A while back, I laid a lot of what I thought about current issues on the table in an effort to clarify some things. And to annoy readers. A few folks thought I should run for office. I could never successfully run for office for a variety of reasons and, honestly, I have no interest in doing so. As for reasons why I can’t run for office:

I’m not insanely rich – fact is that politics is a rich man’s game. Period. Even if I could muster the support, I doubt I could take the pay cut if I won.

I’m not very charismatic in person – I have a monotonous voice. I don’t speak well in front of a group. And I come across as a bit, err, cocky.

And if I did win, I couldn’t take the pay cut and would be above taking that crazy vote-buying money.

My position on gay marriage ensures that there is no office in my state that I could win.

I wouldn’t lie about my positions. And that is key. See, you have to give answers that appease both sides of the debate (unless one side is very clearly the dominate one – see gay marriage above) which means you typically don’t give answers at all.

I have admitted on this blog that I have:

My view on the war on drugs (declare victory and release the prisoners) would be spun as soft on crime.

I have a bit of a potty mouth and a temper. I can see my first debate now:

Opponent: blah blah toe party line blah blah give wishy-washy, non-committal answer blah blah 9-11 blah blah fags blah blah

SayUncle: Anyone in the audience have a shoehorn? My opponent needs it to remove his head from his ass.

Or I’d tell the distinguished gentleman from somewhere to go fuck himself.

So, sorry, it’s not going to happen because I (1) have no interest and (2) couldn’t win if I did.

I’m still getting some flak for my position on not being a member of the NRA. Here’s the deal: they must earn my membership, it’s not guaranteed. I joined for a year after the AWB expired. I’m not averse to joining just want to make sure they’re supporting things I think should be done.

Terry Frank takes issue with the Marijuana Policy Project [I bet they don’t get much done – ed.] and their new ad campaign:

A potentially controversial new ad campaign from the Marijuana Policy Project names prominent public officials, including President George W. Bush, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, former Vice President Al Gore, and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as having admitted to using marijuana. The ad then asks, “Is it fair to arrest three quarters of a million people a year for doing what presidents and a Supreme Court justice have done?”

In comments, Terry expands:

I think the point they makers of the ad are trying to make is that all these great leaders used the drug.

If they still used it, there might be a point. But they no longer do, in fact, I think a couple of them just said they only “tried” it.

The ad is using faulty logic in my opinion because they are trying to say great people use pot so pot must be great.

I disagree. I think what they’re saying is that people (even successful and powerful people) have had youthful indiscretions. Who hasn’t? The difference between the folks highlighted in the ad is that they weren’t caught. And, of course, that they didn’t take 10 rounds of 9mm to their chest for possessing less than an ounce of weed.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying weed is all that. Heck, I don’t even smoke it and can count the number of times I’ve experimented with it on my fingers. That doesn’t make me any more or less a person. It just means I’m a person, like most in the country, who has smoked weed. It’s not quite the stigma it once was.

Am I the only one who thinks the upgrade is ugly?

And I dig the sentiment.

Not only does Bloomberg conduct illegal stings on gun dealers, he’s cracking down on sparkler smuggling:

. . . the NYPD is now dispatching undercover cops into Pennsylvania to stake out firework vendors, as New York magazine recently reported. When they see a NY license plate, they snap a photo and prepare for the bust back home.

So far, the NYPD claims more than 60 arrests and a record number of seizures, more than 1,000 cases of fireworks. They’re even seizing cars now, at least 30 so far. What’s really ridiculous (and outrageous) is when you look at what is legal in Pennsylvania, these folks are losing their cars for stuff like fountains and spinners.

Welcome to New York, where there’s nothing the state won’t butt in to.

WATE outs a troll. Not sure how I feel about that one. On one hand, outing folks is kinda lame. On the other, misrepresenting who you are is lame too. DIYDDIYD.

Well, you have to love a recipe that starts with Open an ice cold beer.

Heh:

The funny thing is, if forced to put the people who crow loudest about patriotism today on one side or the other in 1776, wouldn’t you think most of them would have been defending empire, tradition, and the glory of the crown? I can almost read the National Review editorial now, inveighing against the radical, Godless-deist separatists!

Indeed.

Blake interviews Oleg Volk.

Rob Huddleston says Ford isn’t pro-gun, he just plays it on TeeVee:

Ford has begun to support select pro-Second Amendment bills during the lead up to the Senate race in an effort to muddy his anti-Second Amendment past, but the “gun nuts” are supposed to be smart enough to know an election season chameleon when they see one.

Also, in comments on my post at Michael’s place, Rob seems to have taken what I wrote as an endorsement of Ford. It is not. I’m still undecided.

Rob also asks:

While I didn’t respond in the posts, I have to query SayUncle – what has Bob Corker done in his lifetime to demonstrate his commitment to the Second Amendment so that you don’t see him as a threat?

Nothing. Never meant to say he wasn’t a threat or that he was a defender of gun rights. It seems there’s not much anti-gun dirt on Corker due to his definite lack of a record. Easy to run on your record when you don’t have one.

Hello Freedom, we don’t talk much these days. Sure, I spend a lot of time talking about you; or rather talking about how, in your old age, you seem to be a bit under the weather. But we haven’t talked in a while.

Who can blame me? Whenever something bad happens, it seems you’re the first thing that suffers, being whittled away a little bit at a time. Be it in the name of security, in the name of God, to prevent crime, to preserve a wet piece of land that a duck may look it, political agenda, or for the children, you seem to be the first thing our leaders (if you want to call them that) are willing to sacrifice. I’m so wrapped up in talking about you that I never really do any thing to help you out of this slump you’re in. It’s not entirely my fault though. Those same leaders I mentioned earlier make it difficult, or impossible, or just expensive to help you out. I hope this is just a mid-life crisis you’re going through. I don’t think the nation could bear it if you’re just too old of a concept for us. I never take the opportunity to thank you for what you’ve done for generations of Americans. Thanks for being there and I wish you a speedy recovery.

I also have to put some of the blame on you for us not talking so much. You haven’t been around much lately. I know it’s not you’re fault because people are working against you and some are too busy just working to notice, but maybe you could step up a bit. Maybe take some vitamins, work out some, or just show the world a reminder of what you’re capable of. I’ll keep checking in on you from time to time. I also wish you’d check in on me every once in a while. We shouldn’t have to go it alone.

Someone once said your price was eternal vigilance and that is a high price indeed. It’s hard to be watchful when you’re busy planning for retirement, having dinner with old friends, working long hours, following the news, entertaining yourself, raising children, putting food on the table, being good little consumers, and partaking in a couple of extraneous hobbies here and there. I do make an effort to see how you’re doing but I never take the time to really do much about it, other than complain. And there are a lot of people just like me who are not doing all that much either; most of them were elected. It’s not entirely their fault because we the people are not keeping our eye on them or holding them to account for their actions.

Even those who take it upon themselves to be your guard dog are often misguided by ideologies, pettiness, and shortsightedness. At least they’re trying but often only when it is convenient or fits a particular political objective.

Someone else said that those who would choose security over you will have and deserve neither you nor security. It seems, as a nation, we (or at least our leaders) are far more concerned about being safe than being with you. I guess being with you requires a lot more responsibility than most of us are willing to accept. Maybe you and security need to get together and iron this thing out because it doesn’t look like we’re capable of doing it.

Get well soon.

Happy Birthday, Freedom!

Update: I wrote that 3 years ago, when my audience was much smaller. I don’t think anything has changed for the better. In fact, it’s gotten worse.

David Hardy has the skinny on an odd fourth amendment case.

Bitter chides me for not being an NRA member. Well, I don’t place a lot of faith in NRA grades or endorsements since they endorsed both Bushes for the presidency. Bush Sr. effectively banned imports of semi-auto rifles and Jr. would have renewed the AWB if only that mean ol’ congress would get it to him.

But Uncle, you say, Should they have endorsed Kerry? Not at all. They should have endorsed no one. And their campaign should have targeted Kerry for being worse on gun rights than Bush.

Google won’t allow guns and gun parts to be bought with their new paypal type service.

TriggerFinger has two items on the Parker v. DC case:

Statement of Facts

Appellant’s brief in Parker v DC

In the beginning, I referred to the Internet as Al Gore’s Internet, since he invented it err took the initiative in creating the Internet or some other bogus claim. Then, after Veep Cheney referred to it as The Internets, I started calling it Al Gore’s Internets. Now, enter Ted Stevens (Insane Babbling Old Geezer – Alaska):

I just the other day got, an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o’clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why?

I’m not quite certain how to incorporate that bit of dumb-assery into my blogging on Al Gore’s Internets vernacular but, rest assured, I’m working on it.

Remember, these guys who run the country are about as tech-savvy as a bottle of Dr. Pepper Berries & Cream. And they’re much closer to missile launch buttons than you and me.

There’s a big Senate race to replace Bill Frist in my state. So, here’s what I found on the candidates with respect to the gun issue:

Ed Bryant says on his website:

I support the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees our right to keep and bear arms.

As U.S. Attorney for West Tennessee, appointed by President George H. Bush, I’ve seen how gun-control laws only penalize law abiding Tennesseans and do nothing to stop a person intent on committing a violent crime with a gun.

In Congress, I was proud to have served on the House Judiciary Committee where I worked to protect the gun-ownership rights of law-abiding Tennesseans and earned a lifetime rating of “A” from the National Rifle Association, as well as their endorsement for each re-election.

On the issues notes:

Voted YES on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1.

Bob Corker’s site says:

As Senator, I will protect the Second Amendment’s guarantee of our right to bear arms and reject attempts to limit the freedom of law-abiding gun owners. The best way to stop crime is to capture and imprison criminals—not to impose new burdens on law-abiding citizens. During my tenure as Mayor of Chattanooga, we cut violent crime in half in 3 years by putting repeat criminals behind bars.

On the issues says:

Protect the Second Amendment’s guarantee. (Jan 2006)

Harold Ford, Jr.’s site says nothing. But On The Issues says:

* Supports Second Amendment rights. (Jan 2006)
* Voted YES on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005)
* Voted YES on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003)
* Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)
* Rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record. (Dec 2003)

Odd, I think, since with the exception of decreasing the waiting period, he’s as pro-gun based on these sites as the others. Ford also says:

But I’ve got a message for all of the Republican spin doctors tonight: We’ve got two guys atop this ticket named Bredesen and Ford who love their God, who love their guns, who support the Second Amendment and who understand that everybody ought to have a chance to make their future and their children’s future better.

And the KNS quoted Ford’s opponents as stating Ford’s votes would essentially end gun shows

Van Hilleary’s site says nothing. On The Issues says:

Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1.

I guess he may be as pro-gun as Ford, at least based on voting record. And he gets the award for worst web presence.

Based on the candidate’s web presence, it seems there’s little info on the Republicans. No specifics on what they support or do not support. The only bit of hard data seems to be a scant voting record for Ford and Hilleary. Seems to be little difference between Corker and Bryant. Ford’s and Hilleary’s outlying factors are nay votes to decrease the waiting period so I’d say Bryant and Corker edge them out.

Seems there’s a lot more info out there with respect to Harold Ford because he’s somewhat of a media darling. I didn’t find much on the other candidates.

I think I’ll send these guys (or their campaigns) a questionnaire about gun rights and see if they respond. I doubt they will respond to this anonymous gun nut but it’s possible so leave any questions you have in comments.

So, any of you bloggers out there who support these guys (you know who I mean) let me know what you found. Or let me know how to contact these guys or their campaigns.

Update: Cross posted at NSH.

Update: At AC’s, Mickey White writes:

Gun Control, H.R. 2122.
This legislation would clamp down on gun sales at gun shows, which for the purposes of this bill are defined as any event “at which 50 or more firearms are offered or exhibited for sale, transfer, or exchange” or at which there are ten or more vendors. Under this bill, a person offering a firearm for sale who is not himself licensed is prevented form selling that firearm directly to the buyer. The licensed vendor must complete a background check before the transfer of the weapon. (June 18, 1999 Congressional Record, pages H4656-57, roll call 244) Ed Bryant voted for this gun control bill.

Emphasis added for folks that need to be told that. Indeed, he did. Is this the same bill Ford supported? ETA: No, it is not. Ford voted no. Looks like Ford may be smart on gun shows while Bryant is not.

The latest is here. Apologies for not linking to these in a while but I don’t recall getting the emails.

I’m testing out the new Yahoo! Mail Beta for my personal (i.e., non-blog) email. It’s nice, feature rich, and looks slick. The problem is it’s slower than a Geo Metro full of obese clowns going up hill.

Rhineland Arms is making a 5.7 upper receiver for the AR-15. Sweet!

Bellisiles is the victim of a witch-hunt!

The Washington Times:

The gun industry and shooting enthusiasts fired back at the anti-gun lobby yesterday at an international conference on illicit weapons, saying any global restrictions will affect sport hunters.

“If you do something at this conference that impacts even a few hunters, sport shooters or legal firearms owners, you do it to all of us,” said James Fulmer, a fan of antique muzzleloading rifles from Friendship, Ind., at the midpoint of the United Nations Small Arms Review Conference.

The two-week conference is meant to take stock of the global efforts to curb the trade on illegal arms and draft a plan of action for the future

I’m not a big fan of the sportsman reasoning for defending gun rights but the sentiment here is true. More:

The conference is not looking at legal civilian ownership, but is examining ways to limit the flood of weapons into unstable regions.

Oh . . . Really?

One of the cool things about the new job is the dress code. It’s a jeans company. This means that I, being the business casual-professional sort, had to go by more jeans. I am apparently shrinking. I always bought pants and jeans in size 34×34. I bought a couple of pair this past week in that size and they were too long. So, I had to switch to 34X32. Notice, it’s the length getting shorter and not the waste size getting smaller.

Either I am shrinking or the folks who make jeans are cutting them differently now.

From OK So I’m Not Really A Cowboy:

People on the left talk a good game. About freedom and empowerment. About prosperity and harmony. Which is all fine and good until you realize that they intend this to happen by instituting government control of all aspects related to the above. But what really gets me about them is that they turn a blind eye to the negative (but all-too-often expected) consequences of their illogical actions. The gun control debate is a perfect illustration of both their disconnect from causality and their inherently statist outlook. Which is–perversely enough–the reason I became a gun owner.

Read it all. For tidbits like:

First I saw the stupidity of anti-gunnies and then I became a firearms enthusiast

Via Kevin, who has a lot more.

Full-auto shotgun.

Ben emails this:

We all know the scene: the departmental coffee room, with the price list for tea and coffee on the wall and the “honesty box” where you pay for your drinks – or not, because no one is watching.

In a finding that will have office managers everywhere scurrying for the photocopier, researchers have discovered that merely a picture of watching eyes nearly trebled the amount of money put in the box.

Melissa Bateson and colleagues at Newcastle University, UK, put up new price lists each week in their psychology department coffee room. Prices were unchanged, but each week there was a photocopied picture at the top of the list, measuring 15 by 3 centimetres, of either flowers or the eyes of real faces. The faces varied but the eyes always looked directly at the observer.

In weeks with eyes on the list, staff paid 2.76 times as much for their drinks as in weeks with flowers. “Frankly we were staggered by the size of the effect,” Gilbert Roberts, one of the researchers, told New Scientist.

I wonder what the impact of a picture of someone holding a gun would be?

I kind of liked the guy until I got to point four:

I would place a full time assistant DA, with a cop or two, at the entrance to every gun store, to check whether or not someone is buying ammo for a prohibited person, or whether they themselves are prohibited (since Milwaukee is going wireless, all ADA’s doing this will be equipped with laptops with access to NCIC, CCAP, etc.). If we catch a prohibited person, they’re going federal.

Seems he’s all Libertarian, except when it comes to guns.

I have used Verizon as my cell phone provider about 4 years now. Never really had an issue until recently. When I left my last job, I was no longer on their cell plan and transferred my phone to the wife’s plan. This will be important later. Anyway, a few weeks ago, I noticed my voice-mail stopped working. If you called, it’d just ring forever. And my battery stopped holding a charge. After a night of charging, it’d show low battery by lunch time. So, I needed to get the phone fixed.

I called the Verizon rep I used to work with and she said to take it by a Verizon location that had a service tech. Apparently, some stores are just set up for sales and have no service folks. So, I look up the Verizon locations in the phone book and start calling. I call and get a message about contacting customer service, hit some key, etc. I just wanted to know two things:

1) Does this location have a service tech?

2) Directions there.

So, I looked the number up in the phone book and gave the local office a call. But guess what! I found no way through the phone system to actually contact a person who was at the Knoxville Verizon. The local phone number just kept me in the corporation’s telephone limbo. I tried four times. I had to call a customer service 800 number. The person we finally reached was not local and couldn’t answer either question. Seems to me a local office should be reachable by the number in the phone book to answer such questions as mine and hours of operation. I decide to go to the office anyway. I get there, and there is a young lady who is pointing people who walk in to register at the computer screen for service. Yes, there is a person who tells you to use a computer to get service at the Verizon service center. Why this person, who I have no idea why they’re even there since the computer system automates anything you want to do and she can be replaced with a sign, can’t also answer a fucking phone is beyond me.

So, undeterred, I get my shit fixed and decide to look at new phones since mine is many years old and there are fancier models out there. They have a few good deals where you commit to a service plan and get a phone at a particularly low rate (or even free). But, again, guess what! I, as an existing customer, am ineligible until some arbitrary date in the future for any of their specials. You see, Verizon would rather piss on existing customers instead of taking a bit of a ding on the price of an overpriced telephone. The thing that really pissed me off is that the arbitrary date in the future is based on when I transferred my phone from my former company’s plan to my wife’s plan. At that time, I did not get a new phone or any new service. Just transferred. As of that date, I am apparently a new customer despite having used them for four years. So, the time I had with them prior to the transfer meant nothing.

Yes, some folks will say I should have read the contract (and I know that and I did). I just assumed that they’d actually, you know, take care of an existing, long-time customer. When that arbitrary date hits in the future, I’m dumping Verizon. I’d do it now but then I’d be hit with cancellation fees.

Seems us gun enthusiasts may scare the HR Department:

Then he was interviewed by one last person.

For 40 minutes he was peppered with questions like:

* Do you have a problem anger managment?
* What would you do if you didn’t get the promotion you expected?