Gun and Game Forums

Gun and Game Forums - Blogs http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/blogs/ Come and join us at the friendliest firearm and hunting forum! en Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:29:25 GMT vBulletin 60 http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/../forums/images/misc/rss.jpg Gun and Game Forums - Blogs http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/blogs/ Why I Love Gun and Game http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/blogs/chris/why-i-love-gun-game-625/ Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:51:22 GMT The people.

Straight up, it's the people. I love going through random threads looking for keywords, and all I find is a real community. I've seen some posts where a "newbie" will ask a question and an "senior" member will give the answer. It's awesome to see people help each other, but it goes beyond that. Later in the thread you can see the "newbie" starting to interact and joke with the other users. It's like being the new kid on the playground, and someone takes the social risk of playing with you and looking less "cool".

My personal experience is when I posted about going on a blind date, I didn't just get 1 or 2 responses, there were several pages to go through. It didn't stop there, there was even someone who followed up the week after the date and wanted an update.

This is what makes the site more than just some random website....it makes it a living breathing community.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh...feel the love
:240::grouphug::kiss::loveydove ]]> Chris http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/blogs/chris/why-i-love-gun-game-625/ 33 State Attorneys: True Patriots (Part II) http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/blogs/heilung/33-state-attorneys-true-patriots-part-ii-623/ Mon, 12 Oct 2009 17:40:58 GMT From: NRA-ILA Daily Site Update and Reason.com (Part II)
The Supreme Court Takes on Guns, Again
As libertarian-leaning constitutional scholars Kimberly C. Shankman and Roger Pilon argued in a 1998 paper for the Cato Institute that examined, and attacked, the courts' long history of suppressing and ignoring the Privileges or Immunities Clause, the clause's purpose was to "mak[e] explicit the implicit connection between natural rights and constitutional government." And as Damon Root has written for Reason, "the 14th Amendment was specifically designed and ratified to protect a sweepingly libertarian idea of self-ownership. That idea includes the right to acquire property, run a business, and buy and sell labor without unnecessary or improper interference by the government."
That's exactly why so many jurists of all persuasions have been hesitant about reviving it as an active part of contemporary jurisprudence, although nearly all legal scholars agree that the Slaughterhouse interpretation of the clause was dead wrong. One encouraging sign that the Supreme Court might be ready to rethink it is Justice Clarence Thomas's declaration in his Saenz dissent in 1999 that he "would be open to reevaluating [the Privileges or Immunities Clause's] meaning in an appropriate case." Gura may have given him the case he's been waiting for.
Gura, who hopes to raise the clause from the grave with his McDonald arguments, thinks possible misuse of the doctrine is no reason not to embrace it where it's appropriate. "If the Privileges or Immunities Clause guarantees certain unenumerated rights and those rights are violated, then great, have those rights vindicated! But if people file unmeritorious litigation [using Privileges or Immunities Clause arguments] that that litigation will not succeed, the courts will do their job, and that wave of misguided litigation will subside," he says. "A fear that people will try incorrect things [inspired by a revived Privileges or Immunities Clause] is not a reason to keep interpreting it the wrong way today."
Gura may be shooting for the moon in asking the Supreme Court to finally knock down Slaughterhouse after all these years. Fortunately, victory for him and the citizens of Chicago does not depend on this risky strategy. He's leaving room in his arguments for the court to decide in his favor through the means they've used to selectively incorporate the Bill of Rights since the premature death of the Privileges or Immunities Clause—the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, which has come to mean not merely the procedures used by government but "substantive" due process as well.
As Gura writes in the McDonald petition, following the general ruling standard on selective incorporation from the 1968 Duncan case, the Second Amendment should definitely pass muster: "The modern incorporation test asks whether a right is 'fundamental to the American scheme of justice,'...or 'necessary to an Anglo-American regime of ordered liberty,'....Duncan's analysis suggests looking to the right's historical acceptance in our nation, its recognition by the states (including any trend regarding state recognition), and the nature of the interest secured by the right."
By all of those standards, as the 9th Circuit agreed in Nordyke, the Second Amendment should bind Chicago. The Supreme Court even suggested in its Heller decision that it is time to move beyond the apparent dominant precedent, 1876's Cruikshank decision, for denying Second Amendment incorporation, noting that "Cruikshank also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases."
The Supreme Court had three different cases petitioned to them this session dealing with Second Amendment incorporation. While the Court didn't explain why it chose McDonald, it also hasn't officially rejected the other petitions on gun rights cases. Second Amendment scholar and activist Dave Kopel notes that "When the Court takes a case, it's common for the Court to hold related cases in reserve. The certiorari grant in McDonald v. Chicago leaves NRA v. Chicago & Oak Park in reserve, in case some unexpected procedural problem arises with the McDonald case. In the unlikely event that the Chicago city council comes to its senses and repeals the handgun ban, the residual case of NRA v. Oak Park remains available to the Court. In the very unlikely event that the governments of Chicago and Oak Park both wise up, the Supreme Court has also retained Maloney v. Cuomo (about a N.Y. State ban on nunchaku) in reserve." The Court likely went for one of the Illinois cases over Maloney because, unlike with Maloney, the Illinois cases don't have the added complication of requiring the Court to decide whether nunchaku count as constitutional arms.
Gura's official brief will be filed with the Supreme Court in mid-November; Chicago will then have a month to file a response. Hearings and a decision will follow in 2010. Gura is especially pleased by an amicus brief already filed in the case signed by 33 state attorneys general arguing that, yes, the Second Amendment should restrict them and their state governments. Gura finds it "gratifying to see state attorneys general who will come out and say, ‘we understand it's better if our states are bound by this right.' You don't see that very often; it's rare to see a government official claiming they should be bound by some constitutional limitation."
The state attorneys general were also bold enough to bring up a classic gun rights argument that's often mocked by liberal intelligentsia—the idea that weapon rights aren't just about self-defense against crime, but are also about defense against tyranny: The brief states that "the right to bear arms provides the foundational bulwark against the deprivation of all our other rights and privileges as Americans—including rights that have already been incorporated against the States by this Court."
If Gura's brave gambit on the Privileges or Immunities Clause succeeds, the entire structure of American jurisprudence could shift in very interesting ways. We will undoubtedly see a wave of critics attacking "judicial activism" as citizens use this revived tool to defend their rights, as well as complaints from across the ideological spectrum as rights both personal and economic are brought before the courts. But more importantly, courts will once again hold a weapon they should never have laid down in the first place, one that allows them to defend from majoritarian tyranny the many rights of American citizens not explicitly and specifically laid out in the Bill of Rights.
Senior Editor Brian Doherty is author of This is Burning Man (BenBella), Radicals for Capitalism (PublicAffairs) and Gun Control on Trial (Cato Institute).
Copied by Heilung ]]> heilung http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/blogs/heilung/33-state-attorneys-true-patriots-part-ii-623/ 33 State Attorneys Support 2nd Amendment (Part I) http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/blogs/heilung/33-state-attorneys-support-2nd-amendment-part-i-622/ Mon, 12 Oct 2009 17:37:19 GMT From: NRA-ILA Daily Site Update and Reason.com
The Supreme Court Takes on Guns, Again
Brian Doherty | Thursday, October 01, 2009 3:30 PM
"It has been only a year and a season since the Supreme Court shook the world of Second Amendment jurisprudence with the historical D.C. v. Heller decision. In that case, the court declared for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms against infringement by the federal government—at least commonly used arms, for self-defense in the home.
Heller opened the gates for a flood of new lawsuits by gun-rights friendly attorneys and organizations, most prominently the National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation. One of those cases, McDonald v. Chicago, challenging a gun ban in Chicago that's similar in most respects to the D.C. gun laws overturned in Heller, has just been taken up by the Supreme Court.
The counsel who will be arguing McDonald before the court in early 2010 is the same man who won Heller, Alan Gura. Although McDonald's challenge to Chicago's laws has so far lost at both the district court level and at the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Gura is confident he'll win.
The Chicago laws at issue are as significant a violation of a citizen's right to bear arms as were D.C.'s. Chicago residents can't have a gun without registration, can't register handguns, can't register a gun that's already in their possession, and if they miss a yearly deadline to re-register, that weapon becomes forever unregisterable. Gura and the Second Amendment Foundation (with the Illinois State Rifle Association) have pulled together a set of plaintiffs with personal tales of having their quality of life lessened by the gun ban.
Lead plaintiff Otis McDonald has a habit of calling the cops when he sees gang activity in his neighborhood; this has led some neighborhood kids to threaten and intimidate him. Another plaintiff, Colleen Lawson, recently had three men break into her home. Both McDonald and Lawson insist that having a handgun in their home would increase both their safety and peace of mind.
Following Heller, it might seem clearcut that Chicago's gun control laws should meet the same fate as those in Washington, D.C. So why hasn't it worked out that way? The reason is that the Second Amendment, rare among the fundamental rights laid out in the Bill of Rights, has never been held to apply to actions of any government entity other than a federal one. (Of course, it wasn't even considered to do that until Heller.) In the legal lingo, the Second Amendment has not been "incorporated" against states and localities via the 14th Amendment. By contrast, the First Amendment (Gitlow v. New York), Fourth Amendment (Mapp v. Ohio), and others have been (but not, yet, the Third or Seventh). Furthermore, there is currently some disagreement on this question among different districts of the federal appeals court system.
The 7th Circuit has said no in various challenges to Chicago area gun laws, as has the 2nd Circuit, in the Maloney case. The 9th Circuit, however, earlier this year in the Nordyke case said that the Second Amendment does indeed bind states and localities—though the 9th Circuit recently heard another round of arguments in that case and has decided to postpone its decision until after the Supreme Court decides McDonald.
Yet as Gura has demonstrated at length in his McDonald filings—as have numerous gun-rights scholars, particularly Stephen Halbrook—the top concerns of the drafters and ratifiers of the 14th Amendment in 1868 were the ways the rights of African-American citizens were being violated with impunity in the post-Civil War South, often with the eager cooperation of local and state officials.
Among the fundamental rights noted by the amendment's boosters was the right to bear arms. The 14th Amendment's Senate sponsor, Jacob Howard, referred to the need to protect "'the personal rights guaranteed and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as freedom of speech and of the press;...the right to keep and bear arms....' Howard averred: 'The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees.'"
The 14th Amendment contains two phrases that could be used to protect individual rights against state and local government encroachment. The one that seems most clearly designed to do so is what Sen. Howard referred to above as "the first section," the Privileges or Immunities Clause, which says "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."
However, that clause has been a dead letter in American jurisprudence since the Supreme Court's 1873 decision in The Slaughterhouse Cases, an incredibly convoluted set of challenges to a legal slaughterhouse monopoly in New Orleans.
As Gura summed up the dire result of that case to the Privileges or Immunities Clause in a July interview with me, it "declared pretty much that the only privileges and immunities protected by the 14th Amendment are those of national citizenship, rights that accrue out of the existence of the federal government, like the right to a passport or right to travel the waterways of the U.S. or to petition Congress." This made it forever useless as a tool to vindicate the sort of rights that the 14th Amendment's drafters intended.
(See Part II to Continue) - Heilung ]]> heilung http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/blogs/heilung/33-state-attorneys-support-2nd-amendment-part-i-622/ Two Courageous Pro Gun Democrats http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/blogs/heilung/two-courageous-pro-gun-democrats-621/ Sun, 11 Oct 2009 20:50:43 GMT Respect for the Constitution and the Second Amendment is a Citizen's duty, without regard to Political Party. - Heilung
From NRA Daily Email:
Legislators Will File Brief In McDonald v. Chicago Case
Friday, October 09, 2009
As we reported in last week's Grassroots Alert, the U.S. Supreme Court will soon hear the landmark Second Amendment case of McDonald v. Chicago. The case will address the application of the Second Amendment to the states through either the Due Process clause or the Privileges or Immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case has major implications for the legality of restrictive gun laws not only in Chicago, but also in other cities and the states across the nation. The decision to hear the case gives hope to Second Amendment advocates across America, that this fundamental freedom will be protected from infringement throughout the nation from impermissible regulation at all levels, state and local, as well as federal.
This week comes the news that U.S. Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) and Jon Tester (D-Mont.), are joining forces with U.S. Representatives Mark Souder (R-Ind.) and Mike Ross (D-Ark.), in filing a joint, pro-Second Amendment amicus curiae (Friend of the Court) brief before the Supreme Court in the McDonald v. Chicago case.
Last year, the historic case of District of Columbia v. Heller invalidated the District's ban on handguns. However, the Heller case applied only to federal enclaves, such as Washington, D.C. A favorable ruling in the McDonald case would ensure that the individual right affirmed in Heller also applied as against state and local regulation.
Commenting on the brief, Sen. Hutchison said, "With its landmark decision in D.C. v. Heller, the Supreme Court affirmed an individual's right to bear arms is a fundamental, Constitutionally-guaranteed liberty. The Second Amendment should protect all lawful gun owners, but some courts have not viewed this right as one protected from state infringement. I look forward to the Supreme Court's consideration of McDonald v. City of Chicago so this extremely important Constitutional question regarding a fundamental, individual right can be settled, once and for all."
Sen. Tester, who serves as Vice Chairman of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, said, "The Second Amendment guarantees gun rights for all law-abiding Americans, no matter where they live. I'm glad Republicans and Democrats are working together to tell the Supreme Court we expect it to stand up for our gun rights in this important case."
Rep. Souder said, "For years, I have been an outspoken critic of Washington D.C.'s gun ban, and last year I helped lead the efforts in the House of Representatives to overturn it. Now, as the Supreme Court prepares to hear McDonald v. City of Chicago, I am glad to join this brief in support of the Second Amendment. Constitutional rights—guaranteed to all citizens of the United States—cannot be overturned by local legislation or all rights are threatened."
Finally, Rep. Ross said, "Banning guns will not keep guns out of the hands of criminals, but it will keep guns out of the hands of those trying to defend themselves against criminals. The Supreme Court's recent decision in District of Columbia v. Heller affirmed the right of D.C. residents to own and bear arms and I am optimistic these same rights will be extended to the law-abiding citizens of Chicago and across the United States in McDonald v. City of Chicago. As a pro-gun Democrat, I am a firm believer in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and I will continue to actively support our right to own and bear arms."
Sens. Hutchison and Tester, and Reps. Souder and Ross authored a similar amicus brief prior to the U.S. Supreme Court hearing oral arguments in the District of Columbia v. Heller case in 2008. In that brief, the four affirmed the view that individual rights are guaranteed by the Second Amendment, and were able to get a record number of Members of Congress—55 Senators and 250 Representatives—to sign it.
Copyright 2009, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.
11250 Waples Mill Road, Fairfax, VA 22030 800-392-8683
Contact Us | Privacy & Security Policy ]]> heilung http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/blogs/heilung/two-courageous-pro-gun-democrats-621/ right email addy http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/blogs/knightrider/right-email-addy-620/ Sun, 11 Oct 2009 20:45:22 GMT Here's the right email
Amos.habwine@yahoo.com ]]> knightRider http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/blogs/knightrider/right-email-addy-620/ been a long time http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/blogs/knightrider/been-long-time-619/ Sun, 11 Oct 2009 20:40:43 GMT Well folks have not been around. Got laid off and been
Doing the stuff that makes you crazy. Anyone want to hit me up email amos.habeine@yahoo.com
For some reason I can't post to my pms from my blackberry.
Same s/"t differnt day
Holla ]]> knightRider http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/blogs/knightrider/been-long-time-619/ <![CDATA[Antigun Book Part II:"Guns Democracy and Insurrection" Kopel Review]]> http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/blogs/heilung/antigun-book-part-ii-guns-democracy-insurrection-kopel-review-616/ Wed, 07 Oct 2009 19:42:54 GMT To Henigan’s credit (PartI), he does stay focused about 90 percent of the time in arguing against ideas that really are propounded by lots of mainstream gun rights advocates. *Guns, Democracy and the Insurrectionist Idea* The same cannot be said of Guns, Democracy, and the Insurrectionist... To Henigan’s credit (PartI), he does stay focused about 90 percent of the time in arguing against ideas that really are propounded by lots of mainstream gun rights advocates.

Guns, Democracy and the Insurrectionist Idea

The same cannot be said of Guns, Democracy, and the Insurrectionist Idea by Horwitz and Anderson. The Horwitz/Anderson thesis is that the National Rifle Association is an “insurrectionist” organization; that scholars such as Nelson Lund, Don Kates and myself--who generally agree with the NRA on many issues-- are “insurrectionists,” and that “insurrectionism” is a mortal threat to democracy.
Truth is, the “insurrectionist idea” that Horwitz and Anderson purport to rebut is their very own invention, which they carefully concoct using libels, quarter-truths and invented facts.
For example, they blame pro-gun “extremists” for the fact that Smith & Wesson went bankrupt. (It didn’t.)
They reveal that Peder Lund, a controversial book publisher in Boulder, Colo., is on the NRA Board of Directors. (He isn’t.)
They rejoice that Presidents “Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter publicly renounced their NRA memberships.” (Carter and Ford never belonged to the NRA, and Reagan retained his NRA membership all of his life.)
Horowitz and Anderson also warn that George Mason University Law Professor Nelson Lund “believes that the government, state and federal, is prohibited from limiting civilian access to almost any kind of weapons, including ‘grenades and bazookas.’”
Not really. The “grenades and bazookas” quote comes from a 1996 Georgia Law Review article in which Lund argued that Second Amendment legal scholarship still had a long way to go. As an example, Lund contended that the theories of other Second Amendment scholars about why such weapons are outside the Second Amendment were not very well reasoned.
Recently, Lund authored an amicus brief in District of Columbia v. Heller. That brief propounded Lund’s own theory of why weapons such as “fully automatic rifles” as well as “shoulder-fired rockets and grenades” can be regulated despite the Second Amendment. That brief was filed in February 2008, well over a year before the publication of the Horwitz and Anderson book. Given Horwitz’s own deep involvement in the Heller case as an amicus brief author, it is difficult to believe that he never read Lund’s brief.
Thus, Horwitz and Anderson mislead readers with the false assertion that Lund believes that the government cannot regulate “grenades and bazookas.” In fact, Lund does believe they can be regulated, and simply argues with his fellow Second Amendment scholars about the best rationale for that conclusion.
They (Horwitz and Anderson) rejoice that Presidents “Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter publicly renounced their NRA memberships.” (Carter and Ford never belonged to the NRA, and Reagan retained his NRA membership all of his life.) insurectionist
Horwitz and Anderson also quote from a Cato Institute monograph I wrote in 1988, in which I asserted that “constitutionally protected objects” such as typewriters, newspapers and firearms should not be registered by the government. After pointing to a Supreme Court case that used the First Amendment to prohibit government registration of books and magazines I continued, “The same principle should apply to the Second Amendment: the tools of political dissent should be privately owned and unregistered.”
Just because you don’t want the government to keep lists of the books you check out from the library or the guns you own does not mean that you want an “insurrection.” Throughout history, guns have obviously been useful political tools for dissidents who were threatened by violence--such as the civil rights workers in the South in the 1960s who used guns to defend themselves from Ku Klux Klan attacks.
Yet Horwitz and Anderson write: “When Charlton Heston famously warns that gun control advocates will have to pry his guns out of his ‘cold dead hands,’ when David Kopel describes guns as ‘the tools of political dissent’ they mean that whenever they strongly disagree with a decision produced by democratic means, they feel no obligation to respect or abide by it.”
Horowitz and Anderson supply absolutely no citation to support this bold claim about what Mr. Heston and I really “mean.” Indeed, I have never said nor written anything like the idea that Horowitz ascribes to me, nor did Mr. Heston ever say such a thing.
The middle portion of the book argues against something that the NRA and many pro-Second Amendment writers actually believe: that the importance of an armed citizenry in defending civil liberty can be seen in the examples of the American Revolution, in the post-Civil War depredations of the Ku Klux Klan against the freedmen who had been disarmed, and in the Nazi genocide against the Jews, whom the Nazis had been careful to disarm.
The books ends with Horowitz railing about several current issues: Castle Doctrine; laws that protect employees who store firearms in locked cars on company parking lots; and bans on junk lawsuits against gun companies. In contrast to Henigan, who addresses these issues with policy arguments, Horwitz and Anderson insist that each of these topics amount to no more than democracy threatened by “insurrectionism.”
Yet when democracy itself is really endangered, the NRA is usually the group defending it.
For example, the anti-gun lawsuits were carefully structured so that the dozens of cases could not be consolidated, and thus the lawsuits would exhaust the ability of handgun manufacturers to pay for defense attorneys--even if the plaintiffs could never win a single case on the merits. The expected gun-ban endgame was that, to avoid bankruptcy, the manufacturers would submit to a regulatory regime run by the anti-gun lobbies, although the same regulations had been repeatedly rejected by legislatures as well as by voters in ballot initiatives.
In the end, democratically elected legislatures in most states banned the abusive lawsuits. Then the democratically elected Congress of the United States of America enacted a national ban, and the democratically elected president of the United States signed it. All of this was done in accordance with poll after poll that showed a very large majority of U.S. citizens opposed the junk lawsuits.
It’s hard to believe that anyone will ever outdo Horwitz and Anderson in dredging Internet comment boards for “insurrectionist” quotes to use in their book. Yet one quote is oddly omitted. It cannot be that Horowitz and Anderson missed it, because the quote is used repeatedly in many of the articles they cite.
It’s the quote that gives the lie to the Horwitz/Anderson pretense that everyone who believes that resistance to tyranny is an inalienable right must also believe that “Government is the enemy.” The quote comes from the great man who, from the 1940s to the 1970s, personified big-government liberalism. His heartfelt faith in the positive power of a large and active federal government was at its best in his tireless, relentless, triumphant work for federal civil rights legislation to banish Jim Crow forever.
Mayor of Minneapolis, United States senator and then vice president of the United States, Hubert H. Humphrey wrote: “Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.”
An “insurrectionist”?
No. Hubert Humphrey was simply a patriot who revered our Constitution, who walked forthrightly in the bright sunshine of human rights, who loved democracy and the rule of law, and who wanted our government to be the best in the world.
As do all of us who believe in the principles of the National Rifle Association of America.
Copied by Heilung ]]> heilung http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/blogs/heilung/antigun-book-part-ii-guns-democracy-insurrection-kopel-review-616/ <![CDATA[Anti Gun Agendas: Part I, "Lethal Logic" Kopel Book Reviews]]> http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/blogs/heilung/anti-gun-agendas-part-i-lethal-logic-kopel-book-reviews-615/ Wed, 07 Oct 2009 19:40:27 GMT *Bad to Worse : Antigun Books* Two new books by prominent gun-banners lay out the newest set of talking points for anti-gunners and the media to follow in their continuing attempt to rid us of our pesky Second Amendment rights. by DAVE KOPEL TWO OF THE TOP THINKERS at America’s largest gun-ban... Bad to Worse : Antigun Books
Two new books by prominent gun-banners lay out the newest set of talking points for anti-gunners and the media to follow in their continuing attempt to rid us of our pesky Second Amendment rights.
by DAVE KOPEL
TWO OF THE TOP THINKERS at America’s largest gun-ban organizations have written new books, giving anti-gunners in the media plenty of new material to fawn over.
Dennis Henigan, the Brady Center’s chief lawyer, is the author of Lethal Logic: Exploding the Myths that Paralyze American Gun Policy. Josh Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, and Casey Anderson, who is a former employee of the same group, have teamed up to produce Guns, Democracy, and the Insurrectionist Idea.
As lovers of freedom, it’s important for us to understand the ideas promoted by the opposition in order to keep the truth in the forefront. Thus, while we typically don’t review anti-gun rights books, these new releases warrant our examination if for no other reason than to know what new lies, obfuscations and half-truths the press will soon be parroting.
Lethal Logic
Each of Henigan’s seven chapters is an argument against a commonly-used slogan or idea of pro-Second Amendment advocates--“When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns,” “An armed society is a polite society,” etc.
Of all the people who work for gun control organizations, Henigan is probably the most influential thinker. It was he who cooked up the batch of 1998-99 lawsuits by anti-gun mayors and trial lawyers against firearm manufacturers, wholesalers, stores and trade associations. Ultimately, the suits failed to cripple the firearm industry, but they came close.
Henigan is much more prescient than some of the other “intellectuals” at gun control organizations in recognizing when a particular position has become untenable and needs to be abandoned. Back in the early 1990s, when much of the anti-gun movement was still insisting that the Second Amendment protects a “collective” or a state’s right, Henigan apparently recognized that the individual right analysis was unbeatable. Consequently, in law review articles and other fora, he set out to construct the intellectual foundation for the “narrow” individual right--a microscopically tiny right of members of the select state militias, while in active service, not to be disarmed by the federal government.
In Heller, it was Henigan’s “narrow” right theory that the four dissenting justices used in trying to deny the normal individual right that was affirmed by the majority opinion. In fact, the “collective” right pushed by Eric Holder and Janet Reno in an amicus (friend of the court) brief was dismissed by all nine justices as so obviously wrong as to barely merit discussion.
In fact, the “collective” right pushed by Eric Holder and Janet Reno in an amicus (friend of the court) brief was dismissed by all nine justices as so obviously wrong as to barely merit discussion. lethallogic
So Lethal Logic, although not an official book of the Brady Campaign, presents what will likely be the key talking points for gun control advocates and their media allies in the coming months and years.
More than half of Lethal Logic presents statistics and social science evidence that supports gun control. These pages show Henigan at his most reasonable in that he sometimes addresses counter-arguments or data that have been brought forward by gun control skeptics--particularly by Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck.
Henigan implicitly steps back from some untenable arguments that have long been popular with the gun control lobbies. For example, he does not assert that “guns are the most unregulated consumer product in America,” which has always been a patently ridiculous thing to say about the only consumer product that you have to get FBI or state permission to buy in a store. Instead, Henigan argues that it is proper for guns to be regulated much more heavily than other goods because they are inherently dangerous.
The book would have been stronger if Henigan had been consistent in acknowledging and addressing counter evidence. For example, to support his assertion that defensive gun use (DGU) against burglars is rare, he cites the preeminent junk scientist of gun control, Arthur Kellermann. Kellermann reviewed 198 Atlanta police reports of burglaries, found that few of the police reports mentioned defensive gun use by the victim and announced that DGUs against home invasions were rare.
However, the police forms did not include any field for the police officer to report gun use by the victim. Further, Atlanta police officers are not trained to solicit information about defensive gun use. Thus, the only time that a DGU would appear on the police report would be when an officer spontaneously decided to record it on the free-form section. In other words, Kellermann studied reports that were not designed to record DGUs, and on the basis of those reports he announced that DGUs are rare.
The Centers for Disease Control--which will never be accused of being a “pro-gun” organization--conducted a national study of victim defense against burglary, and reported that there were over half a million DGUs against burglars annually. (Robert Ikeda, et al., “Estimating Intruder-Related Firearms Retrievals in U.S. Households, 1994,” 12 Violence and Victims 363 (1997).) Perhaps Henigan disputes the CDC study, but instead of discussing those arguments he shields the reader from its very existence and proclaims the faulty Kellermann study as truth. Similar points could be made about much, although not all, of Henigan’s social science discussion.
His Second Amendment chapter is an angry denunciation of the Scalia majority in Heller, and a layman’s summary of the Brady Center’s failed legal argument in the case. In this portion of the book, when compared to the social science section, he is much less willing to address serious evidence on the other side.
In a book written by a professional anti-gun advocate like Henigan, criticism of the National Rifle Association is to be expected. Yet he takes many cheap shots and draws numerous faulty conclusions.
For example, the NRA denounced the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) in the Waco Branch Davidian case because, rather than serving its search warrant on the Waco compound by knocking on the door and demanding entry, BATF launched a “dynamic entry” on a building containing dozens of children. Henigan asserts that because the NRA criticized BATF’s tactics, “The NRA condones the murder of federal agents by persons suspected of violating federal gun laws.” Of course, that’s preposterous.
Likewise, he blames the NRA for “deceiving” political pundits into believing that the NRA cost Al Gore five to seven swing states, and therefore the 2000 presidential election. Henigan fails to mention that even Bill Clinton later said that the NRA was the reason that Gore lost, and that Clinton elaborated on that argument in his book, My Life.
Henigan also asserts that pro-gun rhetoric “is all about getting people to stop thinking”--as if Henigan’s allies do not, themselves, specialize in emotional appeals, no matter how irrelevant to the matter at hand. For example, this July the Brady Campaign’s Colorado affiliate was trying (unsuccessfully) to convince Colorado’s senators to vote against the Thune amendment, which would create national reciprocity for Right-to-Carry licenses. In this effort, the group bought full-page newspaper ads invoking the Columbine High School murders in 1999. Whatever else one may say about Columbine, it was certainly not the result of too many adults being licensed to carry handguns for lawful protection.
Moreover, Henigan’s assertion that gun rights advocates are simpletons who parrot bumper sticker reasoning seems a bit hypocritical coming from a guy whose organization thinks that clever rhetoric consists of saying “God bless America” sarcastically. That’s the tag line of an old print advertising campaign from Henigan’s group, which listed the number of people whom “handguns killed” in several countries, including the United States. Notably, the ad does not say “criminals killed.” Henigan liked the line so much that he repeated it in the opening paragraph of the book.
To Henigan’s credit, he does stay focused about 90 percent of the time in arguing against ideas that really are propounded by lots of mainstream gun rights advocates.
Posted: 10/6/2009 12:02:55 PM
Copyright 2009, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.
Copied by Heilung ]]> heilung http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/blogs/heilung/anti-gun-agendas-part-i-lethal-logic-kopel-book-reviews-615/ Global Warming: Bogus Al Gore Science Being Debunked http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/blogs/heilung/global-warming-bogus-al-gore-science-being-debunked-613/ Mon, 05 Oct 2009 23:18:28 GMT This article comes from *Green Watch America,* and be sure to add : newsletter @greenwatchamerica. net to your daily email to keep up to date on the Truths About Our Global Climate. Legislation about to appear in Washington as a result of the bogus reports , described below, will be VERY... This article comes from Green Watch America, and be sure to add : newsletter @greenwatchamerica. net to your daily email to keep up to date on the Truths About Our Global Climate.
Legislation about to appear in Washington as a result of the bogus reports , described below, will be VERY EXPENSIVE for all of us. – Heilung
“It could be that the 2016 Games are the last Olympics in the history of mankind." - Governor Shintaro Ishihara of Tokyo (See end comment)
The truth is finally coming forth, about the bogus “Hockey Stick” - shaped temperature graph as used by Al Gore to promote his self-serving CO2 Cap and Trade agenda. The graph rises abruptly (forming the “handle”) around 1900 when industrialization allegedly increased atmospheric CO2 and thusly world temperatures. This trend was interpreted from some tree rings as described below. The Global Warming Myth is based largely on that presentation. It now seems that the scientific work was seriously corrupted. Maybe Al Gore should return his Nobel Prize. -Heilung
FROM: GREEN WATCH AMERICA
MONDAY OCTOBER 5TH, 2009MONDAY OCTOBER 5TH, 2009
By Patrick Gallagher, Editor Green Watch America
HEAR THAT SOUND? THAT DISTINCTIVE CRACK? IT'S THE SOUND OF A HOCKEY STICK SNAPPING IN HALF.
One of the most influential pieces of data supporting the Radical Global Warming Agenda is the infamous "hockey stick" graph. Developed by climatologist Michael Mann, the graph uses "bristlecone" [tree] data to show that the earth's temperatures have increased dramatically over the last century. The U.N. Intergovermental Panel on Climate relied on it heavily when it made its case for Anthropogenic [human-caused] global warming in 2001.
A scientist we've frequently reference and linked to in this space, Steve McIntyre, along with Ross McKitrick, a professor of environmental economics at the University of Guelph, has mathematically discredited the graph, arguing the bristlecone data was flawed. Expert panels agreed, and the Mann graph, or at least the science behind it, has been discredited. However it doesn't end there.
One panel examining the flawed Mann data conceded the errors but argued that other studies have found similar trends, so the premise couldn't be dismissed. Many of the studies were based on the same faulty data as the Mann graph, but some were based on alternative tree-ring data, compiled by a British scientist working in Siberia. His data also showed a relatively consistent global temperature for 900 years, culminating in a dramatic spike in the 20th century a la the hockey graph.
However, there were some shady aspects to this data. The primary one was the scientist's refusal to release his original data. Eventually he published a study in a magazine that required him to release that tree-ring data; the last data supporting the premise that the 20th centure was a period of dramatic and unprecedented warming. I'll let Ross McKitrick, writing in the National Post, take it from here:
"It turns out that many of the samples were taken from dead (partially fossilized) trees and they have no particular trend. The sharp uptrend in the late 20th century came from cores of 10 living trees alive as of 1990, and five living trees alive as of 1995. Based on scientific standards, this is too small a sample on which to produce a publication-grade proxy composite. The 18th and 19th century portion of the sample, for instance, contains at least 30 trees per year. But that portion doesn’t show a warming spike. The only segment that does is the late 20th century, where the sample size collapses. Once again a dramatic hockey stick shape turns out to depend on the least reliable portion of a dataset.
"But an even more disquieting discovery soon came to light. Steve searched a paleoclimate data archive to see if there were other tree ring cores from at or near the Yamal [Siberia] site that could have been used to increase the sample size. He quickly found a large set of 34 up-to-date core samples, taken from living trees in Yamal by none other than Schweingruber himself! Had these been added to Briffa’s small group the 20th century would simply be flat [temperatures]. It would appear completely unexceptional compared to the rest of the millennium.
"Combining data from different samples would not have been an unusual step. Briffa added data from another Schweingruber site to a different composite, from the Taimyr Peninsula. The additional data were gathered more than 400 km away from the primary site. And in that case the primary site had three or four times as many cores to begin with as the Yamal site. Why did he not fill out the Yamal data with the readily-available data from his own coauthor? Why did Briffa seek out additional data for the already well-represented Taimyr site and not for the inadequate Yamal site?
"Thus the key ingredient in most of the studies that have been invoked to support the Hockey Stick, namely the Briffa Yamal series [data collection], depends on the influence of a woefully thin subsample of trees and the exclusion of readily-available data for the same area. Whatever is going on here, it is not science."
Here is a link (be forewarned: lots of science talk) to the data discrepancy. Mr. McIntyre's quote sums it up quite nicely: "I hardly know where to begin in terms of commentary on this difference."
More here from Anthony Watts.
Ross McKintrick writing in the National Post, ends his column with a first hand account and analyis of the troubles of global warming data that EVERYONE should read. It speaks for itself:
"I have been probing the arguments for global warming for well over a decade. In collaboration with a lot of excellent coauthors I have consistently found that when the layers get peeled back, what lies at the core is either flawed, misleading or simply non-existent. The surface temperature data is a contaminated mess with a significant warm bias, and as I have detailed elsewhere the IPCC fabricated evidence in its 2007 report to cover up the problem. Climate models are in gross disagreement with observations, and the discrepancy is growing with each passing year. The often-hyped claim that the modern climate has departed from natural variability depended on flawed statistical methods and low-quality data. The IPCC review process, of which I was a member last time, is nothing at all like what the public has been told: Conflicts of interest are endemic, critical evidence is systematically ignored and there are no effective checks and balances against bias or distortion...
"...Over the coming few years, as the costs of global warming policies mount and the evidence of a crisis continues to collapse, perhaps it will become socially permissible for people to start thinking for themselves again."

MOST EGREGIOUS CLAIM OF THE WEEK

Last week, Governor Shintaro Ishihara of Tokyo advocated unsuccessfully on behalf of his city's bid to host the Olympics in 2016. Tokyo has strongly emphasized making the Olympics "green" in their bid, and Governor Ishihara tells us why:

"It could be that the 2016 Games are the last Olympics in the history of mankind."

The IOC, who selected Rio de Janeiro as the host of the games, seems less concerned with that possibility.
-Patrick Gallagher, Editor Green Watch America
--Copied by Heilung 10/5/09 ]]> heilung http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/blogs/heilung/global-warming-bogus-al-gore-science-being-debunked-613/ McDonald vs Chicago: Historic 2nd Amendment Supreme Court Case Coming Up Soon http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/blogs/heilung/mcdonald-vs-chicago-historic-2nd-amendment-supreme-court-case-coming-up-soon-611/ Thu, 01 Oct 2009 02:53:11 GMT NEWEST ADDITIONS are First Added10/3/09 From the NRA Website, Chicago Tribune Author: Steve Chapman *The end of the Chicago handgun ban* The 2nd Amendment is about to arrive in Chicago--which is good news for citizens who see a need to have a handgun in the home for protection against the... NEWEST ADDITIONS are First

Added10/3/09 From the NRA Website, Chicago Tribune Author: Steve Chapman
The end of the Chicago handgun ban

The 2nd Amendment is about to arrive in Chicago--which is good news for citizens who see a need to have a handgun in the home for protection against the city's many criminals. It's bad news for Mayor Daley and other supporters of the existing ban on handguns, one of the most draconian in the nation. Chicago has long behaved as though gun owners don't have any rights. It is probably going to find out they do.

Last year, the Supreme Court struck down a similar Washington, D.C. ordinance banning handguns. "The Second Amendment," it found, "protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." But Chicago insisted on keeping its law.

Odds are it will lose. Last year's ruling was limited to the District of Columbia, which is unique in being a federal enclave. The only question in this case is whether the 2nd Amendment applies to states and municipalities, as most other freedoms in the Bill of Rights now do.

It's hard to think of a compelling reason that the court would say states don't have to respect the right to keep and bear arms. Law professor Ronald Rotunda of Chapman University told me that he gives the Chicago law only a one in five chance of surviving.

The handgun ban had no effect on crime rates, and lifting it wouldn't make our violence problems any worse. But it would give law-abiding citizens a better means to protect themselves.

Posted at 09:59:28 AM
Added 10/1/09
High Court Agrees to Hear Gun-Rights Case
By JESS BRAVIN

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court agreed to decide whether some state gun regulations violate the Constitution, the second phase of the justices' re-examination of the right to bear arms in the 21st century.

* Vote: Should the Second Amendment limit state and local gun regulations?

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case challenging Chicago's ban on the possession of handguns. WSJ's Jess Bravin details this case and previews others the Court will hear in the coming weeks.

Last year, the court ruled that the Second Amendment includes an individual right to self-defense, and struck down a Washington, D.C., ordinance that effectively banned possession of handguns within the capital.

That decision rested on the District of Columbia's unique status as a federal enclave, and left unanswered what the amendment means for states. Supporters of gun control say states are free to set their own weapons laws as part of their power to regulate militias under the Constitution, while opponents say the Second Amendment bars states from infringing on an individual right to armed self-defense.

The same lawyer who challenged the District of Columbia ordinance, Alan Gura, brought suit against regulations in Chicago and Oak Park, Ill., that ban the possession of most handguns. The Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the claims, citing an 1886 Supreme Court decision that the Second Amendment placed no limits on state authority.

See video at: http://online.wsj.com/video/the-2nd-...7B03AF572.html

The high court's constitutional doctrines have changed significantly since the 19th century, and several provisions of the Bill of Rights are now viewed as limits on states, as well as on the federal government. However, the Seventh Circuit ruled that only the Supreme Court could say whether the Second Amendment also should be read this way.

The court's newest justice, Sonia Sotomayor, was on a panel in the Second Circuit in New York that upheld a state law restricting martial-arts weapons. Like the Seventh Circuit, the New York federal appeals court said it remained bound by the 1886 precedent. The decision was raised during Justice Sotomayor's confirmation hearings by opponents who said she failed to show concern for the right to carry a weapon in self-defense.

In San Francisco, a Ninth Circuit panel ruled that more recent Supreme Court decisions, including the 2008 ruling, District of Columbia v. Heller, implicitly overruled the 19th-century case.

Now the Supreme Court will step in to resolve these contradictory holdings. By accepting the Chicago case, the court allowed Justice Sotomayor to take part. She probably would have recused herself if the New York case were brought to the Supreme Court for argument.

Scholars have long debated the meaning of the Second Amendment. Some argue that it aimed to prevent the nascent federal government from disarming the autonomous states, while others contend that it suggests an individual right that is not necessarily tied to militia service. Adopted as part of the Bill of Rights in 1791, it reads: "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."

In 1939, the court upheld a federal restriction on the trafficking of sawed-off shotguns. The justices said then that the Second Amendment concerned state militias, whose members typically provided their own weapons, and that no evidence had been presented to show that a sawed-off shotgun was "any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

In the 2008 Heller case, the court split 5-4 along ideological lines to strike down the Washington ordinance. The two longest-serving justices, Antonin Scalia for the majority and John Paul Stevens in dissent, produced dueling historical treatises replete with references to weapons rights through the ages, with particular focuses on the modern implications of the 1689 English Bill of Rights and the regulations imposed by the 13 colonies in the revolutionary era.

(McDonald v. City of Chicago)

Separately, the court agreed to consider a central tool in the federal government's antiterrorism arsenal, the law that criminalizes providing "material support" to a terrorist organization. The Ninth Circuit Court in San Francisco struck down some provisions of the law as too vague, but upheld others as constitutional. Both the government and challengers appealed.

(Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project; Humanitarian Law Project v. Holder)

Both cases are expected to be heard and decided during the term that starts Monday and ends in June.

Write to Jess Bravin at jess.bravin@wsj.com
Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A5
FIRST POSTING:

This latest NRA announcement is posted here, where I will try to keep up to date on the progress. This case is significant for states who did not write into their Constitution, an equivalent 2nd Amendment Protection. There has always been this discussion as to whether the Bill of Rights affects only federal laws.
Did the Illinois Constitution have such a 2nd Amendment provision? My state does.
From NRA email:
Supreme Court to Hear McDonald v. Chicago -- Monumental Second Amendment Case
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Fairfax, Va. -- The National Rifle Association applauds the Supreme Court's decision, announced today, to hear the landmark Second Amendment case of McDonald v. Chicago. The case will address the application of the Second Amendment to the states through either the Due Process clause or the Privileges or Immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case has major implications for the legality of restrictive gun laws not only in Chicago, but also in other cities across the United States. The decision to hear the case, which will be argued later this year or early next year, gives Second Amendment advocates across America hope that this fundamental freedom will not be infringed by unreasonable state and local laws.
"The Second Amendment applies to every citizen, not just to those living in federal enclaves like Washington D.C. In the historic Heller decision, the Supreme Court reaffirmed what most Americans have known all along -- that the Second Amendment protects an individual right and that it applies to all Americans. The government should respect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens throughout our country, regardless of where they live, and NRA is determined to make sure that happens," said Wayne LaPierre, NRA executive vice president.
In the June ruling that the Supreme Court will now review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the Second Amendment does not apply to state and local governments. That opinion left in place the current ban on the possession of handguns in Chicago.
However, the Seventh Circuit incorrectly claimed it was bound by precedent from 19th century Supreme Court decisions in failing to incorporate the Second Amendment. Many legal scholars believe that the Seventh Circuit should have followed the lead of the earlier Ninth Circuit panel decision in Nordyke v. Alameda County, which found that those cases don't prevent the Second Amendment from applying to the states through the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. To the contrary, a proper incorporation analysis supports application of the Second Amendment to the States.
"It is an injustice that the residents of Chicago continue to have their Second Amendment rights denied," said Chris W. Cox, NRA’s chief lobbyist. "It’s time that the fundamental right of self-defense is respected by every jurisdiction throughout the country. It is our hope that the Supreme Court will find, once and for all, that all law-abiding Americans have the God-given, constitutionally-protected right of self-defense, no matter what city, county or state they call home."
-National Rifle Association-
Heilung ]]> heilung http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/blogs/heilung/mcdonald-vs-chicago-historic-2nd-amendment-supreme-court-case-coming-up-soon-611/ Ghost Writer http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/blogs/jimkim/ghost-writer-608/ Wed, 30 Sep 2009 07:50:56 GMT I have wondered about this for a while. Did the Messiah write his own book? Hmmmm....maybe not.

Quote:

Breakthrough on the Authorship of Obama's 'Dreams'

By Jack Cashill

Within days of my going public last September with the speculation that terrorist emeritus Bill Ayers helped Barack Obama write his acclaimed memoir, Dreams From My Father, I learned that I was not alone in that intuition.

Since then, I have received helpful contributions from serious people in at least five countries and any number of states and have integrated many of their observations into my ongoing narrative, summarized here. If you are unfamiliar with this research, please read this before going forward.

About a week ago, however, I heard from a new contributor. I will refer to him as "Mr. West." Like most contributors, he prefers to remain anonymous. The media punishment that Joe the Plumber received has much to do with this nearly universal reticence.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/...horship_1.html ]]> jimkim http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/blogs/jimkim/ghost-writer-608/ <![CDATA[I'm burnout]]> http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/blogs/chris/im-burnout-607/ Mon, 21 Sep 2009 12:00:54 GMT Right now, I have this feeling of being burnout.

I need to get away from it all right now or I may lose it.

Gun and Game is starting to stress me out, and I'm wondering why I still keep this site going when it takes so much of my time. I feel as if I'm missing out on a few things. Maybe I should look into selling the site.

Maybe it's just the stress. I think I'll take about a week off and see where I stand. ]]> Chris http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/blogs/chris/im-burnout-607/ I`m still around, eh. http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/blogs/johnny_revolver/i-m-still-around-eh-605/ Mon, 07 Sep 2009 08:40:11 GMT As the title states, I visit here when I can. Lots of new faces, thats a good thing. Seems some of the older heads have been as busy as I have. I`m still shooting. I was at my local shop on saturday to get some tips about renewing my firearms licence ( the long arm licence, I gotta have a... As the title states, I visit here when I can. Lots of new faces, thats a good thing.

Seems some of the older heads have been as busy as I have.

I`m still shooting. I was at my local shop on saturday to get some tips about renewing my firearms licence ( the long arm licence, I gotta have a separate licence for hand guns ) and I asked about a Ruger African.

There`s 2 left handed jobs in stock in 375 Ruger.. Oh my..

COuld be a lay away happen there.

Guy had his brand newy Super Redhawk downstairs at the indoor range. 44 Mag.. Would you like to try it, mate?

Is a bear a catholic?! BOOOOM!

Now I want one. No, I need one.. Serious.. ]]> Johnny_Revolver http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/blogs/johnny_revolver/i-m-still-around-eh-605/ diabetes or diabeetus http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/blogs/knightrider/diabetes-diabeetus-604/ Sun, 09 Aug 2009 13:57:52 GMT http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXQaM...layer_embedded ]]> knightRider http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/blogs/knightrider/diabetes-diabeetus-604/ Tweaks to the website! http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/blogs/chris/tweaks-website-601/ Tue, 04 Aug 2009 15:57:58 GMT I just forced the entire website to be www. What that means is no matter what you type http://gunandgame.com it will force you to http://www.gunandgame.com This is in hopes of trying to get the cookies and other posting issues fixed. I just forced the entire website to be www.

What that means is no matter what you type

http://gunandgame.com it will force you to
http://www.gunandgame.com

This is in hopes of trying to get the cookies and other posting issues fixed. ]]> Chris http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/blogs/chris/tweaks-website-601/