Yep, as I’m sure everyone knows, there’s a Category 3 hurricane out in the Gulf of Mexico right now, and it looks like it’s drawing a bead on the central Gulf Coast between Lafayette and Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Lafayette’s about 2 hours from where I sit right now, and Baton Rouge is about 3. Which means that we’re probably at least going to be getting a good bit of wind and rain, maybe even more than that if the storm comes further west as some of the computer models say it will. So, blogging may be sporadic, if it comes at all, over the next few days. Wish me luck!
Archive for August, 2008
“So while Obama goes off about how we can just abort our ‘mistake’ children, Palin raises her baby with down syndrome while her Eskimo husband works a blue collar job in the oil fields. While McCain gets blasted for having 5 houses, Obama lives in one bought for him by a mobster. While Obama is pretty good at basketball, Palin can shoot a moose through the eye at 200 yards with a 338 Winchester Magnum. McCain’s spouse makes beer. Obama’s spouse wrote a thesis about racism is rampant in America. “
Well, whaddya know, for once John McCain chose not to spit in the eye of the people who’d most likely vote for him…
John McCain tapped little-known Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his vice presidential running mate today in a startling selection on the eve of the Republican National Convention.
In an announcement, the campaign said that Palin, who has been governor less than two years, “has the record of reform and bipartisanship that others can only speak of.”
“Her experience in shaking up the status quo is exactly what is needed in Washington today,” the campaign said.
Two senior campaign officials disclosed McCain’s decision a few hours before the Republican presidential nominee-to-be and his newly-minted running mate appeared at a rally in swing-state Ohio.
Now, check this out…(shamelessly stolen from Bruce)…
I’m guessing that’s some sort of AR. A scoped AR, no less! An Evil Black Assault Sniper Weapon! Contrast that with Senator Biden, who boasted of writing a bill to outlaw that very weapon, add in the factor of Palin’s gender (check THIS out — it should be quite interesting to see how many dissatisfied Hillary-boosters will be swung by this), and at initial glances it looks like McCain has come much, much closer to sealing the deal for November. Good on ya, Johnny Mac…good on ya.
There are much better fiskings of that smiley-faced socialist Barack Obama’s acceptance speech from Denver last night, but seeing the obligatory gun quote our folks have been chewing on, a couple of questions come to mind…
The — the reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than they are for those plagued by gang violence in Cleveland, but don’t tell me we can’t uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals.
Now, let me make one thing clear — even in the event the data actually backed up this “AKs in the hands of criminals” meme, I would neither make nor accept as valid the argument that any sort of restriction on semi-auto rifles would be the way to cut down on violent crime. I think the proper way to go about that would be to look at why said criminals are choosing that lifestyle, work on those factors, and in the meantime to leave the rest of us to choose for ourselves the weapon we wish to defend ourselves with. (And then, of course, there’s the whole purpose of the Second Amendment that no one likes to talk about…) But I still think it deserves to be asked to what extent the criminals are using semi-auto rifles like the AK, or their much more expensive AR or M1A brethren whose possession the Democrats also want to outlaw. And I think it’s also worth asking why the media don’t investigate the claim and publish the findings for all to see. (The smart money on that one says it’s because they’re all in the tank for Obama, but then we all knew that anyway.) I’m betting the data don’t support the contention that these weapons are anywhere near the weapon of choice, that this “keep(ing) AK-47s out of the hands of criminals” is just more standard gun-grabber bullshit, much like the “NRA is standing in the way of reasonable gun laws” shibboleth they peddle. And then, of course, there’s the fact that these people apparently don’t have a problem with said violent criminals walking the streets as long as they (allegedly) can’t procure a firearm. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again — what the hell is WRONG with these people?!
You might remember a while back in this space was mentioned a group called Amendment II Democrats. Well, yesterday I was poking around on the Web and I came up on their site, on which was a link to their blog. I clicked on it, and came up on this post. Seems they’re pretty upset about the selection of Joe Biden as Obama’s running mate, and, well, for good reason, of course.
I am convinced that Biden’s inclusion on the 2008 Democratic Presidential ticket is in part a warning shot directed at pro-RKBA Democrats across America. It sends the message that the historic DC v. Heller ruling by the Supreme Court guaranteeing the Second Amendment right of individual Americans to own firearms will be treated by the Obama/Biden ticket as though it never happened.
That’s pretty much the long and short of it, I would wager. It would be interesting to see how many other registered Democrats are frustrated by this ticket because of this. In any event, I was quite encouraged by the comments at the post, including this one, which was so good I had to show the whole thing…
Daniel, I for one, am stepping off this runaway train. I took Senator Obama at his word, that he knew the difference between where I live, and where he lives. I take Senator Biden at his word too, that he doesn’t know if I am mentally fit. I got the message, loud and clear. I am tired of putting my beliefs on hold, fighting the good fight, and when we get some little victory, my party members looking at me and asking “who the hell are you?”. If I could say to myself “Josh, you let your responsibility to the Bill of Rights slide a little there, but look at what you got in return: Cleaner environment, greater chance of social mobility, a country where kids and veterans and people who already worked their whole lives get healthcare when they are sick, no Bush tax cuts, no useless wars, on and on and on………..” it would be different. But I can’t say any of those things.
I have voted for Democrats chiefly because of their stance on two issues: gay rights, and women’s reproductive rights. I am a heterosexual male. I am physically incapable of excercising some of the rights I have been fighting for, and not at all interested in personally excercising some of the others. But in the “Liberty Triage” that I have to conduct in my head and heart, I saw those to be the rights in the greatest jeopardy, so I spoke for them the loudest. I think now, no more. I see that I am gonna have to start paying a little attention to this other patient too, or she’s a goner. In all honesty, I feel responsible. I have not given my fellow Democrats any real reason to respect the 2nd Amendment. When they have tried to trample it, I have said little, or even made excuses for them. No more.
I’m gonna stand right here. If the runaway train that is the Democratic Party gets brought under control, and it backs up past me, I’ll hop back on, and we’ll all go on our merry way together, down the CORRECT track. In the meantime, ya’ll keep shoveling coal on that SOB and see if you don’t break it.
I expect I won’t be the only one hopping off. If some of ya’ll jump off within sight of me, we’ll wave to each other, and talk about the good old days, and look for the train to come back by.
I will skip the Presidential Candidates on my ballot this year. I guess we’ll all talk again in 2011.
Liberty triage. What a novel concept! Seriously, though, it’s quite refreshing to see someone putting it in those terms, as the whole concept of liberty seems to be completely lost in politics these days. Heaven knows I more than likely won’t agree with these guys on much else, but it’s great to see the indication that at least some of them will bite the bullet on this issue — so to speak — and not give their vote to someone just out of blind party affiliation. I will admit I was a bit troubled by the rhetoric about the differences in where people live, because after all, natural rights shouldn’t be contingent on where one chooses to live any more than they should be subject to a vote. And I also wonder about what they say about “acknowledging ‘the necessity to restrict access to felons, mentally incompetent, all persons convicted of a crime of domestic violence or other specifically prohibited firearms possession by law.'” It makes me wonder to what extent they think along the same lines as many of us more libertarian folks do, i.e., if these people are so dangerous, then why aren’t they locked up or otherwise committed away from society? I guess I am with the pragmatists and incrementalists as far as that goes, though, because I will take even a little progress rather than none at all — especially if that shared belief translates to withholding their vote from their party, as at least a few conservatives will be doing this fall.
On the other hand, there’s this number, from a Democratic blogger down in Fort Bend County
…for those of us who interpret the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution as it was written, and not as Justice Scalia reinterprets it (“Militia? What militia”), we will have no representation on this issue in Washington, DC whoever wins in Texas CD 22 in November.
Frankly, this doesn’t surprise me. This is Texas, after all.
And this is one case where I know that Nick Lampson is truly in favor of the decision, and is not just saying this to obscure the differences between himself and his conservative challenger. Nick is a card-carrying member of the National Rifle Association.
Said blogger goes on to make noise about U.S. v. Miller, and the “well-regulated militia,” and as all the good little gun prohibitionists do, gets it all exactly wrong. There’s a pretty good summary of it here — just a snippet:
Here’s what it does NOT say: “This guy is not in a militia so he can’t have a gun.” It says that this particular weapon has no reasonable relation to the weapons used in furtherance of a militia, so the 2nd Amendment does not extend to coverage of this particular weapon. This is explicitly stated.
Yep. The issue in the case was the weapon itself, not Jack Miller’s membership or lack thereof in any government-sanctioned militia. Furthermore, the decision went on to say:
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. “A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.” And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
Note that “writings of approved commentators” phrase. I don’t know for sure, but I’m willing to bet that some of those “approved commentators” would include the folks mentioned here. A typical quote, from Tench Coxe:
“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
In the hands of the people, and not the government. I don’t know how one could get any more explicit than that. And I really don’t know how one could come to the conclusion, knowing just how they felt about the potential of government, that the Founders would put an amendment into the Constitution ensuring the government’s right to arm itself. As far as gun prohibitionists having no representation in the 22nd Congressional District…well, if they’re so upset about that then why don’t they, y’know, go somewhere that their warped view will be represented, like New Jersey or Illinois? On second thought, maybe it isn’t so bad that they’re here instead of there. There’s strength in numbers, and I’d rather these people’s voice be drowned out than amplified.
Three “bigoted meth heads,” armed with high-powered sniper weapons, were consumed by a seething hatred of Barack Obama, federal authorities said Tuesday.
Authorities recovered a terrifying arsenal that could have been used in a shocking attack: a Remington 270 sniper rife, a Ruger 22-250 sniper rifle, boxes of Remington and Winchester ammo, two-way radios, bulletproof vests, camouflage and wigs.
Wow, hyperventilate much, guys? I was under the impression that rifles like what was mentioned in this piece were your garden-variety hunting rifles — you know, the ones that the gun-grabbers say they’ll leave alone. I wonder what ole Jim Zumbo would say to such terminology — or, rather, what he would have said before President’s Day weekend last year. In any case, it just goes to show that an attack on one type of gun, sooner or later, turns into attacks on all of them.
Next up, I saw this in the Houston Chronicle yesterday on U.S. Rep. Nick Lampson but just didn’t get a chance to comment on it:
Lampson, who represents the suburbs and towns south of central Houston, plans to cheer, clap and cast nominating votes with his fellow delegates for the groundbreaking presidential candidate from Illinois.
“I haven’t tried to run away from my endorsement of him,” the congressman from Stafford said. “I did endorse him sometime back, whenever it was.”
But at a meeting with National Rifle Association members in Sugar Land last week, Lampson gently brushed away engineer Jim Allman’s request for an evaluation of Obama.
“Well,” Lampson said, “I want to say something about me and what I am running for Congress for.”
“Thanks for the dodge,” Allman responded.
Lampson spent most of the time addressing the day’s selected subject of gun ownership rights. Lampson, whose House record gets an “A” from the NRA, recalled that as a youth, he shot ducks in a nearby corner of the 22nd Congressional District.
After the meeting, Lampson explained that he avoided the Obama talk not because he fears that he’s being hunted by the national Republican Party in the Nov. 4 election, but because “it’s my town hall meeting.”
“I am proud to be in the position I am,” he had just told the gun owners, “because I think that being in the majority party, and being in the party that has probably caused some of your interests more grief than the other party, helps the cause. We are on the inside of leadership and can try to make sure some of these (bills) never come to the floor.”
No, Congressman, it was your constituents’ town hall meeting, and if you’d had anything that had resembled a backbone you’d have answered that question, considering it came from, y’know, one of your constituents. Remember? The people you’re supposed to represent? The people who put you into office? I am certainly glad you’re not MY Congressman anymore…
And you know what I think would be just great? If politicians got a taser hit, a needle in the arse or something along those lines every time they started talking about hunting when the subject of gun rights came up. I’d pay to see that. As for blocking anti-gun bills from the floor, well, I’ve heard rumblings from here and there that George W. Bush told congressional Republicans to see to it that the renewal of Bill Clinton’s “assault weapons” ban never made it to his desk. I guarantee you that if the shoe ends up on the other foot and Barack Obama, heaven forbid, makes it to the Oval Office, he WILL put pressure on the far-left Democratic congressional leadership to get that AWB renewal on his desk to sign it, and I’d bet money that it would include a ban on personal defensive arms as well. And the leadership will put pressure on the Blue Dogs to get in line, with threats of withholding perk positions in the House and the bacon from their respective districts or something like that, and, well, there you have it. I don’t know if Lampson would cave or not, but based on his reaction to Jim Allman and his mealy-mouth platitude about shooting ducks when he was a kid, I am not so confident. Like I say, I’m glad he’s not my rep anymore.
alternately titled, Paul Helmke Shows His True Collectivist Colors, when asked about the first day of school at Harrold Independent School District…
“It’s unfair of us to ask teachers to take on the additional job of being police officers,” said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign.
So not only does Paul Helmke believe in collective rights, but he also apparently believes in collective responsibility, i.e., entrusting one’s safety to the collective of local law enforcement. (Hey, how’d that work out at Virginia Tech?) Personally, I could give two farts in a windstorm what Paul Helmke thinks is fair. *I* don’t think it’s fair to clamp down on the freedoms of the many based on the crimes of the few, as that Helmke cretin advocates. I guess society at large does have a vested interest in the schools being protected, but the fact is in sparsely populated places like Wilbarger County, there’s only so much money that’s going to be made available to staff the local law enforcement agencies. And it’s also undeniable that not only are the teachers who are carrying guns are not only protecting the students, but they’re also protecting themselves. So all in all, it seems to me to be a win-win situation — the teachers with CHLs and weapons on their respective persons are going to be able to have a much faster response time to crises on campus than any law enforcement, AND the county’s resources won’t be strained any more than they already may be. Come to think of it, those are advantages that accrue to society at large as well. It brings to mind another old question and answer.
“Why do I carry a gun? ‘Cause they don’t make a holster big enough for a cop.”
Even if they did, it still deserves to be pointed out that James Brady was surrounded by armed guards — arguably the best in the world — and he still ended up as a victim. And the vast majority of the rest of us don’t have that advantage. So I suppose Mr. Helmke and his cohorts want us all to be as unequipped and unprepared as James Brady was that day in 1981 — even more so, probably, when you think about it. Crazy, stupid or evil? How about all of the above?
In a post he links to here, David Codrea asks, “What caliber for T-rex?”
That’s an easy one for me. 30mm depleted uranium out of one of these. 6560 grains at 3250 feet per second…if that doesn’t stop what you’re dealing with , then it was just your day to die. 😉 With a firing rate of 3900 rounds per minute, though, you’d have to be real careful with the trigger…huh, as long as we’re talking fantasy scenarios, how about a 5- or 10-round burst-fire setting on that cannon?
From the always-reliable Hot Air, more proof that it’s not just leftists and Democrats that don’t have a clue:
The assault weapon ban is a very popular law. If this becomes the “gun control” issue of 2008, it will hurt the Republican nominee.
A-yep. It was so popular that its passage resulted in the Democrats losing 52 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and eight seats in the Senate. More wisdom from the same commenter:
Perhaps they’re in favor of gun control because they know it’s a winning issue.
Yep. Worked real well for Algore and John f. Kerry, didn’t it? Swept ’em right into the White Hou…oh, wait, no, it didn’t! Personally I wouldn’t trust pollsters any further than I could throw them, because odds are on such a polarizing issue like gun control the questions are going to be slanted so as to tilt the results in favor of more infringement. For teh childrenses, you see. In any event, to a large extent the people who really care the most about the issue have spoken, and what we’ve said is, “no more gun control.” Of course there’s the matter of background checks and all that, but I’d think it’s going to take a while to get the general public around to the position that “if these people are so dangerous the government says they can’t be trusted with a gun, then what the hell are they doing out of prison?” It’s worth a shot, though…and in the meantime, contrary to what some fools think, Biden’s words in that CNN clip should be played early and often, as should Barack Obama’s words about the inhabitants of rural America.
George Jones and Tammy Wynette may well have been Mr. and Mrs. Country Music back in the 1970s, and there’s no doubt they made some fine duets (“Golden Ring” is my favorite)…but George and Melba Montgomery’s harmonies on “We Must Have Been Out Of Our Minds” are just out of this world. Two minutes and forty seconds of audio HEAVEN. I can’t believe I’d never heard this before. Great, GREAT stuff!