Don't miss it, at Free Constitution: Second Amendment Carnival VIII.

At the top right you will notice something new.  David Codrea of The War On Guns suggested someone start up a webring that people could join to show their support for Wayne Fincher.  So I volunteered.

This is my first time doing this kind of thing, but it doesn't look too difficult after the initial setup and a slight learning curve.

If you have been following the news regarding Mr. Fincher and you would like to take this small measure to show your support, go to Free Wayne Webring Homepage to sign up.

Further information, mostly about how to install code and use graphics (for anyone who needs help), will be posted there as necessary and as time permits.  I'll probably cross-post here also.

I thought it would be a good idea to have a separate site dedicated to the webring rather than try to make this site the homepage.

Alphecca debunks the recent Harvard study that alleged to show that states with higher gun ownership have higher homicide rates.

As many others have pointed out, this study was funded by the Joyce Foundation.  They are often behind such anti-gun "studies" and organizations.

Northwest Arkansas Morning News reports: 

The defense tried to make the case an issue of the Constitution versus federal gun laws. The government tried to make the case as simple as possible for jurors — Fincher had the machine guns and they weren’t registered as required by federal law.

Wrong, actually.  The defense was not allowed to make such a case, because the "judge" decided that the Second Amendment of the Constitution had no place in a court of "law."

David Codrea makes the same point about a different article from AP.

Yeah, right.  The Boston Globe would so have us believe.

He will never get my vote.

This article rings with gun bigotry and ignorance.  First, he refers to the SHOT show as a huge gun show but he never points out that it is a special show for manufacturers to show new wares to representatives of the gun trade industry and is not open to the general public.

At one point the writer of this piece claims that Romney's suit is out of place in a "sea of camouflage."  Take a look at the article.  There's a photo at the top.  Do you see any camouflage anywhere in that photo?  I don't.  I know, a single photo is not evidence of a lack of camo, but if the writer is going to make this kind of bigoted remark he could try to take a photo that doesn't show almost everyone around wearing suits, blazers, ties, and button-down dress shirts.

By the way, Mitt.  I don't give a rat's ass if you do a token hunt once a year to prove how gun-friendly you are.  You are an enemy of freedom and your hollow attempt to lie to us about it disgusts me.

This isn't a "retreat," it's a sham.  Don't believe it for a second.

UPDATE:  Related news.  Romney has joined up with Mel Sembler to lead his fundraising efforts.  Don't miss this post at The Agitator for some interesting background on Sembler.

UPDATE 2:  The Pistolero has some comments.

David Codrea has proposed that someone start up a "Free Wayne" webring, "to help develop and maintain internet awareness and to show solidarity."

If you are interested in joining such a webring, click on over to his site and leave a comment so we can get an idea of the support that might be behind this.

Big news in the Fincher case, via The War on Guns and Claire Wolfe.

More at nwaonline.

UPDATE:  The judge has changed his mind.

It looks to me like someone had a little behind-the-scene chat with the judge, probably involving endings of careers and/or broken kneecaps.

UPDATE: (and bumped to the top).  Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership have posted a 45-point dissection of this piece:  A Muslim Writer Tells America:  Drop Your Guns and Give Up (pdf).  Don't miss it.

Ninth Stage pointed this odious opinion piece by a self-described attorney and activist who believes that we will all be safer if we have no means to defend ourselves.

The idea of public gun ownership simply does not make sense anymore. The right to bear arms, as enumerated in the Second Amendment, was meant for the maintenance of a “well-regulated militia.” At the time the amendment was adopted, standing armies were viewed with a great deal of suspicion, and therefore, gun-owning individuals were seen as a protection mechanism for the public. These gun owners were also seen as guardians of the republic against the tyranny of the rulers. The framers of the Constitution saw the right to bear and use arms as a check against an unruly government. That state of affairs no longer exists. 

Today, only a handful of citizens outside of neo-nazi and white supremacist goups view gun ownership as a means of keeping the government in check. Even those citizens who continue to maintain such antiquated views must face the reality that the United States’ armed forces are too large and too powerful for the citizenry to make much difference. Quite frankly, the idea of the citizenry rising up against the U.S. government with their handguns and assault rifles, and facing the military with these personal arms is absurd. The Branch Davidian tragedy at Waco, Texas, was one such futile attempt. 

The more important consideration is public safety. It is no longer safe for the public to carry guns. Gun violence is increasingly widespread in the United States. According to the DOJ/FBI’s Crime In The United States: 2003 report, 45,197 people in the United States were murdered with guns between 1999 and 2003. That averages out to more than 9,000 people murdered per year. Nearly three times the number of lives lost in the tragic 9/11 attacks are murdered annually as a direct result of guns.

There are so many errors in these few paragraphs that I am sickened.  I am tired and I do not make money by advertising my career on my blog so I'm not going to spend two or three hours fisking this.  I hope someone who is really good at fisking gets hold of it.

However...

You must have overlooked that part about "the people."

The Branch Davidian tragedy at Waco is not an example of anyone rising up against the military.  It is an example of some people trying to mind their own business who were viciously attacked and attempted to defend themselves.

No one is ever murdered as a direct result of guns.  They are murdered as a direct result of other people who want to kill them.

And mostly, I have some information for you:  rights cannot be repealed.  Try saying that to yourself a couple of hundred times, because it needs to sink in.

Amendments can be repealed.  Other parts of the Constitution that protect essential rights can be repealed.  The rights themselves cannot.  They can be repressed.  The people who try to exercise those rights can be oppressed.  The rights still remain, and will always remain.

The writer of this piece has a blog, turned up by a simple search.  In the most recent post, which is several months old, he says this:

I see more and more fearful Americans willing to trade liberty for security. Americans seem to be willing to allow torture if it means making us safer. Americans are willing to deny others rights we have long held sacred.

That choking sound you hear is just me.  I have trouble breathing when the irony is this thick.

Let's follow his illogic to its logical conclusion:  The First Amendment must be repealed.

Islamists believe that everyone should be either Moslem, or dead.  Therefore freedom of (or from) religion is obsolete.

Freedom of speech can't be allowed because someone might say something to offend an Islamist and make them want to kill us even worse.

The press might print something that insults/inflames/annoys the Islamists (see above).  Therefore freedom of the press must end.

The right of people to peaceably assemble must be stopped.  People peaceably assembling makes it easier for Islamists to kill many people at once.  We become terrorist-enablers, therefore such assembly must not be allowed.

Mr. Afeef should carefully examine himself on this matter.  He may realize that someday, the only thing that stands between him and one of those infamous white supremacists (the example he is so fond of using) is just some nameless guy with a gun under his shirt and the will to protect the defenseless.

Even when such protection is not entirely deserved.

Via Sailorcurt, details from the Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. (VCDL):

Maniacal New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his Mayors' Coalition Against Illegal Guns will be meeting for a one day "National Summit" at the DC Capitol Hilton (corner of 16th and K at 1001 16th Street NW) on Tuesday, January 23rd - see http://tinyurl.com/yxyvjg

Bloomy's summit runs from 9:30 AM until 2:30 PM followed by an evening reception at 5 PM at the Capitol Hilton.

VCDL's headquarters will be at the nearby Crowne Plaza Hotel at 14th and K, where at 2:00 PM we will rally members and hand out picket signs, and march on to the Capitol Hilton 2 blocks away to begin protesting.

Help stop a gun criminal, if you can.

From NWAnews.com:

Supporters of Wayne Fincher, a man charged with possessing illegal machine guns, have begun an aggressive campaign to raise awareness of what they think is an unjust arrest by posting “Free Wayne” signs and bumper stickers around Washington County.

“We want people to be aware of Wayne’s plight,” friend Don Bright said. “He was arrested for what we consider to be an illegal law and we think he ought to be out on the streets.”

I wouldn't be surprised if the prosecution now does everything it can to have a change of venue. We can't have the ignorant populace siding with their peer and ignoring instructions of summary judgement.

Via United States vs. Fincher.