Having a conversation with someone recently, the phrase “gun show loophole” came up. In all fairness, it was a conversation about guns and gun control, so the phrase wasn’t completely random. Unfortunately, as I pointed out to the individual in question, it is mythical. Why’s that you ask? Because there isn’t one.

The so-called “gun show loophole” is a gun control buzz term (to many words to be a buzz word after all). It describes a purchase that doesn’t require a background check at gun shows, and it is used to describe the hundreds of thousands of guns that are supposedly sold every year to criminals and such. Unfortunately for those who use it, it doesn’t really exist.

You see, there is truth to the idea that some guns are sold at gun shows without the background check required when you purchase a firearm at a store. It’s 100% true that these purchases take place. However, here’s something that you didn’t know. Those purchases take place between individuals, not dealers.

More here.

Bob Alexander is requesting approval of the proposed design of Westover Rd Extension from Ledo to Fussell. On the Ledo side, the road will join west of the road IHOP is on, possibly right beside the skating rink. This end of the road is to line up with the proposed Westover Extension that is currently being proposed for Dougherty County. On the Fussell side, the road will pass close to the Grand Island property before meeting with Fussell just east of the 7th Day Adventist Church – causing two stop signs within a few hundred feet of each other. He also is proposing another sign ordinance moratorium (that still only affects permitted signs, even though it is another section that is in violation of State law) and hopes to have a new Ordinance to propose next month.

Mike Sistrunk, director of Public Works, has a proposal to buy a Bat Wing Mower using money that was allocated in the budget for another purchase which he does not need at this time.

Lee County Utlities Authority members Victor Stubbs, Robert Usry, and George Walls are asking to be re-appointed, and no one else is seeking the appointments.

The Facilities Department will be asking for approval for some HVAC updates to the courthouse, which I don’t remember being on the agenda at the work session two weeks ago.

And last, though certainly the most controversial, the Board of Commissioners is expected to approve a redesign of the new Library/Conference Center that will use “value engineering” (ie, substituting cheaper parts for more reliable ones) and other techniques to try to reduce the cost, but which will still require the Board to take a loan on the order of a million dollars. Century District Commissioner Rick Muggridge told Carlton Fletcher that a “very small, very vocal minority” wanted to continue the Library project but scrap the Conference Center aspect. I hate to tell Commissioner Muggridge this, but I’m with Commissioner Roland here – clearly, the Board has not done their due diligence in talking to the citizens of Lee County about this. My reason here is that as I walk the streets of Leesburg for my own campaign, that “very small, very vocal minority” is actually a “very large, very silent majority” in that it is probably 80% or more of the people I talk to, but I have to specifically ask them about it to get them to say anything.

Also, during the Public Forum at the end of the meeting, I will once again be speaking against the Commissioners’ use of “secret” daytime meetings as a technique to avoid true public input on issues – including both the Library project and the appointment of Interim County Administrator Al Crace.

If the Commissioners were truly interested in hearing from the public, why do they continue to hold special called meetings during the day, when 85% of all workers – 75% of the population, even with 10% unemployment – are at work and cannot come to the meetings, even if they wanted to?

This is the same Erick Erickson who once tied another group of Neo-Nazis, StormFront, around Ron Paul’s neck. (This is also the same Erick Erickson who, as GriftDrift likes to point out, once called a sitting Supreme Court Justice a “goat f*cking child molester“.)

Clearly, Brett needs to be more careful in what he puts up on Facebook. Of course, saying what Erick said about a sitting Supreme Court Justice also falls into the “be more careful about what you post” category as well.

That said, Erick in his PP post last night makes it seem like Brett called Deal a Nazi – which he clearly did NOT. He simply noted that Deal and the Nazis were on the same side on this issue. He certainly didn’t hang the Nazis around Deal’s neck to anywhere NEAR the extent that Erick himself hung them around Ron Paul’s neck.

I hate to refer to Wayne Allen Root, but he really did craft a very useful term in situations like this: Weapon of Mass Distraction.

When your Governor nominee is at BEST a corrupt idiot partial-birther, I completely understand your motivation for trying to keep the public as distracted from that fact as possible. So you manufacture “controversies” like a mosque being built on Ground Zero (it is two blocks away, completely hidden from view) on 9/11 (that was never in the cards, and never will be) or make wild accusations about a guy in the other Party (as we’ve seen above, this is Erick’s stock-in-trade).

What is going on here is simple: Erick is seeking to discredit the Libertarian Party of Georgia because he sees that it is entirely possible that John Monds could get 20% of the vote on November 2, thereby earning LP-Ga the same ballot access that is currently enjoyed by only the Democrats and Republicans in Georgia. Erick doesn’t want that to happen, because it would threaten his Party’s deathgrip on this State – even though Republicans over the last 8 years have shown themselves to be little better than the Democrats before them or their National counterparts when it comes to fiscal conservatism and individual liberty. Heck, at least Democratic Speaker of the House Tom Murphy was widely known to protect individual liberty (admittedly to be stupid) whenever the issue got anywhere near his chamber. The Republicans decided this year that Big Brother knows better than you.

I’m not a big fan of Brett Bittner, but Erick Erickson is simply -yet again – trying to manufacture “controversy” where none actually exists.

Republicans for several years now have consistently played the “fear” card when it comes election time. They consistently set up some Democrat – be it Al Gore, Roy Barnes, John Kerry, Mark Taylor, or Barack Obama – as some kind of Big Evil that is out to destroy us all, and then try to make us so afraid that we HAVE to vote for the Republican to avoid the Boogie Man. They tell us that if we vote for some “third” party that is more in line with our personal values rather than Their Candidate, the Boogie Man will win and all hope will be lost.

The problem is, Georgia is a “Runoff State” in every election other than the actual Presidential Election. In every race in this State other than President of the United States, a single candidate MUST receive 50% of the votes plus one vote in order to win the election.

It is due to Georgia being a Runoff State that the case for third parties is actually made EASIER, upon any amount of thought.

You see, because a candidate MUST get 50% + 1, and EVERY candidate is in the election to win it (at least they will claim to be), more choices almost always guarantees a runoff election. One need look no further than this year’s Governor race to see this. The Democrats currently have five candidates in that race, and the Republicans currently have eight. Due to this high volume of candidates, BOTH races are expected to go into runoffs. However, the Libertarian Party has also consistently shown that when it runs candidates, those candidates force runoffs, a la Alan Buckley’s 2008 US Senate campaign that forced a runoff between Saxby Chambliss and Jim Martin.

If Georgia had Equal Ballot Access for all Parties, this would be even MORE true. Splinter parties such as the Constitution Party of Georgia AND the Green Party of Georgia would run more candidates, and while the Libertarian Party draws votes from “both” established Parties, the Constitution Party tends to draw primarily Republican voters and the Greens tend to draw primarily Democratic voters. (The 2008 Presidential nominees of these two parties were Chuck Baldwin and Cynthia McKinney, for example.)

Because these candidates invariably force runoffs, a person can genuinely vote their conscience in the General election without fear that the Boogie Man will automatically win. Then, the voter can vote their fear in the Runoff, and have the best of both worlds – they BOTH voted their conscience AND their fear, without sacrificing EITHER.

But this brings up an even more interesting possibility: Instead of setting up the “Boggie Man” and demanding that Libertarians and Constitutionals help the Republican Party, would it not be moreso in the interests of everyone – including the Republican Party – if the Republican Party helped the Libertarians and Constitutionals?

Think about it: In the Runoff, the top 2 vote getters in the General election face off. If your argument is that the Republican Party is “an ideological cousin” of the Libertarian Party and/or Constitution Party, does it not make sense for the Republican Party to work to ensure that BOTH of the combatants in the Runoff are some form of “conservative”? After all, if the Boogie Man is SOOOOO bad, should not the Republican Party work to ensure that the Boogie Man never makes it to the General, but that instead one of its “cousins” does?

Or is the Republican Party just after its own control and power?

Here’s a sample, I encourage you to go there to read the rest. (emphasis mine)

The “pseudo-crisis[es]” Jace is talking about is the “King Roy” meme and worries about redistricting.

The “King Roy” meme is just ridiculous. Republicans held the minority during his term as Governor from 1999 to 2003, so I’m sure the Republicans that were in the legislature at the time remember unpleasant fights over legislative issue. That stuff happens, especially when your party isn’t in control.

On redistricting. Anyone that tells you that they are not going to vote for Barnes because of redistricting, which I have heard several times, is lying to you. This issue will be decided in the courts, just as it was in 2004.

As I’ve noted here before, Roy Barnes has received better ratings than Sonny Perdue on fiscal policy from the Cato Institute, a libertarian think-tank.

Roy Barnes may be a lot of things and I certainly disagree with him on a number of issues, but his record doesn’t show him to be an Obama Democrat as so many Republicans are trying to do. He is a traditional Southern Democrat.

Yet today, the Republican Governor’s Association – led by fellow Kennesaw State University alum Nick Ayers – decided to launch a commercial and website trying to paint the King and Obama as one and the same. As Jason said, and I completely agree, they are NOT. Roy Barnes is a Bill Clinton/Zell Miller Democrat – indeed, he helped both of those men get elected, and he sided with John Edwards in the 2008 Presidential Primary. Heck, he even went so far as to snub Obama just 2 short weeks ago!

BTW: Jason’s friend Jace Walden also has a good post on this subject over on Peach Pundit.

In a recent poll, CNN found that 68% of Americans oppose the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque”. Never mind the fact that it’s not actually on Ground Zero. Never mind that the mosque isn’t exactly new to that community. Let’s ignore all that and make decisions based on emotion, regardless of property rights. Make no mistake folks, this is all this is about.

When you buy a piece of property, in theory, it’s yours. You can do with it what you want, right? No one can tell you what to do with that property…in theory. However, that’s true only in theory. Building codes are one thing. They insure that the building won’t fall down on people’s heads, and while there are plenty who argue against even those being justified, that’s not likely to change at any point in the near future.

However, far to many communities have overstepped those bounds. My own home town restricts fences for Pete’s sake. But the mosque in question is different, isn’t it? I mean, some have argued that such mosques are built on sites of conquest and allowing it would be a slap in the face of those killed on 9/11. But is it?

The word “Patriot” gets thrown around a lot in regards to the 9/11 dead. The funny thing is, some were and some most likely weren’t patriotic. However, what’s patriotic about destroying basic property rights because it doesn’t “feel” right. How many people honestly believe that a mosque two freaking blocks away is going to destroy this nation? Honestly?

I’m not going to rail on about how making a stand against this mosque will hurt relations with Muslim groups. Frankly, I could give a damn. Like me, don’t like me, I could give a crap. I’m not going to go on about freedom of religion issues, because frankly I believe that’s a BS argument. Restricting the mosque’s location to the rest of New York City isn’t exactly going to muddle up their free exercise of religion. No, I’m not going to do any of that.

What I am going to do is remind each of you that, when the government threatens to cite you over how tall your grass is, or tells you want direction your garage has to face relative to the street, they’re doing the exact same thing to you that you’re so willing to do to this mosque. They are telling you what you can do with your property regardless of the fact that what you want to do will have zero freaking impact on another living soul. That’s what you’re advocating in regard to this mosque, and you deserve what comes to you later when government decides it wants to manage your property for you.

Don’t like the mosque? Feel free to fight it. But just remember how anachronistic property rights are when it’s your property in the cross hairs for something.

From what I have been told, the only thing on the Agenda (which is not online at this time) is the “final draft” of the new proposed Lee County Sign Ordinance, which you can see for yourself in .docx form here based on a scan from a printed copy I was given.

One issue is that retailers are not allowed to cover more than 25% of their windows – which means some pretty drastic changes for convenience stores and other businesses. The Institute for Justice has already tackled a similar ban in Dallas, TX.

To me, pretty much the entire “multiple message sign” issue on pages 12-14 (via page numbers on bottom of page) needs to be scrapped, as it unduly restricts the rights of businesses and property owners. In particular, the limitations on how often a sign rotates, the ban on signs changing from 11p to 6a, and the limitation that there can only be 10 multiple message billboards and 35 multiple message signs gives economic advantages and preferences to some businesses over others.

One good thing they did from an earlier version I have seen is that they removed flag pole restrictions in residential neighborhoods. In earlier drafts, you could not have more than a single flag pole in your yard, though some people like to have a 3 flagpole arrangement and others have both a flagpole on their house and a freestanding one. Now the flagpole restrictions only apply in C1, C2, C3, and I zoning districts.

I’ve only had time for a cursory glance this morning, and hope to be able to offer more comments tonight.

At least one site seems to think that John Monds could be near the 20% mark:

From the Free Independent-Sun:

I noticed something quite disturbing when studying recent polling for elections around the country. Rasmussen Reports will include upwards of 6 or 7 candidates in the Democrat and Republican Primaries, sometimes with candidates that only receive 1% of the vote, yet when it comes to the General Election they will only include the two Democrat-Republican candidates despite there being sometime upwards of 3 or 4 other candidates from Third Party Nominations or Independent Nominations. This case is most present and most dangerous in a particular Governor’s election in Georgia, where the African-American Libertarian Candidate John Monds is left out of General Election polls despite having won 33.4% in a statewide election in 2008, and apparently the most likely winner of the 15- 20% of unaccounted votes in Rasmussen Polls.

I think the bigger question here, that the Independent-Sun has the graphics to show, is:

Why don’t polling firms who regularly show ALL candidates in Primaries, no matter how small a percentage they are getting, equally show ALL candidates in the General Election, where almost by definition there are fewer candidates to poll for/show? (For example: There were 14 Democrat/Republican candidates for Governor in July. There will be 3 total candidates for Governor in November.)

If true, this is great news for both Libertarians and the African-American community in Georgia, as John is – I believe – the first African American to ever be on the General Election ballot for Governor.

I thought this meeting could get “interesting”, and I knew its subject matter was very important, so I went through considerable effort to make sure we got video of the meeting, even though I personally could not be there.

And here it is: (For those mostly interested in the fireworks, that appears to be mostly in Part 5)

Part 1:


Part 2:

Part 3:

Part 4:

Part 5: