Publicola Has Another Excellent Post Up

Here.

Excerpt:

I feel there’s a 3 part equation necessary for a people to remain free when confronted with a tyrannical or generally oppressive government. A people need the Means, Knowledge & Will to Resist. A properly educated should have the Knowledge. This should also go a ways towards imparting the Will. & if these two things are in place then they will guard the Means jealously.

What is happening here is an effort to eliminate the education necessary to support the desired result of the equation: a free people. By downplaying & eliminating organized shooting sports it sends a message that it is no longer necessary to be concerned with those things. It cuts off a valuable supply line of information & experience.

What we need to do is to encourage as many as possible to try some of these shooting sports, such as High Power Rifle. By getting people involved we do two things: create a self interest in the preservation of our Right to Arms & form a solid base of trained individuals should we ever have to defend our Right to Arms or any other Right from foreign or domestic enemies.

Go read it all, and the links.

In Other News, What a Great Day!

Kim du Toit reports that Anheuser-Busch has withdrawn support for Missouri Gov. Bob Holden over his (overridden) veto of concealed-carry legislation, and Instapundit reports that the Centers for Disease control has released a report finding “no conclusive evidence that gun control laws help to prevent violent crime, suicides and accidental injuries in the United States.”

My favorite quotation from the article:

There are an estimated 200 million privately held rifles, handguns and other firearms in the United States, which guarantees the right to bear arms in its constitution.

Halleluja! (I wonder why Reuters didn’t use the UN’s significantly higher estimate of arms, but the admission that the Constitution guarantees a right to arms is a shocking admission from them.)

Least favorite quotation:

The CDC, a federal agency within the Department of Health and Human Services, is prohibited from using funds to promote gun control. HHS, however, is determined to reduce the rate of firearms-related deaths by about two-thirds by 2010.

Two-thirds of what? Two thirds of what it is now? What it was in 1994? What? And how does HHS (Health and Human Services) propose to go about it?

UPDATE: The Washington Post reports on this story here. Money quote:

Gun-control advocates quickly called on the government to fund better research.

What else is new?

Here’s the link to the study:

On the other side of the blotter, however, it appears that John “More Guns, Less Crime” Lott is in for a rough time. Several people are calling for a review panel to determine if academic fraud has occurred. Instapundit has a post concerning the Lott controversy, and there are several at the Volokh Conspiracy, plus Mark Kleiman comments. Throughout this whole thing, Tim Lambert has played the role Clayton Cramer did in the Bellesile’s “Arming America” affair, and he’s not happy with Clayton’s response in this one.

I first commented on the Lott controversy here.

UPDATE: Clayton Cramer comments on the Lott attackers, and makes some good points.

Unfortunately, defenders of Bellesiles made similar points (though considerably less factually accurate) about his attackers – until James Lindgren, a verifiably neutral party weighed in. And Lindgren is questioning Lott as well.

Just because Lott is being attacked by gun ban control proponents doesn’t mean he hasn’t played fast and loose with the facts.

We Don’t Sit at Separate Lunch Counters (Yet) but Google Doesn’t Want to Associate With Us

I belong to the Tucson Rifle Club. In fact, I’m a Board Member (Pistol Director) and a Match Director (IHMSA), so I get all the mailings from the Board members. It was brought to the attention of one of our members that Google, the internet search giant, wouldn’t accept advertising from gun-related businesses or organizations. So he thought he’d see what they’d do with one from a public shooting range. Here’s the unedited transcript of the e-mail exchange, TRC’s in blue, Google’s in red. The site webmaster attempted to enroll the TRC in the Google AdSense service. The exchange begins with Google’s rejection notice:

At 09:20 AM 9/29/2003, Google AdSense Support wrote:

Hello Tucson Rifle Club,

Thank you for your interest in Google AdSense. After reviewing your

application, our program specialists have found that the website

currently associated with your account does not comply with our

policies. Therefore, we’re unable to accept you into Google AdSense at

this time.

We did not approve your application for the reasons listed below. If

you are able to resolve these issues, please feel free to reply to this

email for reconsideration when you have made the changes.

Issues:

– Unacceptable site content

———————

Further detail:

Unacceptable site content: Your website contains content that we do

not allow at this time. Please review our policies

(https://www.google.com/adsense/policies) for a complete list of site

content not allowed on web pages.

———————

For a complete list of AdSense criteria, please visit:

https://www.google.com/adsense/policies

https://www.google.com/adsense/terms

If you would like to submit another website for consideration, simply

reply to this email and provide us with the URL. If this new website

complies with our program policies, we will help you start delivering

AdWords ads in minutes.

Please contact us at [email protected] if you have any

questions.

Regards,

The Google Team

To which our webmaster replied:

From: John Luiten

Subject: Re: Google AdSense Account Status

Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 10:09:38 -0700

I have reviewed your policies page once again and find nothing stated

therein that pertains to our website, “www.tucsonrifleclub.org“. Our

organization is a State sanctioned body (Arizona Department of Game & Fish)

that provides shooting range facilities to thousands of residents in the

Southern Arizona region. We have been doing so since 1895.

We also provide significant support to the local law enforcement community as well.

Would you please be specific as to which of the following of your posted

site content rules you consider our site in violation of:

“Site may not include:

Excessive profanity

Hate, violence, racial intolerance, or advocate against any individual,

group, or organization

Hacking/cracking content

Illicit drugs and drug paraphernalia

Pornography, adult, or mature content

Gambling or casino-related content

Excessive advertising

Pop-ups that interfere with site navigation or are for downloads”

Regards,

–John Luiten, Webmaster

Tucson Rifle Club

And Google promptly responded:

At 05:59 PM 9/29/2003, Google AdSense wrote:

Hello John,

Thank you for your interest in Google AdSense. Our program specialists

review all websites for a variety of criteria. These include, but are not

limited to, site content, clear navigation, and the site’s potential value

to the AdSense program and the user experience.

During our review of your site, we have found content that strictly deals

with firearms and ammunition
and many of the ads that would appear on your

site would not be relevant to your site’s content. As the ads would not

provide a valuable experience for your site’s users or our advertisers, we

feel that your site isn’t a good fit for the AdSense program at this time.

Please feel free to reply to this email with any further questions. If you

manage or own another site on which you’d like to display AdWords ads, you

may reply to this email and include the URL in the message. We will then

reconsider your application. If the new site complies with our program

policies and is a fit for the AdSense program, we’ll approve your

application and allow you to run ads on that specific site.

Thank you for your understanding.

Sincerely,

The Google Team

(My emphasis) Dr. Luiten, not being one to take idiocy laying down, responded:

09/30/2003 11:05AM

Subject: Re: Google AdSense Account Status

Thank you for your prompt response. I am beginning to understand your

decision making process a bit better.

As I view the process, you would seem to have two sets of rejection

criteria: one published and one internal. In this case, your internal

rejection criteria is for sites dealing in “firearms and ammunition”, or

perhaps better stated, “firearms” since there is no reference to

“ammunition” that I can find on our site pages.

You further state that, “many of the ads that would appear on your site

would not be relevant to your site’s content.” What has this to with

advertising to potential customers? We are not looking to your service to

augment the firearm related content of our site, but as a service to our

viewers.

There are over 80 million firearm owners in the United States of America.

Firearm owners live in every state and community in this nation. We drive

cars, shop in grocery stores, eat at restaurants. You have no advertisers

currently subscribed in these areas?

Like it or not, we are your neighbors.

But perhaps you are looking for an advertising edge. A specificity in your

subscriber base to promote to potential advertisers? Then you are allowing

you biases to deprive yourself of an excellent marketing

opportunity. Tucson Rifle Club members compose a disproportionate share of

Southern Arizona’s campers, hikers, hunters, and outdoorsmen of all

types. Surely large companies specializing in sporting goods and clothing

(e.g., Cabela’s, LL Bean, Eddie Bauer) would look favorably upon reaching

such an audience?

What first led me to your AdSense service was an advertising strip of yours

on a car hobbyist website. Although several of the ad’s you listed there

referred to the specific model car this site promotes, many did

not. Indeed, they advertised “brake Jobs”, “mufflers”, “oil filters” and

the like. We may be located in the West, but I can assure you, we stopped

riding horses to the range some time ago. Are ad’s for car accessories,

especially those pertaining to OHV’s, also not relevant to our site

viewers?

I ask you to reconsider your prohibition against “firearm” related websites

(and I assume advertisers) in light of what it is, simple prejudice. Your

policy is short-sighted, exclusionary, and when it becomes known to the

general public will prove ultimately detrimental to your business goals.

Respectfully,

–John Luiten, Webmaster

Tucson Rifle Club

As of yet there has been no further response from Google, but if there is, rest assured I’ll keep you informed.

These are GOOD!

Robert Ariail, editorial cartoonist for the The State (S.C.) has a few recent cartoons that are excellent:

He has a new book out, too: ARIAIL!!, and an earlier collection, Ariail Attack!

The Blogging Kevins Will Appreciate This

They named a gun after us.

Perhaps embarrassingly, a pocket pistol.

I give you – The Kevin:

It’s a .380 blow-back manufactured in the Czech Republic (and probably not importable because of the BATFE’s “Saturday Night Special” rules,) 6-round magazine capacity, DAO.

And it looks like it’d hurt to shoot.

(Would it have been too much to ask for something chambered in .45ACP?)

Get this: What else does the manufacturer make? 12.7mm (about .50 caliber) SNIPER RIFLES. Named “Falcon.”

Yeah, right. Mouse gun = “Kevin”

.50 caliber long range boomer = “Falcon”

There’s no justice.

More Wonderful News from Australia

For a people descended largely from convicts, you’d think they’d have more testicular fortitude, but apparently not.

Nor do they seem to have much in the way of logical faculties, if this story is anything to go by. (Nod to Keepandbeararms.com again.)

Gun buyback underway

“Buyback.” Right. As though the guns were bought from the government, and now they’re simply “buying them back.”

A NATIONAL gun buyback scheme and firearms amnesty aimed at curbing the illegal guns trade began in NSW today, Police Minister John Watkins said.

Now, correct me if I’m wrong here, but England BANNED ALL handguns and it hasn’t “curb(ed) the illegal guns trade” there, has it? In fact, the “illegal guns trade” in England is a BOOMING BUSINESS, isn’t it?

Isn’t one definition of insanity “Repeating the same behavior while expecting a different outcome?”

The buyback is part of a national plan to outlaw a range of handguns, with the initiative already underway in the majority of states amd territories.

The firearms amnesty applies to unlicensed owners and/or unregistered guns of any type but will not result in payment to the gun owner.

So, let’s see if I understand this: If you own a licensed gun (and are thus a law-abiding gun owner) you’ll get reimbursed for your property. But if you’re an illegal gun owner, and possess unregistered firearms, well, if you turn them in you’ll get the heartwarming feeling that you’ve done your civic duty, but no money?

And this will disarm who exactly?

I though so.

If it’s that blindingly obvious to me, why are they going along?

The buyback and amnesty were part of a scheme put forward by Prime Minister John Howard and accepted by the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) last year.

Finally! The word “scheme” used appropriately!

Mr Watkins said NSW would use three vans – similar to RBT vans – to visit gun clubs and dealers across the state to collect newly prohibited guns under the National Buyback program.

Licensed owners who turn their handguns and accessories over to police will receive a cheque on the spot – based on a national price list,” he said in a statement.

He said the buyback and the amnesty would both run until March 31, 2004.

Mr Watkins said two previous amnesties and a buyback, held since 1995, had resulted in the surrender of 207,215 firearms in NSW.

The programs would bolster the NSW Government’s plan, announced last week, to address the illegal guns trade.

“Obviously, criminals are not going to take any notice of the buyback or amnesty,” Mr Watkins said.

“But these programs should reduce the total number of firearms in the community.

There it is: It isn’t the criminals that are the problem, it’s the number of guns. And the only way to address the number of guns? TAKE THEM FROM THE LAW ABIDING. Thank you Mr. Watkins for stating what gun banners control advocates here will not say (with the exception of the Violence Policy Center and a few outspoken individuals.) The ONLY “gun control” that CAN “work” is gun CONFISCATION – but it DOESN’T work because you CANNOT DISARM THE CRIMINALS. The most you can do is disarm the victims. And that works so well everywhere it’s tried, doesn’t it?

And the other thing this illustrates? Registration is only good for confiscation. You can only be sure you get the guns that are REGISTERED. The ones outside the registry? Who knows?

“And our illegal guns policing package … will hit back at the dangerous criminals who dare to carry firearms on our streets,” he said.

Hey, I’m all for that! Find ’em, jail ’em.

Oh, wait. “Dangerous criminals” like the guy in the story below? Nevermind.

South Australia’s handguns buyback also begins today.

Again: What it will do is disarm the law-abiding. It will do NOTHING to disarm THE CRIMINALS. And it will turn a LOT of formerly law-abiding citizens INTO criminals.

For government, that’s a win-win situation, isn’t it?

This is What the Gun Control Groups Consider “Reasonable Regulation”

“England can do it, Australia can do it, We Can TOO!” is what they were chanting at the (somewhat less than a) Million Moms March a couple of years ago. Courtesy of Keepandbeararms.com comes this heartwarming story of what can happen to you in a totally gun-phobic society when you take possession of a gun that belongs to a relative – just to FIX it!

Family allowed to keep heirloom gun

Allowed! How nice that the State allowed this family to keep their own property! But wait! It gets better!

A Mooroopna man was convicted and fined with possession of an unregistered firearm in Shepparton Magistrates’ Court yesterday after taking possession of the family heirloom to remove a jammed bullet.

Jay Hunter, 23 a slaughterman of PicolaKatunga Rd, Picola, was given the Remington .22 pump-action rifle by his grandmother on June 6.

The court heard how the day after the gun was given to Mr Hunter to remove a jammed bullet, police attended his home to investigate reports of a domestic dispute between he and his partner that day.

Police prosecutor Senior Constable Les Oroszvary said Mr Hunter offered police the use of his phone to ring the victim’s parents and confirm the victim’s welfare.

Objection! Mr. Hunter has not been convicted of anything (except in the media), so his “partner” was not a “victim.” His “partner” was the other person in reported domestic dispute. This could have been anything from a shouting match to a knock-down-drag-out fight, but you’ll note that Mr. Hunter was not charged with domestic abuse, if you read further. Hell, HE could have been the “victim.”

But Mr. Hunter had an unregistered firearm! He’s obviously an eeeeevil wife- partner-beater.

“While there the police saw the Remington .22 pump-action rifle and subsequently arrested the defendant,” Sen Const Oroszvary said.

He should have never let them in the house. But do police in Australia require a search warrant?

Apparently they don’t in the U.S. anymore.

Magistrate Steve Raleigh ordered the gun be destroyed; however, Mr Hunter’s grandmother, who was in court during the hearing, pleaded that the heirloom be preserved.

The court heard how the firearm belonged to the defendant’s deceased grandfather and had sentimental and monetary value.

Magistrate Raleigh allowed for the gun to be kept by the family under conditions that it be registered and in the possession of a licensed gunman.

Mr Hunter was convicted and fined $500 on the firearms charges.

And another dangerous, violent felon was prevented from committing a heinous crime, right?

Who cares, the State is $500 richer, another dangerous firearm is registered, and another citizen has a criminal record! A trifecta!

I swear upon everything I hold dear I will NEVER obey a law requiring me to register my firearms or get a license to own them.

Oh Yeah, Licensing and Registration is a GREAT Idea!

Just look at how well it’s working in Canada!

This report (link might be temporary) explains that the gun-owner database that was supposed to “keep guns out of the wrong hands” is, like the rest of the system, a disaster:

Ottawa report blasts gun registry

Unreliable data threaten key screening goal of program

OTTAWA – An internal Justice Department report on the firearms program cites major weaknesses in the ability of the gun registry to provide crucial information to firearms officers and police.

The report says one of the chief goals of the program — continual screening to make sure gun owners remain eligible for licences — is threatened by unreliable information contained in a massive database that is supposed to tip police and the Canada Firearms Centre to individuals who should not own firearms.

The report, dated last April, also says RCMP concern about privacy rights is delaying or preventing access by firearms officers to information they need to judge whether a person should be issued gun licences.

Privacy rights? What right to privacy do peons have?

As well, firearms officers told Justice officials who prepared the report they were concerned about delays receiving copies of court prohibition orders that could prevent individuals from acquiring firearms or force them to surrender them.

Furthermore, police officials expressed concern about the length of time it can take to obtain information from the registry on all the firearms that may be registered to a gun owner at a specific address. Each individual serial number must be searched on the registry.

The report, obtained by Canadian Alliance MP Garry Breitkreuz through the Access to Information Act, also pinpointed major failures in the original design of the program which led to the explosion in costs Auditor General Sheila Fraser outlined in a scathing report last year.

Garry Breitkreuz has been a vocal and active opponent of C.68 since inception, and has fought implementation of the registry probably harder than any MP. He also predicted that it would run way over budget – and was right.

The report was prepared by the Justice Department’s evaluation division, which conducted a review of the firearms program covering the period from 1995, when Parliament passed the Firearms Act, to September 2002, three months before Fraser released her report.

The Justice Department report contains further detail about aspects of the program which Fraser also questioned.

It says police agencies do not follow consistent procedures when entering information in the Firearms Interest Police (FIP) database, an RCMP computer information record which contains files on four million individuals for the purpose of gun licence screening. Local police forces contribute about 75 per cent of the information in the database.

Thus reinforcing the objection that implementation of licensing and registration draws on police resources thus further reducing their ability to do their primary job – protecting the citizens. And that time isn’t free either.

The report notes the database is a major component of the firearms program’s ability to ensure licence eligibility of gun owners is reviewed continuously — one of the main arguments the government has used to argue the Firearms Act will do more for public safety than the previous licensing system.

Except it’s run like pretty much every other government database – poorly. Nor is it secure (there’s that privacy issue again.)

“There appear to be several issues that threaten the effectiveness of FIP,” the report says, explaining some police agencies enter information that is irrelevant to gun ownership, files are duplicated whenever a FIP file is modified and information on individuals in the database is often vague. For example, the report said surnames are often entered only with the initial of the person’s first name.

Police, however, say they have more time for front line work now that the firearms centre has taken over responsibility for screening would-be gun owners.

The report said key personnel interviewed for the evaluation, including Canada Firearms Centre officials, were “nearly unanimous” that the centre’s structure was poorly designed at the outset, with separate policy and operations branches that reported to an assistant deputy minister who had duties in other areas within the Justice Department.

As well, the department initially had a “consensus approach” to management which attempted to accommodate too many divergent views and interests.

“The search for consensus had a cascading effect on the entire implementation of the Canadian Firearms Program,” the report says. “At least in hindsight, the initial implementation timelines and the ambiguous net estimate of $85 million to implement the (Canadian Firearms Registration System) were quite unrealistic and damaged the credibility of the program,” the report says.

So, you’re saying it was just another government bureaucracy?

“The only thing that saves us from bureaucracy is inefficiency. An efficient bureaucracy is the greatest threat to liberty.” — Eugene McCarthy

Firearms centre spokesman David Austin noted that the report was delivered following changes to the program the government had initiated earlier in response to Fraser’s report.

Jebus, where have I heard that before. “Oh, yes, we had those problems, but they’re fixed now!”

Breitkreuz predicted it will cost the government millions to fix the weaknesses outlined in the Justice Department report.

The latest flaws in the registry followed last week’s revelation that it has been a dismal failure at tracking stolen guns over the last five years, matching only 4,438 firearms with descriptions of more than 100,000 stolen weapons the firearms centre attempted to trace.

All the stolen guns which were located had been registered under the Firearms Act, according to RCMP records obtained by Breitkreuz. The owners apparently acquired them without knowledge they were stolen.

The records also revealed that serial numbers for 250,305 firearms logged in the registry matched the serial numbers of the 101,835 guns police reported stolen since 1998.

Why, why, WHY do gun control proponents think licensing and registration will work here?

Because of the duplication of serial numbers, a weakness of the gun-making industry years ago, all the stolen rifles and shotguns that were traced had to be found through manual comparisons of other features, such as the manufacturer’s name, model and brand.

It is estimated that setting up the gun registry will carry a price tag approaching $1 billion.

I’ve got news for you: EXCEEDING $1 billion. Even in Canadian dollars, that’s a lot of dough to flush down a rathole.

More Gun Banner Doublespeak

The Washington Times reports on Maryland’s current attempt to expand its own “Assault Weapons Ban.” Let’s see how many mischaracterizations and logical disconnects we can find, eh?

Two Maryland lawmakers want rifles like the one used in the sniper attacks last year added to a statewide ban on assault weapons, as the federal restriction on such weapons expires next year.
Sen. Rob Garagiola of Montgomery County and Delegate Neil F. Quinter of Howard County, both Democrats, are sponsoring the “assault weapons-ban bill” in their respective legislative chambers for the second year in preparation for the lifting of the federal ban on assault weapons in September next year.
Mr. Quinter said he is pessimistic that Congress will extend the ban. “I hope that they do, but I think realistically speaking, it is not very likely the Republican-controlled House and Senate will,” he said.

(Aside: Halleluja! End aside.)

Mr. Garagiola said he believes the Bushmaster rifle should be included in the ban. Police said the two suspects in the sniper attacks last fall used a Bushmaster rifle in the random shootings that left 10 persons dead and three injured in the Washington metropolitan area.

Yes, once again the eeeeevil Bushmaster rifle is at fault for the shootings, not Muhammed and Malvo.

“I am not looking to take away legitimate hunting rifles and handguns,” he said. “I am looking to maintain and strengthen a federal ban at the state level.”

That’s what we always hear. It’s what the English were told, too. First they lost their semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, then all handguns. And the current red tape and bullshit required to have and keep the few firearms still allowed them has reduced the number of legitimate gun owners to an all time low. And gun crime is at an all-time high in England. (New York smokers should be used to this rhetoric. They were told “We don’t want to ban smoking!” Riiiight.)

Second, if Muhammed and Malvo – who fired one shot at each victim – had actually used a “legitimate hunting rifle,” say, a Remington 700 chambered in 7mm Remington Magnum, would he be fighting to have that rifle banned? (Oh, right, that’s a “long range sniper rifle.”) And what about “legitimate handguns?” Maryland Attorney General Joseph Curran has made it perfectly clear that he is in favor of doing anything and everything to get handguns banned (and if you read between the lines, any other firearm not in the hands of government) in his manifesto “A Farewell to Arms.”

Chris W. Cox, chief lobbyist for the National Rifle Association (NRA), disagreed with the bill. Mr. Cox said the federal ban’s intention was to study whether the restriction decreased crime, which it didn’t.
“I guess the question is why do the politicians want to keep ineffective laws on the book?” Mr. Cox said. “They’re playing on the emotions of voters and abusing the general public on a very complex and technical debate, and it’s all to chip away at the rights of law-abiding gun owners by incrementally banning more guns.”

Which is why, as Mr. Cox is well aware, they want to keep an ineffective law on the books. It’s far easier to modify an existing law than to pass a new one.

Maryland banned a number of military-style assault pistols about 10 years ago but allows the sale of 45 models of semiautomatic assault weapons if a buyer passes a criminal background check and agrees to a seven-day waiting period.
The federal law prohibits the sale of those guns that have two or more characteristics of an assault weapon, like a forward pistol grip and a grenade launcher. There are 19 weapons banned under the law.
The proposed bill would list all the banned weapons and outlaw the sale of 45 models of assault rifles and shotguns. Mr. Garagiola said the bill also would stop manufacturers from simply changing the name and altering a few characteristics of a gun to bypass the law.
Mr. Quinter and Mr. Garagiola — who last year failed to get the weapons-ban bill to the floor — now have the support of Baltimore Mayor Martin O’Malley and Montgomery County Executive Douglas M. Duncan, Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.’s chief rivals in state politics.

You remember Governor Erlich, right? He’s the guy who beat gun-control enthusiast Kathleen Kennedy Townsend after the “DC Snipers” were caught.

During his campaign for governor last fall, Mr. Ehrlich questioned the effectiveness of many gun-control laws in Maryland and said he would review the laws if elected.
Mr. Garagiola said he doesn’t see this as a Democrat vs. Republican issue.
“I can’t see how or why anyone can make an argument to have these weapons back on the street,” he said.
Mr. Garagiola said five other states have imposed such firearm restrictions. He said Connecticut and Kentucky are considering similar bans.
“They were originally banned [by the federal government] because police were being outgunned,” he said. “It does not make sense to allow these guns back on the street.”

Now, which is it, Mr. Garagiola? Was the law effective at keeping the guns off the street, or wasn’t it? If it wasn’t, then letting the ban die won’t put them “back on the street” will it? You’re arguing that the manufactures “bypassed the law” by “changing the name and altering a few characteristics of a gun.” Therefore the law didn’t “keep them off the streets,” did it? And what did crime do over the period from 1994 until 2003? It WENT DOWN didn’t it? All those evil, renamed, slightly modified “assault weapons” that the law didn’t stop from hitting “the streets,” and crime went down anyway.

It’s not about guns. It’s about CONTROL.