Blessed to be

What a pleasure to

A spirit not of fear

Here's a Muslim who has bravely produced an expose of the radical forms of Islam which preach and fight for global dominance. Watch this and heed it. Spread the news and be knowledgeable. Don't be satisfied not knowing and letting this happen unobstructed by YOU.

http://www.thethirdjihad.com/

It is on Netflix. Instant download and watch NOW. Unless you've seen it, you don't know the whole picture. And if you think you disagree, I challenge you to watch it anyhow.

2 Timothy 1 English Standard Version

---

Guard the Deposit Entrusted to You

3I thank God whom I serve, as did my ancestors, with a clear conscience, as I remember you constantly in my prayers night and day. 4As I remember your tears, I long to see you, that I may be filled with joy. 5I am reminded of your sincere faith, a faith that dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice and now, I am sure, dwells in you as well. 6For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands, 7for God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control.

We identify genius by its impact

No, not a review of "Good Will Hunting."

Rather the intro line to this article: http://www.sightm1911.com/1911%20History.htm

...in which we see detailed today, the 100 year anniversary of the 1911 semiautomatic pistol in caliber .45acp.

See also this fine entry: http://www.m1911.org/history.htm

For you movie buffs and patriots alike, consider Sergeant York :

"On the morning of 8 October 1918, elements of the 328th Infantry, 82nd Division, United States Army, were pinned down by German machine-gun fire. Seventeen men, under the command of Sgt. Bernard Early, were ordered to out-flank the machine guns.

"Shortly after they left their own lines, they came across a German officer and several soldiers having breakfast. Believing that they were surrounded, the Germans surrendered. However, before Early could detach a man to take the prisoners back through the lines, intensive machine gun fire swept the patrol. Eight American soldiers survived. Sgt. Early was killed. As the remaining non-com, Cpl. Alvin York took command of the patrol. While the remaining Americans covered their prisoners, trying at the same time to avoid enemy fire, York spotted the location of the German guns, about 30 yards away. In addition to his Enfield M1917 rifle, he also carried a Colt .45 automatic pistol. The German gunners peeked over the tops of their Maxim guns to avoid hitting their own men.

"With the appearance of each face, framed in its "coal-scuttle" helmet, York's Enfield spoke. One shot equaled one dead gunner. York was from the Tennessee mountains where firearms were used to put food on the table. Mountain folk were frugal, making each shot count.

"Unnoticed by York, several Germans moved forward, locating York's position. Out of sight, they counted the shots from York's rifle, establishing the pattern of his shooting. They counted a series of 5 shots from his Enfield and rushed York to gain the advantage of the few extra seconds it took to reload the rifle.

"As the Germans charged, they came into easy pistol range. York brought the .45 automatic into action, stopping the patrol in its tracks. He continued shooting and advancing, killing a total of 25 German soldiers and capturing 132 by himself. York was promoted to Sergeant and awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor."

Gunwalker update

You've got to be kidding me...no, it's worse than that:

"Agent Dodson and other sources say the gun walking strategy was approved all the way up to the Justice Department. The idea was to see where the guns ended up, build a big case and take down a cartel. And it was all kept secret from Mexico.

"ATF named the case "Fast and Furious."

"Surveillance video obtained by CBS News shows suspected drug cartel suppliers carrying boxes of weapons to their cars at a Phoenix gun shop. The long boxes shown in the video being loaded in were AK-47-type assault rifles.

"So it turns out ATF not only allowed it - they videotaped it.

Documents show the inevitable result: The guns that ATF let gobegan showing up at crime scenes in Mexico. And as ATF stood by watching thousands of weapons hit the streets... the Fast and Furious group supervisor noted the escalating Mexican violence.

"One e-mail noted, "958 killed in March 2010 ... most violent month since 2005." The same e-mail notes: "Our subjects purchased 359 firearms during March alone," including "numerous Barrett .50 caliber rifles."

"Dodson feels that ATF was partly to blame for the escalating violence in Mexico and on the border. "I even asked them if they could see the correlation between the two," he said. "The more our guys buy, the more violence we're having down there."

"Senior agents including Dodson told CBS News they confronted their supervisors over and over.

"Their answer, according to Dodson, was, "If you're going to make an omelette, you've got to break some eggs."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/03/eveningnews/main20039031.shtml?tag=strip

All's Good

My son said he wanted to make a machine that would let us be able to buy oil for 25 cents for 10 gallons. I said even one gallon for that price would be great. Then I described why that isn't the case already....

We love freshly made pesto from basil plants that naturally grow all around our porch. I said, what if the government told us that it was illegal to pick basil leaves to make pesto, and instead we had to go to the store and pay $5 a bag each time we wanted it? My son said, that's stupid. We prefer not to use that word in common parlance, but this time I said he's 100% correct.

Check this out:

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911

"North Dakota and Montana have an estimated 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil in an area known as the Bakken Formation.

"A U.S. Geological Survey assessment, released April 10 [2008], shows a 25-fold increase in the amount of oil that can be recovered compared to the agency's 1995 estimate of 151 million barrels of oil.

"New geologic models applied to the Bakken Formation, advances in drilling and production technologies, and recent oil discoveries have resulted in these substantially larger technically recoverable oil volumes. About 105 million barrels of oil were produced from the Bakken Formation by the end of 2007. ...

"The Bakken Formation estimate is larger than all other current USGS oil assessments of the lower 48 states and is the largest "continuous" oil accumulation ever assessed by the USGS. A "continuous" oil accumulation means that the oil resource is dispersed throughout a geologic formation rather than existing as discrete, localized occurrences. The next largest "continuous" oil accumulation in the U.S. is in the Austin Chalk of Texas and Louisiana, with an undiscovered estimate of 1.0 billions of barrels of technically recoverable oil.

"It is clear that the Bakken formation contains a significant amount of oil - the question is how much of that oil is recoverable using today's technology?" said Senator Byron Dorgan, of North Dakota. "To get an answer to this important question, I requested that the U.S. Geological Survey complete this study, which will provide an up-to-date estimate on the amount of technically recoverable oil resources in the Bakken Shale formation."

"The USGS estimate of 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil has a mean value of 3.65 billion barrels."

Now check this out:

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/362/207/How_much_oil_Does_the_U.S.Have_in_the_ground_Forbes_did_not_miss_a_beat,_he_said,_more_Than_all_the_Middle_East_put_together..html

"The host said to Forbes, "I am going to Ask you a direct question and I would like a direct answer; how much oil Does the U.S. Have in the ground?" Forbes did not miss a beat, he said, "more than all the Middle East put together."

But for goodness sake, don't pick your own basil!

Project Gunwalker

After all the braying about the so-called gunshow loophole, and registration, it comes down to this? For shame! We in Arizona are sickened by the border violence, and it's time for the BATFE / ATF to own up.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/feb/14/sen-grassley-probes-border-agent-slaying/

"...wants Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to explain why Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) agents allowed suspected gun smugglers to purchase and keep assault rifles that later may have been used in the fatal shooting of a U.S. Border Patrol agent.

In a letter, Sen. Charles E. Grassley of Iowa said ATF agents told his staff the agency allowed the sale to “known and suspected straw purchasers for an illegal trafficking ring near the Southwest border” and two of those weapons reportedly were recovered at the site of the Dec. 14 shootout that killed Border Patrol agent Brian A. Terry.

"Terry, 40, was attempting to arrest bandits who prey on illegal immigrants when he was killed about 10 miles north of the U.S.-Mexicoborder. A member of the Border Patrol’s elite Search Trauma and Rescue (BORSTAR) team, he was waiting with three other agents in a remote area north of Nogales, Ariz., when the gunbattle erupted..."

If you want to know more, just google "Project Gunwalker."

Amendment on the block

[title edited, since it appears TJIC has pulled his own blog pending legal...]

http://borepatch.blogspot.com/2011/01/i-am-tjic.html

Whatever you believe about the 2nd, I hope you seriously consider the 1st and say with me...I am TJIC...

"It was not a famous Massachusetts citizen who said We must all hang together, or surely we will all hang separately. Benjamin Franklin was more circumspect than the men from Massachusetts, such as Sam Adams, who said this:

Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say 'what should be the reward of such sacrifices?' Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

"Eliminationist rhetoric right there. Clearly, the Arlington Police would have seized his firearms. What a sad, degraded state for a once proud Commonwealth. It seems that I got out just in the nick of time."

http://reason.com/blog/2011/01/25/the-saga-of-travis-corcoran

"Last week, law enforcement officials in Arlington, Massachusetts seized the (legally owned) guns of Travis Corcoran, a blogger and owner of an online comic book store. They also revoked Corcoran's gun permit. They were responding to posts on Corcoran's blog, TJICistan..."

His response, commented here: http://www.eternityroad.info/index.php/weblog/single/i_am_tjic/

"11. > Did they revoke your concealed carry permit, or did they confiscate your firearms all together?

I was told that if I voluntarilly surrendered my firearms, as a “show of good faith”, that my LTC would not be revoked. On the advice of counsel, I did so.

As soon as that transaction was completed, my LTC was yanked. Whether this was planned all along or not, I can not say. Technically, it has not been “revoked”, it has been “suspended”.

In either case, it sure feels like my RKBA has been infringed.

> if they revoked your firearms, did they have a warrant to do so, and under what authority?

MA is a “may issue” state.

As I understand it, under the law, the Chief of Police may revoke my right to store in MA, or carry in MA, firearms, but he may not confiscate them.

None the less, when my LTC was suspended, I was ORDERED to turn in all of my firearms; moving them out of state was not presented as an option.

> Do you have a legal defense fund set up somewhere where we can donate?

At this point in time my legal bills are noticeably but not crushing (my lawyer is ~$500/hr, and other experts we’ve called in have their own price tags). I own a home and a business, and would - at this point in time - feel awkward about accepting any help when there are so many more worthy folks out there. Please feel free to drop an extra $5 in the church collection plate, or give it to the local animal shelter or home for battered women to help those truly in need.

If this legal battle escalates, I reserve the right to revist this topic, of course!

> As you know from my comments on your website, I disagreed with you at the time you posted that. However, no matter how boorish or insensitive your statements, they were not an incitement to violence, that much is clear. What you said was “One down, 534 to go” which to me is no more an incitement to violence than the joke that goes something like this: “What do you call 500 lawyers on the bottom of the ocean?” ... a good start!”

Indeed, the post was meant as an homage to that exact joke.

> And no, Fran, it isn’t lock and load time.

Agreed. I had a long post up on my site, before I took it down, analyzing America’s current political situation in terms of the four point test of Catholic Just War doctrine. I also conclude that we currently only satisfy two of the four points.

> I think this will be turned around in court in very short order.

I’ve got my fingers crossed ... and a good legal strategy, which is a bit more important!

Thank you, all, for your support.

Posted by TJIC on 01/20/2011 at 02:53 PM

Gag!

The other story on this event continues...

"As KGUN9 News has reported, some critics have suggested that some statements from the Sheriff's Department -- particularly those from Sheriff Clarence Dupnik -- could serve to work against prosecutors."

http://www.kgun9.com/Global/story.asp?S=13870560

"When Sheriff Dupnik said he thought Jared Loughner is mentally unbalanced and possibly influenced by sharp, angry political talk, conservative commentators directed sharp angry political talk towards the sheriff.

"Now a legal pundit on Fox News is suggesting Dupnik's comments on Loughner's mind may help Loughner build an insanity defense."

http://www.kgun9.com/Global/story.asp?S=13841487

As they say, "We want to know What he knew, and When he knew it!"

Tucson debate

The Case for Arming Yourself - Room for Debate - NYTimes.com

www.nytimes.com

Limiting clip size won’t lower crime -- if only criminals get higher clips, they have an advantage.

• • 
    
  • The "opinion", which mostly cited anecdotal evidence, was in the NYT. But so were several others, on the other side of this debate. I liked the position by James Fox, "More Guns Means More Guns" at http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/01/11/more-guns-less-crime/more-guns-means-more-guns which seems more reasonable from more of an authority.

    
    
  • Thanks for mentioning that, Jim. Armed resistance may not dissuade criminals (tho overwhelming statistics say it does--Fox must be very selective to deny that), but the writer also conveniently fails to mention one of the heroes was armed when he made the tackle. Perhaps the fact he was armed gave him more confidence to stop further killings. More reprehensible is Fox's implication that there was something wrong with non-law enforcement being involved in maintaining law and order: "it wasn't clear which one was the perpetrator among those struggling for control." Sorry no uniformed cops were there, so "we the people" did the job. Obviously this kind of thinking is utilized by gun control advocates. Fox did rightly note the importance of Luby's Cafeteria and that AZ has ironically (in name) "liberal" gun laws. I frequent that store with my children, and I'm glad to have the option of defending myself and them...
    
    

    • I could relate to John Cory's comment athttp://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/4600-american-madness that "nothing protects innocent life like a mob of armed citizens shooting back and forth at one another." That image is particularly poignant right now here in Seattle where a well trained police officer has been accused of unjustly shooting and killing a street person. If a well trained police officer can't always make the right decision, I'm not sure the help of several other armed citizens would help.
    • 
      

      Jim, that's sheer "Wild West" propaganda. Please let me know where that has occurred since Florida's 2005 passing of the Castle Doctrine and consequent exponentially increasing gun sales. No, instead we see plummeting of violent crime rates. We have a saying: "When seconds count, police are only minutes away." For all the violent crime reported in the mainstream media, too bad they don't report the crimes which are stopped by armed citizens. Of course no news is good news. I encourage you to peruse "The Armed Citizen" for a few months and let me know what you think of this topic: http://www.americanrifleman.org/blogs/armed-citizen-january-2011
      /

      about an hour ago

    • I did do a little independent research to try and verify some stats prepared by the Violence Policy Center athttp://www.vpc.org/press/0905gundeath.htm What I found was that it's a supercharged topic and there is very little rational thought or reliable statistics on either side. No doubt there are some real "facts" but I haven't found any I trust yet. Meanwhile I do trust my own experiences based on my third world travels, life in inner city neighborhoods, work with delinquent youth and my left wing anti war past. I have found that guns are an attractive nuisance - more likely to be involved in suicides and accidents than helpful in protecting against assault or home invasion. And as for the Second Amendment goes, I agree with the intent but it's way out of date. With my pistol or shotgun I wouldn't stand a chance defending against an oppressive government armed with assault rifles, infrared detection and long range listening devices backed up with helicopter gun ships and drone missiles. I'd be more likely to be shot if I did have a gun.
    • about an hour ago
      
      

      Jim, it could be argued that 3rd world countries became that way at least in part via the disarming of the populace: thus the overt intent of our 2nd Amendment. However, what is not stated, but found in innumerable other accounts by the founding fathers—as well as “common sense” until late-20th Century America--is the indisputable right to defend oneself and responsibility to defend one's family. This is how I see this argument: one either believes we the people are sheep under the protection of the government-shepherd, or we are responsible for ourselves and the government is our servant. You likely see that as a false portrayal...how do you see our relationship vis a vis the gov't?

      about an hour ago
    • 
      

      Maybe like you, Clint, I see the relationship between the people and the government as adversarial. I'd go a step farther and argue that it's even worse than that - it's an adversarial relationship between the people and the combined power of the government doing the bidding of the corporations. That's by definition, fascism.
      
      So, for me owning guns or not is a matter of tactics. Americans still believe in fairness and we have a government with the trappings, if not always the reality, of rule of law. And we have a media which, while increasingly subjective and polarized, at least in theory shines the light and keeps a check on corporate greed and overreaching government.
      
      In Somalia or Afghanistan, where guns are plentiful and government corrupt and rule of law non-existent, owning a gun might be your only defense. You would still be up against armed bands out to kill you and it might, even in that situation, be more effective to work toward peace, disarmament and an effective government as is being attempted now in Sudan. By the way your premise that "3rd world countries became that way at least in part via the disarming of the populace" is just not consistent with the facts.
      
      In America we are not badly off yet. We still do, as I say, have the trappings, if not the reality, of rule of law. I think a non-violent approach modeled after Gandhi or MLK would be far more effective and successful than arming ourselves and waiting for the SS comes to get us.
      
      On a much more personal level I just can't imagine who I would shoot. As I've said, I would probably not be ready and would not be able to defend myself against an armed and awake burglar or attacker. I'd be better off with a whistle, mace and a cell phone or asking the attacker if his mother knew what he was doing. Would-be attackers are likely to be kids on drugs or people desperate about something. They might be pretty much like some members of our own families or the families of people we know. I don't want to kill them.
      
      And to defend against the government or some real but amorphous and intangible corporate enemy? Just who do I shoot? The town cop? The Exxon gas station attendant? I am not in to being a sheep but I don't think I can realistically protect myself from my government with a gun. It would be better to persuade, organize, write articles and support the people when and where they are attacked and abused.

      about an hour ago
    • 
      

      Jim, I have other friends who also think guns should not be in the hands of non-law enforcement, and they too would rather use a cell phone or mace than a firearm to defend themselves. I just can't agree in this post-modern concept. If myfamily is attacked with lethal force, it's my responsibility at least to try to save them, right now. I also don't agree with the adversarial relationship concept about the government. Call me an idealist: I still believe in positive change, through initiative, referendum, recall, elections, etc. If I didn't think it was the best on earth, believe me brother, I'd leave. I don't know about 2nd Amendment rights in Somalia and Sudan, but I sure wouldn't want to move there, and this is hard to ignore:
      
      http://jpfo.org/pdf02/genocide-chart.pdf
      
      Gandhi: "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn."
      
      "As we have seen, the first public expression of disenchantment with nonviolence arose around the question of "self-defense." In a sense this is a false issue, for the right to defend one's home and one's person when attacked has been guaranteed through the ages by common law." Martin Luther King, Jr
      
      And Never Forget April 19, 2011 will be the 68th anniversary of the final battle of the Warsaw Jewish Ghetto uprising.
      
      "In early April, German soldiers began rounding up Jews for their final shipment to work camps. On April 19th, Passover eve, a group of less than 20 of them began fighting back, by killing a single German soldier, stealing his gun, and killing another, then another, and so on until perhaps 1000 men were armed and fighting back against the entire German army. An entire brigade worth of Germans were killed, along with 6,000 of the approximately 7000 Jews resident in the Ghetto. It ended on May 16th in a massacre by poison gas. The last of the fighters were trapped in a few buildings, and some sewer tunnels. They flooded the tunnels with gas, and then went in and exterminated all but a few who they saved for show trials. 6,000 died on their feet, rather than on their knees.
      "
      
      

      • Clint, Anyone can write anything on facebook or the Internet. Your information about Gandhi and MLK and others is twisted or out of context at best and seems to come from the website, "http://jpfo.org/" Jews for the Preservation of FirearmsOwnership (JPFO) which is a 4,000 member group dedicated to the preservation of gun rights and founded by former firearms dealer Aaron S. Zelman. I've read history more broadly from a variety of view points, especially the history of India and China and I don't buy the premise that disarming the population leads to genocide. Look at England.

        Sunday at 11:32am ·
      • 
        

        Jim, this is backed up by facts...According to the BBC News, handgun crime in the United Kingdom rose by 40% in the two years after it passed its draconian gun ban in 1997. "Handgun crime 'up' despite ban," BBC News Online (July 16, 2001) athttp://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/uk/newsid_1440000/1440764.stm. England is a prime example of how crime has increased after implementing gun control. For example, the original Pistols Act of 1903 did not stop murders from increasing on the island. The number of murders in England was 68 percent higher the year after the ban's enactment (1904) as opposed to the year before (1902). (Greenwood, supra note 1.) This was not an aberration, as almost seven decades later, firearms crimes in the U.K. were still on the rise: the number of cases where firearms were used or carried in a crime skyrocketed almost 1,000 percent from 1946 through 1969. (Greenwood, supra note 1 at 158.) And by 1996, the murder rate in England was 132 percent higher than it had been before the original gun ban of 1903 was enacted. (Compare Greenwood, supra note 1, with Bureau of Justice Statistics, Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and Wales, 1981-96, Bureau of Justice Statistics, October 1998).
        "You are more likely to be mugged in England than in the United States," stated the Reuters news agency in summarizing the study. "The rate of robbery is now 1.4 times higher in England and Wales than in the United States, and the British burglary rate is nearly double America's."6 The murder rate in the United States is reportedly higher than in England, but according to the DOJ study, "the difference between the [murder rates in the] two countries has narrowed over the past 16 years."

        Monday at 9:17am ·
      • 
        

        From the article linked above, uncanny and timely info for the US today: "A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.
        The research, commissioned by the Countryside Alliance's ...See More

        Monday at 9:21am ·
      • 
        

        It's more of a point of view than a fact, Cllint. The Countryside Alliance's Campaign for Shooting clearly is a pro-gun lobby and the "other side" says it's more complicated than that and the reason for the increase in crime is illegal international gun sales that criminals, but not law abiding citizens, take advantage of. So, once you regulate guns it's easier for police to identify and regulate criminals but the crime rate might take a while to drop.
        
        Crime and gun control really isn't my issue. I just don't need to have a gun because I think I'm safer without one. But I'd be interested in whether crime with a gun went up or down in Chicago and New York after their strict gun laws were overturned recently - as reported by a legitimate news source like the NYT, Wall Street Journal or the Washington Post that practices "fact verification".

        Monday at 11:08am ·
      • 
        

        Will you accept the Washington Times?http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/21/guns-decrease-murder-rates/
        
        "According to D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty, more guns in homes would cause more violent crime.
        
        "This has never been the case. Local politicians enthusiastically embraced the 1977 handgun ban predicting it would make Washington a safe place by dramatically reducing murder rates. But they were as wrong three decades ago as they are now.
        
        "A telling story is illustrated by the murder numbers since the handgun ban and gun-lock bans were struck down. Between 2008 and 2009, the FBI's preliminary numbers indicate that murders fell nationally by 10 percent and by about 8 percent in cities that have between 500,000 and 999,999 people. Washington's population is about 590,000. During that same period of time, murders in the District fell by an astounding 25 percent, dropping from 186 to 140. The city only started allowing its citizens to own handguns for defense again in late 2008.
        
        "Few who lived in Washington during the 1970s can forget the upswing in crime that started right after the ban was originally passed. In the five years before the 1977 ban, the murder rate fell from 37 to 27 murders per 100,000. In the five years after the gun ban went into effect, the murder rate rose back up to 35. One fact is particularly hard to ignore: D.C.'s murder rate fluctuated after 1976 but only once fell below what it was in 1976 before the ban. That aberration happened years later, in 1985.
        
        "This correlation between the D.C. gun ban and diminished safety was not a coincidence. Look at the Windy City. Immediately after Chicago banned handguns in 1982, the murder rate, which had been falling almost continually for a decade, started to rise. Chicago's murder rate rose relative to other large cities as well. The phenomenon of higher murder rates after gun bans are passed is not just limited to the United States. Every single time a country has passed a gun ban, its murder rate soared."

        Monday at 11:55am ·
      • 
        

        Chicago gun deaths are rising and Mayor Daily and the police want tighter gun control according to the Christian Science Monitor at - http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0427/Homicide-rate-jumps-in-Chicago-Daley-pushes-for-more-gun-control
        
        The solution, Daley says, is to continue pressing state and federal courts to tighten restrictions on gun ownership – and to uphold the city’s ban on handguns and assault weapons.
        “This is all about guns, and that’s why the crusade is on,”
        
        And in Baltimore "Targeting guns to reduce violent crime" athttp://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/0110/Targeting-guns-to-reduce-violent-crime
        
        I get the impression that the police and elected officials want gun control while the NRA doesn't.
        
        Reading through these articles, it's clear to me that it's not safe to be on the streets in Chicago and Baltimore. One gang member who shot a 20 month old girl in Chicago said he was aiming at her father, not the girl.

        Monday at 12:46pm ·
      • 
        

        I agree with your conclusion: don't live in those cities. It's clear that when guns are criminalized, only criminals have guns (and law enforcement, who can't be in all places at all times to defend you). Too bad Daley's political opinion runs counter to the facts.

        Monday at 2:53p
        m

Arizona: doing the work the federal government won't do.

Ummm, unfair burden on employers? What malarky. That's about as crazy as not recognizing that letting tax cuts expire is actually a tax hike. But offending employers are correct: it should be federal law.

http://www.azfamily.com/news/local/Arizona-employer-sanctions-law-once-again-before-the-US-Supreme-Court-111518549.html

azfamily.com

Posted on December 8, 2010 at 6:54 AM

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments Wednesday on Arizona's employer sanctions law.

The law allows prosecution of employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants...

Eleven U.S. and Arizona companies challenged the law.

They claim sanctions for employing illegal immigrants should be federal law and that the Arizona law puts an unfair burden on Arizona employers.

(Copyright 2010 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)