I’d be interested to see…

…whether this really was an automatic rifle used here…

The teenage son of a Harris County deputy constable opened fire with his father’s automatic rifle Tuesday after burglars forced their way into the family’s home, authorities said.

…but in a way, it puts the lie to the contention that “you don’t need an assault rifle to defend your home.” Especially if said suspect’s friends come back for some sort of revenge. At any rate, my hat is definitely off to that man for teaching his son the right thing to do. I am glad for them that this was not California, where guns have to be locked up around kids.

It’s always gotta be about race, doesn’t it?

Leonard Pitts, in today’s Houston Chronicle:

Yes, the War on Drugs is officially race-neutral. So were the grandfather clause and other Jim Crow laws whose intention and effect was nevertheless to restrict black freedom.

Reading the entire column, one is left to wonder: If the War On Some Drugs was race-neutral in actual practice instead of just in theory, would Leonard Pitts support it then? And why has he never said anything about the various and sundry gun control laws’ roots in the Jim Crow era? I love how he and his fellow liberals claim to be all about civil rights and liberty, yet they always go back to their modern compatriots’ authoritarianism in the cases in which their oxen are not being gored. Hey Leonard? How about opposing the War On Some Drugs because it’s a threat to liberty in general rather than just because black people are (allegedly) disproportionately affected by the tactics used? Or would you really be peachy-keen with more white folks being railroaded for minor drug offenses just to make it fair? Good grief, how disgusting.

Any port in a storm, I guess…

…but to have a Supreme Court nominee say she respects a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution only because said respect is mandated by respect for court precedent is unconscionable. (As one commenter pointed out, Sonia Sotomayor said she was bound by precedent too, but she voted with the minority in McDonald v. Chicago. Which makes Elena Kagan’s word worth even less.) And  “judges must respect a precedent unless it proves unworkable”? What about if said precedent was, quite clearly, morally wrong?

It’s a great day to be an American…

…another racist gun control law on the way to being struck down, on the same day another racist Klansman dies. Yes, indeed.

A Texas Democrat….

…is scarcely better than a California Democrat, apparently, at least when it comes to Second Amendment rights:

The Texas Democratic Convention is winding down with votes on resolutions that have included legalizing medical marijuana and requiring background checks on sales at gun shows.
…

The Democrats also have passed a resolution supporting a continuation of the ban on handguns on college campuses.

And apparently their supporters are just as anti-rights as they are, as seen by this comment:

Now if you are opposed to the resolution then you must feel that criminals and wife beaters should be allowed to have weapons along with the criminally insane.

Lovely. I do so tire of this line of reasoning. I really wish those on our side would take the converse line of reasoning and ask the Democrats why they support dangerous people walking free, or why they think that sort of thing is just peachy as long as they (allegedly) can’t get a gun. We see them harping on this whole “gun show loophole” thing all the time, but — and not that it matters in the big scheme of things — has there ever been even one documented killing with a gun by a criminal who got it from a gun show or via a private sale? Of all the stories I have read, I have yet to see even one. I’m not saying they’re not happening, but the Democrats seem to be making it to be a much bigger problem than it is.

Yes, I still like this band…

…and this song, at Prime Country, Sirius Ch. 61: “Been a long time gone, no I ain’t had a prayer since I don’t know when…”

For those of you who don’t remember (since it HAS been a while since that song was played on mainstream country radio from what I remember), that’s “Long Time Gone,” the lead-off single from the Dixie Chicks’ 2002 album Home. That album was a marked departure from the Chicks’ previous two albums, with a more rootsy, bluegrass flavor to it; it was, in my opinion, the best of the band’s first three albums. I hate that Natalie Maines felt the need to shoot off her mouth on that London stage a few months after that album came out; I would love to have seen that album and more of its songs get more attention on country radio. Of course, I do remember it being said that if “Long Tim Gone” had been cut by anyone other than the Chicks it wouldn’t have gotten played, let alone to the point that it would have been a No. 1 record. Call that another opportunity wasted, because with the Chicks’ popularity they showed that even semi-traditional country was more than commercially viable…

Not considering the full meaning?

I would beg to differ:

Baldly implying an armed insurrection against the government — based loosely on the 2nd Amendment — tea partiers fail to understand that the moment that insurrection is activated, they would find themselves face to face with the most patriotic symbols and personages they seem to respect and admire the most: the U.S. military.

This is not necessarily true. There is much debate on whether the military would follow orders to put down armed revolt against the government if it turned tyrannical. Take this for what you think it’s worth…

A Marine Corps officer wondered to himself whether such an order (to disarm the population — ed.) would be carried out in the United States. He was surprised to see that most of his men would not follow an order to disarm the populace by force.

…but it’s definitely something to ponder when you hear people talking about tea partiers allegedly talking about shooting “people they seem to respect and admire.”

It’s a long way to November…

…for the Democrats, too, though you’d never know it reading this story. I love how they try to make things look so rosy for the Democrats that way. Garnet Coleman might well be right that the majority of Texas Democrats are happy with the president, but considering Obama didn’t even carry the state that really doesn’t mean anything in the big scheme of things. And I fail to see how the Democrats are going to be making things look any better — at least on the national level — to make their platform more palatable on the state level. To the extent the Democrats win in Texas in the fall, I’d bet it’s going to come via people voting against the Republicans, not for the Democrats. And it wouldn’t at all surprise me, though I don’t know that the Texas GOP would really get the message voters would be sending…

Sporadic blogging ahead…

…we’re going to East Texas for a few days. Stay tuned. 🙂

What luck!

My lovely wife and I took a ride today, as it’s been way too long since we did that. The plan was to ride around for a bit and stop for lunch We went across I-10 to Boerne, and then back across Highway 46 to New Braunfels. By the time we got to New Braunfels we were getting pretty hungry. Earlier in the day Sabra said she wanted some fried chicken livers. As we rode into New Braunfels we were talking about this place we ate at in Columbus called Schobel’s and how we knew they would have them, but of course that did not do us much good since Columbus was about 120 miles away.

So we headed south on I-35, and I decided to turn around to see if I could find this barbecue place that was advertised on Highway 46 coming into town. Heading back north on I-35, not two minutes later what did I see a billboard for? Schobel’s in New Braunfels! I had no clue they had one there. We had the all-you-can-eat buffet, with sausage, ham, chicken, pot roast and assorted veggies. It was very, very good. If you’re ever in the area (Columbus OR NB) I highly recommend it. You can see the menu here.