Seems Kucinich and his wife are fans of Ron Paul. I find it odd in the same way that I find it odd that my liberal leaning friends also like Paul. We had this conversation at GBR2 and Kevin noted it was because they cared about only one issue and it was the war. I find it odd since the Paul’s political ideology tends to run counter to that.
Tam on skanky guns: Like seeing a hammer with a rhinestone-studded handle, or a fur-trimmed power drill, it just throws me a bit off kilter.
A guy in Knoxville had enough of the red light cameras and put a few rounds in one. You’re probably better off trying to vote the bums out.
Sebastian and David note that if all gun owners got off their collective asses, we’d be in better shape. Sadly, gun owners seem to be more reactive than proactive.
So, while I was away, Fred went to a gun show and blasted Rudy for Rudy’s very recent love affair with the right to arms. He called the gun show paradise. Of Rudy, Thompson said:
He relates everything to New York City. Well, New York City is not emblematic of the rest of the country, I don’t think. I think the sentiments of those people in the rest of the country are in support of the Second Amendment — which is where I’ve always been and I don’t think he’s ever been
Meanwhile, gun blogger Michael Bane has joined the leadership and steering committee for Sportsmen for Thompson.
R. Neal notes that Fred violates the gun safety rules by putting his booger hook on the bang switch. Ayup, he broke the rules. However, people often dry fire weapons when contemplating purchasing them. I have and I check the chamber and aim in in a safe direction before doing so. What say you?
1 – Here’s a potential timeline for the Heller case.
2 – Barrack ‘I’ve never seen gun control I didn’t support’ Obama says the the DC gun ban is constitutional.
Heh, this tickles me silly. I dunno but maybe if you covered the story when it first came out instead of a month later, then your blog would make the list too.
Libertarian-leaning, pro-gun blogs making the list is a sign of the apocalypse, apparently. Well, if you’re a lefty.
Update: In jest, I said:
Nah. It’s clearly because we’re just a paid mouthpiece in the lap of the vast right wing conspiracy and the Triangle of Death.
This is actually nothing more than a list of blogs to feed talking points and misinformation to, though that isn’t the title.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have wheelbarrows full of cash from the vast right wing conspiracy’s blood for oil fund to deposit.
The Uncle clan survived round one.
What to do with a turkey carcass? Make stock. I do that too. It’s awesome. And Turkeyocaust? Why not a carrotcaust?
These are the cries of the carrots.
I’m outta here. Blogging light to nonexistent until, say, Mondayish. And I shall recycle an old post with a new link:
I’ve pondered what my platform would be if I ever ran for president. And I can say that one of the things on my platform, which would buck presidential tradition, is to not pardon the Thanksgiving turkey. President Bush has pardoned two turkeys. After that, the turkeys are going to Disneyland:
The turkey at the White House really draws a crowd. When President Bush stepped into the Rose Garden on Tuesday, he found visitors in every coveted seat, reporters standing three rows deep and staff members craning for just one good glimpse. They came for one of those signature White House moments: Bush saving the life of a huge, white, gobbling bird.
Bush granted his yearly pardon to the national Thanksgiving turkey, named “May,” and a backup turkey who went unseen, who goes by “Flower.”
[…]
President Bush is set to make the traditional pardon of a Thanksgiving turkey today. But this bird isn’t heading to some petting zoo. It’s going to Disneyland.
So, here we have our big federal government wasting money on buying a turkey. Then wasting money on security and knickknacks for the ceremony. Then wasting money on a police escort to the airport. Then wasting money to fly the bird to Disneyland. But that’s not my complaint here. My complaint is the message that this sends to the world. And that message is that our president is a pussy.
Yes, a pussy.
The White House will still have a Thanksgiving dinner and that dinner will feature meat which came from slaughtered animals. And the only difference between those slaughtered animals and the turkey is that the President hasn’t met them. He hasn’t looked them in the eye. Pardoning the turkey sends the wrong message to our enemies and, most importantly, our children. Do you think radical terrorist factions are scared of a country whose leader is unwilling to kill dinner? If the president can’t order the execution of a domesticated turkey after looking it in the eye, that definitely indicates our lack of resolve and makes us appear weak.
And instilling in our children this sense that all is fair and works out in the end for turkeys is a bit much. Face it kids, that nice dinner, the tryptophan-induced nap after, all the presents, and the month long consumer orgy known as The Holidays are tied to the death of an animal. An animal that is so stupid it will drown in the rain because it will stare up into the sky. The domesticated turkey is about as smart as a stapler. Actually, staplers may be smarter. I’ve never known of one to drown.
Not only should the president order the execution of the turkeys, he should kill both gobblers himself. With his bare hands, while wearing a loin cloth. He should then rise, his body glistening with sweat and blood, and take a bite out of its head and display it proudly to the American people.
That’s what I’d do. Because I’m not a pussy.
1 – Today, I listened to my first podcast. It was Glenn and Helen’s chat with Bob Levy on the DC gun case.
2 – I went to the bus station. Seems you need to be careful at any place you order stuff online that offers free shipping. They used Greyhound Express and I had to go pick up the items. That’s a pretty shady part of town.
The paper of record editorializes against gun rights. This article came pre-fisked.
I’ve heard some folks ponder whether DC’s status as, well, not a state will impact the DC Gun Case. The court will address:
Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?
I tend to think it won’t impact the decision much. There is the bit about state-regulated in their order but they’re not directly addressing in the order that state-iness question. What say you?
A while back, I asked: How do I join the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership? I asked because their site had no join button. Apparently, you’re considered a member if you sign up for their email alerts.
Also, there the go blaming the Evil Gun Lobby’s Triangle Of Death. Seems a co-sponsor of a gun control bill withdrew support after her constituents said we don’t like this bill. And that’s, of course, the gun lobby.
Via R. Neal comes loads of crap all in one hysterical story. Long and short is some trigger-happy dude in Texas shot and killed two guys who broke into his neighbor’s house. He called 911 prior to that and the conversation (caught on tape) went like this:
“I’ve got a shotgun, do you want me to stop them?”
“Nope, don’t do that,” replied the dispatcher. “Ain’t no property worth shooting somebody over, ok? … I’ve got officers coming out there. I don’t want you to go outside that house.”
“I understand that,” the caller replied, “but I have a right to protect myself too, sir, and you understand that. And the laws have been changed in this country since September the 1st, and you know it and I know it.”
After five minutes, the dispatcher was no longer able to restrain the caller, who stepped outside and shot both men, reporting, “Here it goes, buddy. You hear the shotgun clicking and I’m going. … Boom, you’re dead. … I had no choice.”
Now, that’s the first load of crap. Blowing someone away over property is sketchy at best and criminal at worse. The next load of crap is from David Edwards and Muriel Kane, the authors of the piece who note:
A so-called “castle doctrine” law recently passed in Texas allows people to use deadly force to protect their homes and property.
Texas’ castle doctrine law (seen here) does not allow for use of deadly force to protect homes and property. Rather, the law expands the areas in which there is no duty to retreat to homes, vehicles, and any place a person lawfully can be. There is no reference in the text of Texas’ castle doctrine law allowing deadly force in defense of property. Texas Penal Code Title 2, Chapter 9, Sec 42, which is not part of the castle doctrine bill, does. However, the circumstances in which deadly force is justified in defense of property are severely limited to:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Texas has some of the more lenient defense of property laws but they’re still pretty limiting. And have nothing to do with the castle doctrine bill.
Now here’s a serious issue I have with this whole ordeal. Sure, the authors of this piece get it wrong (as most journalists do when it comes to gun laws) but the shooter said:
I understand that,” the caller replied, “but I have a right to protect myself too, sir, and you understand that. And the laws have been changed in this country since September the 1st, and you know it and I know it.
Why would he think that a law that eliminates the duty to retreat instead justifies killing two burglars that were not an imminent threat to him and were not on his property? Probably because he heard that line repeated over and over by the anti-gunners in press coverage of the bill.
Update: Sebastian:
Maybe now it’s time to start being factual and doing research? Nah! Sensationalizing stories is easier and sells more papers.
Update 2: Via emdfl in comments, seems there’s also other versions of this story. Here’s another account with a much longer transcript.
Bob Krumm thinks maybe the supreme court will decide another election.
Glenn Reynolds has a piece in the NY Post on the case.
Fred Thompson discusses Parker/Heller.
Rudy, still sporting his recently found pro-gunnyness, on Heller.
Joe looks at the reaction from the anti-gunners. They may soon regret the appeal.
Another pink gun . . . feminized?
AR-15 before and after. My experience with the NCStar sight is that, well, it’s good on a 22. Don’t expect it to hold zero on much else.
FERFRANS Ultra-Concealable Gas Piston-Driven 6-inch PDW-Type AR SBR/Subcarbine
Via Google Snooze alerts comes this:
Basically, I don’t want to take away the right of people to own guns, but I also think that it is not unreasonable to expect rigid and strictly upheld standards and controls in their ownership and use. We do this for any number of items, most notably automobiles, and yet none of these things, like a gun, are specifically designed to kill.
And none of these things, like a owning a gun, are specifically enumerated as a right in the Constitution. But I digress. Rigid and strict are simply criteria that cannot be followed. Rigid and strict only impacts the law-abiding. I would prefer the terms reasonable and, possibly, effective. And by effective, I mean effective at preventing gun crimes, which most proposed gun controls are not.
The point is, I’m all for gun control. I’m on the gun control bandwagon. The NRA, in my opinion, are (sic) so vehement in their defense of a vaguely worded amendment that they impede the right of more level headed folks to enact reasonable gun control that will make us all significantly safer. But I’m not for an outright ban of guns. I realize a lot of people love guns, and I also know that when treated responsibly and with respect (like most NRA members actually do), guns are safe and enrich the lives of many Americans (I just don’t understand how or why).
[…]
First, I do think the DC ban went too far and was thusly unrealistic. The idea that you’re going to have all guns recalled and reregistered and then tell the owners they must be placed under lock and key, well, you’re just about asking for people to sidestep that little law right there.
The wording is not vague at all, assuming you can pass sixth grade English. But that’s not the point. The point is that a gun-controller thinks DC’s laws cross the line. Good.
And then we have the ambiguity of the data available in assessing the effectiveness of the restrictions put in place.
There is no ambiguity.. Gun control is what politicians do instead of something.
That was also their reaction to the VA Tech shooting.
David Hardy notes the various iterations of the question that the Supreme Court will answer in Parker. My thoughts are that the question the SCOTUS is answering seems to indicate an assumption there is an individual right.
Update: Joe thinks it’s the right question.
Tomorrow’s Glenn and Helen Show will have an interview with Bob Levy, the guy behind Parker/Heller.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
