The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State …
From Instapundit, we discover that Congressmen’s lives are apparently more valuable than their lowly staffers.
Thompson was booked for carrying a pistol without a license (CPWL) and for possessing unregistered ammunition. According to congressional rules, congressmen and senators, not staff, are allowed to have a gun on federal property.
If I can’t carry a gun on federal property, Congressworms shouldn’t be allowed to either.
Clayton Cramer blogs about Penn and Teller’s “Bullshit”, but makes a rather curious observation:
This particular program is laced with vulgar language, but I suppose if you are trying to appeal to a vulgar audience–and one that is naturally prone to gun control, because they think Jon Stewart’s Daily Show qualifies as a news program, then this is probably quite effective.
Gun nuts, in my experience, tend to be more vulgar on average than your average college educated suburban liberal. I think the demographic that Penn & Teller appeal to is young libertarians, who do, as a whole, tend to be pretty vulgar, but wouldn’t be inclined to support gun control.  I don’t know if I qualify as a young libertarian anymore, but while I can keep in clean when social decorum demands it, it’s certainly not a natural state.
Armed Canadian has a good screed on why gun owners need to fight licensing:
Personally, I find the idea of a license to possess a gun to be a bad idea. Solely for the prospect of abuse over time. Licensing a gun owner for the carry of a concealed weapon and licensing a gun owner for mere possession are the same thing to me. Both depend on the benevolence of the government and require absolute care in crafting such licensing rules to ensure they do not get cut off or be used to create a defacto denial of rights in the future.
The first problem with licensing is the tie to competency. Many people proposing such a scheme want owners to show they are competent. Ok, who makes the rules for competency? Who gets to evaluate them? Who has the authority to change them?
Read the whole thing.
Bitter noted to me that, despite her predisposition toward dating gun nuts, she has done more shooting with me in a few short months than all the previous Bitter Boys combined.
This is a trend I intend to continue, because I love to shoot, and get unhappy if I’m not shooting enough. Â If anyone from Remington and Federal are reading this, I expect Christmas cards this year ;)
I’m past the age where I really care anymore, which would be 33 as of this morning. Thirthy three is one of those ages where you’re not sure whether you can say you’re in your early thirties, or have to start saying mid thirties. I think I’m OK with a rule that says 33 is early thirties, and 34-37 are mid thirties. Having late 30s be only two years sounds rather acceptable.
Sometimes when you’re in West Texas with a lot of guns and ammo, you just have to get a few pictures of some Kalashnikov moments:
On Friday I went to draw a glass of my Hulmville Honey Red to celebrate the end of the week. There’s nothing more frustrating than tapping the keg, going to draw the glass, and getting that awful gurgling sound that indicates the keg is empty. I made the honey red back in October, which is the last time I got to make any beer.
So it’s time to make beer again.  The question is, what to make? My stouts seem to go over best with guests, which is good because it means the beer disappears faster, and thus I can make more of it. I was thinking, though, of maybe making an IPA again, or perhaps trying an Imperial Stout.  I’m leaning toward the Imperial Stout.
I make my beer from a bag of grain. I use a Rubbermaid ten gallon Gatoraide cooler as my mash/lauter tun.  The cost for producing a batch of beer typically runs about 20 dollars. That gives you roughly two cases equivalent, but I seldom bottle anymore, and typically just go straight into a five gallon Cornelius Keg.
So I might have to show Bitter next weekend how we make beer. We’re taking a tour of the Budweiser Brewery in St. Louis when we’re there for the NRA convention. To have an appreciation for making beer on such a tremendous scale, it helps to have knowledge of how it works on a small scale.
You know you’re a gun nut when, for the first time in a few months, you use your oven, not a cook a roast or a turkey, but to heat up some parts from your AK-74 so they’ll dry out after you gave it a nice bath in warm soapy water to wash out all the corrosive primer residue that built up on it after a day’s shooting.
I’m about 1/3rd through my batch of the corrosive stuff. I might take the other tin that was in the crate and reserve it, and bring it out sometime when I’m either short of 5.45×39 or nostalgic. The good thing about corrosive primed ammo is that it lasts forever. Non-corrosive primers have a shorter shelf life.
The Times of London is reporting that the kidnapped British soldiers are going to be tried for espionage by Iran. Witnesses claim the British vessel was in Iraqi waters when it was attacked by the Iranians.
This is an act of war under any interpretation of international law. What I want to know is, why haven’t the British responded along the lines of
“You have 1 hour to return our soldiers. If they are not returned by then the Royal Navy will be executing a blockade of your ports.  If they are not returned in 24 hours, the Royal Air Force will begin bombing military targets inside Iran itself.”
I don’t get why we’ve been pussy footing around with these people. I can understand invasion would be difficult, but we could destroy most of Iran’s combat power within a matter of days.
The Citizens Committe for the Right to Keep and Bears Arms is calling out the Democrats for their recent vote on DC Voting Rights, which was voted down because of the addition of an amendment that would have repealed the Washington D.C. gun ban:
Congressional Democrats claim at every turn they “support the Secon d Amendment,†but the truth came out Thursday when they pulled a coveted District of Columbia voting rights bill because of an amendment that would have ended the long-standing handgun ban.
“This shows the true colors of the Democrat leadership,†Alan M. Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms stated. “It should have been easy for the Democrat caucus to agree to the Republican-sponsored amendment, because of the recent federal appeals court ruling that declared the handgun ban unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
“Instead,†Gottlieb said, “Democrats proved once again that all their avowed support for the Second Amendment is nothing but empty rhetoric. House Democrats had a chance to stand up and be counted, but instead they ran for cover, afraid to have a recorded vote prove that, as a party and as individuals, they remain as anti-gun as ever.â€
I can’t honestly say I’m all that displeased with the outcome, to be honest, because it would have removed standing for the Parker plaintiffs if they go before The Supreme Court. But this move was purely political: to get the Democrats on record as being in favor of handgun bans, so much so that they were willing to sacrifice a coveted bill in maintain it. The politics of this is pretty smart for the Republicans, as polls show that most Americans do not favor making handguns illegal. This puts the Democrats on record as being pretty extreme on the gun issue when compared to most Americans.
But the Democrats could be playing it smart too, in a way. Parker is a win-win case for them, and I could see that they might think twice before they would derail it.
If Parker prevails, it will essentially give the Democrats the political cover they need to back further away from gun control as one of their issues. The Democrats seem to have accepted that this issue has been a killer for them in national elections, and is in no large part responsible for them being reduced to strips along the Northeast Corridor, parts of the Midwest around Chicago, and the West Coast. In 2006, they won on the backs of some pretty pro-gun Democrats like Jim Webb, Bob Casey, John Tester, and the like. Parker changes the political landscape a bit, and might give some politicians with less then stellar records on guns, to back away from the issue without making it look like flip-flopping.
If Parker loses, then the Supreme Court would be emboldening anti-gun forces within the Democratic Party, and offering political cover for some more moderate Democrats to move more to the anti-second amendment position. The folks in Congress like Carolyn McCarthy and Charles Schumer would love to have a Supreme Court ruling that definitively said that the second amendment is no obstacle to gun control in order to beat pro-gun or moderately pro-gun democrats over the head with.
The real losers in the Parker case would be the Republicans, who would not like to see the gun constituency split between the parties. We’ve been a good voting block for the Republicans, so I can see why they’d want to get this issue away from the courts and back into the legislative arena where it can help them more. If gun owners feel secure in their gun rights, they might just be tempted to vote Democrat. If we go down to defeat in Parker, it could convince a lot of gun owners that the system is stacked against them, and stop participating in political activism altogether.
I think looking carefully at each parties interest can explain the vote on the issue.  I don’t think it means the Democrats will head back to their gun control roots; they will stay away from the issue until after the 2008 elections. Both parties are using this particular vote as part of a larger political game, and getting rid of the DC gun ban at this point isn’t in the Democrats political interests, even if a lot of party members would like to move away from an anti-gun position.
Of course, I could be wrong about this, and the Democrats are just being stupid.