The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State …
… if you use a gun, you’ll just end up getting that gun taken away from you. Like this robber did. How come the only occurrences I ever hear of this happening involve criminals getting a gun snatched by the victims?
Also, another rich neighborhood getting whacked by violent, armed individuals. This is probably the consequence of the disintegration in Philly heading out into the suburbs. Expect more of this.
You know the one, right? Guns from states with lax guns laws end up in the hands of criminals in states with strict gun laws? Apparently that causes gun violence, and the only solution is restricting the law abiding.
A U.S. Court of Appeals rules that illegal immigrants aren’t among the folks protected by the Second Amendment. I’ve always found the logic for this a bit dubious, even post Heller. If the Second Amendment really is about the inalienable right to self-protection, then why is an alien’s right to this any less than mine?
I can accept that someone who is in this country unlawfully, perhaps could be deprived of certain rights after due-process of law, but to me, if you want to restrict unlawful immigrants of any constitutionally guaranteed right, you better convict them first. So I would argue the option of convicting an unlawful immigrant of firearm possession ought not be able to proceed until you’ve first convicted them of being in the country illegally. You should have to establish the first fact as a matter of law because you can establish the second.
SayUncle shows his carry assortment. I have the requisite collection of holsters that never worked, but I only have two carry pieces. I tend to think everyone needs at least one “carry when you can’t really easily carry” option, and one “carry when you can actually conceal well” option. Beyond that I think it’s just getting too complicated, unless you get to the range enough with your carry rig to be proficient with all the options.
I have a Ke-Tec P3AT for very discrete carry, and a Glock 19 for when I can actually conceal. I sheepishly admit that I’ve never been big on carrying a spare magazine, so I actually have no holsters dedicated to that purpose.
What’s in your carry mix?
He’d like you know he’s gone up against a wide variety of criminals in his career, including Tim McVeigh (glad he was on top of that one, people could have gotten hurt). Now he’s saying we need to make changes to our laws to stop Mexican trafficking. Keep in mind that this gentleman ran a tight ship. A true American hero, we have here. A true champion for our opponents, no doubt.
There was some speculation about the big announcement being teased by the Brady Campaign today. With quite possibly the most danceable modern video ever produced by the anti-gun group, some wondered if it would be epic.
Did they secure Gabby Giffords as a new spokeswoman so they could re-launch as the Giffords Campaign? Did they snag a president that someone has actually heard of before today? Were they launching a rival campaign to Bloomberg’s efforts that continually rip the attention, headlines, and support away from their group?
I didn’t post about it because I had a gut feeling that it wasn’t terribly exciting. I figured that it would be a repackaged legislative initiative at best. I was so wrong. It was even less interesting than that.
The Brady Campaign wants you to light a candle.
Yes, they want you to light a candle. Because candles will stop violence. Their new webpage about candles says that lighting a candle will stop a bullet. What? You think I’m kidding?
Imagine stopping a bullet before it kills a child.
Impossible? Not with your help! All across America people are coming together to save lives from preventable gun violence. Will you join them, and the Brady Campaign, as we host a nationwide candlelight vigil to honor victims of gun violence?
Perhaps the candles will also inject some personality into Dennis Henigan as he reads his script. The candles might also buy them some new audio equipment. If candles can stop bullets, then they can do anything in this season of holiday miracles, right?
Newt Gingrich is not a fan of judicial review, and thus takes up one of most insidious conservative crusades I just find utterly lamentable. If anything, I believe the courts don’t do enough to reign in the other two elected branches of government. Keep in mind the courts have no power to make law, only to interpret it, which includes the Supreme Law, known as The Constitution. Unfortunately, over the course of the post-New Deal period, the Court has done much to undermine its own legitimacy. Professor Glenn Reynolds notes:
On the other hand, who can seriously argue that the constitutional law that comes from the Supreme Court is in fact very closely related to the text of the Constitution itself? I mean, if the Court were doing such a great job, would we see strange bedfellows arguing for a constitutional reset? Indeed, I was talking to a fellow lawprof the other day, and one who’s certainly no right-winger, who said he’d hate to have to teach Constitutional Law because of the hash the Supreme Court has made of things over the past 50 years or so. I was surprised to hear that, but it suggests a certain shakiness to current foundations.
I also agree with his conclusions of Gingrich as a candidate. He’s just the latest anti-Mitt. That doesn’t mean he’s got winner written all over him. Glenn Reynolds also notes:
FDR could get away with this because he was much more popular than the Supreme Court. No politician or official today is more popular than the Supreme Court. I doubt a President Gingrich will be either.
This is certainly true, and I consider that a good thing. There’s been several pundits who have called for a “House of Repeal” who’s sole job it is to repeal laws that just don’t make sense, or who are overreaching. I hate to say, it but that’s suppose to be the job of the courts. Since the new deal, they have largely abrogated their responsibility in this realm.
Dave Hardy made a recent trip to the National Archives in Washington D.C. to do some research, and uncovered a previously unpublished hand-written letter from Abraham Lincoln. This is extremely cool, but I have to admit to being unable to read the letter. Sometime in elementary school, I can remember being forced to adopt handwriting, and by Junior High, teachers abandoned this crusade, and let students write however they were comfortable. I’ve always preferred printing to handwriting, so that’s what I went back to. I admit to being unable to read all but the most modern handwriting.
Bitter and I recently had a laugh when she challenged me to write out a love letter to her in longhand, and I was utterly unable to do it. I spend so much time typing these days that I can barely print legibly, let along write anything, other than my signature, out longhand.
I feel handwriting will be a lost art in a generation or so. How long before you have to seek out experts to translate a letter like Dave has brought into the digital age? How long, in an age of digital signatures, will kids even be able to write their own name out longhand? How long before we go back to illiterate times when “making your mark” was enough?
Speaking of dead skills, how many people alive can still understand shorthand? Although, like most people who were raised pre-texting/pre-IMing era, I lament the younger generations use of texting speak, I can’t help but think it’s just a variant on an old historical habit.
Good Riddance. And now, this tribute:
Tam reports that the Incandescent Bulb Ban that Congress passed a while back has been quietly repealed, joining an unfortunately short list of times when Congress has actually repealed a law that limited people’s freedoms. By this point, we’ve replaced most of our bulbs with CFLs, and for the same reason Tam has. I find the quality of light put out by modern CFLs acceptable for most purposes. My only real pet peeve left with them is warmup time. Nonetheless, the cost savings of running 15 watts versus 60 watts for the same amount of light, and not having to replace bulbs as often, makes the deal for me.
That said, I don’t want the government mandating that I use them, and nothing else. I have fixtures that won’t take acceptable CFLs, and they absolutely suck for outdoor lighting in the winter because of the warm-up time, unless you leave them on all the time. Much better to use halogens on a motion sensor.
We can also rest easy that the old EZ Bake oven you might want to pass onto your kids will still find an ample supply of light bulbs, even though the new ones apparently don’t require it. At least we can rest easy until the CPSC figures out that ovens are hot, and could burn children, and that it’s powered with electricity, and kids might try to take a bath with their favorite toy.