Light blogging today. Interview and prepwork.

Now that’s gun porn. Heh.

Mr. Completely wants to have a gunblogger meetup in Reno on November 3 – 5. If interested, let him know. Readers are invited. Too far out to commit yet but I’d love to go.

Tam is showing the guts of her new 9mm AR-15 (which, by the way, is sweet – she let me hold it when I was last in the shop). I did the math on my pending 9mm project:

Upper $400
9mm Hammer $15
RRA Mag Block $120
Rear Sight $75
5 magazines $55
Total $665

Plus a lower, which I have. And, eventually, some sort of optic. Since it’s just going to be a range gun, I’ll probably slap a Tacpoint on it. We’ll call it $900. All that just to shoot indoors.

Update: Tam another pic here. Why the flurry of interest? I’m a trendsetter. No, I kid. Probably because it’s winter and we want to shoot EBRs indoors. Plus, you promised us matches at CCA.

Update 2: And a stock. Thinking M4 stock or an Ace Skeleton.

Jeff has the latest on anti-gun bias in the media.

Quote:

Feinstein questioned him on Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause, the same issue she pursued with Roberts. She asked him about his dissent in U.S. v. Rybar, in which Alito said Supreme Court precedent meant that a law barring possession of machine guns was unconstitutional because Congress had failed to delineate the source of its authority under the Commerce Clause or make “findings of fact” on how the Commerce Clause applies. Alito essentially repeated his dissent for Feinstein, declining to go any further.

“All that I was looking for was some evidence that the possession of a machine gun . . . had a substantial impact on interstate commerce. . . . That’s all the Supreme Court precedent [Lopez] required. That’s not a very heavy burden.”

Bob Krumm thinks so. He notes:

By a margin of about two-to-one, Republicans have disproportionately benefitted from Abramoff’s illegal largesse. That alone was enough to keep the scandal’s focus on Republicans. Not any more. Now, Dean has spotlighted the fact that Congessional Democrats are just as bad.

In my opinion, Dean has admitted that either the Republicans can be excused for their behavior because they received the money the same way the Democrats did. Or that the Democrats should go down too. Dean was trying to use a very deceitful tactic to deny allegations that lobbying money came to the Dems via Abramoff. By the way, here’s detail of money Abramoff funneled to politicos.

To avoid Katrina style confiscations of weapons, New Hampshire (life free or die!) has a bill in the works to make such confiscation illegal. Here’s the bill.

Bill Hobbs is calling it quits. I wish him the best and his blog will be missed.

A stitch in haste, addressing the hysteria of the law banning annoying people, notes:

–The word “annoy” appeared in the original VAWA; that is not the new language. Rather, the amendment extends the “annoy” element to the Internet as well as to the telephone. I do of course consider “annoy” to be an unconstitutionally vague term, but let’s acknowledge that its presence in the statute is not new. What is an “annoying” blog? Who knows. But then again, what is an “annoying” telephone call?

–The law applies, at most, to emails and not, contrary to all the panic, to web message boards and especially not to blogs. The statute requires a “transmission” — a website is not a “transmission” and is clearly not covered by the amendment. This is, at most, about anonymous e-mails that are intentionally sent (i.e., “transmitted”) to specific email addresses. I “send” (i.e., transmit) emails but I don’t “send” (i.e., transmit) my blog anywhere — readers seek it out.

Further, he states its intent is for internet phone calls. Sure, maybe the reaction from us libertarian types was alarmist, but in this case it should be.

The Brady Campaign notes:

Judge Samuel A. Alito’s judicial views pose serious dangers to the safety of our communities, our families, and our children, as evidenced by his troubling dissent in U.S. v. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273 (3rd Cir. 1996). For this reason, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence announced its opposition to Judge Alito’s nomination to the United States Supreme Court last month. (It is the first time in its history that the Brady Center has opposed a Supreme Court nomination.)

In the Rybar case, Judge Alito concluded that the federal machine gun ban is an unconstitutional exercise of Congressional power under the Commerce Clause. Alito attempted to erect arbitrary hurdles to Congressional efforts to reduce the availability of machine guns to the criminal element. In unusually harsh language, the Rybar majority criticized Alito’s dissent as having “no authority” in the law and “run(ning) counter to the deference that the judiciary owes to its two coordinate branches of government….”

If Judge Alito’s view had prevailed, the federal ban on machine gun possession would have been struck down. Apart from the fact that Judge Alito’s position in Rybar was legally indefensible, it also is fair to ask: If Alito’s view had prevailed in the federal courts, what would have been the real world consequences for the American people?

Arbitrary hurdles like the commerce clause? Morons. They then list a bunch of cases where machine guns were used in crime. Don’t they know shooting people is illegal. And the guns in those cases were illegal as well. Too bad the Bradies spent so much time obfuscating supposed assault weapons and machine guns.

DiFi also plans on addressing it in the hearings:

A gun-control activist and author of the now-expired ban on assault weapons, Feinstein singled out a case in which Alito argued in a 3rd Circuit dissent that a federal ban on machine guns was unconstitutional. Feinstein said she is concerned that that opinion “demonstrates a willingness to strike down laws with which you personally may disagree by employing a narrow reading of Congress’ constitutional authority to enact legislation.”

Narrow reading? That’s quite laughable since congress has widened the commerce clause to encapsulate everything.

AR-15 20 rounders for $7.99! Thirty rounders here for $9.99 if you buy ten or more.

Toon Disney is running my favorite cartoon of all time. Thank you, TiVo. First episode I’ve seen in years and it brings the funny. I love the lines. Whoever did the voice of The Tick should get an award. He’s funny. A taste:

Every citadel of justice should have its spans as spic as we do.

Arthur, monkey outta nowhere!

Who can tell where dirty will strike next?

Don’t move, Arthur. It’s got a timer. It must be some kind of monkey bomb.

Beautiful.

Kevin thinks so. I respect Feingold for being the lone senator to vote no for the PATRIOT Act. On guns, he voted for the assault weapons ban in 1994 and against it in 2004. He also said:

The Second Amendment raises interesting questions about a constitutional interpretation. I read the Second Amendment as providing an individual right to keep and bear arms as opposed to only a collective right. Individual Americans have a constitutional right to own and use guns. And there are a number of actions that legislatures should not take in my view to restrict gun ownership.

Unless he says he supports the AWB again to win the presidency, he may be the most pro-gun of potential presidential candidates. However, the McCain Feingold Incumbent Protection err Campaign Finance Reform law is a huge black mark for the man.

I’ve talked about Laurie Berkner’s hotness but she really needs a new shirt. Always with the blue one.

Via Reader CarlS, comes this letter to The Tennessean:

I’m not sure why Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi and other prominent liberal Democrats haven’t proposed this, but all we really need to do to solve all the problems with violence in Iraq is to have the new government over there pass the equivalent of the “Brady Bill.”

I’m convinced that once car bombs and large knives are banned in Iraq, the violence will stop. I mean, hey, it’s worked like a charm over here; why not Iraq?

Heh.

Seen at Jeff’s:

And, according to Iranians I trust, Osama bin Laden finally departed this world in mid-December. The al Qaeda leader died of kidney failure and was buried in Iran, where he had spent most of his time since the destruction of al Qaeda in Afghanistan. The Iranians who reported this note that this year’s message in conjunction with the Muslim Haj came from his number two, Ayman al-Zawahiri, for the first time.

I’ve suspected he was dead for a while. Obviously, this is not confirmation.

From the Department of Duh:

Americans remain strongly committed to protecting private property from the possibility of unjust seizure, according to the results of a nationwide survey released today by the American Farm Bureau Federation during the organization’s annual convention.

The poll shows, regardless of geographical, partisan and other demographic differences, Americans are unified nearly 2-to-1 against government use of eminent domain to take private property, except in limited circumstances such as when the public at large would clearly benefit from a new road, electric utility or similar project.

Likewise, 83 percent of Americans oppose the use of eminent domain to further private development initiatives. Seizure for private development was the issue at the heart of the Kelo v. New London, Conn., case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court last year. That case made national headlines when the high court ruled that property could be taken from one landowner to advance the economic development efforts of another private entity.

It’s a good thing so many oppose it. Maybe politicos and talking heads will pay attention.

Yahoo! does a photo spread from the porn awards. Pics are safe for work, it is Yahoo! ya know.

It is now against the law to post a anonymous comment on a blog if it “annoys” another party.

I am not kidding you. This is the ultimate Christmas gift to politicians.

“Whoever…utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet… without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person…who receives the communications…shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”

President Bush signed this into law on January 5th 2006 when he signed the H.R. 3402, the “Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005”.

Declan McCullagh at cnet news.com writes:

“The use of the word ‘annoy’ is particularly problematic,” says Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. “What’s annoying to one person may not be annoying to someone else.”

Buried deep in the new law is Sec. 113, an innocuously titled bit called “Preventing Cyberstalking.” It rewrites existing telephone harassment law to prohibit anyone from using the Internet “without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy.”

To grease the rails for this idea, Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, and the section’s other sponsors slipped it into an unrelated, must-pass bill to fund the Department of Justice. The plan: to make it politically infeasible for politicians to oppose the measure.

The tactic worked. The bill cleared the House of Representatives by voice vote, and the Senate unanimously approved it Dec. 16.

There’s an interesting side note. An earlier version that the House approved in September had radically different wording. It was reasonable by comparison, and criminalized only using an “interactive computer service” to cause someone “substantial emotional harm.”

That kind of prohibition might make sense. But why should merely annoying someone be illegal?

There are perfectly legitimate reasons to set up a Web site or write something incendiary without telling everyone exactly who you are.

Think about it: A woman fired by a manager who demanded sexual favors wants to blog about it without divulging her full name. An aspiring pundit hopes to set up the next Suck.com. A frustrated citizen wants to send e-mail describing corruption in local government without worrying about reprisals.

Via Brian, comes this:

Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime.

It’s no joke. Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity.

In other words, it’s OK to flame someone on a mailing list or in a blog as long as you do it under your real name. Thank Congress for small favors, I guess.

This ridiculous prohibition, which would likely imperil much of Usenet, is buried in the so-called Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act. Criminal penalties include stiff fines and two years in prison.

“The use of the word ‘annoy’ is particularly problematic,” says Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. “What’s annoying to one person may not be annoying to someone else.”
It’s illegal to annoy

A new federal law states that when you annoy someone on the Internet, you must disclose your identity. Here’s the relevant language.

“Whoever…utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet… without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person…who receives the communications…shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”

Buried deep in the new law is Sec. 113, an innocuously titled bit called “Preventing Cyberstalking.” It rewrites existing telephone harassment law to prohibit anyone from using the Internet “without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy.”

To grease the rails for this idea, Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, and the section’s other sponsors slipped it into an unrelated, must-pass bill to fund the Department of Justice. The plan: to make it politically infeasible for politicians to oppose the measure.

So, this blog breaks the law because I’m sure I annoy someone. The definitions of annoy, etc. may get me into trouble. I ain’t stopping. Come and get me.

Update: Look up. Me and the cobloggers should coordinate better. Or, you know, coordinate in general.

The Unabrewer has the latest.

Check out Pro-Gun Progressive, a left leaning, very pro-gun blog. Here, he addresses guns and the Democrats:

Tom Daschle and John Kerry standing around a skeet and trap range awkwardly cradling an over under shotgun didn’t save them in 2004; if anything, it hurt them by demonstrating just how solidly out of step they were with the 80% of gun owners who don’t hunt. Blathering incoherently about respecting the rights of hunters only reinforces and underscores the reality that they don’t understand firearms and urban America.

Ayup. But one word of advice, don’t bother linking to or criticizing gunguys.com. Picking on the retarded isn’t sporting. The Gun Guys are not guys, it’s one guy who is some comedian you’ve never heard of.

Commenting on the treatment of Lennie (of MTV’s I’m a gun owner) by pro gun folks, bitter notes:

What bothers me is how it appears that gun owners tore the poor girl apart. Have I mentioned before that gun owners are our own worst enemy? It’s why the other side has been able to divide and conquer so easily.

Are we our own worst enemy? Can’t the absolutists and the more pragmatic gun owners find common ground and work toward that?

Can’t we all just get a long gun?

Countertop is taking nominations for the best gun blogs. You can leave a comment or shoot him an email. He really should set up an online poll. They’re free at pollhost.com.

Rich admits he’s a pirate and addresses copyrights. It’s a good read.

Jennifer James of the KNS:

The News Sentinel has added two features to enhance its family of community news Web sites called YourHub.com.

The 20 sites, launched in November, give citizens a place to instantly post stories, photos, opinions and event announcements on community “hubs” that serve as a gathering point for intensely local information.

Now, neighbor reporters can also create blogs on their local hub, as well as opt to provide profile information that will appear on a user profile page. Users may also choose to display a photo and an abbreviated version of the profile in a “contributor information box” alongside items they post on the hub.

“We want YourHub.com to be a community bulletin board, where anyone can share news and information,” said News Sentinel Editor Jack McElroy. “These features give citizens new ways to express themselves.

YourHub.com can be found here.

Seen at Ravenwood’s: all schools must suck equally.

Via keepandbeararms, a letter to the editor states:

The only addition that I would include would be upholding and supporting the Second Amendment and its guarantee that American citizens can keep and bear arms.

As a registered Democrat and reasonably informed citizen via the print media, I have seen that liberals have not been able to elect fielded political candidates for local and national offices, up to and including the presidency, because of their disregard for Democrats who would otherwise have wholeheartedly voted for them in their bids for election. Instead, some of us Democrats have found it necessary to vote for our Republican counterparts, who predominantly stand up for our country’s Second Amendment rights, under our Constitution.

Good advice. They tried with Kerry Edwards in 2004 but just weren’t believable. Of course, some Republicans aren’t even getting into that.

A regular reader and commenter has started a blog. Check out yeah yeah sure sure.