1999 Germany

2000 New Zealand

2002 USA

2003 France

2004 USA

2005 Bulgaria

2007 USA

2008 USA

Here's are the Stories

1999 Bad UrachGermany (Reuters) - A German dog has shot and killed its owner, police said Wednesday. The 51-year-old man, who had been out hunting with his shotgun, was found dead beside his car near the south-western town of Bad Urach. Police ruled out suicide and foul play and said the gun must have gone off when the dog jumped on top of it on the car seat.

2000 Tokora, North Island, New Zealand Kelly Russell was hunting pigs when he put down his loaded shotgun. His six year old mongrel, Stinky stood on the trigger and blasted Mr Russell in the foot. Unfortunately it was five hours before a passing car spotted his plight and notified emergency services. It is not known whether he lost the foot or not.

2002 South Dakota USA On October 19th 2002, Michael Murray suffered an identical accident when out hunting on the first day of the hunting season. Like Mr Russell he put his loaded shotgun on the ground and was shot in the foot when Sonny his English setter pup stood on the trigger.

2003 Espelette, France

An unnamed Frenchman from the village of Espelette, in the Basque region was in his car on a hunting trip with his two gun dogs. Unfortunately he had left his loaded shotgun in the rear of the car with his dogs, and the gun discharged while he was driving.

He was admitted to hospital in the nearby town of Bayonne with a gunshot wound with lead pellets injuries to the hip.

2004 Florida USA

It was reported by Escambia County deputies that a man who was trying to kill seven puppies with a .38 calibre pistol, was in turn shot by one of his own dogs.

He was apparently holding two of the shepherd mix puppies when one of them got its paw on the trigger, and shot 37 year old Jerry Bradford in the wrist, needing him to receive hospital treatment.

Three of the puppies were found in a shallow grave at his home: the other four were taken by animal control to be offered for adoption.

The sheriff's office charged Bradford with animal cruelty.

2005 Bulgaria

A Bulgarian hunter got more than he bargained for when he began beating his Deutsch-Drahthaar hunting dog with his rifle.

The dog had refused to release the killed bird and in the ensuing tussle the dogs paw had caught the trigger, blasting the man.

Apparently the local media did not report the extent of the man's injuries, but said that the dog had injured a paw.

2007 Tennessee USA

King George and owner

According to a Fox news report, King George, a twenty two month old Great Dane shot its owner in the back with a .22 pistol.

The incident occurred when the dog's tail knocked the gun off a table causing it to fire.

The victim's fiancée Miesha Lucas said “I knew he was smart but I didn't think he was that smart.”

The unnamed man was taken to hospital in a critical condition.

Lucas said that she does not know how her 21-year-old fiancée will react to King George when he was out of hospital, but she says she cannot blame the dog. "That's my baby," she said. "I feel for my dog. Now people are really going to notice him."

2007 Iowa, USA

While out hunting for pheasants with a pack of dogs, James Harris put his loaded gun on the ground to retrieve a fallen pheasant. One of the pack of hunting dogs stepped on the trigger firing the gun into Mr Harris's left calf. At only three feet (90 cm) away, this put 120 pellets into a four inch (10 cm) area of his leg. Alan Foster, a spokesman for the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, told the AFP news agency the injury was "not life-threatening, but will give him trouble for a long time.

He had surgery and is doing pretty well,"

2008 Texas USA

Perry Alvin Price III had been on a goose hunt in south east Texas. A tracking dog apparently stepped on a loaded shotgun in his owner's pickup truck, which fired a fatal blast into the man's thigh, officials have said.

According to reports Price was hunting geese near Stowell about 60 miles east of Houston, when he shot down the bird. He placed his gun in the back of the truck to open the tailgate to release his retriever dog, and it is believed in the dog's excitement, to get the bird, it stood on the gun. The shot penetrated the tailgate before hitting Price in the leg.

He died shortly afterwards, in hospital from severe blood loss.

Paw prints of Arthur, a Labrador retriever, were found on the gun.

Other news items by this writer:

Fake Penis Drug Cheat Pair Found Guilty

Congratulations to President elect Barack Obama on winning the election for the 44^th President of the United States of America.  President elect Obama has already met with President George W. Bush to start the transition of the new administration. Obama has also started appointing personnel to his staff. In addition, Obama has started the enormous task of putting together a financial plan to turn around a slumping economy. Yet for some citizens, the most critical issue is what will Barack do concerning the issue of gun control. The upheaval by staunch gun toting liberals is caused by their concern of Barack’s prior voting record on gun control. According to the political watch group Onthe Issues.org, when Barack Obama was asked the question “Is the D.C. law prohibiting ownership of handguns consistent with an individual's right to bear arms?” Barack’s answer was as follows “As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right.” So if the state or local government constrains the exercise of individual rights than how would that be considered a right?  If government oppresses individual rights than what is left of democracy? On the Issues.org further reports that when Obama was asked his opinion on registering and licensing of guns Obama stated “I think we can provide common-sense approaches to the issue of illegal guns that are ending up on the streets. We can make sure that criminals don't have guns in their hands.” If criminals always did what they were suppose to do than they would not be criminals.

Onthe Issues.org claims “Obama was being misleading when he denied that his handwriting had been on a document endorsing a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois.” When Obama was asked if he favored an all out ban on handguns Obama responded, "No, my writing wasn't on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns." Yet OntheIssues.org reports that on a 1996 questionnaire Barack answered yes when given the question do you favor the ban of the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns. When asked of the discrepancy Obama's campaign said, "Sen. Obama didn't fill out these state Senate questionnaires--a staffer did--and there are several answers that didn't reflect his views then or now. He may have jotted some notes on the front page of the questionnaire, but some answers didn't reflect his views." So which answer is correct Obama’s staffer’s response for him now or the staffer’s response for Obama prior? Barack was asked to further explain the seaming discrepancy of his supposed support for the 2^nd Amendment yet being o.k. with the D.C. gun ban. Obama answered “Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it's important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families.” Barack then talks about another group of gun toters stating “We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets.” Yet a community handgun ban only removes guns from the law abiding citizens. Therefore does Barack intend to state that in these banned communities that there are no law abiding citizens that would hope to hunt, shoot for sport or desire to protect their families?

Does Barack Obama want to abolish the 2^nd Amendment? In 2000 according to On the Issues .org Obama cosponsored a bill to limit handguns purchases to one a month. This seems reasonable. After all how many handguns does one individual need at one time? But then Barack voted against people be allowed to violate the weapons bans in cases of self defense. Who is Obama trying to aid the common person or the criminals? Surprisingly Barack Obama was reported to favor retired police officers carrying concealed weapons by David Mendel in his book From Promise to Power  quoting Obama “I didn't find that [vote] surprising. I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry. This was a narrow exception in an exceptional circumstance where a retired police officer might find himself vulnerable as a consequence of the work he has previously done--and had been trained extensively in the proper use of firearms.” (250-251) In a debate in 2004 between Alan Keyes and Barack Obama On the Issues .org reported this exchange concerning President George Bush’s failure to renew the automatic assault rifle ban: Keyes to Obama “ I am a strong believer in the second amendment. . .[Obama] suggests that we should pass a law that prevents law abiding citizens from carrying weapons. You end up with a situation where the crooks have all the guns and the law abiding citizens cannot defend themselves.” Obama replied “Mr. Keyes does not believe in any limits from what I can tell with respect to the possession of guns, including assault weapons that have only one purpose, to kill people. I think it is a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban.” Individuals do not need to possess automatic assault rifles to uphold their rights to recreational uses of guns such as hunting and shooting or even for protection of self and family. However in the same debate Obama denies believe in people using weapons for self defense in their own homes. This goes against the core purpose for the 2^nd Amendment. Barack Obama in his attempt to remove handguns from criminals will only deny rights to law abiding individuals; the right to teach our children to shoot and hunt; the right to protect our homes and families and will allow criminal gun violence to escalate. Just as Alan Keyes stated if our 2^nd Amendment rights are revoked then the only ones with guns are the criminals. For proof look no further then marijuana, although outlawed it is very prevalent in all parts of this country.

The 2^nd Amendment was established with the rights of the individual in mind. But as the individual has security it brings security and stability to the whole.  The 2^nd Amendment has its roots in the English Bill of Rights of 1689:  That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law. (Volokh)  According to Professor Eugene Volokh of UCLA Law School on law.UCLA.edu each state starting with North Carolina and Pennsylvania back in 1776 have adopted into their respective State Constitutions provisions for their citizens to bear arms. It is interesting that President elect Barack Obama continues to make mention of the rights of citizens to bear arms for the purpose of hunting. It is this exact distinction that allowed England to disarm the large majority of its people. Professor Volokh writes this excerpt from   St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries in 1803 “Whoever examines the forest, and game laws in the British code, will readily perceive that the right of keeping arms is effectually taken away from the people of England.”  The commentator himself informs us “that the prevention of popular insurrections and resistance to government by disarming the bulk of the people, is a reason oftener meant than avowed by the makers of the forest and game laws.” England was seemingly allowing for the keeping of arms but then made distinctions to who could meet these criteria which boiled down to only the aristocrats the select few. St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries summarized according to Professor Volokh “the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorize the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game.  So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.” Although Volokh mentions the ratio is probably an exaggeration the desired effect was achieved as the majority of law abiding citizens had been denied the rights to bear arms. Justice Joseph Story wrote again on this subject in 1833 in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. In 1880 Thomas Cooley wrote in General Principles of Constitutional Law on the subject of the right to bear arms.

A little more recently in a well documented case in 1939 there was a case in the Supreme Court involving the right to bear arms. In the case of United States versus Miller, Jack Miller was charged that he "did unlawfully, knowingly, willfully, and feloniously transport in interstate commerce from the town of Claremore in the State of Oklahoma to the town of Siloam Springs in the State of Arkansas a certain firearm, to-wit, a double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length [contrary to the National Firearms Act] “ The defense stated  “The National Firearms Act is not a revenue measure but an attempt to usurp police power reserved to the States, and is therefore unconstitutional.” In 1894 the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Miller v Texas on the subject of carrying weapons on the person “the trial of the case, was in conflict with the second and fourth amendments to the constitution of the United States, one of which provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and the other of which protects the people against unreasonable searches and seizures.” In 1929 the Supreme Court ruled on an interesting case denying citizenship in the case of the United States v Schwimmer stating “Schwimmer was denied citizenship because she refused to swear to "if necessary . . . take up arms in defense of this country."

In recent cases Volokh continues to list the 1972 Supreme Court case Adams v Williams written “Connecticut allows its citizens to carry weapons, concealed or otherwise, at will, provided they have a permit.  Connecticut law gives its police no authority to frisk a person for a permit.  Yet the arrest was for illegal possession of a gun.” This would seem to put the police force at undue risk if unknowingly. In the 1980 case of Lewis v United States we read “Lewis was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm” Volokh gives us Printz v. United States in which “the Court today properly holds that the Brady Act [a federal gun control law] violates the Tenth Amendment in that it compels state law enforcement officers to "administer or enforce a federal regulatory program." This ruling again confirms the individual power of each state and that of each citizen in each state. Concerning the carrying of weapons Volokh refers to the 1998 case of Muscarello v. United States. In this case it reads “The question in the case was whether the statutory phrase "carries a firearm" is limited to carrying on the person, or also includes carrying in a car which the person is accompanying.  The dissent said the phrase was limited to carrying on the person.”  The case was ruled that the right to “bear arms” was meant to “indicate: wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person." These are some of the major historical cases involving the 2^nd Amendment. Next is the N.R.A.’s (National Rifle Association) reaction to the election of President-elect Barack Obama.

The NRA was established in 1871 for the purpose to “promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis.” (Editors, National Rifle Association) The NRA came to into existence when co-founders Union veterans Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate were “dismayed by the lack of marksmanship shown by their troops.” Anyone who has ever went to a shooting range either civilian or military can attest that people without the proper training and practice can be very pitiful in their shooting abilities. According to the NRA website they claim “in civilian training, the NRA continues to be the leader in firearms education. Over 50,000 Certified Instructors now train about 750,000 gun owners a year.”

The NRA is reporting that “President-elect Barack Obama has selected Eric Holder as his Attorney General, and that Holder may already have accepted the offer.” The stats sheet on Eric Holder is just as dismal for gun enthusiasts as Obama’s record on gun control. Eric Holder when he was Deputy Attorney General under Janet Reno went on record to interpret the 2^nd Amendment as follows “the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right, but instead protects the right to have a firearm when serving with a militia.” Eric Holder seems to be out of touch with small things such as facts. Holder apparently does not give much respect to the individual rights of the people of this country.  NRA reports that “When ABC's George Will asked him about guns being used for self-defense more often than to commit crime, and Right-to-Carry states having lower crime rates than other states, Holder dismissed the facts that Mr. Will raised, with a flippant statement.”

The NRA is showing concern over the questionnaire that is being given out for all potential applicants for the new administration positions. Question 59 reads “Do you or any members of your immediate family own a gun?  If so, provide complete ownership and registration information.  Has the registration ever lapsed?  Please also describe how and by whom it is used and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage.”  The NRA discusses that only five states even require registration and very few places require renewal updates. The final part of the question asks how the gun is used and draws this comment from the NRA “Once again, if an applicant is not using his gun to commit crimes, how could this possibly be relevant.”  What concern is it of a employer whether an applicant goes hunting or enjoys shooting at firing ranges?

Locally the State of Florida’s “Guns at Work” law was upheld on August 1^st 2008 by U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle. This law allows employees in Florida with Right-to-Carry permits to have firearms concealed in their automobiles while they are at work. The law was heavily backed by the NRA and upon the victory this statement was released by the NRA President Marion Hammer, NRA's Florida lobbyist and the first-ever woman to lead the NRA “In a day and age where commutes are longer and people spend more time running errands before and after work, hard working men and women in our country should not have their basic God-given right to self defense trampled by corporate giants.” 

In conclusion the Barack Obama administration is off to a quick start putting together economic stimulus plans in place. This is the major issue facing the new soon to be President, yet in tight economic times with millions out of work home, family and self security is a obvious concern.  With Eric Holder, NRA’s proclaimed “gun control nightmare” taking position as Attorney General coupled with Obama’s past gun control voting the NRA will have its hands full watch dogging those two. Even as this is being written student groups on college campuses in Wisconsin are pushing for the rights to carry concealed firearms while at school. Crimes involving handguns are much higher in a very strictly regulated handgun country of Germany then that of Switzerland who has very liberal handgun laws and a much lower criminal incident rate with handgun involvement. There are strong view points on each side of the gun control issue. There are groups that would push the extremes on both sides.

Do we go to guns everywhere including in schools, work and church? How about no guns unless you are a rich aristocratic elitist? Somewhere in the middle is right where hunting, sports shooting, and self protection are preserved. Just as plainly stated in the 2^nd Amendment of the 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.”

It is time we fight back the legal way. It is time that names start appearing in the papers and on the news. It is timethese "juveniles" are no longer considered juveniles. You do the crime, your charged with time. "jail time,""Not Children and Youth time."

We as citizens have a right to be safe in our own homes as well as on our streets! Allowing hoodlums, animals or juveniles, which ever you prefer to call them to run free in our streets has got to stop.

To the parents of any juvenile that commits a hideous crime---- If the law states that the names of the juveniles cannot be released in the paper or on the news, then you insist the names be released. "You," yourself, release the names if you have to! I as aparent would not look down on you as aparent for doing this, infact, I would look upon you with respect. Shame on the juvenilenot the parent of the juvenile!"

Any youth that commits a crime should be expect to pay all medical and criminal bills that are caused by their offence, their parents should not have to cover these bills! I realize the juveniles can't pay now because of their age at the time of their crime, but they should be billed as soon as they become of age. Any insurance that pays the bills now should be entitled for full reimbursement later. If this juvenile is in debt for the next ten, fifteen, twentyyears or more when he becomes an adult, "to bad" they brought it all on themselves! They should be responsible for their actions!

Let's stop looking at juvenile criminals as children. If our juveniles want to commit adult crimes, then let's treat them as adults.

We have children killing and or maiming other children, we have children killing their family and friends, Kids are taking guns to school and to the streets, when is it all going to stop? It's not right!It has to stop! Look around folks we need to do something! Years ago such things were unheard of, parents were allowed to make their children mind, life wasn't as fast paced.

It is time for a change and we need to do it soon!

So if I have an opinion about something that's different than yours, that makes me a "dumbass?" This kind of thinking should allow me to say the same about you, since your opinion is different than mine...or, is there a double standard here?The fact that guns and religion have been used to carry out many atrocities throughout time doesn't make them evil, as you seem to argue. Problems stemming from the evil use of guns and religion can be attributed to those who would use them to gain and hold power.

While you argue the historical harm, in which guns and religion played a role, I could argue the historical opposites, where people could not defend themselves because they were not allowed to have weapons, and were punished because they believed in something of faith. Our country, the Unites States of America, was formed because we did not want to be controlled. We wanted to be free and have a right to be religious (or not to be religious); we did not want to be unarmed and vulnerable, while those with power were armed. We wanted our right to defend ourselves and our family, and be able to defend our freedom whenever it was threatened. (There are those who do not realize that freedom can be snatched from us in a hurry.)Not only are guns used as a means of defense, we also use them for recreation, competition and in sports, the same as knives and such. They are only harmful when they are in the hands of those who would harm others

Because our country is a democracy ("by the people; for the people"), we delegate our individual power to those who we believe more closely represent our own beliefs and values...that is the reason for voting. Obama does not represent my beliefs and values, and from what I have seen and know about him, I believe he is an elitist. As a responsible voting American citizen, I need to do all I can, legally, to prevent him from becoming our next president. Isn't this what you want to do…oppose candidates you do not want in office?

Barrack Obama's recent remarks about people of faith, who he describes as clinging to their guns and religion when they get frustrated, show how elitist the man is. If elected president of our country, this man poses a real threat to our right to bear arms.

The people of faith to whom Obama is referring are the common people of America. I am a person of faith - I try to live my life righteously, and I am an American citizen who has enjoyed our constitutional right to own and use guns all of my life - that's what many ordinary or common American people do in this country.

My faith is much deeper than Obama's shallow explanation. I like and appreciate my guns; I like using them, and I don't believe I am frustrated because of them. Most people I knew when growing up loved God and guns, and none seemed frustrated to me. Most of my relatives and friends have always enjoyed owning and using guns and most of them are of deep faith, but I don't think any of them are frustrated. If they are frustrated over something, it's certainly not God or guns.

Obama's remarks and attitude show how condescending the far left wing of the Democratic Party is of American's common people. Abraham Lincoln said, "God must love the common people because he made so many of them." Obama seems to be oblivious that America's population is made up mostly of common people, and that his remarks are insulting to them.

He doesn't know the people of this country at all. He knows the jet set, the limousine liberals, Hollywood bunch, save the whales and kill the babies crowd, but he is naïve about those outside these groups. He thinks the common people don't count and their opinions are unimportant. He must think they are so stupid that they don't know who he is talking about when he says things like this.

Obama tells us what he wants to do for us in America, but has very little respect for the ordinary or common people who represents a very large segment of the population. Would he ignore most of us and only represent the high-minded liberal ideals of the far left?

How could he be the Commander in Chief of the armed forces when he does not respect the very people who mostly make up the armed forces?

He makes these elitist statements and when challenged, says they were taken out of context, or some other flimsy excuse.

His wife's remark about not being proud of this country and his pastor's statements calling America the U.S.K.K.K.A. and his own statement about not wanting his daughter punished with a baby, should cause us to wonder what kind of a man Obama really is and what kind of a president he would be.

Would he not respect the religious beliefs of America and not take them into account in his agenda? And, would he be an anti-gun advocate pushing the effort to take firearms out of innocent citizen's hands?

Obama came from out of nowhere and America knows very little about him. We know he is a good speaker and has charisma, but little more. This does not make a particularly confident picture. America may be in great peril if this man becomes our next president.

 

Many will campaign and push for all arms to be surrendered whilst perhaps just as many will say "it is our right to protect ourselves" when really in my opinion ALL of them should be asking "what can we do to include rather than exclude our teens?

Draconian measures will not make a jot of difference to a young person hell bent on taking his own life and those around him.
The problem is not in the amount of guns available nor the ease of access, as it is in the minds of the young.
Most if not all young people today feel at some time in their lives that they are ignored / dismissed and patronized not only by their parents /guardians but also their peers, most of this has or does come about through media worship of the rich and famous.

I do not mean the actual rich and famous people of Hollywood / T.V. land more so the icons of our day those great gods we must all aspire to own such as designer brand names,( I will not mention nor single out any particular one as they are all the same)

The media in its chase of the dollar has helped shape the minds and thoughts of the young in America since the invention of commercial television and the understanding of commerce (backhanders)
Faced with a constant barrage of information about who is wearing what and which is "the" thing to have many teens have a sensory overload in the brains leading to feelings of inadequacy when they find their peers have all the latest things, Parents are as much to blame with their constant desire to be seen as "with it and contemporary".
They are also weak enough to cave in to the constant moaning from the kids about Tommy or Samantha down the block having it.

There is of course no easy fix for those who are disenfranchised from society but the signs are now becoming all to apparent as to the potential make up of these teen mass killers the problem though does not rest entirely on their shoulders more so with those around them who may have the chance to see the warning signs and yet ignore them.
Perhaps a media campaign would help to alert parents as well as teens as to the danger signs to be wary of those in trouble.

Perhaps also the gun lobby may care to put some money aside as an insurance policy for those innocents who are caught up in the failure of the system to regulate arms ownership better still a government tax on all arms manufacturers to enable arms amnesties to be held nationwide with a reward for each illegal weapon handed in provided by the extra tax?

I agree it would not immediately stop the killings but it may just focus peoples minds a while longer than this latest shooting will, for after the media has torn apart this young persons life and family and found only the same kind of problems as Virginia tech then they will once more concentrate on the "real issues" of the day like where did Brittany get her hair done?

For those ancient, tenured bench potatoes who have nothing better to do in their lives than to sit and pour over the semantics of words and the intentions of the builders of our Constitution, these nearly-senile old men have cornered every citizen of the United States of America into living by a Constitution that does not grow with the times and is stuck back in the age when we pulled out the big guns when someone we didn't like crossed our path.

We can now thank them for our paranoia as we eyeball everyone around us in fear that a gun-weilding freak may be stalking us or a trigger-happy nut on the highway slammers a battery of bullets into us with a 22-caliber. Thank you very much, old men with the Texas ranger fetish, for declaring the possession of firearms to be legal and the "right" of every citizen and for making us all feel so safe. Exactly what kind of insanity is running rampant through our justice system? And, why are we tolerating it?

America is getting lost in semantics over a Constitution that is being interpreted by men as old as it is. It's time for more than just a change of men running the White House. It's time for us to bid the justices of the Supreme Court farewell after a short, sweet tenure where they cannot hold this country back from civilized progress just because they have outlived their sanity and interpret ancient words so very literally without regard to the passing of time.

We need new blood in our justice system - people who are unafraid to kick ass and say "no" to the National Rifle Association (NRA) and to stand up for the real rights of the people! It's time to really evaluate the Constitutional words so that those words have meaning for today's citizens. It's time we put the justices in their place - out to pasture - when they get too old to have the proper vision for progress. And, it's time we give the lobbying NRA factions their just due: a boot in the ass!

John McCain supports the Second Amendment. He supports it so much that he supports not banning any kind of assault rifle. I mean, by God, it is every American's RIGHT to own and use an AK-47, especially with a high capacity magazine which John McCain also supports.

He also doesn't think that if Crazy Joe's Machinegun Store, Inc. designs, builds and sells a weapons that is advertised in the company's literature as, “The Perfect Weapon for Killing People” and then some nut goes out and kills twenty people with it that anyone should be able to sue Crazy Joe's. After all, it isn't as if Crazy Joe's knew that someone was going to use their weapon to kill people.

Of course, under John McCain, it's unlikely that a nut would be able to do that because we'll live in the United States of Gunmerica or as I like to call it a gunocracy. What with the high capacity magazines, armor piercing ammunition and assault weapons we should be able to cut back on law enforcement to support another of John McCain's pet projects.

McCain on Iraq

Stay the course, stay the course, and stay the course even if it takes a hundred years. John McCain believes that we need to increase troop levels in Iraq, stop the silly rotation of senior officers and hand out more money by the truckload. And above all John McCain believes that we need to “win the home front”. I'm sure he knows all about that since he was already in one un-winnable and unpopular war. Sounds like he thinks we could have won Vietnam too, just as long as we were willing to stay there for a hundred years, hand out bucket-loads of money (inflation don't you know) and win the home front.

I guess my question is this: If we were still in Vietnam because we were “staying the course”, I wonder where we would get the money, troops and home front support for Iraq? And, heaven forbid that we actually have to fight a war against someone that attacks us. If the Canadians or the Mexicans get frisky, where exactly are we going to get the troops and money to protect the damn home front?

Guess I'll just have to trust John McCain. He must know what he's doing because somehow these truckloads of money for Iraq and more troops are going to come from a government that is also going to cut taxes.

McCain on Taxes

Not only is John McCain going to lower taxes for the middle class, he's also going to make it harder to raise taxes by changing the rules in Congress so that it takes a 3/5ths majority to do it. Further, he's going to lower taxes on corporations, lower barriers to trade, cut “growth” (read funding) on Medicare and reform Social Security by letting people invest their own money. Sounds GREAT!!! Yummy, I love this cake that I get to eat without having to do anything to get it.

Of course, every time we do stuff like this it just passes the buck farther down the road. But, you know that doesn't make much sense based on his stance on the environment.

McCain on the Environment

From his campaign web-site:

“By addressing this problem responsibly, John McCain believes we can meet our obligation to be proper caretakers of creation, in a manner of which we can be proud - by protecting our country, strengthening our economy, and addressing the challenges of our time, rather than leaving a much worse problem for our children.”

That also sounds great. But, I'm curious how he thinks that having our children live in a country that is environmentally sound, but broke is good for the environment? I mean, if our children have to live in a nation with a giant steaming pile of debt, worthless dollars and nothing but service industry jobs how does he expect that we'll pay to keep a decent environment?

McCain on Human Dignity

John McCain believes that Roe v Wade should be overturned. He believes that the pro-life movement is one that has “these armies of compassion”. Of course the compassion only goes so far, but so does John McCain's commitment to human dignity.

He believes that the basic human rights of homosexuals should be violated because they are not a part of the foundation of Western Civilization and civil society. From his campaign web-site:

“The family represents the foundation of Western Civilization and civil society and John McCain believes the institution of marriage is a union between one man and one woman. It is only this definition that sufficiently recognizes the vital and unique role played by mothers and fathers in the raising of children, and the role of the family in shaping, stabilizing, and strengthening communities and our nation.”

Which is hilarious of course, since homosexuality was widely practiced in Rome, Egypt and Greece the three bed-rocks of Western Civilization. So, the support for human dignity doesn't extend to all you gays out there. But, that's right in line with his spiritual beliefs as well.

John McCain for President

Of course, this isn't all that John McCain believes. He believes in other things too. He believes in ending pork-barrel spending. He believes in stopping earmarks. He believes in fiscal responsibility (?) and he believes that America is the greatest nation on Earth. But, with all of the contradictions and confusion in his platform, how are we to know which John McCain we're getting? Are we getting pro-life, gun toting, Iraq forever, human dignity for some John McCain or are we getting the fiscally conservative, respecting all human dignity, let's talk about the abortion issue John McCain? Which one or is it both at the same time. Now that, my friends, is pretty frightening.

This bill will aid in stopping the trafficking of guns and drugs being smuggled across the border. The e-Trace database as it is known is proposed to be added to all U.S. consulates throughout Mexico. By Mexico tracking the information, they can give that information to U.S. officials, arrests can be made within our borders and stop them in their tracks. General Eduardo Medina Mora is in agreement with this effort and hopes it will begin to stop the outbreaks of violence that occur in Mexico on a daily basis. The situation is horrible.

People have been using “desperate tactics” such as throwing rocks, diverting the attention of border patrol, while smugglers run through the border with drugs in backpacks. It's obvious that building a tin fence for miles is not the answer much more thought and action needs to be taken on this issue. With recent developments of violence and border patrols involvement is evidence that the problem is getting increasingly worse and worse with more deaths to surely follow. Well armed cartel from south of the Rio Grande has threaded to retaliate after a new enforcement push to stop the influx of contraband. This needs to stop and it is hoped that this new bill will aid in that effort.

Lee Boyd Malvo and partner John Allen Muhammad shot and killed 10 people and wounded three others over a three week period which began on October 2, 2002.

Malvo, using his one call from prison, calls a producer at ABC news. He asked the producer to connect him to Cheryll Witz. The producer then used three-way calling to connect the two.

Malvo was the man who killed her father, Jerry Taylor, five years ago. While Cheryll answered her cell phone, she was surprised to find out who was on the other end of the phone. It was Malvo. He said, “I need to apologize for what I've done to you and your family.” Cheryll Witz then filled up with tears as she heard the voice of the man who killed her own father.

The producer was not aware that such calls were violating the prison policy. The producer then stated that if she would have known it were prohibited she would have never the connected the two.