Obviously this is racist
Anything that criticizes Barack Obama is racist. QED
October 23, 2008
January 16, 2008
Fred Hits Bush on Guns
Fred Thompson attacks the Bush Department of Justice for taking the wrong side on the DC gun case.
(ht:JA)
January 12, 2008
Where do the candidates stand?
The Bush Administration is taking the side of the DC gun ban in the case now before the Supreme Court. The aminus brief filed by the Solicitor General essentially says that bearing arms should be held to be an individual right, but that local governments should have the ability to infringe upon those rights.
It will be interesting to see how the presidential candidates come down on this. Especially Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, who both presided over communities with strict gun control laws and haven’t been as strong an advocate of the Second Amendment as some of the other candidates.
Somebody needs to ask them if they support the President’s action.
November 20, 2007
Will the Supreme Court decide another election?
The Supreme Court will rule on a major second amendment case just as the summer presidential campaign season kicks off next year. Depending on the ruling, the outcome of the Washington DC gun ban case could significantly effect the Presidential race.
The Court will likely rule one of three ways:
It could affirm that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. Ironically, complete success for the NRA could put America’s foremost gun rights advocate out of business as a major political player for the foreseeable future. Every Democrat in America whose highest priority is recapturing the White House and keeping the Congress should pray for this outcome.
The second possibility is that the Court announces a muddled ruling that alludes to an individual right to a gun, but affirms that local jurisdictions are afforded some level of regulatory oversight. I suspect that the Court, usually being cautious and incremental, will rule this way. This status quo decision would keep the gun rights issue alive but wouldn’t give it any extra breath than it currently has. Republicans will continue to advocate a gun rights position and prudent Democrats will either embrace that same position, or continue to avoid the issue.
If, however, the Supreme Court rules that the Second Amendment is a group right afforded to governmentally organized militias, then watch out. Such a decision would immediately put a constitutional amendment to reverse its effect on the fast track. The ruling would upset millions of voters, many of whom aren’t currently happy with Iraq, the economy, immigration, and Bush, and who might otherwise be persuaded to turn to a Clinton, Edwards, or Obama. But they won’t with gun rights at stake. If the Supreme Court takes away the individual right to bear arms next spring, automatically every Southern and Western state is unwinnable for any of the leading Democrats next November.
UNLESS . . . Democrats can successfully portray the Republican nominee as also being weak on gun rights. Rudy and Romney, both having led severely gun-limiting governments, are very vulnerable here. Either would have no more credibility on this issue than would any of their Democratic rivals, and could find themselves watching from the sidelines as the NRA organizes its soldiers, not for the Presidential race, but for Congressional races aimed at passing a constitutional amendment.
By agreeing to take Parker Heller, it’s no stretch to say that for the second time in eight years a presidential election might hinge on a United States Supreme Court decision.
OTHERS
Say Uncle (multiple links)
Dave Hardy
Instapundit (here, here, and here)
Volokh (multiple links)
ALSO
Rudy, perhaps recognizing his vulnerability on this issue, does a good job a preemptive damage control.
UPDATE:
Glenn Reynolds in a New York Post op/ed agrees.
November 18, 2007
The civilizing effect of guns
One commenter called this the “most elegant argument for the second amendment.” I’d say so too. It was written this past March so you may have seen it before, but even if you have, it’s worth a re-read. An excerpt:
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
Read the whole thing.
BTW, Marko’s argument is, if I may coin a word, microweaponomics. The same, however, is true in macroweaponomics. America must continue to maintain a large and powerful military not because she is “looking for a fight,” but because she wishes “to be left alone.”
(ht:GR)
May 16, 2007
May 9, 2007
Gun Fun
So, about this dustup yesterday, well, I found it enlightening. I’ve decided that when it comes to the gun issue, there are three kinds of people (yes, I’m being a little simplistic–so be it): Gunners, Nongunners and Ungunners.
Top-of-my-head definitions as follows:
Gunners — People who own guns, they like guns and so forth. Basically, “gun people” in general.
Nongunners — People who don’t own guns, or if they do, they own just one, like a shotgun or something, for use only on a Very Special Occasion, such as when Mr. Bad Guy decides to rummage around their living rooms for treasures. When pressed, these people are (usually) fairly sympathetic to an individual’s right to bear arms, but it’s not an issue that typically animates them.
Ungunners — People who wet their pants at the thought of guns generally. (But, see my UPDATE below.) (more…)
May 4, 2007
Selected not elected
For years Philadelphia has tried to restrict guns. What has limited them (aside from the Second Amendment) is a Pennsylvania state law that prohibits cities from enacting local gun legislation. Now Darrell Clarke, a Philadelphia councilman wants to sue the state for “negligent legislation.”
“We think it’s time to look at another strategy, and we’re prepared to go to court. . . We think that with our complaint, we will show in our theory that the state has been negligent in terms of enacting good-sense legislation. We think we have a compelling case.”
If this attempt at subverting the legislative process goes anywhere, the entire concept of representative democracy will have been eliminated and replaced with the voir dire process.
No longer would the people have to rely on their elected legislators to enact laws; instead two lawyers in a civil suit would select twelve anonymous jurors who would then determine if the legislators enacted the right laws.
This is perhaps the most constitutionally catastrophic lawsuit ever devised.
There’s more here.
(ht:GR)
April 19, 2007
Shrouded in mystery
Be sure to see Rep. Carolyn McCarthy’s interview with Tucker Carlson about “barrel shrouds”. They would be outlawed by legislation she recently offered. But she doesn’t know what a barrel shroud is. Make sure to catch the last two seconds of the clip when Ms. McCarthy demonstrates her formidable gun knowledge by announcing that a barrel shroud is “the shoulder thing that goes up.”
What exactly is she talking about? A collapsible stock perhaps?
BTW, her own legislation–or at least the 2005 version of it–defines “barrel shroud” for her:
Barrel Shroud- The term `barrel shroud’ means a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel of a firearm so that the shroud protects the user of the firearm from heat generated by the barrel, but does not include a slide that encloses the barrel, and does not include an extension of the stock along the bottom of the barrel which does not encircle or substantially encircle the barrel.
She’s had at least two years to read it, and still doesn’t know what it means. Unfortunately, I think that legislative ignorance extends to more than just anti-gun legislation.
