« Al Gore is a liar - It's settled science | Main | Breaking: Monica Conyers Sentenced to 3 Years in Prison »

The Real "Gun Nuts"

The term "gun nuts" is often tossed around as a pejorative against those who believe in the 2nd Amendment, and the free exercise thereof. But of late, it seems that the real nuttiness is happening on the sides of the anti-2nd-Amendment crowd (the "gun-grabbers").

Bob Owens, the blogger of Confederate Yankee fame, is in the middle of a three-part series on just how nigh-criminally inept the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (of the Great Waco Barbecue infamy) literally can't tell a real gun from a toy gun -- even when shown in excruciating detail the differences. (Here are Parts I and II).

With all the gun crimes going on, one would think that the BATF would have far more important things to do than to take away other people's toys (that, it must be noted, also have tremendous use in combat training, as they look and feel very much like the real weapons they simulate -- but are utterly useless as actual weapons).

Even more inept than the BATF, though, have to be the public school systems. A few weeks ago, a Staten Island school nearly suspended a student for bringing a gun to school.

A plastic gun.

Two inches long.

That came with his Lego toy policeman.

It gets worse. Three years ago, a New Jersey student was suspended because he drew a picture of a gun. And it wasn't even that good a picture.

And it gets worse still. Last week in Michigan a six-year-old boy was suspended for pointing a gun at classmates.

A gun made of flesh and bone.

That's right. He was kicked out of school for making the "bang! bang!" gesture.

While all this is tremendously amusing, it's symptomatic of a bigger problem. The same kinds of idiocy that generates the above entertaining stories lends itself to larger problems. Little absurdities, left unchecked, grow up to large obscenities.

Such as the mentality behind such groups as the Brady people or -- as regular detractor "john" likes to cite -- the Violence Policy Center.

There is a remarkably simple logic behind their reasoning: if there are no guns, then no one will get shot.

Unfortunately, it's a flawed logic. Anyone who knows the slightest bit about science can tell you that reality always trumps theory, no matter how elegant or seductive that theory might be. And the reality of the situation is that the worst places for violent crime are often the places where there are the tightest constraints on firearms. For example, until recently it was essentially impossible to legally own a handgun in Washington, DC, and it consistently had some of the highest murder rates in the nation.

The standard counterargument is to say that the gun control laws are not a cause of the problem, but a reaction to them. There are two lines of attack to this theory.

The first is to simply ask them "how's that working out for you?" A good way to test a theory is to try it and measure the results. In the case of gun control laws, they don't exactly have the best record of achieving their stated goals. DC is still a murder capitol. And for those who say "it's because of the guns being brought in from outside," point to Great Britain. They outlawed guns entirely -- on an island nation, with no land borders to smuggle across -- and their violent crime rates continued to rise.

The second is to point out the problems of violent crime in places that, historically, didn't have a problem with violence. These are the so-called "gun-free zones" declared by many public places. Shopping malls, schools, college campuses, restaurants, and the like.

These, coincidentally enough, are also the places where mass shootings tend to take place. Malls like the Westroads Mall in Omaha, Nebraska. Schools like Columbine High School in Columbine, Colorado. College campuses like Virginia Tech. Restaurants like Luby's in Killeen, Texas.

What does seem to work to curb violent crime is not new laws that restrict the behavior of all citizens, but rigorous enforcement of existing laws. Not criminalizing people who have no desire to break the law, but coming down hard on those who actually do intend to do harm.

But that requires something virtually unthinkable among liberals: holding people responsible for their actions. And not conservatives (who are all responsible for each others' actions anyway, and aren't really "people," so that's OK), but most often people of lower socioeconomic strata who've had rough lives with very little opportunity to escape that. They are victims, they are reliable Democratic voters, so they have to be excused.

They didn't commit those violent crimes. It was the guns' fault. The guns, and the evil big companies that made them and the evil right-wingers who keep it legal to own them.

That's a much easier selling point to the left and their target demographics.

As long as no one lets pesky reality get in the way. The pesky reality that insists on pointing out that it has never worked before, and shows no indications of working now.

It almost makes one wonder if "reducing violent crime" is the real objective here, and instead it's something like "make people less independent and more reliant on the government for everything" is the real agenda...

Nah. That's just crazy talk.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/38446.

Comments (43)

No JT, its simply part of t... (Below threshold)
epador:

No JT, its simply part of the PLEASE don't challenge my fantasy of a Kum Bay Yah world. The "Its a Small World After All" victims of a brainwashing thought as innocent as the Santa Claus myth, but conceivably a part of the Cold War effort of our enemies to undermine our culture that included the "counter-culture" features of drug use, sexual mores disinhibition and rejection of authority.

Another of those pesky laws... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

Another of those pesky laws (I'm not sure about elsewhere, but in Florida) is if you rob an establishment, or individual, there is a standard for punishment depending on other factors. But the stakes go way up if you robbed someone with a gun. You don't have to use it. All you have to do is have it on your possession. The message is: robbery? Not so bad, unless you have a gun. And then you don't even really have to be in possession of a gun. All you have to do is ACT like you have one.

RE: "He was kicked out of s... (Below threshold)
kevino:

RE: "He was kicked out of school for making the "bang! bang!" gesture."

The correct response to that silliness is another gesture.

RE: "There is a remarkably simple logic behind their reasoning: if there are no guns, then no one will get shot."

Sure. If you could wave a magic wand that makes all of the guns go away and keep them away, it would create a world that is perfectly safe for the young, for the strong, and for those in gangs to rape, rob, and murder by stabbing and beating people to death. (Of course, there is no magic wand.) Liberal weenies love to talk about new laws to reduce violent gun crime. The only problem worth looking at is violent crime. If you take guns away from the citizens, you take away the only tool that gives an older, smaller person a chance against a younger, bigger, or stronger attacker; and you take away the only tool that gives a loan citizen a chance against a group of thugs.

Case in point: My very liberal in-laws from England were talking about home invasions. In England, it is very common for people to get robbed by armed thugs (mostly big guys with knives) in their homes. When you're at home, there is someone to threaten to help find the valuables and open the safe. And many women get raped. As a result, people live in fear in their own homes. I simply stated that in most of the US, that kind of crime is extremely rare: criminals go out of their way to avoid houses where people are home. One of the in-laws asked why, and I replied, "If they did, they'd get shot."

You are correct that one re... (Below threshold)
kevino:

You are correct that one reason why liberals favor gun control is to protect the criminals, who are an important source of political power and are a group of "victims" that liberals like to protect.

However, I believe that the main reason is that with more gun control, crime will grow, and a fearful population becomes totally dependent on Government to protect them and to solve the problem. This feeds into the liberals view of the world: more power to the State and less ability for citizens to take care of themselves.

Gun control isn't about guns: it's about control.

Of course this is about mor... (Below threshold)
Hank:

Of course this is about more dependency on govt. That's the liberal way. Ordinary citizens are just too damn stupid to know better.

You know, it really is ironic, at least to me, that liberals are all about controlling every aspect on peoples lives - Smoking, guns, food, thought (hate crime), everything except the killing of unborn children. There they prefer no controls whatsoever.

NRA gun instructor accident... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:
The radical leftists truly ... (Below threshold)
OLDPUPPYMAX:

The radical leftists truly engineering the decades old, gun-grabbing, anti second amendment agenda have no interest in crime, crime rates, suicide, self-defense or any of the standard platitudes spewed by the Bloomberg/Brady cotillion. These people dream of the confiscation of all privately held firearms because it is very difficult to enslave 150 million ARMED Americans. PERIOD!!!

Man shoots himself in leg o... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:
Adrian Browne trips on shoe... (Below threshold)

Adrian Browne trips on shoelace, demands law be changed to require all shoes to use velcro closures.

J.

Adrian, how many people get... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Adrian, how many people get killed by automobiles each year? Going to 'outlaw' cars?

School administrators show their incompetence when they enforce "the rules". Common sense doesn't enter into the equation. A "gun" is a "gun", whether it's real or a 2" piece of plastic.

JT, you forgot another island nation, with a VERY homogeneous population and absolute gun laws. Japan. There are two sets of armed people there. The law enforcement and the yakuza gangs. Funny how that works out.
Matter of fact, besides Disneyland, one of the most frequented places for Japanese tourists to go IS OUR LOCAL SHOOTING RANGES.

There was a murder/suicide the other day at Ohio State. A soon-to-be-laid-off worker (ex-convict) shot a supervisor, then killed himself. Let's see, ex-con illegally in possession of a weapon, carrying said weapon in a 'gun free' zone. Hey Adrian! I know, LET'S PASS SOME MORE LAWS!

It seems to me that the rev... (Below threshold)
BluesHarper:

It seems to me that the revenge of the Lord of the Flies is being played out now a days.

Liberals represent the weak that got their asses kicked by the strong. The weak, liberals, want their pound of flesh from the strong. All victims are in their, the liberal's, camp, thus the soft touch when it comes to punishment. It's the strong independent Tea Party people they want to punish.

Revenge of the Lord of the Flies.

Yo Adrian!!! (sorry, couldn... (Below threshold)
JPO:

Yo Adrian!!! (sorry, couldn't resist)

TEACHERS FLUNKING OUT ON STATE TEST CAN'T PASS BASIC EXAM FOR CERTIFICATION

http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/2002/05/07/2002-05-07_teachers_flunking_out_on_sta.html

Maybe we should ban teachers...or enforce more regulations, that usually works!!!

Yo Adrian! Just read in th... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Yo Adrian! Just read in the paper this morning that Britain is still 'experiencing' violence. How is that possible? Their ER's indicate an increase in 'blunt force trauma' and 'cutting' injuries. Now there's a law pending that will require EVERYONE to register their dogs and have an ID implant. Seems the gangsters have begun using dogs to intimidate/attack people. Doesn't surprise me, the same looney toons want ALL sharp knives confiscated. Those sharp knives actually used in legal professions will be REGISTERED.

MORE LAWS, WE NEED MORE LAWS!

Sorry, but I couldn't make ... (Below threshold)
Jake:

Sorry, but I couldn't make it past your opening statement:

"The term "gun nuts" is often tossed around as a pejorative against those who believe in the 2nd Amendment, and the free exercise thereof"

Wrong, sorry. Maybe in small percentages this is true, but outside of the world you live in (you know, where ANY discussion about ANYTHING related to guns is a bad thing), "gun nut" refers to people who argue that the 2nd amendment allows them to park an Abrams tank in their garage. It refers to people who have lost connection to the realities of the world because they've put their entire emotional focus into guns and gun owning culture.

"Gun nut" is the same as a "Sci Fi nut" - they've become so immersed in their interests that they've lost connection with the world around them.

Are there people who expand "gun nut" to include any owner of a firearm? Sure. And you can certainly spin up fervor around that very small minority. Just like I could spin up fervor around the very small minority of gun owners who believe that every American should be required to carry a gun at all times.

The reason why the "gun nut" reference gets used at all, much less applied more broadly than it should be is that far, far too many "2nd Amendment advocates" refuse to have any discussion whatsoever about the role of gun ownership in today's society. Any discussion at all is seen as an attack on the very idea. Whether left or right, refusing to see that each side of this debate has valid points, points worthy of rational, reasonable discussion creates the impression of nuttiness.

IMHO, a "gun nut" is someone who refuses to acknowledge the current problems with gun violence in this country; someone who refuses to even consider that some amount of limits MAY be worth consideration; someone who believes that the world is the same as it was in the 1700s.

(And for the record, my family has owned guns my entire life. I'm currently shopping for a carbine and a pistol of my own)

Secret video of gun <a href... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

Secret video of gun enthusiasts

Jake, just for giggles, cou... (Below threshold)

Jake, just for giggles, could you demonstrate how "limiting legal access to firearms" will actually, you know, reduce violent crime? As I noted, it's been tried plenty of times, but it never seems to work. The standard excuse boils down to "the laws weren't draconian enough," but there's almost never the slightest sign that they might be doing what they're promised to do.

And do NOT get me started on the "assault weapons" (alias "the scary-looking guns") ban that was utterly pointless and worthless...

J.

Adrian, still working for t... (Below threshold)
epador:

Adrian, still working for that unwashed dope-smoking sex-fiend faction are you?

#15Grow up Adrian ... (Below threshold)
914:

#15

Grow up Adrian and someday You can own one too!

Vallejo teen shoots his own... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:
Nice try, Adrian, but you'l... (Below threshold)

Nice try, Adrian, but you'll have to dig a bit deeper to find someone with fewer balls than you. The self-gelding teen is close, though.

Seriously, dude... got any words/thoughts of your own? You used to be better than a cut and paste bandit, and quite frankly this is getting tiresome.

J.

Jake:"..outside of the worl... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

Jake:"..outside of the world you live in (you know, where ANY discussion about ANYTHING related to guns is a bad thing).."

Well, that world is known as the Real World.
In the Real World, we know that we have had new law after new law, decade after decade, and they STILL want more laws. Enough already.
We have 10,000 laws for guns. Start enforcing the ones we already have that work and repeal the ones that don't.
Anyone talking about making yet another new gun law is just talking about making more bullshit on top of more bullshit.
Residents of the Real World are tired of it.

So yeah: any discussion about anything related to new restrictions on guns IS a bad thing. Given the avalanche of current laws, and the spotty enforcement therof; that is a perfectly logical and reasonable position to hold.

Adrian, read the article yo... (Below threshold)

Adrian, read the article you linked to.

The teen was 17 -- too young to legally own a gun.

In other words, he was already breaking the law by possessing the gun -- and he's compounding the violation by not telling the police where the gun is.

He's already breaking several laws, and has already been punished pretty badly for it -- and you think MORE LAWS would have kept this dipshit from gelding himself?

Good god, no wonder you're just cutting and pasting. YOU REALLY ARE THAT STUPID.

J.

Adrian BrownYou mi... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Adrian Brown

You missed the story about how Michelle will beat obesity. The headlines went

Michelle Obama pleads with Congress to outlaw forks and spoons.

The TSA actually held me fo... (Below threshold)

The TSA actually held me for 15 minutes while they repeatedly asked me if I had a pistol in my carry-on. Turns out that I DID. It was a pistol from the game Clue. A solid hunk of metal less than a half inch in size.

I pointed out that I also had the knife, the wrench and the rope. The TSA person pointed out that the blade on the knife was less than three inches.

It was then that I clamly mentioned that the whole damn gun was less than three inches, the barrel was not hollow, the trigger wouldn't move, the hammer had no hinge and that I had LEFT THE 1/5mm BULLETS BACK HOME IN MY GUN VAULT!!!!!!

To this day I don't understand why I wasn't cuffed & stuffed. :)

"The second is to point out... (Below threshold)
Guy LeDouche:

"The second is to point out the problems of violent crime in places that, historically, didn't have a problem with violence. These are the so-called "gun-free zones": restaurants, and the like."--jay tea

Never hear of Joe Gallo and Umberto's Clam House?

Carmine Galante and Joe and Mary's?

It's in the history books.

(Joe and Mary's was famously good for its Sicilian food. Umberto's was basically the only place open at 3am.)

Josh Sugarman and his frien... (Below threshold)
Gmac:

Josh Sugarman and his friends from the Joyce foundation have had a really bad year. First was the USSC Heller decision that the 2nd applied to citizens so they could not restrict ownership and in a few days there is going to be a ruling that Chicago can't ban ownership of firearms inside their city limits, at least common citizens will no longer have that right restricted.

What its all about is the dislike of the 2nd Amendment and dependence on government by these groups.

And yes, there is a distinct correlation to violence and lack of violent crime between cities and states that restrict firearms ownership and possession and cities that do not, but then its been repeated like that throughout history.

An armed citizen is a free man, one who is not enslaved to government for protection.

Yo' Adrion' Buy Me lunch?</... (Below threshold)
914:

Yo' Adrion' Buy Me lunch?

Thanks, Guy, for pointing o... (Below threshold)

Thanks, Guy, for pointing out how organized crime is no great respecter of gun control laws. I would never have suspected that.

J.

Jake: "IMHO, a "gun nut" is... (Below threshold)
kevino:

Jake: "IMHO, a "gun nut" is someone who refuses to acknowledge the current problems with gun violence in this country"

As I stated in #3, the problem worth looking at is violent crime -- not gun violence. If you could magically remove the guns and keep them away (and you can't), history shows that you've made the world a safer place for violent criminals to stab and beat people to death.

Liberals need to get a grip on their irrational fears and stupid prejudices and look at the world the way it really is. If you take away the basic tools for self defense, citizens are reduced to a level of those in Chicago and Washington D.C.: they are helpless to defend themselves against younger, stronger attackers. Even in their own homes, the best they can do is lock themselves behind bars and hope for the best.

6. Posted by Adria... (Below threshold)
914:

6. Posted by Adrian Browne | March 10, 2010 10:45 AM | Thanks for voting!Score: -17 (19 votes cast)

Keep it up sneiderman.. Your close to BryanD in formulating a false premise of troll In-accountability.

A browne - Coffee banned af... (Below threshold)
Marc:

A browne - Coffee banned after AB burns his nutsack, what there was if it, on fast food java.

George Forman Grills banned after AB attempts to heat a tin of Baked Beans in one. (resulting explosion gave AB kitchen brown polk-a-dot hue.)


Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha... (Below threshold)
914:

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

As long as the Second Amend... (Below threshold)
bobdog:

As long as the Second Amendment survives, we will never become subjects.

And as long as I am permitted own guns, my house will never be the subject of a police report about a home invasion. The trick for criminals is to figure out which house is mine. Personally, I'd suggest looking for a house with a Prius in the driveway with a "Gun Free Zone" sticker on the bumper.

I had occasion to sweep my house after a burglary with a gun in my hand a few years ago. It was thoroughly unpleasant (and nowhere near the experience you imagine it was), but I was damned glad I had one. I'm even happier that I didn't need to use it.

Don't even try to tell me I shouldn't have a gun in the house, because you don't know what you're talking about. Ask anybody who has actually been through the experience in the three dimensional world.

Last year 2 men stake out a... (Below threshold)
Deke:

Last year 2 men stake out a local supermarket in a nice neiborhood, watching who pays with cash, they follow a women home and jump out of the car and grab her purse, when she refuses, they strike her. Neighbor, driving by, sees what's happening and approaches with his hand gun, it's a concealed carry state, he demands both men freeze. Lady calls 911 on her cell and police arrive about 4 min later to arrest the 2 men. D.A. attempts to get the man to plead guilty to recklessness charge, since these 2 very LARGE men were "unarmed" promising him he's getting a "good" deal with no jail time. Man refuses, D.A. drops case knowing he'll nvr get a conviction.

Incidents like this remind me of why our 2nd amendment is there and makes me thankful I live in a state that is set on protecting those rights.

Old Jake and the Abram's ta... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Old Jake and the Abram's tank example. I can't remember the last time I saw a tank drive down the street. Oh! I never did. Putz.

The liberals know the bill of rights is the first ten amendments that guarantee the citizens of this great country rights the government cannot mess with. The lefties always have a problem with the 2nd amendment which is just as important as all the other nine. Should we set limitations of speech because sometimes it hurts someone? Should we force someone to testify against themself because a crime was so horrific? No, of course not. You lefties will have to acknowledge it is an absolute right. ww

Is it possible that Adrian ... (Below threshold)
Michael:

Is it possible that Adrian is such a complete asshat? Does his mother know?

I made poopy...... (Below threshold)
Prolapsed Rectum:

I made poopy...

bobdog: "As long as the Sec... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

bobdog: "As long as the Second Amendment survives, we will never become subjects. "

I hope so, but I don't know if you can say 'never'. Having a 2ndA is only useful if 'they' think you will use it.

We, as a citizenry, seem content to cede more and more of our freedoms to the control of gov't.

Give a little, give a little, give a little...meanwhile, the 2ndA sits there, pristine and unused.

The gov't and the citizenry must both believe that there is a credible chance that the 2ndA will be exercised.
If it is thought that we won't use it, then we are in real danger.

Am I saying we should already be exercising the 2ndA, as it was origininally intended? No, I am not. Period.

Yet everyone, including ourselves, MUST be made to think that we will use it if we have to.


Hey look, it's WildWillie! ... (Below threshold)
Jake:

Hey look, it's WildWillie! The very example of a gun nut - the guy who seems to forget it was HE that said that he should legally be allowed to own an Abrams tank and park it in his garage, with the only restriction being whether or not he could afford it.

"I can't remember the last time I saw a tank drive down the street"

BECAUSE THERE IS "GUN CONTROL" IN PLACE. Citizens can't buy or own tanks because "the government took away your ability to buy them"!!

Gun.
Control.

Jay, you flat out misquoted me. I said: "someone who refuses to even consider that some amount of limits MAY be worth consideration"

and the quote you used was:

"limiting legal access to firearms"

I didn't say that, and your question disregards/ignores literally the entire context of my point.... thus proving my point that we simply are unable to have an honest discussion because the main voices either kneejerk screams "guns should be abolished!!" or "Any and all discussion of gun control is an assault on my liberty!!"

Les: I absolutely agree that the government should start to better enforce existing laws. But you do honestly believe the "gun nut" crowd wouldn't go ...uh..nuts and start claiming that "the government is out to take away all our guns"??

kevino said: "As I stated in #3, the problem worth looking at is violent crime -- not gun violence."

BOTH are relevant in this debate. Both.

kevino, your response proves my point. The fact that I bring up ANY disagreement about your (or this audience's) position on guns causes you to tell me I need to "get a grip" on my "irrational fears". Our country faces, today, now the highest rate of gun deaths per capita in the developed world. Having a desire to see that reduced is NOT "irrational".


Jake: "Les: I absolutely ag... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

Jake: "Les: I absolutely agree that the government should start to better enforce existing laws. But you do honestly believe the "gun nut" crowd wouldn't go ...uh..nuts and start claiming that "the government is out to take away all our guns"??"

Would the gun nuts go nuts if existing laws were better enforced? No, they would not. These laws are already 'selectively' enforced now. Gun nuts know these laws exist and are sometimes enforced.
If you have some evidence otherwise, bring it. But you don't.

Les, maybe you're right. Bu... (Below threshold)
Jake:

Les, maybe you're right. But sorry, I don't believe it. There is a large, vocal percentage of 2nd amendment advocates who have created a climate that dictates that ZERO discussion around this topic. I honestly believe that ANY discussion that involves any increased level of restriction on an ability to purchase/own/sell a gun of any sort would be met with an utter freakout by Republican candidates and Republican citizen alike in large, large percentage.

I guarantee that Beck, Limbaugh, and Jay Tea would be SCREAMING about how Obama is trampling the Constitution, setting up a totalitarian state, and coming to kill your babies in their sleep if this increase in enforcement began happening.

That said, I wish the Obama admin had the balls to just go do it, regardless of how much time the issue would generate on Beck's magic chalkboard.

Oh, bullshit, Jake. Cite an... (Below threshold)

Oh, bullshit, Jake. Cite an existing gun control law that is underenforced that you think I'll complain about. Hell, one of my recurring points was the Bartley-Fox law in Massachusetts -- a common-sense "gun control" law that I have decried for being UNDER-utilized.

The only gun control law I can recall opposing was the "assault weapons ban," because it was so stupid. It invented a whole class of weapons that was better described as "scary-looking guns," where the banned elements were, by and large, purely cosmetic and not related to the lethality of the gun or its popularity in committing crimes. (Pistol grips, flash suppressors, and bayonet mounts were among the defining characteristics.)

Come on, Jake. Point out a few gun laws you consider underenforced that you think the "gun nuts" would be literally up in arms over if they were enforced more strictly. You say it's true, so I'm sure you have a few examples in mind.

J.

"I honestly believe that AN... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

"I honestly believe that ANY discussion that involves any increased level of restriction on an ability to purchase/own/sell a gun of any sort would be met with an utter freakout by Republican candidates and Republican citizen alike in large, large percentage."

I honestly believe that, too.
And they'd be right to freak out. Freaking out would be the right and proper thing to do.
We don't need any increased level of gun restrictions. We already have 10,000 gun laws that aren't being enforced. Some of these laws are already unconstitutional. You want even more laws? No thanks. We aren't even using the ones we already have.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy