The Gun Blogs

Court Transcripts and Video of the Arguments can be found at:
WWW.FIREARMWATCH.COM

Today the handgun ban in Washington D.C. is argued before the Supreme Court. This is the first gun bill to be heard in the supreme court in 32 years. Several mainstream media outlets reported that if the court lifts the ban, the 2nd amendment right to bare arms includes all weapons at the time that our founding fathers signed the constitution which includes "Fully Automatic" machine guns ( No, not the ones that anti-gunners mistaken for. Those are so-called assault rifles but those are included too. ).
- John Birster

NRA Headline:
Joint Statement from Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox Regarding Oral Arguments Before the Supreme Court Concerning the Second Amendment

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Washington, D.C.’s ban on keeping handguns and functional firearms in the home for self-defense is unreasonable and unconstitutional under any standard. We remain hopeful that the Supreme Court will agree with the overwhelming majority of the American people, more than 300 members of Congress, 31 state attorneys general and the NRA that the Second Amendment protects the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms, and that Washington, D.C.’s bans on handguns and functional firearms in the home for self-defense should be struck down.

Gun dealer used by Va. Tech shooter sold supplies, holster to NIU killer

"I was just shocked," said Eric Thompson, 34, whose company TGSCOM Inc. sells weapons over the Internet. "There are over 90,000 licensed dealers in the U.S."

Shocked. Shocked!

The shop is in a working-class neighborhood. Signs in the front yard say "Tony's Guns and Ammo." The shop is in a fenced-in building behind a home.

Sounds shady to me. Call the Goon Squad! This article isn't really infected with PSH, it's a carrier.

I wouldn't want to be in Tony's shoes right about now.

I'm sure the ATF is already in motion.

www.shtfblog.com

Shit Hits The Fan blog.com

See us there.

- Ranger Man

... and they won't bother to look, I guess.

Gun Stash Seized

The good news is, a gang's weapon stash was found. the bad news is, the MSM reported on it.

At a news conference, officials presented four tables full of AK-47's, other assault rifles, handguns, and an Uzi.

But, looking at the pictures, all I see are a few handguns and a table full of shotguns. Not an AK in sight. No matter, who's going to look at the picture anyway?

Now, to the oxymoron of the day:

ATF officials say many of the weapons were purchased at gun shows. Most of the weapons seized are considered military grade.

Military grade weapons at a gun show? Sounds nice, but I doubt any gang-bangers would spend the cash necessary to purchase a military grade weapon at a gun show.

Then again, I'm sure the reporter and I have differing opinions on what constitutes military grade:

Rust's version of military grade - a weapon used by the military.

PSH-filled reporters version of military grade - anything that goes bang and looks scary (PSH redundancy alert) .

Via KisP comes a USA Today Poll on the Second Amendment.

You go now!

In a "better late than never" moment, the NRA (via SayUncle)
calls out Jayne Lyn Stahl on her Opinion piece (of shit) Another Poster Child for the NRA (which I talked about here) and can still be found here)

The article was published by the Atlantic Free Press here. One reason for the outcry this time around was the Atlantic's use of an NRA symbol with a picture of the Wisconsin mass murderer in the middle.

However, now the symbol is gone and the article has been prefaced with an admonition/paranoid screed that starts out like this:

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Read the First Amendment once again - it's one that you claim you defend with your guns.

I find it lame beyond belief when someone writes up something as objectionable as the article mentioned above, then invokes the First Amendment. I realize this is a "Publisher's Note", but what is it really? A bunch of whining sissies who got their nose bloodied and are running to mommy.

Just as the NRA bases its political activity on the principle that gun ownership is a civil liberty protected by the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights, The First Amendment to the United States Constitution (which prohibits the federal legislature from making laws that infringe the freedom of speech and infringe the freedom of the press) protects the right of Jayne Lyn Stahl to express her OPINION.

It also protects the rights of those who find her opinion silly, paranoid or downright odious to express their OPINION. Freedom, meet responsibility.

Some of you who have written in claim that NRA members are law abiding, etc but others, at the same time, have made some pretty serious threats via email - which negates the other claims completely.

No it doesn't, it just shows diversity of opinion. That's a good thing, right? You shouldn't be making faulty and inflexible generalizations. That would be stereotyping.

Furthermore, the image was not chosen and created by Stahl but rather the editorial team.

Then you all are a bunch of assholes.

Our publication is not USA-based and we reserve the right to print what we want (our laws protect Freedom of Speech as well)

Not USA based? I don't care. You can be from the second ring of Saturn for all I care. Print what you want? Sure thing, sunbeam. I write what I want as well. Unlike you, I'm man enough to take any criticism that comes my way because of it.

whether or not we fully agree with what has been published.

I'm sure you fully agreed with what was published. It fits your world view.

I'm not going to address the rest of the "publishers note" for two reasons. One, you're not from the USA, so your opinion of my country does not interest me in the least. Second, anyone who refers to an administration as a "plutocratic kleptocracy" isn't worth any more of my time. Get back to me after you start shaving.

On another note, I don't fault the NRA for being two weeks late to this dance. They have their own way of doing things.

Finally, anyone who threatened the life of Ms. Stahl via e-mail or any other means should be subject to all applicable laws. Killing someone for being stupid is against the law.

Your tax dollars at work

Including $1,000 from the Glynn County Police Department, the city has spent $3,000 in its gun bounty program to recover seven weapons including the SKS and an AK-47 semi-automatic assault rifles, a sawed-off .22-caliber rifle and five handguns, county and city police officials said.

I put the value of theose weapons at about half of what's been spent to recover them, not including the wages and other daily expenses associated with getting them "off the streets". Oh, and that SKS was referred to as an "assault rifle", of course. Florida is still in full PSH mode in this area.

This guys is either an idiot or a liar.

The AK 47 was illegal for any civilian to own until 2004 when the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired.

This guy's OK.

Any weapon that can galvanize one group to implement blanket restrictions and another to ante up four figures to win it, I had to see for myself.

I wish more people thought as you do.

Not once did I pull the trigger in anger, and my uninformed newbie questions didn’t seem to scare anybody.

Guns don't exhibit mind control, and gun loving folks aren't nasty, uneducated rednecks? Please tell the Brady Bunch that, please. Please.

To defuse the slogan, people alone don’t kill people any more than guns do. Unbalanced and untrained people with access to guns kill people.

Good point

Personally, the world I inhabit sits between the weapon-free, Coke-and-a-smile one and the one where everybody sleeps with one eye open.

That's where normal-thinking people reside, I reckon.

I’ll file my own trip to the range under “trying a new hobby” rather than “preserving fundamental rights.” But I won’t clink champagne glasses with politicians who think outlawing weapons like that means any kind of victory.

That's where normal-thinking people reside. Wait, I already said that. It is just a hobby, after all. Keep that in mind when someone wants to take your hobby away from you.

Another Poster Child for Reasoned Discourse (tm)
(Alternate Title: Jayne Lyn Stahl Dances in the Blood of the Dead)

Via Unc comes this piece of trash from Jayne Lyn Stahl.

I'll pull out a few of the more idiotic bits.

That said, there appears to be far greater leniency with respect to the carrying, and use, of weapons by members of law enforcement in this country than is desirable.

I don't get that statement at all. Police shouldn't carry weapons? Shouldn't use them when necessary?

Interestingly, as you know, police officers in Great Britain don't carry guns, and that country has a much lower incidence of violent crime.

This is where I get to call Ms. Stahl a baldfaced liar. Not often I get to do that, but there are numerous references citing Great Britain's soaring violent crime rate after they enacted strict gun control.

There are many who .... say that police departments needn't bother taking a closer look at the way they train their recruits with respect to when, where, how, and why they discharge their weapons, tear gas, and tasers.

Many? Name one, please. That is the stupidest thing I've read (so far). No one with two brain cells left to rub together would make such a statement.

While one often thinks of Charleton Heston when thinking about the NRA, in this age of the cowboy, any gun-toting madman will do just as well.

For you and your ilk, we're all gun-toting madmen. And since when is being a cowboy a bad thing?

We know we've arrived when the "authorities" who shot the off-duty deputy sheriff to death themselves face review.

They usually do. Of course, that wouldn't fit your world view, so just pretend it never happens.

We have become far too accepting of fatal shootings by on-duty police officers

We who? Again, two brain cells is all it takes to understand that way of thinking is foolish.

just as we're far too tolerant of those who think it's their constitutional right to bear arms, even when, increasingly, it's at the expense of innocent life.

Why, in a country with millions of guns, aren't there millions of gun crimes on a daily basis? Increasingly, it's because responsible gun owners don't go shooting people willy-nilly.

This officer who fired his gun, and took the lives of six isn't the only poster child for the NRA; each of his victims is, too.

No, the true "poster children" of the NRA are the ones calling you on this issue, pointing out your inaccuracies and lies.

It's taken me the better part of the morning to carve out the non-gun related stupid. There's so much there, I have to say I'm impressed. The best part comes in comments where, after one negative comment, she says

You know, I'm really getting disgusted with the comments on this blog. I got my facts DIRECTLY from the Associated Press report Sunday morning.

Who gets their facts DIRECTLY from the Brady Bunch, natch.

You can't make this stuff up. Like Ron White says, "You can't fix stupid."

To see more of Ms Stahl's "work" go here.. It's a good representation of the "blame America first" (and Israel second) crowd, as well as hit pieces on the military (she would have us believe the Army's overrun with neo-nazis), plenty of Bush Derangement Syndrome, and a dash of "evil corporate America" thrown in for good measure.

UPDATE: Speaking of Cowboys, check out this post concerning tough guys and the code of the west.

(h/t to baldilocks)

UPDATE THE SECOND: Lawdog has more cowboy stuff!

Yeee Haaaa!

In this segment, I take headlines from around the country and translate them to provide accuracy.

Brown declares war on gun crime

Should read:

PM Gordon Brown wants to kick Blair in the nertz for banning guns in his country

Orange Sheriff's Office buys 14 elephant guns

Should read:

We really don't know what these guns are, but they're big, black and scary

Giuliani Defends Right to Bear Arms

Should read:

Giuliani, realizing he has an (R) after his name, hastily backpedals from his normal view on guns

Police take up assault weapons; some fear an arms race

Should read:

Police modernize their inventory, PSH ensues

Senate blocks effort to share gun information

Should read:

One Senator wants to know how we're gonna pay for all this

Man Sentenced In Arsenal Case

Should read:

Prior felon breaks law, goes back to jail

I saw this this on the news last night. Less than 24 hours later, Bryan Miller's using it to make his case against guns.

Here he is, dancing in the blood of the dead.

There is a generous helping of PSH, of course, along with faux moral outrage directed at "the gun lobby and its Congressional minions".

I'd take it apart, but I'm busy right now, unfortunately.

UPDATE: Oh what the hell, I can't help myself.

In comments to the above mentioned post, Bryan responds to facts(with links provided), and calls for his sources of information thusly:

As I've said previously, I have neither time nor inclination to respond to all of your picayune, silly, arrogant and incredibly self-righteous comments. I will, no doubt, touch on all of the issues you raise (except Libertarianism, which is beyond my brief) over time in my blog.

A classic example of how old media types see the unwashed masses. Nowhere does he refute anything commenters cite, he simply goes all ad hominem, plugs his ears and goes home. How long till "Would you mother-f%^ing gun nuts stop correcting me already?"

I wonder....

Oh, and Kelli's back. Can Macca be far behind?

In comments on this blog post, Bryan Miller responds to reasoned discourse from Thirdpower, Sebastian, and others, thusly:

Boys, boys, boys:

Patience. There's so much to deal with in this debate, and I've just begun as a blogger. I can't use all my time and allotted space answering each teensy weensy little complaint y'all have after each entry. So, I won't. You'll just have to wait until I deal with your favorite subjects in future entries. Sorry, boys.

Bryan, if you can't respond, don't blog. Stick to the comfort zone of one-way old media. You'll find it easier than sticking your fingers in your ears and going "Lalala I can't hear you." every time someone tears you a new one.

But, I have to laugh at how indignant you boys get when anyone calls some semiautomatics 'assault weapons.' Guys, it's just a name - for a particularly dangerous type of weapon, mind you - but just a name. You show how obsessed you are when you go to such ridiculous lengths to protest a name. And, whether you like it or not, they're banned from possession and/or ownership in NJ, and the state's Assault Weapons Ban is enormously popular.

Just a name used to frighten your readers into thinking guns are evil and dangerous when they are not.

Yep, craisins, that includes AK's. So, if you have one in NJ, you're breaking the law (unless you bought it before the state Assault Weapons Ban went into effect and it's registered with the State Police). But, my guess is that your claim is just a bit of false bravado. You boys thrive on it. I'm betting you're really one of those famous 'law-abiding gun owners' y'all like to talk about.

No comment on this one, it speaks for itself.

And, I have to laugh at how you boys like to use dishonesty to distract readers. thirdpower wrote that I said I'll "get to blaming the 'Big50' for global warming in a later article." which, of course, I never wrote.

Dishonesty, or hyperbole? Either way, that one comment had nothing to do with your blog entry, and in no way affected the message.

Oh, and just one more thing, as much as you boys don't like it, y'all really are a small minority in the Garden State. It's common knowledge that statewide electoral office is unattainable to candidates who do not adopt views favorable to gun violence prevention. And, exit polls and voter surveys repeatedly demonstrate extremely strong support in NJ for stronger gun laws. Too bad, eh?

But have these laws deterred violent crime in the area? Sure, as long as anti-gun hacks like yourself continue to use scare tactics, the people of your state will continue to call for stronger gun laws and be unarmed victims. Besides, stronger gun laws really do keep guns out of the hands of criminals, right? Oh, they don't? Too bad, eh?

And what's with the constant use of "y'all"? I don't recall that particular word being widely used in Joisey. Does he always write like that, or is there some underlying prejudice there? Looks like he thinks all gun owners are male, too. And young.

Until we meet again...

I, for one, can't wait.

(all emphasis mine)

H/T to Unc and Sebastian

UPDATE: Further comments from Bryan tell me he's using his blog to troll for trolls:

Boys:

Keep it up! Don't worry, fellas, you'll get even more opportunities to show the "sheeple" (as you say) how 'wild and crazy' you can be. Looking forward to it

Later...

So, even though he'll pull out every stereotype and talk down to us, don't give him what he wants. Keep it civil as you punch mile-wide holes into his arguments.

Well to start off I will say that I am not very impressed with the way the country is heading right now. But that’s that.

My Story

I was convicted of Domestic Violence in 2000 for grabbing my EX-wife’s purse. I know there is two sides to every story but just for the sake of this article take my conviction for what I say it is. I am in the process of going through the legal process in Virginia to get my conviction expunged. This is not an easy task especially after the Virginia Tech Shooting. Of the 100,000+ people who are convicted each year of domestic violence most of them are scumbages. With that said there are small percentages that are not guilty. The hopefully EX women in their lives utilized tactics which have been developed over year by women to manipulate the system.

Now that I am married again to a wonderful woman I look back and realize what an idiot I was for getting married the first time. My lovely wife is at home alone most weeks because as an IT consultant I travel a lot. I specifically provide IT security services for large Fortune 500 companies. One of my preaching points to these companies is Defense in Depth. In essence having multiple layers of security is the only way to defend your network against an attack. I'm sure you are wondering where I am going with this....

I apply the same principal to my home. The last line of defense mainly for my wife would be a use of a firearm. My wife is able to purchase a firearm but I have been advised that she could face charges if she brings a gun into the house.

I find it hard to swallow that my wife cannot protect herself if needed because of my conviction. I had one lawyer asked “Who would attack you? I don’t like guns and having heavily armed civilians is dangerous to society” I responded to his question and statement by saying “I don’t know but ask the victims at the police station they will be able to give you that answer” additionally I stated “Hamas is heavily armed, Al Quiada is heavily armed. American who own guns are just prepared and do not rely on the system for their safety”.

So here is the question I pose to the readers of this blog. Why does my wife have to limit her ability to defend herself because she is married to me? Additionally, how can a person be expected to defend them self and their family if this gun ban in place.

Internet Gun Trafficking. Yep, That's the problem. At least if you're completely freakin' clueless.

This year's mass shooting incident at Virginia Tech shone the spotlight directly into this murky commercial sector. The Virginia Tech shooter, Cho Seung-Hui, purchased his 22-calibre Walther semi-automatic pistol from thegunsource.com, a Wisconsin-based online gun dealer for a mere US$ 267. A snip. In this case, state legislation prevented the pistol from being shipped directly to Cho's campus dormitoryroom, and it was instead delivered to a nearby pawn shop – always a wise precaution.

In addition to handguns, most states allow the online sale of militaryor military-type weapons and ammunition as well. One of the leading online firearms retailers in the USA, www.impactguns.com, offers hundreds of personal defence items for purchase over the web.

You couldn’t make this up, so here it is straight between the eyes as it were. Impact Guns is currently running a "Father's Day Special" on semi-automaticAK-47 assault rifles. For example Dad mightask junior to buy him the Kalashinikov modelAMD65 7.62x39 with a 30 round magazine and folding stock, which apparently makes the weapon easier to conceal. Pops might also get a kick out of a WASR10 7.62x39 AK-47 assault rifle complete with bayonet. So handy for the rush hour don’tcha know.

These weapons are "in stock" ready to be shipped "within 48 hrs" of purchase at the Father's Day sale price of $415.79 dollars, marked down from $461.99.

Now, for those of you with a clue, what do they completely fail to mention here? Could it be that federal law requires that all interstate gun transfers be made between companies or people who have federal firearms licenses? The Cho incidents relation to the gun being purchased on line completely ignores that he had to go through the pawn-shop because it has an FFL. They mention the theGunstore.com and completely fail to mention that their site specifies that the transfer must be through an FFL. They're in WI so the transfer to VA required the involvement of an FFL.

Didn't mention that Cho passed the NICs check either, but hey, when you're distorting the truth you don't actually need facts.

Internet gun sales were, in fact, officially recognised as a problem as far back as 1999, when New York Senator Charles Schumer proposed a bill in Congress called the "Internet Gun Trafficking Act", which sought to "plug a gaping loophole in the enforcement of federal firearms laws--the ability of felons and minors to find guns for sale on-line and illegally acquire those guns without detection."

Schumer's bill got nowhere but, in 2005, a particular piece of legislation covering aspects of the gun industry and weapons ecommerce in the US was voted into law . The "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" legally "prohibits civil liability actions from being broughtor continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products."

That pretty much says it all.

Yep, it does indeed say it all. The only problem is that this is the biggest lie I've seen in a very long time. If someone buys a gun online and it doesn't go through an FFL holder, the seller and the buyer are committing a felony. About the only way you could buy a gun online would require the user to purchase it from an individual in his own state who is making a private sale and then must meet all local and state requirements. I would also bet that in the majority of states, even that is illegal.

Originally, I was simply going to point this out, and maybe make a new category "Idiots on Guns", but I'm having fun here.

Guns and Masculinity

Jack LeMoult
Guest Columnist

This guy is something else.

A gun is like a pair of elevator shoes. It confers artificial stature. Despite the strong silent image that men would like to project, the truth is that most men are emotionally frail aggregations of self-doubt and vulnerability.

He's right, here's proof!. I have to give him props on the "elevator shoes" thing, though. That's a new one. Oh, and girls like guns, too. At least in the real world.

The possession of a gun is like a tonic, adding an exhilarating sense of power to a sagging ego.

It also adds inches to your manhood! Smilin' Bob has nothing on gun owners.

In another column, he writes

The history of tyrannical nations is one that includes the banning of abortion. Although the liberal Weimar Republic in Germany loosened the laws against abortion between the two world wars, when the Nazis came to power they promptly enacted strict anti-abortion laws. After the Nazis overran France, the collaborationist Vichy government enacted harsh anti-abortion laws along with other laws aimed at limiting the freedom of women

Hey, Jack. Substitute "abortion" with "guns" and you'd have another true statement.

Back to the column in question, he writes:

I would require written applications for licenses by all persons seeking to buy handguns. I would require a two-week waiting period. The purchasers would have to show compelling reasons for needing handguns, such as occupations as private detectives or security guards. They would have to recite their medical and psychiatric histories. They would have to list references. Gun licenses, like drivers licenses, should be subject to renewal every four years with the same background checks as the original licenses.

Of course, in his mind, the right to an abortion is ok, the right to a gun is not. Tyrannical, indeed.

Here's Jack and his opinion of students in America:

Putting handguns in the hands of any students in America who wanted them might have stopped the VT gunman, but it would have also armed thousands of other paranoid schizophrenics who harbor rages similar to those of [the Virginia Tech shooter].

So, in a nut (no pun intended) shell, gun owners are all male. Most all men are weak little pansies. And students are paranoid-schitzos with rage issues.

I doubt there's any way to reason with a guy like this. His fear and loathing of himself and his fellow man is much too strong. I wonder if he's even able to leave his house.

(all emphasis mine)

I'm pretty much speechless right now, so I'll just cut & paste Unc's Post

Following in the footsteps of a mental midget like Christian Trejbal, The Tennessean has decided to publish a searchable database of Concealed Carry Weapons permit holders in Tennessee. It is here. So, now thieves and would be robbers can search, by city, and find places to go steal guns. When this happened in Virginia, the paper took the list down, apologized and the legislature proposed a bill making the info private. And the AG went ahead and made it private.

Other than sensational grandstanding, letting criminals know where to steal guns, knowing it will create a buzz, and the upcoming martyr shtick they’ll pull (we were just exercising our first amendment rights!), what is the purpose of doing such a thing?

If, like me, you’re not happy about it, let them know. Here’s their contact page.

Update: I will be contacting their advertisers (like Dillards).

Update 2: Maybe some enterprising blogger could start looking for DUIs, unpaid property taxes, legal proceedings, and other stuff having to do with Tennessean staffers? It’s all public info and, well by golly, we have a right to know.

UPDATE: I'd like to suggest we all contact our state Reps and see if they can't introduce a law like VA did to prevent publication of the Carry Permit List.

ANOTHER UPDATE: The list has been taken down.

David Kopel and Christopher Lockwood are debating various gun control and related opinion. (LATimes)

Day one was "Does the massacre at Virginia Tech prove that we need tighter restrictions on gun ownership?

Day two: Why had guns and control died out as an issue in the years prior to the Virginia Tech massacre?

Day three: Should we be concerned that so much of the rest of the developed world believes U.S. gun laws are crazy?

Interesting reading.

Well, another shooting at a school. When are people going to learn? Now, everybody's going to be yelling more gun controll and we need better gun laws. ever woundered how a single person can walk into a room and blow away 30 people? What do you think would have happened if he walked into class and shot the teacher and then turned and looked at the class only to see most of the class was pointing a gun at him just before they blew him away. IF YOU WANT MORE GUN CONTROLL, HAVE EVERYONE BUY A GUN AND KEEP IT ON THEM AT ALL.I think the good people who go by the law far out numbers the bad people. Then it would be just a matter of time before all the bad guys are done in. I do know this, You would never hear of anyone killing 30 + people. I know that after they shot one person, SOMEBODY is going to shoot them. Think about it? Woodzman

By woodzman

We need to start countering the lies and distortions by the media and get folks to start thinking about these events rationally. Nothing could have been done to predict this or prevent it up until the moment the shooter drew a gun and pulled the trigger.

More here.

News today will go from the actual event to the propaganda war on gun control. This, as most gun owners understand, is the normal progression of things in the MSM. The first day rarely has much discussion of it by the big talking heads, but it only takes a day to turn this into a further attempt to restrict the rights of the law abiding citizen.

The LATimes is fairly typical:

Monday's deadly rampage at Virginia Tech sparked a largely one-sided response in the long-running debate over guns.

Gun control advocates said the shootings pointed to the need for tougher laws, while supporters of gun rights generally kept their heads down.

I always like that they seem to want everyone to believe that the gun owners are hiding from the event, instead of the reality that gun advocates are waiting for all of the information, rather than going ballistic over what happened. Most gun rights advocates want to know whether the guns were legally owned or stolen and more about the situation before making statements that will later be held to account.

And leaders of both major political parties expressed sympathy for victims and their families, while avoiding comment on gun control.

In brief remarks from the White House, President Bush expressed the nation's grief over the carnage in Blacksburg, Va. "Schools should be places of sanctuary and learning," he said. "When that sanctuary is violated, the impact is felt in every American classroom and every American community."

Bush, a longtime champion of the right to bear arms, said nothing about the gun control debate.

Why would Bush say anything about gun control? Why would he dilute the message of sympathy to discuss something that is a peripheral issue at the immediate time of the event? Of course, that is a wonderful way of vilifying the President. But they are fair and balanced in their coverage of his presidency so there is little doubt that they must be fair here. (/sarcasm).

However, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y), whose husband was among six people killed by a gunman who opened fire on a Long Island Rail Road train in 1993, added a political note to her statement of sympathy. "The unfortunate situation in Virginia could have been avoided if congressional leaders stood up to the gun lobby."

McCarthy, on the other hand, dove right in to stand in the blood and preach. She doesn't know any more than anyone else does about the facts, but it must all be because there aren't enough gun laws.

Virginia's gun laws make it easy to buy and own firearms, including handguns, and the state often has been criticized as the source of guns used in crimes in the Washington area and other East Coast cities. But it is not known what role, if any, state laws may have played in the Blacksburg killings.

Virginia's laws make it easy? What do they do, hand out chits that give you a free gun? As for the "source of guns" concept, that just doesn't fly. We here that in NH about Boston gun crime all the time. The problem with the argument is still the issue of Washington's criminals committing a crime by stealing or acquiring by other illegal means, firearms from another location. Does anyone believe that they will obey another law when they flagrantly disregarded the existing gun laws?

Interestingly they do report on similar reactions by the NRA and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

The National Rifle Assn., the nation's leading gun lobby, expressed its condolences but said, "We will not have further comment until all the facts are known."

Joshua Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, sounded an equally cautious note. "I can't say how this will play into the debate until we know how old the shooter was and how he got his guns."

Now, from the start of the article, the NRA must be "keeping their heads down" while the the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence is doing what? Sometimes reporters surprise you.

Another report from CQToday gives us the babbling of the politicians that was essentially ignored by the rest of the MSM.

Gun control advocates in Congress quickly cited the Virginia Tech shootings as evidence of the need for tighter firearm restrictions. “I believe this will reignite the dormant effort to pass common-sense gun regulations in this nation,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Monday. The California Democrat has led efforts to renew the expired ban on so-called assault weapons (PL 103-322).

and

Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said gun control legislation “could be” a possibility. “Let’s find out what the facts are,” Specter said.

No surprise from Feinstein. Being in that league of having had a federal concealed carry permit, and no doubt having private security, she can call for more restrictions on those of us that can't afford body guards.

And when is PA going to dump that imbecile Specter?

The article ends with a timeline on the Gun Manufacturer Liability Act. Not sure why, but there it is.

The Blogsphere will be warming up to the topic shortly as well. The Puffington Host had this to say:

The political response to the unspeakable tragedy at Virginia Tech can go two ways.
#1: Put the responsibility on the citizenry. Encourage people to be more suspicious of each other, and to report anyone they think might rampage.

and

#2: Put responsibility on the soft gun laws that allow anyone who wants guns to obtain as many of virtually whatever they want, especially at gun shows, where in Virginia there are no regulations or background checks.

The first is quite interesting, since that is exactly what the libertarians, and most gun rights advocates, want of the citizenry on all topics. Though I wouldn't phrase it that way. Why is it that if someone is acting insanely or dangerously we are being suspicious of them and not just seeing the obvious. Am I being suspicious of someone hiding in a dark alley or being prudent in my assessment of risk? Maybe he just didn't mean it the way it came out. (Not that I believe that.)

The second one is quite funny as well. Background checks are required of all firearms purchases from dealers. Private sales in nearly all states do not require them, even in many of the most draconian gun-control states. The contention that you can just buy a gun anywhere, especially gun shows without a background check is completely factually challenged.

Oddly I found this entry at the scienceblogs.

I'm down in Chile observing at the moment. I woke up to get lunch. The TV is always running here, even if nobody is watching. (It kind of drives me nuts.) Well, today, the news is awful: at least 21 people killed in a shooting rampage in a college in Virginia. Another astronomer, not an American, watching, says, "They need gun control." Isn't that always the response? There's a horrible tragedy with guns, and our first instinct is to further restrict the legality of guns. Now, I know that most of the science bloggers here are firmly in favor of gun control, and indeed that most of the world thinks America is nutty in terms of how legal guns are already. But I think that this "we need more gun control!" that is cried whenever there is a highly publicized gun tragedy is part of a larger, and dangerous, pattern. Something bad happens. It horrifies us. It scares us. We want to feel protected, we want to feel that others are safe and protected. We go to what is practically a feudal response: put the government, put our feudal masters, in more control over us, so that people can't go and do terrible things like that.

Interesting statement.

I won't bother looking at any gun rights advocate sites. The response there will be obvious.

Well, no doubt this will escalate into a shouting match shortly. Hopefully, cooler heads will prevail.

In this week's posts, we take on a classic Anti, Ms. Cynthia Tucker, by taking her to task for her compilation of the usual cries for gun control in the blood of victims. All law and no chaw.

And for those who need your fix, a little mid-week gun porn to get you over the hump. Alas, this is a case of Swedish cosmetic surgery that pains me. Still, I love her nonetheless.

Enjoy!