Archive for June, 2008

Want some cheese with that whine, E.J.?

June 29, 2008

Haha, this is golden. More mainstream media whine, this time from E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post:

In knocking down the District’s 32-year-old ban on handgun possession, the conservatives on the Supreme Court have again shown their willingness to abandon precedent in order to do whatever is necessary to further the agenda of the contemporary political right.

Let’s take ourselves a little trip back in time, to, oh, let’s say May 19, 1954, just a couple of days after this landmark Supreme Court decision, and tweak ole E.J.’s words a bit: “In essentially knocking down the state of Kansas’ 1879 law permitting certain school districts to operate separate elementary school facilities for black and white students, the liberals on the Supreme Court have again shown their willingness to abandon precedent in order to do whatever is necessary to further the agenda of the contemporary political left.” Really makes his argument that precedent should be respected at all costs look rather silly at best and quite insidious at worst, doesn’t it?

Conservative justices claim that they defer to local authority. Not in this case. They insist that political questions should be decided by elected officials. Not in this case.

Way to set up the straw men there, Dick. Absolutely nothing to support those fatuous claims, but just throw ’em out and shoot ’em down, assuming, I guess, that we should believe you based on your lofty position. If you’ll begrudge me this one reductio ad absurdum, I can almost see you now at some fancy restaurant: “Don’t you know who I am? I am a COLUMNIST FOR THE WASHINGTON FUCKING POST!” As for the deference to the local authority…what if it was another piece of the Constitution local officials were shitting on, like, oh, let’s just go balls-to-the wall and say what if local officials were permitting their law-enforcement agencies to bust down doors without warrants looking for banned books…hey, a two-fer, violation of the First AND the Fourth Amendments! I bet you E.J. would be raising hell then, and for good reason…but strangely, he’s as silent as can be on such a blatant violation of the Second Amendment such as the D.C. handgun ban. Wonder why that is?

Yesterday’s narrow majority spent the first 54 pages of its decision, written by Scalia, trying to show that even though the Framers inserted 13 important words in front of the assertion of a right to bear arms, those words were essentially meaningless.

The hell they did. E.J. just says it’s meaningless because the court’s definition (and that of the Founders) was different from his. Speaking of long-standing precedent, the majority CITED Miller as they spoke of the well-regulated militia mentioned in the amendment, and they also cited the Founders:

In United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939), we explained that “the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.” That definition comports with founding-era sources. See, e.g., Webster (“The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades . . . and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations”); The Federalist No. 46, pp. 329, 334 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (J. Madison) (“near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands”); Letter to Destutt de Tracy (Jan. 26, 1811), in The Portable Thomas Jefferson 520, 524 (M. Peterson ed. 1975) (“[T]he militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms”).

Also, as I recall, the court went on to say that the right was not confined only to able-bodied men, but to every citizen, thus conferring a complete individual right regardless of physical abilities or lack thereof, or what-have-you. Back to Dionne’s whine:

…it was the court’s four more liberal justices who favored judicial modesty, deference to democratic decisions, empowerment of local officials and care in examining the Constitution’s actual text and the history behind it.

Ah, yes, democratic decisions, ye olde “tyranny of the majority” whose doctrine says that if 51 percent of the people vote to strip the other 49 percent of their God-given rights then that’s just too bad for them. Or, as the apocryphal Ben Franklin quote goes, “Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for lunch.” As for the history behind the Second Amendment…well, David Codrea put that one a hell of a lot better than I ever could:

The quotes from the Founding Fathers concerning the right and the need for an armed citizenry are legion, and exemplified in Patrick Henry’s admonishment to “guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect any who would approach that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.”

Indeed. Henry, Tench Coxe, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and the list goes on. What the Founding Fathers said, how they felt, about armed citizens is out there for anyone who cares to go looking for it. Hey, check this out! And all these quotes are SOURCED, as well!
I must admit, I feel for the gunnies on the left side of the political spectrum. Really, I do. I’d rather gun control not be used as a cudgel to beat them with during political campaigns, and I know they’re tearing their hair out right about now, and I can’t blame them. The natural right of self-defense and the regulation (or lack thereof) of the tools used to effect that right — whether it be a .45-caliber pistol , Ma Deuce, or a belt-fed Mk 19 40mm grenade launcher (if you wonder where that came from, click here for a great fisking from Larry Correia) — should be completely off the table as a political issue. Yet here’s one of the liberals’ MSM heroes setting them back on the fight for that by saying that the Heller decision was an advance for conservatives. I know I wouldn’t like it much if I were a liberal.

Advertisements

Scrapin’ the bottom of the barrel, he is

June 27, 2008

…that would be Josh Sugarmann, at the Huffington Post:

Fifteen months after receiving the “Sport Shooting Ambassador Award” from the World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities (WFSA), Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has done his part to make sure that, at least in the U.S., the future for his gun industry friends and their lobbying pals is a little bit brighter.

So, according to Mr. Sugarmann, Scalia apparently didn’t vote the way he did because of his opinions on the Founding Fathers’ intent when they penned the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. No, Mr. Sugarmann thinks, I guess, that Scalia voted the way he did as a form of payback to his “gun industry friends and their lobbying pals.” Haha, what a dick. Not that I would expect any higher of a level of discourse from a contemptible slug like Sugarmann, but one would think he’d try harder than what basically amounts to an ad-hominem attack on Scalia. I don’t know why he bitches and moans so…after all, as one of the very few FFL holders in Washington, Sugarmann’s in a position to make a shitload of money here. And if it’s true what some are saying about the future of the gun control movement — that a great portion of the people behind it want to see guns banned outright, and that the ruling in Heller is going to see them so dispirited that they’re just going to stop donating money to gun-ban organizations — he’s gonna need that income.
And the head of the Brady Bunch, Paul Helmke, shows himself to be as clueless as ever:

You can deal with middle-ground restrictions. … We can enact common-sense measures to make it safe,” he said, including banning assault weapons and closing a loophole that allows easier purchasing of weapons at gun shows.


No, you dumb shit, you CAN’T ban “assault weapons.” The Supreme Court fucking SAID as much in the decision:

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Scalia also alluded to the fact that the court decided in U.S. v. Miller that arms “used by
the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes,” were indeed protected by the Second Amendment. Someone correct me if I am wrong here, but my layman’s reading of those passages leads me to conclude that not only is individual ownership of semi-automatic rifles such as the AK-47, AR-15 and M1A — you know, the rifles erroneously referred to as “assault weapons” — protected by the Second Amendment, but individual ownership of their select-fire counterparts is ALSO protected. Which would, you know, preclude not only the ban on civilian sales of new select-fire weaponry manufactured after May 19, 1986, but also bans such as the so-called “assault weapons” ban passed by the Democratic Congress in 1994.
Speaking of the Democrats, or at least their constituency, they must think we as gun owners are pretty stupid, as evidenced by remarks such as these:

A big shout out to the Fascist Five on the big court. You just handed the election to Obama. A reverse decision on this case, that is, a true reading of the constitution which clearly defines the right to bear arms as a collective one in the context of now defunct state militias, whould have only inflamed all the gun nuts. It would have increased donations to the NRA backed 527groups and opened a deluge of pissed-off conservatives who would have held their noses and voted for McShame. It would quickly have eclipsed most other campaign issues.

At least I am hoping that gun owners are more aware than to allow this to happen. Anyone who’s studied history knows full well that court decisions can be reversed by future courts, sometimes for the better, and sometimes for the worse. And how are those reversals facilitated? Judicial appointments, a few of which I am sure the next president is going to get to make, whoever he might be. And then, of course, there’s the martial law boogeyman, suspension of the parts or all of the Constitution in the case of, say, a terrorist attack or something of that nature. And personally, I wouldn’t put it past either McCain or Obama to do such a thing. In any event, I don’t think the political landscape has really changed too much vis-a-vis the presidential election, even if a lot of the measures Obama wanted to pass have as much as been declared a violation of the Second Amendment…and if it has, I think momentum would have swung to McCain, although not as much as he and his camp might like to think because of his being all-too-willing to compromise with the leftists. (As always, Tamara’s take is spot-on…) We’ll see how it goes, though…

HELLER AFFIRMED!

June 26, 2008

Via SCOTUSblog, 5-4, with Breyer, Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg dissenting. I figured as much a while back. Kudos to Justice Kennedy for swinging to the right and proper side on this one. Opinion hasn’t been posted yet, but we’ll soon see just how right the justices got it…

UPDATE: Opinion here. Good stuff so far…

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications,
e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27,
35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

"…and all the world will love you, just as long, as long as you are…"

June 25, 2008

So, from JR’s musical interlude he posted the other day and last night’s ride home from work, comes today’s post.
I’d been hearing the song “All Right Now” on classic rock radio well, ever since there have been classic rock radio stations, but I never knew who sang it. Come to find out it was recorded by a band called Free, and as far as I know it was their only hit record in the United States. I don’t remember when I first became aware of this, but I knew Bad Company frontman Paul Rodgers was the lead singer for Free. For years, though, I thought Free came AFTER Rodgers’ Bad Company days because of its lesser success in the States. As you might imagine, I was quite surprised to find out that not only was it the other way around, but that Bad Company was comprised of not one, but two former members of Free. Bad Company, of course, had several hits through the 1970s that came to be staples of classic rock stations throughout the land in later years, including “Bad Company,” “Can’t Get Enough,” and the tune I heard last night rolling down the four-lane, one of my all-time favorites from any genre, “Shooting Star.”

“…Johnny’s life passed him by, like a warm summer day…if you listen to the wind, you can still hear him play…”

Bit of an irony here…

June 24, 2008

Yep, I’m a bit late to the party on this one, but as they say, better late than never…
Via Jeff at Alphecca, we have yet another example of the mainstream media using the First Amendment to shit all over the Second, for teh childrenses, of course:

The current laws are not curing the problem. They are a Band-Aid. Kids are still carrying handguns, still being charged with robberies using handguns, and kids are still being injured by handguns.

The most practical and effective method for handgun control is also the easiest to describe: Ban handguns. That’s the position of a number of national organizations, according to U.S. Supreme Court briefs on a pending District of Columbia case involving gun restriction.

Where’s the irony, you ask? Well, no doubt after this pencil-necked, bug-eyed piece of shit attorney got his handgun ban, he and his evil like-minded minions wouldn’t come get those guns themselves from those who refused to turn them in. Oh, no. He and his evil cohorts would send someone else’s fathers, or someone else’s sons armed with government guns to get them, and no doubt more than a few of those would die. Because there will be a sizable number of those gun owners who think that when it’s time to turn them in, it’s time to heat them up. And then where would those kids be? Of course there are those who will say, “Well, don’t shoot back, just turn them in and everyone’s happy,” well, if a man turns in his gun, what does he have left to defend his family, his kids, and his stuff that he’s busted his ass to get? He has a government agent armed with a gun who’s almost never going to get there in time to defend him and, furthermore, doesn’t even have the obligation to get there. (And how does that usually work out?) So much for that “banning guns for the children” bullshit….and then we go back to what I talked about a few days ago, what this piece of shit and those like him think I should have to do to defend myself and Fire. Fuck you, Rob Robinson. Fuck you and your transparent “for the children” horseshit.

Speaking of Party Apparatchiks…

June 21, 2008

check this shit out.

I should get back on track and say, nicely done! to Mark Kirk for making a push to renew the ban on assault weapons. Even the local promoter of Democratic candidates, the Lake County News-Sun, thinks this is a great idea

What’s the significance of this? Well, it seems this Mark Kirk cretin is a Republican, whose only difference from his opponent on the issue is that he wants to just ban some guns while his opponent wants to ban even more. How special. And how’s THIS for a rich irony — the particular Party apparatchik who penned this blog post supposedly owns a Beretta 9mm pistol with several normal capacity magazines which would be banned permanently by this renewed AWB. From the comments…

in part, I might agree with you that “your” ownership of assault weapons harms no one, assuming, of course, that you don’t go Columbine or go out shooting cops. I myself own a Baretta92 with several high capacity clips. I also support concealed carry – for me – not sure about the rest of the yahoos out there (but that’s another debate).

But do I really NEED my Baretta to carry 15 bullets instead of 10? I think I’d be OK without the extra firepower.

Do we NEED guns that can shoot right through a policeman’s vest?

Do we NEED .50 caliber rifles that can take down a plane?

Rambo might say yes, but Mark Kirk says no, and I happen to agree with him. Nice picture, BTW. Kinda sez it all.

He was speaking to Kurt Hofmann, 45superman of Armed and Safe, who was a former paratrooper; the picture was of Kurt in his uniform. I’m guessing this Team America person was trying to make that into something bad, and as far as I remember he didn’t even thank Kurt for his service. (BTW, if you’re readin’ this, buddy, thanks for your time and service.) As a matter of fact, this is what that cretin said:

Exactly WHY would you want to post picture of yourself with a machine gun? Is that because guns are ‘tough’ or ‘macho’? Are they ‘cool’, especially a super-lethal weapon like a fully-automatic gun?

Wow. If I didn’t know better I would swear I was reading one of those leftist hate sites like the Daily Kos or the Democratic Underground. I did get a huge kick out of KH’s reply:

Nah–I just like it because it scares statist pantywaists. Do me a favor and bleat for me, will you? That amuses me to no end.


Now THAT was golden, my friend.
I have to wonder about the assertion that no one really NEEDS more firepower. That always seemed to me to be a pretty presumptuous thing to say, especially from someone who in all likelihood has never gotten tangled up in any kind of armed confrontation. I’ve never been in one myself, but even if I had been, I STILL would never get up on any kind of pedestal and lecture anyone on how much firepower I think they might need…but then again, in the midst of one of those aforementioned armed confrontations, I very well might feel undergunned behind anything smaller than a Ma Deuce. But oh my gosh, do these people make me want to puke! And to, when I am feeling better, buy one of those so-called “assault weapons” and plenty of food for it. I guess this sort of thing is just what happens in shitholes like Illinois, where most of the so-called Republicans couldn’t get elected in Texas as Democrats except MAYBE in leftist enclaves like Austin. I have to wonder if this “Team America” turd is going to think that gun control is so “reasonable” when his pet Congresscritter and all its leetle friends come back to pass a law banning his Beretta 92 and tell him to turn it in or face fines and jail time.
In any event, check out the comments there; it’s more than worth your time.

um, no, we DON’T…

June 20, 2008

This sort of thing just really, REALLY burns my arse…from a commenter at David Hardy’s place:

Absolute freedom among civilized people is anarchy, yet that’s what libertarians espouse.

Um, no, it ISN’T. God, but this sort of thing just really gets my goat. Why is it that so many people equate the smaller, less-intrusive government philosophy of libertarians with hedonism? It’s quite unhelpful, not to mention a blatantly dishonest portrayal of the libertarian philosophy. (Methinks they might be confusing libertarians with libertines, but they seem to be fairly smart people, at least book-smart…) To hear these people talk you’d think those of us who subscribe to the libertarian philosophy don’t think there should be consequences for anything. Funny, try as I may I don’t hear even people like Ron Paul advocate doing away with laws against things like robbery, rape and murder. I wonder why that is? Could it be that what libertarians espouse is indeed NOT “absolute freedom among civilized people” by itself, but rather freedom tempered with common sense, ethics and morality? Could it be that way too fucking many Republican Party apparatchiks are more interested in seeing their party gain the upper hand in the government than they are in seeing the principles of the Founding Fathers upheld? I tend to think that’s EXACTLY what it is.
Oh, and you know what’s really ironic? The person who penned that comment has a blog called — wait for it! — Common Sense Junction. What a fucking joke…and almost as ironic, is the fact that the Libertarian Party has nominated someone like Bob Barr to be its standard-bearer. I said this in comments to an earlier post, but it fits here.
“Based on some of what I’ve read about Barr’s political leanings, I tend to think he’s just hitching his wagon to that horse because it’s the most viable one, not because of any credible libertarian positions he holds. To be honest I think the LP’s credibility, to the extent it ever had any, has taken a huge hit because of them taking him as their standard bearer. Words mean things, and small-L honest-to-God libertarian Bob Barr ain’t.”
One must wonder what the hell they’re thinking. Is this the best they can do? And, yes, that goes for both the Libertarian Party and those who try to paint libertarians as something they’re not.

30,000

June 18, 2008

So I racked up my 30,000th visitor last Sunday, 7:39 pm from Little Rock, Arkansas with a referral from this search. Thanks to everyone who makes my ramblings a part of your day…y’all come back now, y’hear?

Are they crazy, stupid, or evil?

June 17, 2008

How about all of the above?

Despite no evidence of legal wrongdoing, the Rev. Jesse Jackson wants a Lake Barrington gun plant shut down.

Jackson, founder and CEO of the Chicago-based Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, will at noon today lead a protest in front of D.S. Arms, a gun manufacturer that’s been registered in Lake Barrington since 1998.

More than 30 protests to ban assault weapons are planned today around the country. Stopping gun manufacturing would halt illegal distribution of firearms, which feeds into the illegal drug trade, Jackson argues.

“This is not about Barrington; it’s about gun death, and gun manufacturing,” Jackson said.

I had heard of D.S. Arms but I didn’t know THAT much about them, so after I read this, I summoned my mad Google skills and found out they’re a manufacturer of high-end semi-automatic rifles. I could be wrong about the high-end part, but I was looking at their FAL rifles, just for grins. From what I’ve heard about the FAL it’s one of the less-expensive .308 battle rifles out there; another Google search yields this, from Florida Gun Works. Well, the base-model DS Arms FALs run about twice as much as the FAL variants from Florida Gun Works. It only makes sense, I guess, that no D.S. Arms rifle has been linked to any crime in Chicago — if there WERE any, I’d be wondering where in the hell the gang bangers were getting that kind of money. I guess Jackson’s dim-witted asshattery only follows his twisted logic — the majority of crime in the inner cities committed with guns is committed with handguns, so he’s going after the more-expensive semiautomatic rifles.
But his comment that stopping gun manufacturing will halt illegal distribution of firearms does give one pause. If not making guns anymore that criminals don’t use anyway will gut the black market for guns, wouldn’t stopping the manufacture of guns the criminals do use help it that much more? (No, I DO NOT believe that — I’m just trying to follow the so-called logic here.) Who’s next on that racist piece of shit’s hit list? Glock? Ruger? Smith & Wesson? Springfield Armory? (I’d bet on that last one, since it’s also an Illinois-based manufacturer of high-end semiautomatic rifles — and handguns too, Jesse’d score a double on that one!)
As for Jesse and his racism, I suppose some might ask how this particular measure contributes to that…well, I am reminded from a quote Larry Elder mentioned in his book “The Ten Things You Can’t Say in America”:
“The Wall Street Journal quotes the vice president and general manager of the Austrian company that manufacturers Glocks on the NAACP proposed lawsuit, ‘I love it.’ He calls the NAACP ‘racist.’ ‘That’s what they are, blaming the inner city problems on white gun manufacturers.’
And yes, when you think about it, that’s exactly what Jesse is doing. And then, of course, once again there is the troublesome task of getting all the rifles out of circulation…how about that one, Jesse? Are you going to take them too? Or are you, being the cowardly sack of shit that you are, going to send other men with guns to take care of it?
(h/t David Codrea)

So there was something to that nasty old canard of conservative = racist…

June 15, 2008

And right about now, I’m sure you’re saying, “Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? Has Pistolero completely jumped the
shark?”
Well, no. Just read this:

Black conservative talk show host Armstrong Williams has never voted for a Democrat for president. That could change this year with Barack Obama as the Democratic Party’s nominee.
“I don’t necessarily like his policies; I don’t like much that he advocates, but for the first time in my life, history thrusts me to really seriously think about it,” Williams said. “I can honestly say I have no idea who I’m going to pull that lever for in November. And to me, that’s incredible.”

J.C. Watts, a former Oklahoma congressman who once was part of the GOP House leadership, said he’s thinking of voting for Obama. Watts said he’s still a Republican, but he criticizes his party for neglecting the black community. Black Republicans, he said, have to concede that while they might not agree with Democrats on issues, at least that party reaches out to them.

Writer and actor Joseph C. Phillips got so excited about Obama earlier this year that he started calling himself an “Obamacan” _ Obama Republican. Phillips, who appeared on “The Cosby Show” as Denise Huxtable’s husband, Navy Lt. Martin Kendall, said he has wavered since, but he is still thinking about voting for Obama.

Yet Phillips, author of the book “He Talk Like a White Boy,” realizes the irony of voting for a candidate based on race to get beyond race.

Sorry, but all that is just so much bullshit. RACIST bullshit, at that. Hell, this is almost the damned textbook definition of the word. Just what else would you call the motive behind voting for someone — in spite of the fact that you disagree so vehemently with his policies — just because he’s the same race as you? And what the hell ever happened to Martin Luther King’s ideal of judging someone based on the content of their character and not the color of their skin? (And yes, one could very well argue that your beliefs, and the government policies you advocate, are indicative of your character.) I’d really, really like to think MLK is rolling over in his grave right about now — because if it’s wrong of white people to judge blacks on the color of their skin, then it’s wrong for blacks to do it too — even if they’re doing it to other blacks, and even if they’re doing it for what they think are the right reasons. Of course, the black lefties do it too, as evidenced by the attacks Michael Steele faced as he was gearing up to run for the U.S. Senate from Maryland. But no matter who’s doing it, it’s wrong. As for the supposed “irony” of voting for someone just because of his race to get past the issue of race, I’d just call that a case of cognitive dissonance, and a particularly offensive one at that.