Oh No. Oh HELL No.

I did NOT escape the Volksrepublik of Massachusetts to THIS.

Terry McAuliffe Pledges Colorado-Like Gun Control if Elected

In the section titled "Investing in Virginia's Urban Centers," TerryMcAuliffe.com now contains the heading, "Support Common Sense Gun Control Measures."

Under that heading, it says McAuliffe "will support mainstream and majority supported gun control measures like universal background checks, limiting the size of magazines, and a return to the 1-gun-per-month rule."

Gun control is not mainstream, nor does it enjoy anything even remotely resembling a majority support. That's why the House wouldn't touch a gun control proposal with a ten foot pole. That's why Colorado now has a new Senate Majority Leader and a new state rep. Outside of the liberal strongholds (which, not for nothing, are overrun with gang violence and rampant firearms violations that go unprosecuted), Americans don't want or need gun control.

They want criminal control, but I don't hear anyone proposing that any more.

They keep using that term, "common sense" before "gun control". Why can't they apply that to the prosecution of dangerous criminals? If you commit a crime involving a firearm, and you are a prohibited person, that is an automatic five year jail sentence - yet it is almost never applied. Why is that? How on earth is it "common sense" to let criminals off with sentences that are jokes? Why do we tolerate it? And why do we fall for the snake oil that is "gun control"? Does anyone honestly believe that putting a sign on the front door of a business is going to keep an armed criminal out?

For all that is good and wholesome, Virginia, I beg you. Don't elect Terry McAuliffe to any position, let alone Governor. This is a guy who devoted his time as the DNC head to enriching himself (Global Crossing, anyone) and generally blaming the Republican party for everything bad that had ever happened in the history of mankind. What, exactly, qualifies him to be governor? Being head of the DNC? That means he's a good fundraiser; it doesn't mean he knows jack about running a state.

Although he certainly seems intent on running Virginia - into the ground.

That is all.

Shenanigans!

Gunblogger Conspiracy denizen spike sent me the following link:

US hunters shoot down Google fibre

Google has revealed that aerial fibre links to its data centre in Oregon were "regularly" shot down by hunters, forcing the company to put its cables underground.

The search and advertising giant's network engineering manager Vijay Gill told the AusNOG conference in Sydney last week that people were trying to hit insulators on electricity distribution poles.

Okay, according to these yahoos, bored hunters are taking potshots at insulators - which are larger than wires - and hitting the wires themselves? Does this sound even remotely possible to anyone with even the slightest knowledge of firearms, ballistics, and high tension wires? Regularly shot down? I think someone's been watching DieHard3 a little too much here. Either that or they're telling stories at the local geek bar trying to impress the ladies - the telcom version of the mall ninja.

There I was, heli-skiing into the backcountry to initiate repairs on a vital portion of the fiber optic network. I had my trusty GOOGLEWATER! fusion splicing kit slung across my back using a single-point sling, when all of a sudden we came under withering fire from a volley of hunters...

Yeah. I don't theeeenk so.

That is all.

And I Thought Massachusetts Was Bad...

...at least something like this wouldn't happen in MA...

Warning:

(image courtesy of Robb Allen)

Feds Convict Texan for Selling a Gun to Illegal Alien With Texas Drivers License

In a trial before Federal Judge Sam Sparks, government lawyers conceded Texas resident Paul Copeland did not know his buyer was an illegal alien, but the jury they should convict him anyway because he “had reasonable cause to believe” he was selling to an illegal alien because the two men and a boy who were present at his table at the time of the sale: 1) were Hispanic, 2) spoke Spanish, and 3) wore cowboy clothing. And the jury did as asked. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Freel acted as lead prosecutor in the case.

I'm still trying to figure out exactly how Copeland should have magically divined that his buyer was not in the country legally. If the man had a valid Texas driver's license - proving that he was a Texas citizen and therefore not breaking federal law - I can't for the life of me figure out how he was not a citizen. Does Texas issue driver's licenses to illegals? Even MA doesn't do that (yet). Even better, the illegal alien who purchased the firearm was not charged with a crime.

Now, the last time I looked, buying a firearm as a prohibited person was a felony. At the very least, the illegal alien should be deported immediately; at best, jailed and serving hard time - just like the man they arrested for failing to have ESP. The linked story makes an excellent point - the Øbama Justice department is investigating AZ for their anti-illegal immigrant laws because we shouldn't assume someone's immigration status based on how they look.

Yet Mr. Copeland was supposed to somehow know that his purchaser was an illegal alien... based on how he looked...

I don't know if there's more to the story or not; if perhaps the ATF had been watching Copeland for a while for other transactions or something of this nature. Perhaps there is more here than the story lets on. A quick search for "Paul Copeland Texas gun sale" finds this short article, but there's precious little other information - perhaps folks on the ground in Texas have access to other sources?

If what is outlined above is true, then we all need to be a lot more careful in our private sales. There's a silver lining for those of us in MA - we need to see a MA LTC in order to complete a face-to-face transaction, so we have further proof that the person buying the firearm is legally clear to do so. It doesn't make the MA system right, Constitutional, or acceptable; but at least it does cover one's arse in the case of the ATF and fishing expeditions...

Be careful out there, even more so in allegedly "free" states...

That is all.

Link sent by reader Scott, who apparently feels that PISSED is doing an insufficient job of raising my blood pressure...

Break, Give Me A...

Group will sue McDonald’s over Happy Meal toys

WASHINGTON — Are the toys in your child’s Happy Meal making him fat?

The Center for Science in the Public Interest says they are. The Washington-based consumer advocacy group threatened to file a lawsuit against McDonald’s today, charging that the fast food chain "unfairly and deceptively" markets the toys to children.

"McDonald’s marketing has the effect of conscripting America’s children into an unpaid drone army of word-of-mouth marketers, causing them to nag their parents to bring them to McDonald’s," CSPI’s Stephen Gardner wrote to the heads of the chain in a letter announcing the lawsuit.

Okay. There is so much wrong with the above that I am having a hard time figuring out where to start. Let's start with the obvious: McDonald's offering a toy in their Happy Meals is not making any child fat. McDonald's Happy Meals are not making any child fat. Parents that allow their kids to eat McDonald's Happy Meals too often are allowing their children to get fat. Blaming McDonalds for this is like blaming Ford Motor Company for drunk driving deaths.

If your child is eating at McDonald's often enough to become obese from it, the problem is not with McDonald's. The problem is you're failing as a parent to provide your child with healthy food options or getting enough exercise, or a combination of both. My kids eat at McDonald's as a treat maybe once a month or so, and guess what? Neither is obese. Heck, we have trouble keeping meat on TheBoy's bones. Growing kids can eat pretty much whatever they want - as long as they're allowed to be kids and run around and play whenever possible.

Using this group's "logic", should we be suing Nintendo because the Wii makes kids want to stay inside on the couch?

If anyone out there honestly thinks that McDonald's food is healthy, well, little I can say here will here them. Suing McDonald's over a plastic toy isn't going to magically absolve folks from having to commit acts of parenting - kids are going to want fat and grease in their food regardless of the cheap POS lead-coated trinket included therein. If you are of the sort that feeds your kid a doublecheeseburger and large fries every night for dinner, whether McD's offers a free Webkinz toy or a broccoli stalk ain't gonna make a lick of difference in whether your kid porks up or not.

It's all up to you as the parent to make wise, healthy choices for your kids. They're going to chose the fatty, fried, chocolate-covered option every single time - you need to be the responsible baddy who says, "No, you can't have macaroni and cheese for the fourth night this week". You need to say and do unpopular things sometimes as a parent if you want your kids to grow up healthy, safe, and smart. If you want to be their BFF and allow them to eat whatever they want, don't be surprised when they balloon up, and don't expect McDonald's to pay for the liposuction.

Actions have consequences no matter how hard we would wish them away.

That is all.

No, Part II

But for a much different reason...

Cell phone use by tots on rise

Cell phones - the scourge of high school classrooms and corridors - are falling into the hands of grade school tots who are showing up for class with a phone to call home as early as kindergarten, school officials said.

“Cell phones are a problem for all grades,” Haverhill High School Principal Bernie Nangle said, adding that a colleague described seeing kindergarteners with cell phones at her elementary school.

According to TheBoy, there are at least four or five kids in his third grade class (out of 24) who have cell phones. That's not terribly surprising given the high YQ* in my town - just pull up at any school function and you'll see a sea of late-model SUVs arriving to drop off their kids. It's a status symbol like pretty much everything these days; whose kid has the latest and greatest phone/game system/vacation/whatever.

There will be no phones for the G. children for the foreseeable future. There's simply no need for a first (or third) grader to have their own phone, given that they are with us or in school at all times. Perhaps when they are in middle school and have more autonomous after school events we might consider adding a line to our plan, but certainly not while in grammar school.

Now, a tracking device - or shock collar - there's an idea...

That is all.

*Yuppie Quotient