Thursday, August 31, 2006


Cigarette companies aren't trying as hard as they can to put themselves out of business.

In other news, water has been found to be wet and it's hard to see in the dark.

The two points that the article makes are not surprising. First, if you win a lawsuit against a company and force them to advertise against themselves, expect them to do exactly what they have to do and nothing more. Second, if you're going to come up with a standard and a test for that standard, expect the manufacturers to design their products to pass your test, not to altruistically "improve" their product.

Did anyone expect tobacco companies to just throw up their hands and say, "Well, we had a good run but for the good of society we're throwing in the towel."

File under: Nanny State

Nosy Social Worker

The mother of a member family in Boerne, Texas, needed to drive her 14-year-old daughter to her summer job. Knowing the trip would take just a few minutes, the mother left her 10-year-old at home alone. By accident, the 10-year-old dialed 911, then hung up.

Not long after, a police officer visited the family’s home to make sure everything was OK. The mother explained, and the officer was satisfied, but the social worker with him wanted to talk to the child because the mother left her unsupervised for a few minutes. Unfortunately, the social worker ended up asking irrelevant questions, such as if the 10-year-old wanted to attend public school!

I'm glad this didn't end up getting ugly for the family, as it very well could have.

File under: Fourth Amendment, Nanny State

SAF press release on Katrina Gun Grab Anniversary

In case you're interested.

Something is fishy here

PONTIAC, Mich. -- Prosecutors dropped misconduct charges against two city police officers who were videotaped beating a man in an elevator shortly after arresting him.

Brinson, 42, a nine-year veteran, pleaded no contest Tuesday to misdemeanor assault, but his record will be cleared in six months if he pays $150 in costs and stays out of trouble. All charges were dismissed against Lasseigne, 35, a 10-year veteran.

Illinois officer cleared of machine gun charge

The M4 machine gun was the private property of the police officer but he says he bought it and used it only for police purposes, so he gets off the hook.
But Herndon wrote that the federal law granting that authority was too vague in
this instance to support the charges against Vest. Given that Vest apparently
used it only for law enforcement purposes, Herndon said, charging him "seems to
go against the purpose" of the federal law.

So do you think that if I were a reserve deputy and I bought a machine gun in my name with my money and kept it at my house, I'd get the same treatment? Maybe so!

Gun victim leaves hospital early

The 31-year-old Madison Avenue man said he was walking out of a liquor store at Duncan and Mallory avenues at 3:41 p.m. when two men walked up to him and one said, "You know what this is," police reports said.

Notice that despite being held up by a couple of thugs, the person is a "Gun Victim", and not a "mugging victim".

File under: Media bias/ignorance

Sex Offender Registry

"Most of the time, they are not living where they are supposed to or they are not reporting where they are living," said Capt. Steve Thompson, commander of the Crimes Against Children unit. "Even if someone is staying at their girlfriend's house for two weeks, they must report that."

If you can't trust them to live anywhere near a school or park, why can you trust them to be my neighbor out in the sticks? I'm against registries of this kind. Either a person has served his punishment and is a free man, or he has not and is not.

A convicted sex offender who has served his sentence is either:

a) Reformed and trustworthy enough to be released into the general public
b) "Incurable" and likely to strike again no matter how long you keep him in prison

If (a), then let the guy go and leave him alone.
If (b), then he ought to be in prison forever (or death penalty?)

I think you can make the argument for either (a) or (b), but neither one supports the illogical half-freedom of living a life where you must report your every move.

Wednesday, August 30, 2006

2nd Amendment Naysayers

I hope the naysayers can put their Second Amendment concerns aside and allow the proponents of Kent County's [gun buyback] program to pursue their laudable goal of reducing the chance that unwanted guns will be used in violent crimes.

Gun buyback programs may be stupid, ineffective, and a waste of money, but they do not have much to do with the 2nd Amendment. Hey, if it makes you feel better because you're "doing something," knock yourself out. But if you want to take my tax dollars to do it, we'll have words.

More on Jury Nullification

If you didn't read up on Jury Nullification the last time I mentioned it, I really really REALLY encourage you to go read this post. It's a well-written and well-referenced piece that'll get you up to speed if the idea is new to you.


NICS Improvement Act of 2005

Some things you should be aware of:

According to Gun Owners of America, the bill is "anything but harmless" because it will make available to the federal government millions of state records "that could include state tax returns, employment records, library records, DMV, hospital, mental health and some misdemeanor records -- all in the name of making sure you're not prohibited from owning a gun." GOA argues that the bill will allow for an enormous data dump from the states to the federal government -- "laying the infrastructure for even more gun control in the future."

Gun Owners of America also admits that it is the only national pro-gun group to oppose the "NICS Improvement Act of 2005" (H.R. 1415).

"This bill...would improve availability of criminal history and other records for conducting background checks on firearm buyers," says an analysis on the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action website. [The NRA supports the bill]

Introduced by gun control advocate Rep. Carolyn McCarthy...

Read the whole thing for all the details. It doesn't look good to me.

Apparently someone else thinks they're professional enough

The Glendale police detective was driving his personal vehicle Monday afternoon when a car pulled up behind him and started flashing red and blue lights, said John Balian, a Glendale Police Department. The detective pulled over, thinking it was an undercover officer. When the man got out of the car, he identified himself as a police officer, flashed a gold badge and told the detective to slow down.

After the detective asked to see a picture ID, the man became nervous and fled in his car. The detective wrote down the car's license plate number and police traced it to 22-year-old Shabod Hosseini of Glendale, Balian said. Hosseini was arrested Tuesday on suspicion of false imprisonment and impersonating a police officer.


Tuesday, August 29, 2006

Anti-gun College student - I know, I couldn't believe it either

So, you want the right to bring these “tools” designed to kill people onto Virginia Tech’s campus. But wait, you’re trained so it’s okay. The only problem with that is the only training you need to do is participate in any course taught by the National Rifle Association. After checking on their website, a four hour home safety course would satisfy that requirement. I hope you honestly don’t believe that four hours of watching an instructor point at various parts of a gun and perhaps firing a clip makes you remotely close to having any kind of expertise.

I missed the part in his article where he explained why it was okay to ignore the Second Amendment.

I emailed him about it, and you can too: jdishmon AT vt DOT edu

Second Amendment Foundation Wants Bloomberg Prosecuted

BELLEVUE, Wash., Aug. 28 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) is calling on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to prosecute New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg for obstruction of justice, for failing to turn over evidence of allegedly illegal firearms transactions to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

File under: Second Amendment

Monday, August 28, 2006

When is it reasonable?

"The key word in the Fourth Amendment is unreasonable. That means under certain conditions a search or seizure without a warrant may be allowed."

Here's the Amendment in its entirety (the last half of which was conveniently left out in the above argument):

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It would appear to me that the only time a search or seizure is reasonable is when there is a warrant. Or is it only saying you need a warrant for those unreasonable searches? That doesn't make any sense.

On a side note, pieces like this make me ashamed to have once rallied around such drivel and anything else that demonized freedom as long as it could be labeled "liberal".

File under: Fourth Amendment

The only one in a black dress enough

COLUMBUS, Ga. -- A Columbus municipal court judge was freed on bond after he was charged with pointing a gun at another motorist while driving.

The purpose of the "only ones" posts is not to bash "authorities", but to point out the fact that they aren't some kind of special class deserving of special priveleges (especially when it comes to bearing arms).

File under: Only Ones

Update: David has some more details.

On only litsening to the bad guys

The Fourth Amendment doesn't prevent surveillance of terrorists; it just demands that probable cause be proved to an independent judiciary.

File under: Fourth Amendment

On permitting a right

As a public university, LSU's policy of requiring students to gain permission from a governmental body in order to protest the same governmental body is not only a clear violation of the First Amendment, it is laughably illogical.
Yeah, pretty much.

File under: First Amendment

Thursday, August 24, 2006

Embryonic Stem Cells

Brutal Hugger has a post on SayUncle about a new process that supposedly allows the use of embryonic stem cells for research without destroying the embryo.

There are still a few things wrong:

First, when you take out one of the 8 cells “for diagnostic tests, like for Down syndrome” or for male/female verification, or for blonde hair, or whatever you like… There is a problem to me. That coupled with abortion adds up to the ability to throw away any baby that isn’t to your liking.

Second, why not avoid the whole controversy when adult stem-cells are more useful?

In comments, there's a little debate going on which is no surprise. Here are my thoughts:

One of the very few responsibilities that I’m willing to give the government is to protect the life, liberty, and property its citizens from aggressors, or at least to punish the aggressors when that life, liberty or property has been damaged. THAT is why I do believe it is necessary for the government to have some definition of what “life” is. I say it begins at conception. You may disagree. Some say that living in a “persistent vegitative state” isn’t life either. Maybe. The point is, unless we define life, how can we define murder which is the termination of innocent life?

So when does life begin? Conception? tgirsch would scoff at the idea. But does that mean that the baby is merely a “lump of flesh” until its head emerges? I believe such an assertion to be much more absurd than the former. Not having a clear-cut step in between, I would err on the side of being “extra protective” of life and advocate that government define life as beginning at conception.

Wednesday, August 23, 2006

Just checking in on you

Just the facts (as reported):

Neighbor Janet Evans said Swanson had lived in the modest white and tan duplex at the end of a cul-de-sac for about nine years. Evans said he used to be congenial and chat with neighbors, but had withdrawn in the past year and rarely left his home.

Officers came to 49-year-old Alfred Swanson's south Nampa home just before 9 p.m. Friday, after family members said Swanson might be in a life-threatening situation, Nampa Police Chief Curtis Homer said. Swanson barricaded himself in his home and refused to come out, despite hours of negotiations and officers firing tear gas into his home in the 1000 block of Garland Street.

Nampa Police called the tactical team to a non-criminal call in part because family members indicated Swanson may be armed, Homer said

At about 2:30 a.m., specially trained tactical team members forced their way in as frightened neighbors listened to the struggle from their homes. Officers shot Swanson with a Tazer, knocking him down, but Swanson still struggled, eventually shooting an officer with a revolver before he was detained.

"We can't walk away if we think someone is hurt and dying in there," he said.

"We're from the government, and we're here to help."

Okay, I added the last one.

File under: Only Ones, Fourth Amendment

Lawsuit demands larger police force

It looks like in Boston you have to file a lawsuit to get more JBT's on the beat and your taxes raised.

Maybe if 1 in every 15 or so law abiding citizens were armed, they wouldn't have to worry about it...

Tuesday, August 22, 2006


"Police arrested an 18-year-old Livermore woman late Friday on suspicion of murder after she secretly gave birth in her home and then allegedly killed her newborn daughter by putting a bag over the baby's head and knotting it at the neck."

Now if only she had had the money to go to a doctor's office a few months earlier and have the baby killed, that would have been her "right".


Japan to change pacifist Constitution?

"Shinzo Abe, the front-runner to become Japan's next prime minister, has called for revisions to the pacifist constitution imposed after World War II, saying the country must adapt to a new era. "

I thought it was interesting.

Monday, August 21, 2006

Quote of the Day

From page 2 of LATOC, comes this gem:

Unfortunately, the odds of us upscaling our use of solar and wind to the point where they provide even just 2-3 percent of our total energy supply are about the same as the odds of Michael Moore and Dick Cheney teaming up to win a 5K relay race.


Friday, August 18, 2006

Gasp! SWAT hits wrong house!

Gee, that never happens. Well, it happened here. Luckily the law-abiding homeowner wasn't home when it happened. They busted in his door and gassed his house. He can't live there. He can't work because they slashed the tires of his truck and he had tools and materials necessary for his remodeling business in his home.

"Mistakes were made".

"An informant's tip that led officers to Steven Blackman's house should have been corroborated before the search warrant was sought, Lt. Dean Sullivan said."

I should say so.

Just think. What if it had been you? What if you had been home? What if you mistook the raiders for, of all things, raiders and tried to defend yourself and your family?

More dangerous than those they would protect you from

I forgot to post this yesterday:

In 350 incidents since 1985, officers shot selves or one another nearly as often as they were hit by suspects, records show.

Though the resulting wounds tended to be less serious than in gun battles with suspects, scores of officers and more than two dozen suspects and bystanders have been injured in incidents that department officials blame on careless handling of firearms.

But, but I thought they were the PROFESSIONALS!?

File under: Only Ones

Thursday, August 17, 2006

SAF and NRA suit vs New Orleans still alive

There's talk of this being a case that might make it to the Supreme Court, and that if it did it could be the one that affirms the 2nd as an individual right.

But would it matter? Should we (as gun-owners and freedom-lovers) be rooting for it to get to the Supremes? Let's look at the possible outcomes:

1. It goes to the Supreme Court, and the suit is upheld. The Court rules that the 2nd is an individual right but... Well, I'll just say that I agree with David on how it would turn out:

Prediction: A Second Amendment case will be heard by the Supreme Court in the next few years, and it will confirm an individual right. However, the ruling will be so narrow that it will not override state interest claims. It will not require a strict scrutiny standard, but rather an intermediate one. And it will certainly not overturn "assault weapon" bans, open the door for viable challenges to permitting schemes, or declare registration mandates, background checks, and similar prior restraints unconstitutional infringements.In short, we will achieve a "status quo," where the vast majority of "existing gun laws" are deemed enforceable and prosecutable, rather than repealable.

2. It goes to the Supreme Court, and the suit is dismissed. The Court rules that the 2nd is NOT an individual right. The legislative floodgates are opened and we speed down the path toward total private firearm prohibition.

On the surface, it doesn't look like gun owners have much to gain by having a 2A case come before the Supremes. Unless you think about what might happen if enough people got riled up about number two...

File under: Gun Laws

Tuesday, August 15, 2006

We're the only ones shooting-you-in-the-back enough

The po-po is getting a little out of hand in Las Vegas. They're on pace to shoot 33 people this year.

Two cases stand out: the slaying of a handcuffed teen shot in the back while running from homicide detectives in May, and the fatal shooting July 4 of a motorist who police say defied officers’ commands to turn down his booming car stereo.

Surely the officers involved have been appropriately reprimanded, if not fired, right? Ha!

“If we’re right, we’re right, and I’m going to defend it,” he said. “If we’re wrong, we’re not going to fold our arms and make like there isn’t room for improvement.”

ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT?? When you're wrong, innocent people get shot and killed. You call that room for improvement?

File under: Only Ones

The final step toward a police state

It's being taken in the UK. Police are demanding the power to be judge, jury, and executioner. "Police want new powers of "instant justice" to combat anti-social behaviour, according to reports."

Knife crime would be tackled by enabling officers to stop and search based on "reasonable suspicion" from previous convictions.

In the above scenarios, the sentences would effectively be passed on the streets with an appeal to courts later.

"Mr Rowley told Acpo's Police Professional magazine the service had seen its powers reduced so much that it was in danger of being no more than an agency of referral to a "slow and inaccessible" criminal justice system.

He said: "It therefore is time to debate whether constables should be given substantial additional, discretionary, summary powers to meet these challenges. Such powers would effectively bring existing criminal justice powers to the street."

Say goodbye to what little freedom you had, blokes.

Friday, August 11, 2006

Badge of Honor

Even though my site contains none of the offending content, I have apparently been blocked by a school district in TN.

Police proudly disperse peaceful "roaches" with rubber bullets

Maybe I should start keeping track of events by which Amendment they break. File this one under the First. A woman is at a peaceful protest against, of all things, totalitarianism in the US:

Videotaped footage of the protests shows Ritter standing next to a police officer using a bullhorn to announce that the protests would be permitted to continue as long as they remained peaceful.

Ritter is later seen on the tape walking away from a line of officers when she is apparently shot in the leg with a rubber bullet.

She then turns toward the officers and asks, "Did you shoot me? A lady in a suit? Who has been walking peaceably in front of you for half an hour and you shot me when my back was turned?"

Ritter turns to a crowd of protesters and says, "Well, you all saw it. They have been watching me for a half hour. They know I'm not armed." At the request of a photographer, she displays for the camera a fresh welt on the back of her leg, where it appears she has just been shot by a rubber bullet.

An audible barrage of rubber-bullet fire follows, as protesters are heard screaming in fear and pain, and yelling at officers, "What the [expletive] was that? Why did you do that to us?"

The camera then finds Ritter again, crouched alone in the street under her sign as rubber bullets continue to fly around her. She said a rubber bullet pierced her foam-board sign and struck her forehead.

A civilian review board investigated law enforcement response to the protests and found no criminal misconduct. [or course]

In a bizarre turn of events, someone videotaped the police watching the video of the woman being shot:

"The lady in the red dress," Kallman says on the tape, to cheers and laughter. "I don't know who got her, but it went right through the sign and hit her smack dab in the middle of the head." Another officer can be heard off-camera, asking, "Do I get a piece of her red dress?" Ritter said the tape had completely changed her take on what had happened to her that day.

Not only are they not sorry for what they did, they think it was hilarious, and referred to the crowd as “roaches”.

Feel good about your right to peaceably assemble and express free speech?

File under: First Amendment

Thursday, August 10, 2006

Maurice and his "assault weapon"

The dude has been trouble from the start. Yesterday he got caught near the home of a girl who's getting ready to testify against him with 4 loaded guns in the car. For the rest of his saga leading up to this point, check out the story. He's a lowlife.

But that's not what I wanted to talk about. I just wanted to point out a few things about the story:

First, he is said to have been "carrying an arsenal that included three semi-automatic handguns and an AK-47-type assault rifle in the front seat - all loaded." Almost all handguns are functionally "semi-automatic" and I wouldn't trust the author to know the difference. The word is just used because it's scary, which brings us to the term "AK-47-type assault rifle". Again, I doubt the author knows that an "assault rifle" is a machine gun and that there's no way Maurice could get one legally. As a matter of fact, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that he didn't have any of the guns legally.

Enough of that. Here's the one quote from the LEO that really annoyed me:
"But if you've got four guns in your car you're up to no good."

How many of us have ever had four guns in our car? It's eerily reminiscent of Blago's statement about gun owners in Chicago:

"A guy in my neighborhood with a gun, that's a gang-banger, and he ain't hunting deer or quail. That guy's up to no good. "

Is that kind of bias any different than racism?

Wednesday, August 09, 2006

Duane Quates is the "only one" who fully understands the issue

Gun control is neither anti-American nor unconstitutional, and in most cases, it is actually beneficial to both our economy and the operation of a free society. Anyone who would spout such drivel as Garlock does not fully understand the issue.

This coming from the guy who also said:

"Perhaps Garlock would prefer to live in a country where his is the only viewpoint that counts."

Hmm. So let's see here. "You're an idiot if you have an opinion different than mine, and your an idiot if you don't respect other peoples' opinions." Gotcha.

But let's address the issue. Mr. Quates says gun control is good and that it's not unconstitutional. Let's examine the facts he gives to support his claim:

Well, that was easy. I guess we should just believe him. After all, he is an "anthropology graduate student" and he has "been trained with firearms, and [has] been around them all [his] life." I guess that qualifies him to tell other people that gun control is good and anyone who disagrees doesn't "fully understand the issue" like he does.

Maybe we'd "fully understand the issue" if you'd... I don't know... talk about the issue. But that would require thought and research which could potentially lead him away from his current position. We can't have that now can we, Duane.

I'd like to ask Duane just one question...

Can you demonstrate just one time, one place, throughout all of human history, where restricting the access of handheld weapons to the average person made them safer?

You too can ask him:

The Constitution Doesn't Matter Anymore

I'm submitting that the Constitution of the United States is no longer in force, and probably hasn't been for most of the last 100 years. The restrictions on government and the Bill of rights are largely ignored by legislators and judiciaries collectively.

I realize that readers' (both of them) reactions might range from, "that's absurd" to, "well, duh!".

I just had to get that off my chest I guess.

Tuesday, August 08, 2006

There's no such thing as Intellectual Property

If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself, but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, whom she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breath, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.
-- Thomas Jefferson

Monday, August 07, 2006

Jury Nullification

If you don't know what it is, you should find out because no judge or attourney is ever going to inform you.

Judge the people AS WELL AS the laws.

Wednesday, August 02, 2006

This is getting old

The more I blog, the more tired I get of reading the same old recycled crap that the MSM anti-gun "authorized journalists" have to put out.

“These are killing machines,” said Mack as he held an AR-15 assault rifle confiscated from a recent search warrant at 19 Woodlawn Dr. “These guns aren’t used for deer hunting or target practice. They are used to kill other people. They are made for war."

All guns are killing machines, in the literal sense. AR15's are not assault rifles because they're NOT fully automatic. They ARE used for deer hunting AND target practice. As a matter of fact, target shooting competitions are DOMINATED by AR15's. They can be used to kill people, but again so can any gun. They are not made for war. That would be the fully automatic M16 or M4. Some people have guns for defense and so they want guns that are good at killing people. There's nothing wrong with that just like there's nothing wrong with police having guns that are "for killing people.

That was the police man speaking. Now let's get to the totally biased reporter:

Most of the rifles displayed Monday were chambered for the very lethal 7.62 mm round. This the same kind of ammunition and firearm used in the July 27 shooting death of 5-year-old Mariyanna Tucker in Lone Oak Apartments on Hoy Road. The round is known as a “cop killer” because it can penetrate most any type of body armor used in the world today.

7.62x39? 7.62x54? 30-06? 30-30? 7.62 happens to be about the most common sized rifle round in existence. Obviously the author doesn't know anything about guns. The cop killer comment about makes me sick. Apparently anything that can kill a cop is a "cop killer". If a mid-sized sedan has the ability to crush an officer's skull, is it a "cop killer"? Again, almost any rifle (especially hunting rifles) will penetrate "most any type of body armor used in the world today".

What it's like when it's not a right

Via Of Arms and the Law we find this gem from Australia:

FIREARM owners in Wodonga, and in fact the whole of Victoria, have been put on notice.Victoria police will be calling on them in the coming months to check they are complying with the law when it comes to the stage storage of their weapons. And those who are not doing the right thing had better watch out as the penalties for breaking the law are pretty severe.

No doubt there will be some owners who will not be happy that police will be calling on them. And some police officers could probably feel they have better things to do than going door-to-door checking people are doing the right thing.But the fact is that firearm safety has to be a priority for all owners.

Those who legally own and use firearms have to know it is not a right, and it comes with a special responsibility to comply with all relevant laws.

So that's what Americans can look forward to once the 2nd Amendment is rendered impotent.

Tuesday, August 01, 2006

Holy Sensationalism, Batman!

After the last post, I decided to do a little search. It turned up this story that uses all of the tired out old "assault weapon" gibberish. Of course, they're "high-powered".

A SLED agent shows us the power of an AK-47, capable of shooting nine bullets in quick succession 2,400 feet per second. It's the type of gun used in combat.

Hmm, "quick succession" huh? Did Lee Harvey Oswald (if you believe he was the shooter) have an assault weapon? He supposedly fired bullets in "quick succession" and he was using a bolt-action rifle! Is 2,400 feet per second a lot? You're not supposed to care. It sounds scary! This "authorized journalist" doesn't even bother with the ambiguous "military style" moniker. She just flat out tells us that this is the same as the FULLY AUTOMATIC MACHINE GUNS used in combat, which of course is not true.

That is frightening to officials like Lt. Ricky Ezzell, "These rounds have the capability of going through our body armor, so it's pretty scary."

Of course they are. That's because your "body armor" is designed to stop handgun bullets. Any "hunting rifle" would penetrate your vest as well.

Lt. Ezzell shoots an AR15. It's the civilian version of the military's M-16. The bullets left behind are similar to what's been found in gang warfare in Richland County.

Bullets left behind? Similar? Is this a Michael Moore documentary? So, without actually telling us, she's telling us that gangs use AR15's. Horse Manure.

"Until some of the, perhaps, legislation is changed regarding how guns are obtained, we're going to see probably increase in weapons and firearms used in these incidents." But Smith admits, no matter what the law, gangs who want guns will find a way to get them.

So what is he really saying?

File under: Media bias/ignorance

Why are all guns "high powered"?

There's not really much of an issue here - the people arrested were wrongdoers. But TWICE the guns were referred to as "high-powered". Just what is the journalistic threshold of "high power" when it comes to firearms?

File under: Media bias/ignorance