Our efficient, well-run government

Phony products by phony companies get government Energy Star approval.

Fifteen phony products — including a gasoline-powered alarm clock — won a label from the government certifying them as energy efficient in a test of the federal "Energy Star" program.

Investigators concluded the program is "vulnerable to fraud and abuse."

Really? It's "vulnerable to fraud and abuse?" No kidding!

But the General Accountability Office, Congress' investigative arm, said Energy Star doesn't verify claims made by manufacturers — which might explain the gasoline-powered alarm clock, not to mention a product billed as an air room cleaner that was actually a space heater with a feather duster and fly strips attached, and a computer monitor that won approval within 30 minutes of submission.

So, in a program involving tax credits and rebates (i.e. taxpayer money), the government doesn't bother to actually verify the claims those credits and rebates are based on. Even worse they don't even bother to find out what it is they're certifying!

"EPA officials confirmed that because the energy-efficiency information was plausible, it was likely that no one read the product description information," GAO said.

And they lie about it!

According to the GAO, the EPA and Energy Department told investigators in briefings that although the program is based on manufacturers' certifying their products meet efficiency standards, that efficiency is ensured through aftermarket tests and self-policing.

Remember, this is the same government that is now in charge of our health-care system. Be afraid, be very afraid.

Health "Care" Roundup

Well, they did it. The Democrat Party bucked the voters, opposed public opinion, and inflicted a massive socialist health insurance system on us.

This story warms my heart. The media is already talking about how this will hurt the Dems.

The initial blush of President Barack Obama's health care triumph immediately gives way to a sober political reality — he must sell the landmark legislation to an angry and unpredictable electorate, still reeling from the recession.

Voters may not buy it.

And that could mean a disastrous midterm election year for Obama and his fellow Democrats.

Some are saying that after the Repubs get control of Congress back, they can repeal this insanity. While I agree that they could, I think pigs growing wings and joining the avian family is far more likely. Obama will never sign a repeal, and I doubt they'll get the numbers to override a veto. By the time we have a President who may be receptive, there will be a massive bureaucracy in place, working against repeal in order to protect itself. Let's face it - when was the last time the government made itself smaller?

And now, here's a quick roundup of coverage by the bloggers I frequent. They'll probably say anything I could, and do it much better.

Nicki at The Liberty Zone is rightfully furious.

Robb at Sharp as a Marble has a simple reminder for us.

Sebastian at Snowflakes in Hell has several posts, reminding us that there should be consequences for those who voted for this monstrosity, that it's not completely over yet, and starts looking to what the next steps should be. He shows us that some are looking to present a united fight against this even after it's signed.

Another rightfully angry post, this one by Atom Smasher at Men Are Not Potatoes.

A Conservative Shemale reminds us that it's not the end of the world, or even the country, and offers us some comfort. I'm not quite as confident about this as the person she quotes, but that's more due to some of the specifics of the bill than the principle that is quoted.

Brigid at Home on the Range has a simple message that we should all remember eight months from now.

Tam at View From the Porch give us a little (but only a little, in my opinion) hyperbole.

Michael Bane posts a quote that shows that wisdom can come from any source, and gives us some other words of wisdom.

That's all I have for the moment, but it's still early this morning. I may do an update later, if I have time.

Stupid, stupid, stupid!

Somali pirates attack a Dutch warship:

Troops aboard the Dutch warship HNLMS Tromp fired warning shots Wednesday off the coast of East Africa as suspected Somali pirates in two small skiffs raced toward their warship, the EU Naval Force said.

After the pirates realized they had made what spokesman Cmdr. John Harbour called a "rather silly mistake," they turned around and fled. EU Naval Force personnel tracked down the two skiffs and a third suspected mothership, finding ammunition and rocket-propelled grenades on board, said Harbour, a spokesman for the EU Naval Force.

But that's not the stupid part. This is:

The two skiffs were destroyed and the pirates were set free on the mothership after it had been cleared of weapons. [emphasis mine]

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over?

Do they really expect that to stop - or even slightly discourage - these human cockroaches from going right back out and attacking another ship? They probably had replacement skiffs and weapons before the end of the day! If you want to stop piracy, you have to actually punish the pirates! Hanging from the yardarm is a good start.

One of these days, someone is going to get really serious about fighting pirates. Until then, well, we have this idiocy.

Another reason DADT should be repealed

She followed the rules and stayed in the closet - and someone else outed her to the military, so now she's been discharged under DADT.

Jene Newsome played by the rules as an Air Force sergeant: She never told anyone in the military she was a lesbian. The 28-year-old's honorable discharge under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy came only after police officers in Rapid City, S.D., saw an Iowa marriage certificate in her home and told the nearby Ellsworth Air Force Base.

[...]

Newsome was at work at the base at the time and refused to immediately come home and assist the officers in finding her partner, whom she married in Iowa — where gay marriage is legal — in October.

Police officers, who said they spotted the marriage license on the kitchen table through a window of Newsome's home, alerted the base, police Chief Steve Allender said in a statement sent to the AP. The license was relevant to the investigation because it showed both the relationship and residency of the two women, he said.

[...]

In the complaint filed last month with the department, ACLU South Dakota said police had no legal reason to tell the military Newsome was a lesbian and that officers knew if they did, it would jeopardize her military career.

Newsome, who was discharged in January, said she didn't know where the marriage license was in her home when police came to her house on Nov. 20 and claims the officers were retaliating because she wouldn't help with her partner's arrest.

This was blatant retaliation, despite the police department's claims that once they knew they "had" to tell the military. They knew that giving that information to her superiors would destroy her career - it's not like DADT is a secret. Telling the military she's a lesbian could do nothing to help them bring in her partner, the only possible goal was to hurt Newsome for not cooperating.

This is another example of why DADT is just wrong. You can follow the rules, staying deep in the closet and keeping any relationships a deep, dark secret, but if someone else outs you to the military, your career is destroyed anyway.

We already make gays and lesbians hide who they are for their entire military careers. Should we also make them take a vow of celibacy and eschew all romantic relationships for as long as they serve? I might support that - but only if we require heterosexuals to do the same thing.

Update: A little research prompted by a debate going on over at A Conservative Shemale has revealed that we actually do effectively make gays and lesbians take a vow of celibacy when they join the military. From the actual DADT law (10 U.S.C. 654)

(b) Policy.— A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations:

(1) That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts

[...]

(3) That the member has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex.

[omitted sections deal with exceptions to the law]

So gays who join the military can't have a romantic relationship (after all, even kissing or holding hands by two men can be considered "a homosexual act or acts"). I stand by my original conclusion: I might support that - but only if we apply it to heterosexuals, too.

Oh, HELL No!

Real ID 2.0, anyone?

Lawmakers working to craft a new comprehensive immigration bill have settled on a way to prevent employers from hiring illegal immigrants: a national biometric identification card all American workers would eventually be required to obtain.

Can you think of a better way to unite large numbers of conservatives and liberals than this? I mean, Real ID has states passing laws making it illegal for state agencies to comply with parts of the RealID Act. Why?

Under the potentially controversial plan still taking shape in the Senate, all legal U.S. workers, including citizens and immigrants, would be issued an ID card with embedded information, such as fingerprints, to tie the card to the worker.

Potentially controversial? What planet were they living on when Real ID was being debated? Do they really think Americans have changed enough that quickly for this to not stir up a rain of fecal matter?

Also, unless there's a central database that the information is checked against every time the card is read, I predict it will take less than six months for criminals to crack the code on the cards and start making fakes that read with biometrics matching whoever they decide to give the card to. Less than a year to spoof it, if there is a database (unless some .gov idiot leaks the whole bloody database on a 'lost' laptop, sooner).

"It is fundamentally a massive invasion of people's privacy," said Chris Calabrese, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "We're not only talking about fingerprinting every American, treating ordinary Americans like criminals in order to work. We're also talking about a card that would quickly spread from work to voting to travel to pretty much every aspect of American life that requires identification."

Exactly. Just like social security numbers were only supposed to be used for Social Security purposes. It will spread to everything.

(h/t A Conservative Shemale)

Holy Bullshit!

This fills me with a sick rage.

They ride around seeking out girls who they feel sinned by wearing revealing clothing (anyone who isn't dressed in an ankle-length skirt with a shirt buttoned up all the way and a kerchief covering her hair, apparently), and pass out repugnant pamphlets blaming rape victims for the actions of deranged lunatics who seek power by sexually violating women!

One passage from the pamphlet reads:

“Scripture tells us that when a man looks on a woman to lust for her he has already committed adultery in his heart. If you are dressed in a way that tempts a men to do this secret (or not so secret) sin, you are a participant in the sin,” the leaflet states.“By the way, some rape victims would not have been raped if they had dressed properly. So can we really say they were innocent victims?” [emphasis mine]

Nicki hits the nail on the head:

The only difference between these drooling, frothing zealots and their Taliban counterparts is that they haven't gained enough power to start stoning women to death for provocative dress yet.

I hope I never run into one of these idiots. Testing the limits of my self-control is not a good thing, and I really don't need to deal with an assault trial - but someone who tries to tell me a rape victim brought it on herself because of the way she was dressed stands a good chance of losing many teeth. Though I would push for a jury trial if I lost that battle, since I doubt the jury selection process could find 12 people around here who would vote to convict.

Oh, and on a separate note (from the same post at Nicki's) - Pat Robertson, you really need to drink a big tall glass of STFU, you evil piece of revolting buzzard excrement.

Bill further restricts sex offenders

From the Roanoke Times:

Legislation that would further limit where sex offenders can live and expand the list of convictions that activate those restrictions has drawn the ire of civil libertarians and advocates of reforming those laws.

[...]

If enacted, Athey's House Bill 1004 would bar individuals ordered to register as sex offenders for crimes involving a juvenile victim from living within 500 feet of multiple places children are known to frequent.

It would add school bus stops, community parks, playgrounds, recreation centers, public pools and private, parochial and Christian schools to state law, which applies to day care centers, public schools and adjoining public parks.

I have just two comments on this right now:

1) In addition to my next objection, I would have to object to adding school bus stops to the list. They can change from year to year without notice (unless it affects your own kids). What happens to a sex offender who wakes up one morning and finds out they've moved a school bus stop in front of his house? Does he have to move? Can he be charged with a violation immediately even though he wasn't notified? If he does have to move, how long does he have before he can be charged?

2) This objection is actually the most important - even beyond Constitutional considerations. It is, of course, the perennial objection to sex offender registration/restriction laws: If they're so dangerous we have to continually track where they live, and restrict where they can live, work, and travel,

WHY ARE WE LETTING THEM OUT OF JAIL IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!

Oh, good grief

Now JFK got shut down because someone went through the wrong door.

A busy terminal at John F. Kennedy International Airport was evacuated after a man opened a restricted door and set off an alarm, authorities said, making it the second known security breach at a New York-area airport this month.
[...]
Authorities earlier said the security breach was caused by a passenger who was exiting Kennedy's Terminal 8 and opened a door that was supposed to be used only by airport workers.

There's a simple way to keep people from going through doors that they're not supposed to go through. It's called a lock. There are even ways to make it easy for the people who are supposed to use the door to open it.

If the TSA was actually about security, these basic measures would have been in place years ago. Instead they use signs. Like a terrorist is going to care about the sign that says "Don't go in here, or else."

Authorities were initially unsure Saturday whether the person had been coming or going from the JFK terminal, and they evacuated the secure areas of the building while they investigated. The Transportation Security Administration said its agents and Port Authority police were involved in the investigation. [emphasis mine]

How much damage could a real terrorist have done during that confusion when the authorities didn't know what was going on.

It's not about security, it's about visibility.

The mind boggles...

at this insanity.

But as a progressive, I would sooner lay my child to rest than succumb to the belief that the use of a gun for self-defense is somehow not in itself a gun crime. [emphasis mine]

I have my doubts as to whether that attitude would withstand the test of reality, but the fact that this waste of carbon would even spout such insanity means it's possible. In fact, it seems like he's a True Believer in the "Progressive" agenda:

An alternative to lockdown is immediate exodus via announcement. Although this removes potential hostages and makes it nearly impossible for the shooter to acquire preselected targets, it unfairly rewards resourceful children who move to safety off-site more shrewdly and efficiently than others.

Schools should level playing fields, not intrinsically reward those more resourceful. A level barrel is fair to all fish.

So, not only would he rather see his own children dead than sully himself by using an evil gun to defend them, but he would also follow the "Progressive" doctrine of "equal opportunity must mean equal outcomes" and see all the children dead rather than allow any who can to "unfairly" use their resourcefulness to survive when others might not be able to.

Why is this idiot allowed to teach? Has anyone looked at how he grades his students? If he believes this strongly that "Schools should level playing fields, not intrinsically reward those more resourceful," does he give every student the same grade? Does he grade based on performance, or based on his own little "Progressive" agenda? After all, it's not "fair" for students who work harder or are innately more talented in whatever subject he teaches to be rewarded for their work/ability when the less motivated or less gifted don't do as well.

If this twit had his way, we'd still be reading by candlelight because Edison would have learned as a child that hard work and resourcefulness shouldn't be rewarded, and he would never have bothered trying.

Any teacher who states his belief that resourcefulness and intelligence shouldn't be rewarded because it's not "fair" should immediately be banned from teaching anything for life.

(h/t SayUncle)

Update 2009-12-29:

It's been opined, at Uncle's, at comments in the original source, and by Jenn at A Conservative Shemale (thanks for reading!) that the letter was actually intended as satire. On reflection, I think there's a good chance that they're right. A comment at Uncle's actually links to another letter by the same person

Satire or not, I think the main points of my post here still stand on their own, and anyone who that seems to support that idea. On the other hand, I've actually met people who think like that, and it's written believably enough that I just can't bring myself to dismiss the possibility that it's real.does think like that still should be banned from teaching for life.

Cash for Clunkers = Fail: Part 2

More unintended consequences of Cash for Clunkers hits another part of the auto industry - salvage yards.

Last summer's Cash for Clunkers program has clogged auto salvage yards with a glut of trade-ins that are too damaged to drive but too good to be sent directly to scrap.

The less glamorous side of the auto industry is having trouble digesting the byproducts of the buying frenzy that put nearly 700,000 new automobiles on the nation's roads -- and took the same number off.

The future of millions of usable auto parts is in limbo as a critical deadline looms this winter under the federal program, which had unexpected success on the front end and its funding tripled to $3 billion.

Several salvage yards in the Roanoke and New River valleys are filled with valuable alternators, starters, air conditioning compressors, wheels, body parts, seats and other major interior parts.

But they are still connected to the 1,500 or so used automobiles traded in through the less-than-eight-week program that expired in August.

And many may go to waste if a federal deadline to conclude the program is not extended.

Apparently, there is a six month deadline for salvage yards to strip usable parts from the cars before they must be crushed or shredded. The problem? There were more cars traded than the salvage yards can deal with.

"There is absolutely no way that we can process these vehicles and recycle anywhere near their potential," he said.

He said the volume of trade-ins flooding the salvage industry is three times what the industry expected when it agreed to support the program and to process the trades within six months. With only four months left on many of the clunkers he bought, he's so far only covered his costs to buy the vehicles for about $225 apiece and get them towed to his facility.

Were these normal trade-ins, the unwanted vehicles could simply be sold to new owners. In this case, the engines were destroyed under a federal mandate to take relatively low-mpg vehicles off the road.

But virtually every trade is loaded with fully functional parts. This represents an opportunity that the auto recycling industry wants to tap -- if given enough time.

As it stands now, however, salvage yards say they can't possibly process the vehicles received under the clunker program by their deadline.

If the yards don't get an extension, the vehicles will have to be scrapped before there is a chance to take off all of the parts, cutting short the program's potential economic and environmental effect, Cunningham said.

The way they normally operate seems to be one factor:

While the obvious solution to the problem at hand might seem to be to strip the clunkers and put the parts on a shelf until a buyer comes along, few shops have the time and storage capacity for such a harvest.

They often keep their autos whole or mostly whole and remove a bumper, rearview mirror or the like when someone asks for them.

That makes sense. Most salvage yards are small operations - lots of land, but only a few employees - and stripping a vehicle for parts is pretty labor intensive.

And, of course, the biggest flaw in the whole program is still there, too.

According to Cunningham, "the real clunker junker smoker" is still going down the highway because its owner could not afford the payments for a new car.

What got traded in for the most part were "very nice cars, very above-average. I had Lexuses being traded in," he said. "Eighty percent of the cars that were traded in, easily, would have went straight into the wholesale market to be resold with absolutely no problem getting rid of them."

But without functioning engines and engine replacement forbidden by the guidelines, the industry has turned to what it calls parting the vehicles out.

Salvage yards are finding there's plenty of demand, but they need time for purchasers to show up. Many highlight their inventories on the Web and wait for a potential customer -- a mechanic or do-it-yourselfer -- to come through the door, call or send an e-mail.

People who could afford to own a Lexus were trading them in on the taxpayer's dime? Total. Fail.

Some other unintended side-effects?

Since 84 percent of the trades were SUVs or trucks, a supply glut could depress prices, he said.

In addition, taking 700,000 vehicles out of service is likely to somewhat reduce the demand for the very parts salvage yards now have in ample supply, he added.

Besides, the program didn't do what it was supposed to do, anyway.

According to Cross-Sell, a Lexington, Ky., automotive market analysis company, sales for August and September jumped 16 percent in the New River Valley and 3 percent in the Roanoke Valley, compared with last year.

However, the help was only temporary. Deep declines in sales continued at the program's close. For the first 10 months of the year, sales of new automobiles are down 21.5 percent in the New River Valley and 24 percent in the Roanoke Valley.

I'd like to see a graph of those figures. I bet August and September are just an insignificant bump on a steadily downward line.

Fail.

WTF???!!!

This is ridiculous.

Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize

President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday in a stunning decision designed to encourage his initiatives to reduce nuclear arms, ease tensions with the Muslim world and stress diplomacy and cooperation rather than unilateralism.

He hasn't actually accomplished anything! None of these "initiatives" have actually had any success yet! Then there's this:

Nobel observers were shocked by the unexpected choice so early in the Obama presidency, which began less than two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline.

Less than two weeks! So he was nominated before he even could have accomplished anything! WTF? Even the AP admits he hasn't actually accomplished what he's being recognized for:

The Norwegian Nobel Committee lauded the change in global mood wrought by Obama's calls for peace and cooperation but recognized initiatives that have yet to bear fruit: reducing the world stock of nuclear arms, easing American conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthening the U.S. role in combating climate change. [emphasis mine]
[...]
The Norwegian Nobel Committee lauded the change in global mood wrought by Obama's calls for peace and cooperation but recognized initiatives that have yet to bear fruit: reducing the world stock of nuclear arms, easing American conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthening the U.S. role in combating climate change.

Looks like there may have been some Bush Derangement Syndrome involved, too:

The award appeared to be a slap at President George W. Bush from a committee that harshly criticized Obama's predecessor for his largely unilateral military action in the wake of the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

I say again, WTF?

Dumb Crook Tricks

County police investigate reported abduction

Roanoke County police are investigating a reported abduction and attempted bank robbery.

Lt. Chuck Mason said a man walked out of his house in Roanoke County near Vinton this morning and was met by a man with a handgun. He was forced to get into a car and then go pick up a female friend, Mason said.

The three drove to the Valley Bank branch on Starkey Road, and the man with the gun ordered them to withdraw money. While he remained outside, the woman and the other man went into the bank. The man handed the teller a note warning the bank to lock the doors.

If you're going to force someone at gunpoint to do something they don't want to do, don't leave them alone to do it in a place they can get help.

Duh!

Wow! Some Grade A PSH from Time!

Now this is some serious PSH. Just in the first paragraph:

The camcorder shakes as it films the thud of thick .50 caliber bullets ripping through a steel plate target in the heat of the Arizona desert. Panning across the jagged rocks and cacti, the camera then focuses on the shooter: a smiling Mexican sitting down on the dust as he uses both hands to fire the huge state-of-the-art weapon that can tear through tank armor. He was the happy customer, having bought the killing machine from an Arizona gun shop for about $21,000. The grainy video was seized by ATF agents in a raid on a weapon traffickers' safe house in Yuma. One man in the film was arrested and faces charges. But the man who showed off his shooting on the video is believed to be south of the border using the cannon-like gun to wage Mexico's relentless drug war.

Lets see:

a smiling Mexican sitting down on the dust as he uses both hands to fire the huge state-of-the-art weapon that can tear through tank armor.

If all it takes to "tear through tank armor" is a .50BMG, why do tanks have to carry that much, much larger gun and use depleted uranium rounds to do the same thing? Why does the A-10 Thunderbolt II need it's 30 mm GAU-8/A Avenger Gatling gun, also firing depleted uranium rounds, to do that?

He was the happy customer, having bought the killing machine from an Arizona gun shop for about $21,000.

Loaded phrasing. Bad Reporter!

But the man who showed off his shooting on the video is believed to be south of the border using the cannon-like gun to wage Mexico's relentless drug war.

More loaded phrasing. Don't they teach journalism in journalism school anymore?

Remember, that's just the first paragraph. I haven't even finished reading the rest of it yet. I may do more later.

Show me the Money!

The bailout money, that is. Seems that nobody can figure out where it all went.

WASHINGTON — Although hundreds of well-trained eyes are watching over the $700 billion that Congress last year decided to spend bailing out the nation's financial sector, it's still difficult to answer some of the most basic questions about where the money went.

Despite a new oversight panel, a new special inspector general, the existing Government Accountability Office and eight other inspectors general, those charged with minding the store say they don't have all the weapons they need. Ten months into the Troubled Asset Relief Program, some members of Congress say that some oversight of bailout dollars has been so lacking that it's essentially worthless.

Everybody who's surprised about this, raise your hand.

Why?

Did you really think such a massive outlay to private companies that were going under because of bad financial practices was not going to be misappropriated and hidden?

Did you really think that the same government "oversight" that failed to notice these companies artificially inflated values and financial reports would be able to keep track of all that money once these same companies got hold of it?

Do we really want the same government that couldn't keep track of the massive TARP funding to be in charge of our health care?

Random Discovery

It's been a while, hasn't it?

Tonight, while doing a little internet research for responding to a comment in the Roanoke Times editorial blog, I discovered something interesting. I can't quite decide if it's amusing or disturbing that this law is still on the books in Massachusetts.

PART IV. CRIMES, PUNISHMENTS AND PROCEEDINGSIN [sic] CRIMINAL CASES

TITLE I. CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS

CHAPTER 272. CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY, MORALITY, DECENCY AND GOOD ORDER

Chapter 272: Section 36. Blasphemy

Section 36. Whoever wilfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior.

You know, if anyone actually got charged with this, it would get thrown out on 1st Amendment grounds so fast you'd hear the sonic boom in Alaska.

Huh?

Must be one heck of an eggbeater.

It doesn't get more deadly than an AK-47

Well, I haven't done the fisking thing before, but this article just cries out for it, and I haven't seen where anyone else has done it yet. So, here it is:

It Doesn't Get More Deadly Than an AK-47

PEORIA —

The recent discovery of two rapid-fire, high-powered assault-style rifles in Peoria has alarmed police because they know the devastating punch they pack. And when police are worried, residents ought to be.

Rule 1: The language is always loaded.

The first gun, a knock-off version of an AK-47, was recovered Oct. 29 from a Central Peoria house as police raided the home looking for drugs. Three days later, another AK-47-type semi-automatic rifle was used against officers in a shoot-out that ended with the gunman being killed.

"It doesn't get more deadly than an AK-47," Peoria police spokesman Doug Burgess said.

What about those horrible .50 caliber rifles? Aren't they supposed to be able to cut a man in half from a mile away, and knock 747s out of the air? That sounds more deadly to me!

Figures from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives show a marked increase in the number of AK-style weapons traced and entered into the agency's computer database because they had been seized or connected to a crime.

The number of such tracings rose even while the federal assault weapons ban was in effect and has continued to climb since its expiration.

So wait, you're saying the AWB didn't work?

Since 1993, the year before the ban took effect, ATF has recorded a more than sevenfold increase in the guns - which includes the original Russian-made AK-47 and a variety of copycats from around the world. The number of AK-type guns climbed from 1,140 in 1993 to 8,547 last year.

The numbers confirm what is happening here locally with the guns: They're getting into criminals' hands.

But.... they're criminals! It's illegal for them to have guns! There oughtta be a law against that!

"Personally, I know a lot of these guns are out there," said Peoria police Sgt. Doug Theobald, adding officers occasionally find the rifles during raids or arrests. "Most of the time it's regular gun owners that have them in their gun safe. They don't sell drugs or shoot at police.

"The concern is if a criminal has one," he said. "It's not the gun itself, but the person standing behind the gun."

I'm surprised this made it into the story. It almost sounds like they're trying to say that regular gun owners aren't criminals. That's completely contrary to what the MSM's masters at the Brady Campaign say. It must be a typo.

Because the weapon is shoulder-mounted, its accuracy is substantial.

Shoulder-mounted? You mean it attaches to your shoulder, unlike every other rifle out there?

The standard bullet, a 7.62x39mm, is highly lethal as it can travel up to 400 meters.

WOW! Up to 400 meters! That's really lethal! But, wait a minute, I hear a .22 can travel over a mile. So a .22 must be so lethal it can kill you just by looking at you! The killer doesn't even have to pull the trigger!

The common AK-47 magazine holds 30 rounds and is flat with a curve in it to allow the bullets to feed properly. Other higher-capacity magazines, some holding twice or triple the normal amount, also can be used.

With such a large magazine attached, the rifle has the capability to "lay down suppressive fire," meaning it can shoot 20-30 high velocity rounds as fast as the gunman can squeeze the trigger, said Theobald.

So if I only shoot 19 rounds, it's not suppressive fire? What about 5, or 10?

"(The bullets) can go through brick walls, a car, just about anything," Burgess said. "The penetrating power of the round is unbelievable."

So can almost any round used for hunting. In fact, the rounds that can't are generally not allowed for hunting in most states, because they're not considered powerful enough.

Police have reported finding the rounds inside the former Warner Homes public housing complex after they blew through the exterior brick wall. Two years ago at Landmark Apartments, eight bullet holes were found in an apartment. Shell casings found outside the apartment matched bullets used in an AK-47 assault rifle.

Another example of the gun's packing-power is in the 1999 homicide of Marcus Risby. Charles Childs fired an Egyptian-made AK-47 rifle 30 times into a house on Garfield Avenue. His best friend, Risby, was killed by one of the bullets as he stood outside the front of the house, as part of a plan to get revenge on the home's occupant. The bullet went all the way through the house to kill him.

When faced with criminals armed with these kinds of weapons, Peoria police are equipped with higher-powered guns to match the threat.

I thought it didn't get more deadly than an AK-47. How can the police have higher-power guns if they don't exist?

"We have the capacity of going against weapons systems like that," said Theobald, who oversees the department's Special Response Team, whose members are trained and certified to use fully-automatic, military-style assault rifles.

You mean the bullet-hoses-of-death? The ones that no one can possibly control? I thought the only purpose of those was to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible. The police shouldn't need to be able to do that, should they? They should only shoot at the bad guys, right?

Thirty-two patrol officers also are commissioned with semi-automatic rifles and have the guns with them while on-duty.

So, there's some magic field that means the police don't need to worry about overpenetration? Just the criminals and "regular gun owners?"

"The concern for the public is the same as for police," Theobald said. "These bullets will keep traveling and go through cars and houses, regardless of what the intended target was for the bad guy. They can hit innocent bystanders."

They just keep going, and going, and going....
----

H/T to David Codrea at The War on Guns for this one.

On the whole Plaxico Burress mess.

Xavier has a post up with his take on Plaxico Burress. While I agree that Plaxico is a complete idiot, and a thug, I have to disagree with the overall thrust of the post, which seems to be that we should let him hang (figuratively) for what he did, and that he should not be allowed to use the Heller decision to challenge the law he's being charged under. I urge you to read his post, and my comment, which I'm also posting here because it sums up my position fairly well.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on this one, Xavier. If you believe the law he broke is unconstitutional, then his motivation, knowledge, intent, recklessness, stupidity, and arrogance should all be irrelevant. He has the same right to challenge the law on Constitutional grounds as anyone else. His money simply gives him a better ability to do so, and his fame is what brought it to our attention. Right or not, that is the way it is.

Heller does apply, not because it applies to him, or to the situation, but because it applies to the law that he is being charged under. If New York's law equates to a de facto ban on handguns, it is unconstitutional under Heller, and a persons reasons and intent are irrelevant. Even if he was carrying it so that he could go kill someone later, he still should be able to challenge the law in question. An unconstitutional law should be challenged at every possible opportunity.

Is Plaxico Burress an ideal person to be doing this? No. Is he one of us? Heck no. Should he be charged with other crimes? Yes, he should be charged with criminal negligence, reckless endangerment, making false statements to police, and (if it's in New York's laws) carrying a firearm while intoxicated. He's an idiot, and it's only blind luck that no on else was injured or killed.

You said "If he decided to go, he did not need to carry a gun." Since when is need supposed to be a requirement to exercise one's Second Amendment rights? Since when is the lack of ability to hire bodyguards, or the lack of "other options" supposed to be a requirement to exercise one's Second Amendment rights?

It is not about "bend[ing] the law unjust when the man who caught the winning touchdown in the 2008 Super Bowl violates it" or for getting him "preferential treatment in a court of law." It's about striking down an unconstitutional law. To paraphrase your own conclusion, "The Constitution is simply the Constitution, and it applies to New York City."

*Please note that the "stupidity" label for this post is for Plaxico Burress's stupidity, not Xavier. I have nothing but respect for Xavier, and I don't think he's stupid, or even being stupid in his post.

What was Rule 2 again?

I've never had a high opinion of the French military (something about WWII and a house of cards), but this is utter stupidity.

A quick summary: In what appears to have been a simulation/demonstration of a terrorist situation during "open barracks day," where "a crowd of hundreds of visitors [were] watching parachute commandos simulate an assault to free hostages," a soldier in the crowd, playing the part of a terrorist, opened fire on the crowd. This was part of the simulation, and he was using blanks. He then reloaded and fired again, only this time, his second magazine was loaded with live rounds. At least 17 people were injured, including 5 children. At this point they are claiming this was accidental.

There are several points of stupidity here.

1. I don't know how it works in the military (especially the French military), but if I know I'm going to be firing blanks into a crowd, I'm not going to be using any magazine I haven't loaded myself. I want to visually ensure that every single round that goes in those magazines is really, truly, a blank. Then I'm going to mark those magazines in a very distinct, very obvious, and very noticeable way. Something on the order of day-glow orange tape around the entire body of the magazine.

2. When I reload, I'm going to take a moment to look at that fresh magazine. Is it completely wrapped in that same day-glow orange tape? If not, it doesn't get used. If it is, I'm going to look at the first round, which should be visible at the top of the magazine. I'm going to verify it really is a blank by looking at it.* I'm going to look at it twice. If there is any doubt whatsoever that it really is a blank, the magazine doesn't get used. Period.
*(This is assuming that there is a visible difference for blanks that will work with the weapon in question. I've never actually seen one, but not having some visible indication strikes me as incredibly stupid. More so than this particular situation.)

3. I'm not going to be so stupid as to actually point the muzzle of my weapon at any person. Remember Rule 2??!! (Left side of the page, at the top. Read it again. Refresh it in your memory.) Even blanks can kill, in the right circumstances. Remember Brandon Lee? You usually don't realize the right circumstances exist until it's too late. Do you want to kill that child? No? THEN DON'T POINT YOUR GUN AT HIM!!!!!!

I can understand that in military training firing blanks at another soldier may be an acceptable risk. The risk of death or injury from a blank (or an unnoticed live round) is actually pretty low, and the benefits (i.e. training someone to react correctly when someone else is shooting at them) may be worth the risk. But this should never, ever, happen at a simple demonstration, and especially not by firing blanks at civilians or observers. Primary responsibility lies with the soldier who pulled the trigger, but this was a failure at all levels involved in planning and executing this demonstration.

Fortunately, no one was killed by this idiocy.

'Pistol pendant causes airport holdup'

Blatant stupidity makes me angry.

Just... good grief.