Why liberals should support the right to armed self-defense: "The biggest difference I can see is that `right-wing' collectivists prefer to eliminate troublesome people right away (vide the Chilean junta filling Santiago National Stadium with dissidents and other disposable troublemakers following Pinochet's 1973 coup), while left-wingers seek to `re-educate' their victims first before liquidating those deemed incapable of thought reform. A subsidiary distinction: `Lone wolf'-style political violence is more the style of the pseudo-individualist Right, since the Left prefers a more systematic approach. It seems likely that we will see other episodes of `lone wolf'-style armed terrorism by people like Adkisson and Baker - comets dragged out of conservatism's Oort Cloud, or perhaps given a nudge sun-ward by federal agents of mayhem deployed for that purpose. Given the possibility that people perceived as `liberals' will be targeted for future politically inspired violence - in addition to the increase in routine criminal violence that will occur as the depression deepens - a question urges itself upon us: Why aren't liberals (with a few worthy exceptions) reconsidering their opposition to the right to armed self-defense? Why aren't they buying guns, rather than supporting measures intended to take them away from others?"


Would you rather feel safe or be safe?: "When it comes to self defense, you have three options. Jump at every noise because you never feel safe, bury your head in the sand and pretend nothing bad is going on so that you feel safe, or prepare to defend yourself so that you are better prepared to be safe. I find it interesting that a lot of the same people who claim that those who choose to carry a firearm for personal protection are paranoid are the same ones who oppose concealed carry because they claim gun owners are primed and ready to blow someone away for any perceived slight. Which segment is the paranoid ones?"


DC: Victim disarmament loophole lets 15 keep semiautomatics : "For the next three years, as many as 15 D.C. residents will enjoy a right denied their neighbors - the right to own recently banned semiautomatic weapons. A discrepancy between D.C. laws approved last year enabled the residents to register semiautomatic firearms now listed as illegal in the nation's capital. D.C. Attorney General Peter J. Nickles said roughly 15 weapons registered in the city 'sit in this zone of uncertainty.' The city's statutes now state residents must register their guns every three years. Mr. Nickles said those who have the semiautomatics will be prohibited from renewing their registrations, meaning the weapons would no longer be legal in the District. The loophole is the result of the District's repeated attempts to comply with the Supreme Court ruling in June that struck down the city's decades-old ban on handguns."


"Assault weapons" : "While the putrid economy, the war in Iraq and President Barack Obama's first 100 days in office continue to dominate the news cycle, one story slipped in under the radar this week. Arguably, it was to me - as it should be to you - the most important story of the week. The Obama administration is hoping to reinstate the assault weapons ban that was started in President Clinton's term and that expired in 2004 .. While, on the surface, it seems reasonable - who wouldn't want to keep `assault weapons' out of the hands of the general public? - when you dig just a bit deeper, the truth starts to come out. For instance, what qualifies a firearm as an assault weapon? Is it a firearm that is fully automatic or semi-automatic?"