Milkey = Political Genius

Yeah, you haven't seen this title for some time. What can I say? Curing what ills our system of government (even though it is undoubtedly the best in the world) is hard work. My last suggestion was to help the two parties act like adults rather than attendees at a third grade dance.

As I see it, one of our major problems is that somehow our legislators got it into their heads (and then subsequently indoctrinate us) that it is their job to enact laws. Are you scratching your head right now? Then you've been duped!

It isn't their job to constantly enact laws. It's their job to shield constituents from government injustices and then leave them alone to pursue life, liberty, and happiness.

Unfortunately, when it comes to election time, politicians have to say, "Vote for me because I enacted these laws... Of course they're necessary! They're for the children!" This has led to our waste of tax dollars on bridges to no where and pork earmarks. Those legislators that would remember that limited government and capitalism made our country great wouldn't have enough "child protection initiatives" for their campaign trail. They also wouldn't have done enough back scratching and paycheck redisribution to ensure that special interests are happy.

So what's the solution?

The Senate at all levels of government is only allowed to pass laws.

The House of Representatives at all levels of government is only allowed to repeal laws.

There are a couple problems that come to mind, but overall I think it would be a step in the right direction. Let our Reps get graded on how well they trim the unnecessary fat from the Federal budget and law libraries.

Hunting Magazine Contributor Fired for Anti-Gun Blog Post

I wasn't planning to comment on this, but it's kind of relevant now thanks to Nick and I talking in the comments about the Utah Mall shooting being a "No Guns" zone. It helps to reiterate that someone either supports gun control or doesn't. Not much gray area in there.

Anyway, here's the scoop:

Last Friday, Jim Zumbo, a writer for Outdoor Life Magazine, posted an anti-gun article on his blog saying that he is OK with "assault weapons" being banned because they have nothing to do with hunting. He basically calls anyone that owns such a rifle a terrorist. Now, it's true that there are a small number of hunters out there that feel that way, but I was still surprised to see someone stupid enough to actually print it, considering where he works.

He has since removed his blog post, but I found it and can host part of it here for eternity:

Assault Rifles For Hunters?

As I write this, I'm hunting coyotes in southeastern Wyoming with Eddie Stevenson, PR Manager for Remington Arms, Greg Dennison, who is senior research engineer for Remington, and several writers. We're testing Remington's brand new .17 cal Spitfire bullet on coyotes.

I must be living in a vacuum. The guides on our hunt tell me that the use of AR and AK rifles have a rapidly growing following among hunters, especially prairie dog hunters. I had no clue. Only once in my life have I ever seen anyone using one of these firearms.

I call them "assault" rifles, which may upset some people. Excuse me, maybe I'm a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity. I'll go so far as to call them "terrorist" rifles. They tell me that some companies are producing assault rifles that are "tackdrivers."

Sorry, folks, in my humble opinion, these things have no place in hunting. We don't need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them, which is an obvious concern. I've always been comfortable with the statement that hunters don't use assault rifles. We've always been proud of our "sporting firearms."

This really has me concerned. As hunters, we don't need the image of walking around the woods carrying one of these weapons. To most of the public, an assault rifle is a terrifying thing. Let's divorce ourselves from them. I say game departments should ban them from the praries and woods.

The Brady Campaign quickly picked it up, placed it on their website, and commended Mr. Zumbo for agreeing with them. Now, if that doesn't ruin a firearm reviewer's career, I don't know what will. :)

Not surprisingly, there was an enormous and immediate backlash in the firearms community. Remington (one of the largest American firearms manufacturer) pulled their long-time sponsorship:

Madison, North Carolina – As a result of comments made by Mr. Jim Zumbo in recent postings on his blog site, Remington Arms Company, Inc., has severed all sponsorship ties with Mr. Zumbo effective immediately. While Mr. Zumbo is entitled to his opinions and has the constitutional right to freely express those opinions, these comments are solely his, and do not reflect the views of Remington...

Here's Outdoor Life's official statement:

In light of comments made by Jim Zumbo in his February 16, 2007 blog posting on the magazine’s website, Mr. Zumbo has offered to terminate his association with Outdoor Life, and the magazine has accepted his offer. Accordingly, he will no longer be contributing to the magazine in print or online. His final column with Outdoor Life will appear in the April 2007 issue, which has already gone to press.

We respect Mr. Zumbo's First Amendment right to free speech, and we acknowledge his subsequent apology and admission of error. However, Outdoor Life has always been, and will always be, a steadfast supporter of all aspects of the shooting sports and our Second Amendment rights, which do not make distinctions based on the appearance of the firearms we choose to own, shoot or hunt with.

We regret this turn of events, as Mr. Zumbo has been a good friend to this magazine and lifelong advocate for hunters and hunting rights.

We appreciate the comments we've received from our loyal readers about this matter and encourage them to continue to correspond with us. Please direct any additional comments to OLletters@time4.com.

And just for closure, here's a very, very recent comment from Mr. Zumbo that he put on Ted Nugent's blog:

...My TV show was cancelled yesterday. Many of my sponsors have issued statements on their website to sever all relationships. This may cause many of you to do backflips and dance in the streets, but, of course, I’m not laughing, nor am I looking for sympathy. I don’t want a pity party.

They say hindsight is golden. Looking back, I can’t believe I said the words “ban” and “terrorist” in the context that I did. I don’t know what I was thinking when I wrote that. I can explain this as sheer ignorance and an irresponsible use of words. What I’ve learned over the last few days has enlightened and amazed me. As a guy who hunts 200 days a year, does seminars on hunting, wrote for six hunting magazines, had a hunting TV show, and wrote 20 books on hunting, how could I have been so ignorant and out of touch with reality in the world of hunting and shooting?

I guess I don't really have much of a point, I just found it interesting and thought it would let you guys see that the vast majority of firearm owners stick together, no matter if someone is a hunter, target shooter, or enjoys plinking with semi-auto black rifles.

Utah Mall Shooting was a "No Guns" Zone

Last Thursday I talked about how a concealed handgun saved lives at a Utah mall shooting.

As a quick update, it's now coming out that that mall had a "No Guns" policy and posted signs saying such. There are more "newsy" sources out there than this one, but it's the only one with an actual picture I could find. It comes from the personal blog of John Lott, the noted firearms researcher that I've mentioned before.

How did the crazed shooter ever get his guns past that magic sign that is supposed to protect us? Why would he ever choose to go to that mall instead of another one that may not post signs prohibiting good guys from defending themselves? Criminals (even insane ones) prefer easy targets.



For a larger image so you can read the rules (specifically #10), click here.

Happy Birthday to the JHH

Yes, the King of Beer. I foresee some High/Low in his future with a bottle of peppermint Schnapps and cheap beer.




(And since I didn't post anything for Andy's -- let's wish him a somewhat belated Happy BDay. November wasn't that long ago...)

Britain's Gun Laws on the Side of Criminals

You know that I love picking on the United Kingdom and their insane gun control laws. They're not only ineffective, they are proven time and again to be counterproductive.

Check out this excerpt from an article in the London Telegraph.

Gunlaw Britain on the side of the criminals

If you want a gun in Britain today, there are two ways you can go about it. If you are of sound mind and have no criminal record, and somewhere legal to shoot, you can go through a lengthy and intrusive procedure with the police before (if you are lucky) being issued with a gun licence.

You can then go to a shop and spend a great deal of money on a weapon that, if you use it for anything other than sporting or pest control purposes in an appropriate place, will be taken away from you. Depending on how fascist your local police force is, you may also find it is removed if found in the boot of your car while you are committing a road traffic offence, or if another member of your family reveals that they know where the key to the gun cabinet is kept.

On no account will you be allowed to own a handgun: and a permit for a rifle, as opposed to a shotgun, is likely to be issued only if you can prove a regular commitment to deerstalking. You will also be subject to occasional surprise visits from the police to check you have the guns you say you have, and have them securely stowed away.
advertisement

Method number two entails going into a pub in our inner cities, asking a few questions and handing over a wad of notes. Because this easy, cheap, unregulated and bureaucracy-free method of ownership is so possible, several youths have been murdered in recent days, and there will be more.

It is one of the great paradoxes of modern life that since the clamp-down on gun ownership after the hideous massacre at Dunblane in 1996, there are far more firearms in circulation than ever: and most appear to be in the hands of criminals, held without the knowledge of the police. The law actively persecutes licensed gun owners, while apparently letting the unlicensed ones run out of control.

The slightest excuse is used to remove someone's shotgun certificate; a couple of years ago, we reported how a pillar of society without a blemish on his character lost his because his 86-year-old mother - an obvious threat to the public - knew where the key to his gun cupboard was. Much police time is spent on inspections, and asking questions of varying degrees of absurdity. When last renewing my licence, I was asked to reveal where I went shooting, to which I could only reply that that largely depended on who was kind enough to invite me. These are manifestly not concerns of those whose shooting estate is run by a council in south London.

The Dunblane massacre was ghastly, but the ban on handguns it provoked has done nothing to lessen the chance of something like it happening again. The only deaths caused by legally held guns in an average year are usually of farmers, bankrupted by this Government's policies, using them to commit suicide. Any nutter who wants to go and slaughter large quantities of people can now, thanks to the laxity of our law enforcement against illegal weapons, easily do so.

In controlling legally held guns - such as the one used to murder at Dunblane - all that is required is common sense on the part of the police. Thomas Hamilton, the Dunblane killer, was known to the police as an oddball who had pictures of semi-dressed young boys plastered all over his house. I cannot recall whether anyone who, knowing this background, was chucked out of the force for blind stupidity, but he should have been.

We all know there are social policies that can be implemented to reduce the chances of youths wanting a gun in the first place, let alone using it. But it does occur to me that, if the police were to devote as much care, time, resources and intrusiveness to checking up on the sale, distribution and ownership of illegal firearms as they do with legal ones, certain parts of this country might be considerably safer than they are.

ABC News: Gun Myths

I guess ABC News did a series a few years ago entitled: Lies, Myths, and Downright Stupidity.

One of the myths they debunked was "Guns Are Evil". I thought this was great because you so rarely see anything truthful about firearms in the mainstream media. This short news segment reiterates everything you've read on here.

Guns save lives. They're used in self-defense hundreds of thousands of times a year (and those are just the reported instances). Concealed Carry does not increase crime. Criminals don't buy guns at gun shows or from dealers, they buy them illegally on the street. Criminals admit in interviews that they fear armed citizens more than anything, etc, etc.

Enjoy:

Home Security

I guess this is making its rounds on the internets. Interesting way to broach the subject... although (of course) I could've written it much better. For the record, I have no problems with legal immigration. We are a nation of immigrants. However, there are rules in place to ensure chaos doesn't ensue.

Now, on to the cheap copy/paste:

Recently large demonstrations have taken place across the country protesting the fact that Congress is finally addressing the issue of illegal immigration.

Certain people are angry that the US might protect its own borders, might make it harder to sneak into this country and, once here, to stay indefinitely.

Let me see if I correctly understand the thinking behind these protests.

Let's say I break into your house. Let's say that when you discover me in your house, you insist that I leave.

But I say, "I've made all the beds and washed the dishes and did the laundry and swept the floors.

I've done all the things you don't like to do.

I'm hard-working and honest (except for when I broke into your house).

According to the protesters:

You are Required to let me stay in your house

You are Required to add me to your family's insurance plan

You are Required to educate my kids

You are Required to provide other benefits to me and to my family(my husband will do all of your yard work because he is also hard-working and honest, except for that breaking in part).

If you try to call the police or force me out, I will call my friends who will picket your house carrying signs that proclaim my RIGHT to be there.

It's only fair, after all, because you have a nicer house than I do, and I'm just trying to better myself.

I'm a hard-working and honest, person, except for well, you know, I did break into your house.

And what a deal it is for me!!!

I live in your house, contributing only a fraction of the cost of my keep, and there is nothing you can do about it without being accused of cold, uncaring, selfish, prejudiced, and bigoted behavior.

Oh yeah, I DEMAND that you learn MY LANGUAGE!!! so you can communicate with me.

Why can't people see how ridiculous this is?!

Only in America ..if you agree, pass it on (in English). Share it if you see the value of it.
If not blow it off......... along with your future Social Security funds, and a lot of other things.

Mall Shooting in Utah Minimized

Sick of me being philosophical? Bored by all the talk about history and political science? Well, Loyal Reader, let's get back to the real world.

You may or may not have heard about this:

Utah gunman, 18, was Muslim from Bosnia

Killed 5 in crowded shopping mall before being gunned down

The 18-year-old gunman who killed five people in a crowded Utah shopping mall was a Bosnian Muslim refugee who was prepared to kill many more, say investigators.

An off-duty police officer having an early Valentine's Day dinner with his wife was credited today with cornering Sulejmen Talovic, exchanging fire with him until other officers arrived to shoot and kill the gunman.

The trench-coated teenager wanted to "to kill a large number of people" and probably would have killed many more if not for the off-duty officer, Police Chief Chris Burbank said.

...

"There is no question that his quick actions saved the lives of numerous other people," the police chief said.

Unfortunately, my reference in the last post to terrorists shooting up malls wasn't hypothetical.

Now, I realize that it was a police officer that stopped the criminal from killing even more people, but it needs to be noted that he was off-duty and used his concealed handgun. I don't know all of the particulars of Utah law, but many states (and currently Ohio) require that off-duty cops at least carry under the same rules as a Concealed Handgun License (CHL) holder. Some states even require them to apply for a CHL to carry while off-duty.

Therefore, it is interesting to note that almost every single mall in Ohio has a "No Guns" policy. On top of that, Ohio law prohibits anyone to carry their legal handgun into an establishment that dispenses alcohol, even if the carrier isn't drinking. Therefore, if this occurred locally, our hero would probably not have been allowed in the mall in the first place. If he was, he would not have been allowed to be in this restaurant with his fiance, assuming it was a typical place that offered alcohol. (I doubt they were having their Valentine's Dinner at Wendy's.)

All in all, thank goodness for one person, his concealed handgun, his will to stop a lunatic from killing even more people, and sensible laws that made it possible for him to do so.

Now, as a follow-up, Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy (NY-D) has introduced legislation and cites this tragedy as part of her motivation. She wants to do two things:

1) H.R. 297: "The NICS Improvement Act of 2007". What a terribly misleading name. You've read before about the FBI NICS background checks. They're very thorough and ensure that a purchaser has not been convicted of any crimes that would prohibit him from buying firearms. Now... you know what this proposed bill will do? It will add people to the database that were only arrested for crimes that would prohibit them, but never convicted. Yep, you heard that right. People that were found innocent of false charges would fail the NICS background check. Let's re-name this bill to "The NICS Guilty Even After Found Innocent Act of 2007". (More info on this here.)

2) She also wants to reinstate the Clinton Assault Weapon Ban (AWB). However, Congresswoman McCarthy wants this version to be permanent, where the original AWB had a "sunset provision". Congress wisely chose not to renew it. Remember that an AWB only deals with cosmetic features and does not affect the performance of the firearm in any way. (Read my post on Defining an Assault Rifle for more info.) Why do I bring this up? I do so because the criminal shooter used a 12 gauge shotgun and a .38 caliber revolver. Neither of these fall under the arbitrary definition of "assault weapons".

Both of these pieces of legislation would have done absolutely nothing to prevent this terrible crime. They don't even come close to offering any kind of solution. As for gun control in general... I'll repeat this statement: Those that have decided to break laws banning murder will not follow laws that ban guns.

Further, why do many legislators want to make it harder to stop these maniacs? Imagine how much worse this would have been if this armed citizen was legally forbidden to be there... like he would be in Ohio. Imagine how much worse this would have been if it occurred in places where citizens can not carry a legal handgun for protection... such as Washington DC, Chicago, or any school zone.

Studies have been performed in which criminals admit to specifically seeking easy targets. This common sense proves why criminals shoot up schools more often than police stations.

Anti-gunner proves my last post

I actually ran across an anti-gun tirade that agreed with the historical facts I put forth in my last post about the true meaning of the Second Amendment. Those are few and far between so I thought I'd share. The other side usually tries to say it was written for the National Guard (which was founded over a hundred years after the Bill of Rights was written) or for "the right to hunt".

Here's what Junaid Afeef has to say about how we should fight terrorists that want to shoot up our malls after they decided to break laws banning murder. He suggests they will heed new laws banning guns:

In the Fight Against Terrorism, Some Rights Must Be Repealed

...

In the post 9/11 world where supposedly “everything has changed,” perhaps it is time for Americans to reconsider the value of public gun ownership.

The idea of public gun ownership simply does not make sense anymore. The right to bear arms, as enumerated in the Second Amendment, was meant for the maintenance of a “well-regulated militia.” At the time the amendment was adopted, standing armies were viewed with a great deal of suspicion, and therefore, gun-owning individuals were seen as a protection mechanism for the public. These gun owners were also seen as guardians of the republic against the tyranny of the rulers. The framers of the Constitution saw the right to bear and use arms as a check against an unruly government. That state of affairs no longer exists.

"That state of affairs no longer exists"? Huh, I didn't realize we now lived in a utopia where nothing could ever go wrong. I can't wait to tell my unicorn the good news.

More importantly, let's see what he says next about me and everyone else that thinks our Constitution is a pretty darn good thing:

Today, only a handful of citizens outside of neo-nazi and white supremacist goups view gun ownership as a means of keeping the government in check.

Seems like he wants to try and further the misconception that people that believe in our system of government are only dangerous nutjobs. How sad is it that that has become commonplace?

Rudy Giuliani Defends Gun Control

Preface:

If you think I unfairly pick on Liberals when discussing politics on this blog, here's your chance to see that I'm an equal opportunity hater of misleading politicians. Democrats aren't the only ones trying to completely obscure the purpose for the individual right to keep and bear arms. You may ask, what exactly is that purpose? The answer is that it is the final check and balance to ensure liberty and freedom. It has nothing to do with hunting. It has nothing to do with target shooting or "sportsmen". It even is not based solely on my normal pet topic - Personal Protection.

No, our Constitution specifically protected firearm ownership because our system of government was based on the fact that it is supposed to be beholden to the people. If the government oversteps its bounds, it is not only the right of its citizens... it is the duty of its citizens to resist and start anew.

Yes, I said it. We are talking about the possibility of armed revolt in case our government turns to tyranny. I know it sounds crazy to hear that in today's society. Admit it, you got a little squeamish reading it. I know I got a little squeamish writing it. We've been conditioned to think that only crazed unabombers think that way. Try telling that to the people of the 1790's. I find this squeamishness interesting since it was that principle that got our whole Democratic Republic rolling and made our system of governance the envy of the entire world.

If you are unsure of what you just read and would like to hear more... please ask. I can produce hundreds of quotes and citations from every single prominent leader during our country's founding. For now, I'll put forth as proof the first words ever written about our newly formed country. We all read these in school, but did you ever really think about them? Did your teachers explain them?

From The Declaration of Independence:

... We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security...

So... I can now finally get to,


The Actual Topic of This Blog Post:

I fear that I am going to be hard pressed to find a pro-gun candidate for President in 2008. Now, I am not strictly a one-issue voter. However, firearms provide a good litmus test for the Conservative/Libertarian. If a politician ignores my guaranteed right to keep and bear arms, I promise you there are many other topics for which we'll disagree. This is proven by my distaste for the current Republican frontrunners: McCain and Giuliani.

A recent article from Townhall.com recounts Rudolph Giuliani’s anti-gun views. History has repeatedly told the Republican National Committee that a candidate that does not support individual firearm ownership will not be supported by the large majority of their members. Unfortunately, it appears as if the GOP has not yet learned that important lesson.

"I used gun control as mayor," [Giuliani] said at a news conference Saturday during a swing through California. But "I understand the Second Amendment. I understand the right to bear arms."

Unfortunately, Mayor Giuliani quickly proved that he does not understand the Second Amendment. In a feeble attempt to justify his gun control measures, Rudy said that what he did as Mayor “did not affect hunters.” My apologies, Sir, but you need to re-read your history books and the Constitution you swore to uphold. The innate right to bear arms protected by the U.S. Constitution and almost all state constitutions has absolutely nothing to do with hunting. The need for individual firearm ownership is far more important and is easily discernible from the constitutional language itself.

From the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

From Article 1, Section 4 of the Ohio Constitution:

The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security.

I do not see anything in either of those simple statements that discusses hunting. Rather, they describe the necessity of individual firearm ownership for “the security of a free state” and for our “defense and security.” Is Mayor Giuliani really trying to convince us that our “free state” is threatened by white-tailed deer? Is he honestly trying to tell Ohioans that we need “defense and security” from spring turkeys?

Thankfully, a lot can happen before the primaries and election of 2008. Otherwise, I will have to (for the first time) actually vote my conscience and throw my vote away for a Libertarian candidate.

Basketball Question

I'm trying. I really am. I've watched the entire Cavs-Heat game tonight. Gin and tonic helps.

I can't believe I don't know this... but I can believe I'm too lazy to look it up myself.

Andy/Nick: When a player gets fouled during a shot, does it count as an attempt? I am almost positive the answer is "No" but I wasn't 100% sure. Assuming that is the answer, I thought it would be cool if it counted towards their percentage if they made the shot and was disregarded if they missed.

"Gun Show Loophole"?

I am absolutely sick and tired of hearing the anti-gun buzz phrase "Gun Show Loophole". Given the amount of time dedicated to discussing this non-issue and the multitude of completely false information being spread to the public, I suspect it will be the front line for the next big battle in gun control.

You are now probably thinking, "Non-issue? False information? That doesn't sound like what I have been hearing."

Of course that's not what you've been hearing. Anti-gunners have taken a page from their "assault weapon" plan and continue to mislead the public as much as possible with some blatant lies thrown in for good measure.

The first thing they tell us is that anybody can buy a firearm at a gun show and criminals walk out armed to the teeth with guns they can't get elsewhere. This is absolutely and blatantly false. The exact same laws and regulations are in place at gun shows that apply everywhere else... including your local Wal-Mart sporting good section. Again, not one thing is different. Dealers must have their customers fill out a 4473 form, perform an NICS background check, ensure the buyer is a non-felon, etc.

With that, straw purchases are still just as illegal. A straw purchase is when someone fills out the form and undergoes the FBI background check for someone else. You're a felon whether you do it at a gun show or your area Dick's Sporting Goods.

It's true... private transactions can take place between individuals, but that is no different at a gun show than anywhere else. It has always been that way and should remain that way. People have a right to sell their personal property. Now, we're not talking about the dealers that set up tables and have fifty guns for sale. We're talking about me having my used rifle slung over a shoulder. This is where the anti-gun zealots come up with the misleading phrase "unlicensed dealer". I compare this to someone wanting to convict you of a felony and put you in jail for being an "unlicensed dealer" when you put a "For Sale" sign on your car. Look around your office or campus today. You're surrounded by unlicensed dealers! *Gasp*!!!

This fact has me really wanting to change "Gun Show Loophole" to the more correct phrase "Yard Sale Loophole". That's really what we are talking about here. Hopefully it puts the ridiculousness in perspective.

So, with all of these inconvenient facts disputing the lies put forth by the other side, the following will not surprise you:

We know that criminals aren't getting firearms at gun shows.

John Lott, noted researcher of firearm and self-defense policy, wrote a letter to The Washington Times describing an irrefutable study that gives us this conclusion. His letter was in response to an article describing a perfect example of how unethical and far-reaching gun grabbers can truly be. This terrible excuse for research cited by state Sen. Jeannemarie Devolites Davis concluded that "the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has reported that gun shows are the second-leading source of guns used in crimes..."

Let's see what Mr. Lott says (where the emphasis is mine):

... Unfortunately, the study she cites simply was not designed to reach the conclusion that Mrs. Davis claims, because the ATF report looked at 198 non-randomly chosen investigations. The ATF doesn't make the claim that its investigations are representative of the distribution of sources of illegal guns.
By contrast, the Bureau of Justice Statistics conducted a survey of 18,000 state prison inmates in 1997, the largest survey of inmates ever conducted. Less than 1 percent of inmates (0.7 percent) who had a gun indicated they had obtained it at a gun show. When combined with guns obtained from flea markets, the total rises to 1.7 percent. These are tiny fractions compared to the estimated 40 percent of the criminals' guns that are obtained from friends or family and the 39 percent that are obtained on the street or from illegal sources. The numbers also had changed little from a similar 1991 survey that indicated that 0.6 percent of inmates had gotten their guns from guns shows and 1.3 percent from flea markets...

Don't you wish that you were given the truth about issues and were trusted to judge for yourself?

Now I'm Intrigued

Wikipedia -- What can't you tell me?

Somehow, I ended up on the meager Wiki page about Rachel Nichols. However, it did have this:

Several blogs and other website authors have made note that Nichols rarely blinks when appearing on screen during SportsCenter. As Frank Walsh of the Huntersville Herald observed, "She is pretty and a redhead, but that's not why to check her out. She never blinks."

I've never noticed. Now I'm going to pay attention.

Personification of Why I'm Not an NBA Fan

I think I've mentioned on here before that I am not a fan of professional basketball. I'd say I'm an above-average sports fan... but can't get into the NBA. I enjoy the game itself. I'll tune in to a college game every now and then and would probably enjoy attending high school games again.

Anyway, I landed on the last few minutes or so of the Cavs/Heat game last night and was reminded of my personal reasons. I'll try to order a few in priority of my distaste:

1) The arrogance and "Look at Me" attitude. I realize this is becoming more and more prevalent in other "team" sports. Even my beloved baseball is not immune. However, if you're playing a team sport, then put the team first. I'm sick of seeing chest poundings, howling, and jersey pulling. More often than not at the end of last night's game, a player would do that after something really small like drawing a foul. "Look at me Motherfucker! I drove to the hoop and somebody fouled me! I'm the best that ever lived!"

2) Only give each team two timeouts. Please! For the love of God!!! I tuned in around 10:00 PM EST and I think there was just over 4 minutes left in the game. It wasn't over until FIFTY minutes later. That's ridiculous! The last minute took about eight real minutes. It completely ruins the flow of the game. I guess it's just me, but this doesn't build suspense, it only dissipates it. The internets are telling me that last night's contest was good what with the Cavs losing a sizable lead, coming back with a chance to win, etc. I don't think my heartbeat ever changed.

3) Only Pretending to be a Team Sport. (I realize this is sorta related to #1, but not really.) Do they run offensive plays any more? I remember Mark Price coming down the court and setting shit up. I don't notice that nowadays, but maybe my sample size of teams and contests is too small to know for sure. I might see a simple high pick and roll or something, but I'm talking about actual plays that would require a clipboard and studying. I wonder if some of the problem with this is the shot clock. Maybe upping that to 35 seconds would help teams get something going, but I fear it would just lead to more dribbling and a few more passes before the supporting cast clears the floor and lets the star take a fadeaway or drive to the hoop. I am absolutely not exaggerating here, but Dwayne Wade had like the last 10 possessions all to himself at the end of the game. I realize he's a superstar, but that's not what I want to see. Lebron had the majority of the Cavs touches down the stretch as well. You don't see this in college as much. I enjoy individual sports like tennis... but not individual sports pretending to be team sports.

4) Flagrant Fouls. This is more of a question to my more NBA-knowledgeable readers...... What are they? I always defined it to myself as an "intentional" foul. But where's the line when a team just wants to stop the clock? Why is it different in the last 30 second of a game than the rest? Do a lot of problems come up with this seeming subjectivity? I say any foul that is deemed to be intentional should give the victim 10 free throws or something. 98% of the time it just extends the game unnecessarily (see #2). The other 2% of the time that it actually works, I feel badly for the team that loses as it seems to me they got screwed. Take last night. Due to intentional fouling, Lebron was able to throw up and sink a desperation 3-pointer in the closing seconds to give the Cavs a fighting chance. I'm sorta glad they didn't end up winning. I wouldn't want them to in that way.

(Hopefully you guys can help me figure out what I'm missing...)