, they think the assault weapons ban affected machine guns when it doesn’t. The article shows Kerry’s attempt to walk the line on gun control, which, for the most part, pro-gun folks aren’t going to buy. After all, anti-gunners claim their views are moderate. Meanwhile, this article asks if Kerry has just given up on appealing to gun folk:

Why on earth would John Kerry make his inaccurate, indeed, nonsensical comments about the ”consquences” of the expiration of the ”assault weapons” ban and President Bush’s decision to let it expire? Perhaps he has simply given up on trying to convince those who believe in our constitutional right to own fireams that he is one of them. That’s the opinion of Kimberley A. Strassel, writing in The Wall Street Journal (sic).

Strassel says that no one has worked harder than Kerry to neutralize the gun issue, which worked against Democrats in the last election. But no one seems to be buying his act–that he supports gun rights, identifies with hunters, and is not your typical liberal, who thinks (or, perhaps, feels is the better word) that gun ownership automatically makes someone an irrational, rednecked, and about-to-run-berserk and shoot-up the neighborhood post office.

Also, a gun law expert examining the Kerry shotgun kerfuffle concludes:

. . . accepting a gift shotgun from a private party out of his home state would be a five-year federal felony for Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, the Democratic candidate for President [see United States Code, section 922(a)(9)]. Giving him the gun would also be a felony [922(a)(5)].

Additionally, the Kerry campaign reports that Kerry returned the shotgun to the person who bought it (even though no one seems to be able to say where the shotgun currently is). No crime, just insincere political pandering.

First, the good. There is some reform in eminent domain law in New York:

Nearly four years after a Port Chester property owner went to court to challenge New York state’s rules for taking private property, Gov. George Pataki has signed a law reforming condemnation procedures.

The new law means property owners in New York no longer need to pore over tiny legal notices, searching for clues of government plans to take their land; governments will need to notify each property owner by certified mail or personal delivery.

The eminent domain law reform was signed Tuesday by the governor and was announced by his office yesterday.

It grew out of a battle by Bill Brody, a 42-year-old businessman from Rye, to hold onto four sites in Port Chester’s downtown redevelopment area.

“I’m very glad that the governor agreed with what I have been saying all along and that the state is going in the right direction,” he said yesterday in front his building-supply business in the Bronx.

Brody said he never saw the condemnation plan announcement in a July 1999 legal notice, which neither named him nor identified his Port Chester property by address. Because of that, Brody said, he failed to challenge the condemnation in the 30-day period allowed.

Now, the bad. This article equates eminent domain with despotism:

The U.S. Constitution, properly construed by a vigilant Supreme Court, prevents untrammeled power, which is the definition of despotism. But the human propensity for abusing power — a propensity the Constitution’s unsentimental framers understood and tried to shackle with prudent language — is perennial. There always are people trying to carve crevices in constitutional terminology to allow scope for despotism. Such carving is occurring in Connecticut.

Soon — perhaps on the first Monday in October — the court will announce whether it will hear an appeal against a 4 to 3 ruling last March by Connecticut’s Supreme Court. That ruling effectively repeals a crucial portion of the Bill of Rights. If you think the term “despotism” exaggerates what this repeal permits, consider the life-shattering power wielded by the government of New London, Conn.

That city, like many cities, needs more revenue. To enhance the Pfizer pharmaceutical company’s $270 million research facility, it empowered a private entity, the New London Development Corp., to exercise the power of eminent domain to condemn most of the Fort Trumbull neighborhood along the Thames River. The aim is to make space for expensive condominiums, a luxury hotel and private offices that would yield the city more tax revenue than can be extracted from the neighborhood’s middle-class homeowners.

Given the Supreme Court’s recent travesties, I’m not particularly hopeful or encouraged by the fact they may visit the issue. They could surprise me, though.

Per this:

California authorities worry more powerful firearms will eventually make their way into the state — despite the state’s outlaw on a large number of assault weapons.

The state’s ban remains active after a federal ban on 19 types of assault weapons expired this week.

But with a thriving underworld gun trade and with the weapons legally available for residents of nearby states, officials predict it won’t be long before the powerful firearms end up on California streets.

The ban doesn’t impact weapons that are more powerful. I don’t understand why Californians are shocked to learn that criminals may break the law.

A sort of dorky solution to the almost non-existent problem of crimes committed with assault weapons:

I am a pro-gun conservative, yet agree that assault weapons are designed for one purpose and, because of that, do not belong in everyone’s hands.

In keeping our choices free, while keeping the public safe, we need another option. Let’s make the punishment fit the crime. A handgun crime gives an automatic 10 years. Let’s make it 20 years for an assault weapon.

Even pro-gun conservatives don’t understand the ban and its impact.

More on that evil gun lobby:

On Sept. 13, the Republicans chose to allow the assault weapon ban to expire. Once again the Republicans chose their powerful friends in the gun lobby over the police officers and the families they promised to protect. The Republicans made the wrong choice.

We now have an administration that makes the choice to take cops off the streets with one hand, while putting assault weapons back on the streets with the other.

Ten years ago a tough crime bill was passed to protect America. They made sure that criminals couldn’t get their hands on assault weapons. There were record drops in violent crime all over America, including gang violence and school-related murders. We saw assault weapon-related crimes drop 65 percent.

So many asinine statements in the last paragraph. Criminals could still get their hands on assault weapons and the ban has been shown to have no effect on crime according to the NIJ and the CDC.

It also looks as though a few news sources are addressing the fact the ban doesn’t do what people think it does. This article says:

A 10-year-old ban on assault weapons expired last week with barely any effect on people in central Wisconsin, gun salesman say.

The public has the wrong perception of what the ban meant, said Paul Miller, manager of Bull’s Eye Sports in Marshfield. Many people think they can walk into a gun shop now and see machine guns for sale, but that’s not the case, he said.

The federal ban halted the production of high-capacity magazines for weapons. The magazines hold 70 to 80 rounds of ammunition, instead of about 10, Miller said. Miller does expect the sale of the high-capacity magazines to increase in the next few weeks.

Steve Neve, owner of Steve’s Sport Shop in Wisconsin Rapids, said he received calls about assault weapons last week.

“We actually got a lot of calls from collectors who want to get them before the ban is reinstated,” Neve said.
Assault weapons or magazines manufactured before the ban went into effect could still be sold, Miller said. However, people have been getting higher prices for them than when they could be manufactured. Assault weapons similar to the banned ones were still being manufactured.

I’ve seen quite a few articles doing this lately. I find it odd that it’s after the ban that the press is picking up on it. Here’s another:

The ban merely redefined “assault weapons” as those semi-automatic firearms with certain military-style features resembling fully automatic machine guns. Only looks were prohibited. A grandfather clause even exempted firearms manufactured prior to the 1994 date. The ban simply regulated their appearance in future manufacturing and did nothing to stop the drug dealers and gang bangers from using their illegal assault weapons in the streets — as opponents of the ban accurately predicted.

The fact is that all semi-automatic firearms use the same technology that’s been around since the 19th century, when the first such mechanisms were designed. The forces of expanding gases from a fired cartridge cycle the action and load the next bullet to be fired. Because of this action, “semi-autos” also are called several names such as gas-operated, self-loaders, autoloaders or just plain automatics for short. The trigger has to be pulled each time a shot is fired.

It is quite sad that you have to explain to people what the ban really does because they can’t get that info in the mainstream press.

Jason details a teacher who was arrested for having a dangerous bookmark at the airport. Stuff like this and taking tweezers from people is a major annoyance that will not stop terror attacks.

The Geek reminds of that at least one gun manufacturer has the stones to stand up to the gun banners. Seems to me that’s the kind of company that deserves my business.

Unfortunately, I don’t have anywhere to shoot a .50 caliber rifle. Not only that, they’re expensive. Barret does sell an Evil “Assault-Style” Rifle in 6.8mm Remington SPC, but it’s $2,500.

Sheesh. I’m sure it’s a quality rifle, but I just can’t see spending that kind of dough.

Per this:

With the assault weapons ban having expired last week, Hastert said he would move a bill to reinstate the ban only if it passed in the Senate first, and he claimed not to know whether his constituents in the 14th Congressional district would like to see the ban continued.

A push is coming. And the House is the only place it can be defeated. Start calling Hastert.

I received and responded to what I’m pretty certain will be the last correspondence I ever get from Tearsa Smith (you can read about our past adventures regarding some misleading statements she made about what was banned by the assault weapons ban here). It seems she, instead of actually dealing with the issue I raised, would ra^ther change the debate to whether or not is appropriate that I post emails on the WATE Message Board and how the joke a particular commenter here made was mean. And she finally concludes with what a pain in the ass I am when I should be grateful that she took the time to talk to me. She writes:

Dear SAYUNCLE,

Let’s just call this a truce.. I made a wrong judgement (sic) call when I took five minutes out of my hectic work day to answer a viewer’s concern. Yours. It is something I do all the time, especially viewers that challenge my
work. As a reporter I feel you can’t “hide” behind the camera. You are accountable to your viewers. I respect that and I honestly did some searching and still stood by what I reported. I was sensitive to what you
were saying.. that’s why I emailed you again to get your opinion on what you would have categorized the weapons as. Just to keep in mind for my next story. However, with all that said – it wasn’t worth. Between the Sound Off board and your blog website– I guess I am just the bad guy no matter what I say.

One of your blog readers even had the nerve to talk about my name being a mistake? A bit mean and unnecessary, but oh well you can’t control what they say. As for me paying “attention to detail” about your name.. that was human error, which I apologized for. I guess that wasn’t good enough either.. But like I said I was carving out a few minutes to answer your concerns. I understand now why some reporters/ anchors don’t address emails at all..

I responded with:

Truce? I never declared war. It was not a wrong judgment to return a legitimate inquiry for clarification. I am glad you are approachable. I write plenty of reporters and editors and probably get a response one out of five times on a good week. It is commendable that you respond to challenges and something you should keep up.

In terms of the issue, you shouldn’t have had to have done any searching. I gave you a link to the United States Code Annotated that addresses what a “semi-automatic assault weapon” is. And, you’ll note, it doesn’t cover “military assault weapons,” which are machine guns. You were wrong. Period.

And I don’t know why you want to change the issue to me posting emails or what a reader comments on my site. It is irrelevant to my concern. Do you want an apology? If so, then I apologize for posting your email. I was unaware you considered those emails private. And you should know that I’ll probably post this one on my site. You have an outlet to report on TV and I have my little web page. My comments section allows anyone to refute what I say. Additionally, WATE has a message board in the event I want to comment on a news story. And I did. Apologies if you took offense to a joke about your name but I don’t delete comments as a general rule unless they are spam.

And I appreciate you carving out a few minutes to answer my concerns. I really do, though you may not believe it.

But, the fact is, your report misled people with respect to what the assault weapons ban covered. This is a pattern in most media outlets which explains the popular support of the ban. However, I have found that when I explain what the ban actually does, most folks change their mind. Too bad you choose to cling to your misleading statement that the ban covered machine guns.

Regards,

I think Ms. Smith needs to toughen up a bit. She seems to be confusing my attack on her assertion with an attack on her. She shouldn’t feel too bad as I had one report on WATE changed already though no correction was issued and the more serious misrepresentation was ignored. She doesn’t understand (or won’t admit) that she made a wrong judgement by referring to the weapons banned by the assault weapons ban as “military assault weapons.”

Blogrolling is down which is slowing my site load. I have removed some blogrolls until Blogrolling comes back up.

Kevin T. Keith has a post that is worth reading fears of inhumane executions. He addresses, in some detail, that persons executed may have suffered, which to me is not that important an issue. I don’t take much sympathy on mass murderers, rapists, and other hooligans. It does paint a picture of some of the process involved. However, I do oppose the death penalty for reason outlined here. Brief summary:

It’s expensive to kill people and keep them on death row for decades.

It is used an disproportionate amount against minorities, which is code for it is used on poor people more than rich people.

It’s not a make or break issue for me.

Clarksville police raid the wrong house and issue an apology. Thankfully, no one was hurt.

Peter Jennings is either a liar or cannot do research when he asserts Rep. McCarthy’s husband was killed by an assault weapon. The shooter used a handgun.

Pro gun politicos are attaching the DC gun ban repeal to the budget:

A move to repeal virtually all the District’s gun restrictions has received a boost in the Senate, where gun rights supporters led by Idaho Republican Sen. Larry E. Craig are seeking to get the measure passed as an amendment to the city’s 2005 budget.

If the effort were to succeed, it would markedly increase the chances of the repeal passing Congress this fall. A similar measure in the House has more than enough co-sponsors to pass that chamber and has been promised a floor vote this fall by GOP House leaders.

Calling them gun restrictions is a bit of a stretch. DC has what is essentially an outright ban.

At least someone is addressing what the ban really does.

The Herald and News says the ban sunset is drawing little attention. Perhaps locally it may be but the major press is all fucking over it with over 3,000 news items. The media push to re-enact the ban is upon us.

Kerry keeps doing it to himself. He sponsors the Assault Weapons ban renewal and he may have admitted he has an “assault rifle.” CNS News:

“Responding to a question from Outdoor Life about whether he is a gun owner, and if so, what’s his favorite gun, Kerry strongly intimates he has an assault rifle, which is illegal to own both in Massachusetts and Washington, D.C.”

The Kerry quote appears on Page 82 of the October issue of Outdoor Life. He told the magazine, “My favorite gun is the M-16 that saved my life and that of my crew in Vietnam. I don’t own one of those now, but one of my reminders of my service is a Communist Chinese assault rifle.”

So, Senator, what kind of rifle is it? Do you actually own it? Is it registered and legal? And you are aware that Mass. and DC have restrictions on such weapons?

Where is the rifle?

Oh, those weapons of mass destruction related program activities.

Wow. Two blog memes in one post.

Indeed.