Want some cheese with that whine, E.J.?

Haha, this is golden. More mainstream media whine, this time from E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post:

In knocking down the District's 32-year-old ban on handgun possession, the conservatives on the Supreme Court have again shown their willingness to abandon precedent in order to do whatever is necessary to further the agenda of the contemporary political right.

Let's take ourselves a little trip back in time, to, oh, let's say May 19, 1954, just a couple of days after this landmark Supreme Court decision, and tweak ole E.J.'s words a bit: "In essentially knocking down the state of Kansas' 1879 law permitting certain school districts to operate separate elementary school facilities for black and white students, the liberals on the Supreme Court have again shown their willingness to abandon precedent in order to do whatever is necessary to further the agenda of the contemporary political left." Really makes his argument that precedent should be respected at all costs look rather silly at best and quite insidious at worst, doesn't it?

Conservative justices claim that they defer to local authority. Not in this case. They insist that political questions should be decided by elected officials. Not in this case.

Way to set up the straw men there, Dick. Absolutely nothing to support those fatuous claims, but just throw 'em out and shoot 'em down, assuming, I guess, that we should believe you based on your lofty position. If you'll begrudge me this one reductio ad absurdum, I can almost see you now at some fancy restaurant: "Don't you know who I am? I am a COLUMNIST FOR THE WASHINGTON FUCKING POST!" As for the deference to the local authority...what if it was another piece of the Constitution local officials were shitting on, like, oh, let's just go balls-to-the wall and say what if local officials were permitting their law-enforcement agencies to bust down doors without warrants looking for banned books...hey, a two-fer, violation of the First AND the Fourth Amendments! I bet you E.J. would be raising hell then, and for good reason...but strangely, he's as silent as can be on such a blatant violation of the Second Amendment such as the D.C. handgun ban. Wonder why that is?

Yesterday's narrow majority spent the first 54 pages of its decision, written by Scalia, trying to show that even though the Framers inserted 13 important words in front of the assertion of a right to bear arms, those words were essentially meaningless.

The hell they did. E.J. just says it's meaningless because the court's definition (and that of the Founders) was different from his. Speaking of long-standing precedent, the majority CITED Miller as they spoke of the well-regulated militia mentioned in the amendment, and they also cited the Founders:

In United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939), we explained that “the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.” That definition comports with founding-era sources. See, e.g., Webster (“The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades . . . and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations”); The Federalist No. 46, pp. 329, 334 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (J. Madison) (“near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands”); Letter to Destutt de Tracy (Jan. 26, 1811), in The Portable Thomas Jefferson 520, 524 (M. Peterson ed. 1975) (“[T]he militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms”).

Also, as I recall, the court went on to say that the right was not confined only to able-bodied men, but to every citizen, thus conferring a complete individual right regardless of physical abilities or lack thereof, or what-have-you. Back to Dionne's whine:

...it was the court's four more liberal justices who favored judicial modesty, deference to democratic decisions, empowerment of local officials and care in examining the Constitution's actual text and the history behind it.

Ah, yes, democratic decisions, ye olde "tyranny of the majority" whose doctrine says that if 51 percent of the people vote to strip the other 49 percent of their God-given rights then that's just too bad for them. Or, as the apocryphal Ben Franklin quote goes, "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for lunch." As for the history behind the Second Amendment...well, David Codrea put that one a hell of a lot better than I ever could:

The quotes from the Founding Fathers concerning the right and the need for an armed citizenry are legion, and exemplified in Patrick Henry's admonishment to "guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect any who would approach that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."

Indeed. Henry, Tench Coxe, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and the list goes on. What the Founding Fathers said, how they felt, about armed citizens is out there for anyone who cares to go looking for it. Hey, check this out! And all these quotes are SOURCED, as well!
I must admit, I feel for the gunnies on the left side of the political spectrum. Really, I do. I'd rather gun control not be used as a cudgel to beat them with during political campaigns, and I know they're tearing their hair out right about now, and I can't blame them. The natural right of self-defense and the regulation (or lack thereof) of the tools used to effect that right -- whether it be a .45-caliber pistol , Ma Deuce, or a belt-fed Mk 19 40mm grenade launcher (if you wonder where that came from, click here for a great fisking from Larry Correia) -- should be completely off the table as a political issue. Yet here's one of the liberals' MSM heroes setting them back on the fight for that by saying that the Heller decision was an advance for conservatives. I know I wouldn't like it much if I were a liberal.

Scrapin' the bottom of the barrel, he is

...that would be Josh Sugarmann, at the Huffington Post:

Fifteen months after receiving the "Sport Shooting Ambassador Award" from the World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities (WFSA), Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has done his part to make sure that, at least in the U.S., the future for his gun industry friends and their lobbying pals is a little bit brighter.

So, according to Mr. Sugarmann, Scalia apparently didn't vote the way he did because of his opinions on the Founding Fathers' intent when they penned the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. No, Mr. Sugarmann thinks, I guess, that Scalia voted the way he did as a form of payback to his "gun industry friends and their lobbying pals." Haha, what a dick. Not that I would expect any higher of a level of discourse from a contemptible slug like Sugarmann, but one would think he'd try harder than what basically amounts to an ad-hominem attack on Scalia. I don't know why he bitches and moans so...after all, as one of the very few FFL holders in Washington, Sugarmann's in a position to make a shitload of money here. And if it's true what some are saying about the future of the gun control movement -- that a great portion of the people behind it want to see guns banned outright, and that the ruling in Heller is going to see them so dispirited that they're just going to stop donating money to gun-ban organizations -- he's gonna need that income.
And the head of the Brady Bunch, Paul Helmke, shows himself to be as clueless as ever:

You can deal with middle-ground restrictions. ... We can enact common-sense measures to make it safe," he said, including banning assault weapons and closing a loophole that allows easier purchasing of weapons at gun shows.

No, you dumb shit, you CAN'T ban "assault weapons." The Supreme Court fucking SAID as much in the decision:

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Scalia also alluded to the fact that the court decided in U.S. v. Miller that arms "used by
the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes," were indeed protected by the Second Amendment. Someone correct me if I am wrong here, but my layman's reading of those passages leads me to conclude that not only is individual ownership of semi-automatic rifles such as the AK-47, AR-15 and M1A -- you know, the rifles erroneously referred to as "assault weapons" -- protected by the Second Amendment, but individual ownership of their select-fire counterparts is ALSO protected. Which would, you know, preclude not only the ban on civilian sales of new select-fire weaponry manufactured after May 19, 1986, but also bans such as the so-called "assault weapons" ban passed by the Democratic Congress in 1994.
Speaking of the Democrats, or at least their constituency, they must think we as gun owners are pretty stupid, as evidenced by remarks such as these:

A big shout out to the Fascist Five on the big court. You just handed the election to Obama. A reverse decision on this case, that is, a true reading of the constitution which clearly defines the right to bear arms as a collective one in the context of now defunct state militias, whould have only inflamed all the gun nuts. It would have increased donations to the NRA backed 527groups and opened a deluge of pissed-off conservatives who would have held their noses and voted for McShame. It would quickly have eclipsed most other campaign issues.

At least I am hoping that gun owners are more aware than to allow this to happen. Anyone who's studied history knows full well that court decisions can be reversed by future courts, sometimes for the better, and sometimes for the worse. And how are those reversals facilitated? Judicial appointments, a few of which I am sure the next president is going to get to make, whoever he might be. And then, of course, there's the martial law boogeyman, suspension of the parts or all of the Constitution in the case of, say, a terrorist attack or something of that nature. And personally, I wouldn't put it past either McCain or Obama to do such a thing. In any event, I don't think the political landscape has really changed too much vis-a-vis the presidential election, even if a lot of the measures Obama wanted to pass have as much as been declared a violation of the Second Amendment...and if it has, I think momentum would have swung to McCain, although not as much as he and his camp might like to think because of his being all-too-willing to compromise with the leftists. (As always, Tamara's take is spot-on...) We'll see how it goes, though...

HELLER AFFIRMED!

Via SCOTUSblog, 5-4, with Breyer, Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg dissenting. I figured as much a while back. Kudos to Justice Kennedy for swinging to the right and proper side on this one. Opinion hasn't been posted yet, but we'll soon see just how right the justices got it...

UPDATE: Opinion here. Good stuff so far...

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications,
e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27,
35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

"...and all the world will love you, just as long, as long as you are..."

So, from JR's musical interlude he posted the other day and last night's ride home from work, comes today's post.
I'd been hearing the song "All Right Now" on classic rock radio well, ever since there have been classic rock radio stations, but I never knew who sang it. Come to find out it was recorded by a band called Free, and as far as I know it was their only hit record in the United States. I don't remember when I first became aware of this, but I knew Bad Company frontman Paul Rodgers was the lead singer for Free. For years, though, I thought Free came AFTER Rodgers' Bad Company days because of its lesser success in the States. As you might imagine, I was quite surprised to find out that not only was it the other way around, but that Bad Company was comprised of not one, but two former members of Free. Bad Company, of course, had several hits through the 1970s that came to be staples of classic rock stations throughout the land in later years, including "Bad Company," "Can't Get Enough," and the tune I heard last night rolling down the four-lane, one of my all-time favorites from any genre, "Shooting Star."




"...Johnny's life passed him by, like a warm summer day...if you listen to the wind, you can still hear him play..."

Bit of an irony here...

Yep, I'm a bit late to the party on this one, but as they say, better late than never...
Via Jeff at Alphecca, we have yet another example of the mainstream media using the First Amendment to shit all over the Second, for teh childrenses, of course:

The current laws are not curing the problem. They are a Band-Aid. Kids are still carrying handguns, still being charged with robberies using handguns, and kids are still being injured by handguns.

The most practical and effective method for handgun control is also the easiest to describe: Ban handguns. That's the position of a number of national organizations, according to U.S. Supreme Court briefs on a pending District of Columbia case involving gun restriction.

Where's the irony, you ask? Well, no doubt after this pencil-necked, bug-eyed piece of shit attorney got his handgun ban, he and his evil like-minded minions wouldn't come get those guns themselves from those who refused to turn them in. Oh, no. He and his evil cohorts would send someone else's fathers, or someone else's sons armed with government guns to get them, and no doubt more than a few of those would die. Because there will be a sizable number of those gun owners who think that when it's time to turn them in, it's time to heat them up. And then where would those kids be? Of course there are those who will say, "Well, don't shoot back, just turn them in and everyone's happy," well, if a man turns in his gun, what does he have left to defend his family, his kids, and his stuff that he's busted his ass to get? He has a government agent armed with a gun who's almost never going to get there in time to defend him and, furthermore, doesn't even have the obligation to get there. (And how does that usually work out?) So much for that "banning guns for the children" bullshit....and then we go back to what I talked about a few days ago, what this piece of shit and those like him think I should have to do to defend myself and Fire. Fuck you, Rob Robinson. Fuck you and your transparent "for the children" horseshit.

Speaking of Party Apparatchiks...

check this shit out.

I should get back on track and say, nicely done! to Mark Kirk for making a push to renew the ban on assault weapons. Even the local promoter of Democratic candidates, the Lake County News-Sun, thinks this is a great idea...

What's the significance of this? Well, it seems this Mark Kirk cretin is a Republican, whose only difference from his opponent on the issue is that he wants to just ban some guns while his opponent wants to ban even more. How special. And how's THIS for a rich irony -- the particular Party apparatchik who penned this blog post supposedly owns a Beretta 9mm pistol with several normal capacity magazines which would be banned permanently by this renewed AWB. From the comments...

in part, I might agree with you that "your" ownership of assault weapons harms no one, assuming, of course, that you don't go Columbine or go out shooting cops. I myself own a Baretta92 with several high capacity clips. I also support concealed carry - for me - not sure about the rest of the yahoos out there (but that's another debate).

But do I really NEED my Baretta to carry 15 bullets instead of 10? I think I'd be OK without the extra firepower.

Do we NEED guns that can shoot right through a policeman's vest?

Do we NEED .50 caliber rifles that can take down a plane?

Rambo might say yes, but Mark Kirk says no, and I happen to agree with him. Nice picture, BTW. Kinda sez it all.

He was speaking to Kurt Hofmann, 45superman of Armed and Safe, who was a former paratrooper; the picture was of Kurt in his uniform. I'm guessing this Team America person was trying to make that into something bad, and as far as I remember he didn't even thank Kurt for his service. (BTW, if you're readin' this, buddy, thanks for your time and service.) As a matter of fact, this is what that cretin said:

Exactly WHY would you want to post picture of yourself with a machine gun? Is that because guns are 'tough' or 'macho'? Are they 'cool', especially a super-lethal weapon like a fully-automatic gun?

Wow. If I didn't know better I would swear I was reading one of those leftist hate sites like the Daily Kos or the Democratic Underground. I did get a huge kick out of KH's reply:

Nah--I just like it because it scares statist pantywaists. Do me a favor and bleat for me, will you? That amuses me to no end.

Now THAT was golden, my friend.
I have to wonder about the assertion that no one really NEEDS more firepower. That always seemed to me to be a pretty presumptuous thing to say, especially from someone who in all likelihood has never gotten tangled up in any kind of armed confrontation. I've never been in one myself, but even if I had been, I STILL would never get up on any kind of pedestal and lecture anyone on how much firepower I think they might need...but then again, in the midst of one of those aforementioned armed confrontations, I very well might feel undergunned behind anything smaller than a Ma Deuce. But oh my gosh, do these people make me want to puke! And to, when I am feeling better, buy one of those so-called "assault weapons" and plenty of food for it. I guess this sort of thing is just what happens in shitholes like Illinois, where most of the so-called Republicans couldn't get elected in Texas as Democrats except MAYBE in leftist enclaves like Austin. I have to wonder if this "Team America" turd is going to think that gun control is so "reasonable" when his pet Congresscritter and all its leetle friends come back to pass a law banning his Beretta 92 and tell him to turn it in or face fines and jail time.
In any event, check out the comments there; it's more than worth your time.

um, no, we DON'T...

This sort of thing just really, REALLY burns my arse...from a commenter at David Hardy's place:

Absolute freedom among civilized people is anarchy, yet that's what libertarians espouse.

Um, no, it ISN'T. God, but this sort of thing just really gets my goat. Why is it that so many people equate the smaller, less-intrusive government philosophy of libertarians with hedonism? It's quite unhelpful, not to mention a blatantly dishonest portrayal of the libertarian philosophy. (Methinks they might be confusing libertarians with libertines, but they seem to be fairly smart people, at least book-smart...) To hear these people talk you'd think those of us who subscribe to the libertarian philosophy don't think there should be consequences for anything. Funny, try as I may I don't hear even people like Ron Paul advocate doing away with laws against things like robbery, rape and murder. I wonder why that is? Could it be that what libertarians espouse is indeed NOT "absolute freedom among civilized people" by itself, but rather freedom tempered with common sense, ethics and morality? Could it be that way too fucking many Republican Party apparatchiks are more interested in seeing their party gain the upper hand in the government than they are in seeing the principles of the Founding Fathers upheld? I tend to think that's EXACTLY what it is.
Oh, and you know what's really ironic? The person who penned that comment has a blog called -- wait for it! -- Common Sense Junction. What a fucking joke...and almost as ironic, is the fact that the Libertarian Party has nominated someone like Bob Barr to be its standard-bearer. I said this in comments to an earlier post, but it fits here.
"Based on some of what I've read about Barr's political leanings, I tend to think he's just hitching his wagon to that horse because it's the most viable one, not because of any credible libertarian positions he holds. To be honest I think the LP's credibility, to the extent it ever had any, has taken a huge hit because of them taking him as their standard bearer. Words mean things, and small-L honest-to-God libertarian Bob Barr ain't."
One must wonder what the hell they're thinking. Is this the best they can do? And, yes, that goes for both the Libertarian Party and those who try to paint libertarians as something they're not.

30,000

So I racked up my 30,000th visitor last Sunday, 7:39 pm from Little Rock, Arkansas with a referral from this search. Thanks to everyone who makes my ramblings a part of your day...y'all come back now, y'hear?

Are they crazy, stupid, or evil?

How about all of the above?

Despite no evidence of legal wrongdoing, the Rev. Jesse Jackson wants a Lake Barrington gun plant shut down.

Jackson, founder and CEO of the Chicago-based Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, will at noon today lead a protest in front of D.S. Arms, a gun manufacturer that's been registered in Lake Barrington since 1998.

More than 30 protests to ban assault weapons are planned today around the country. Stopping gun manufacturing would halt illegal distribution of firearms, which feeds into the illegal drug trade, Jackson argues.

"This is not about Barrington; it's about gun death, and gun manufacturing," Jackson said.

I had heard of D.S. Arms but I didn't know THAT much about them, so after I read this, I summoned my mad Google skills and found out they're a manufacturer of high-end semi-automatic rifles. I could be wrong about the high-end part, but I was looking at their FAL rifles, just for grins. From what I've heard about the FAL it's one of the less-expensive .308 battle rifles out there; another Google search yields this, from Florida Gun Works. Well, the base-model DS Arms FALs run about twice as much as the FAL variants from Florida Gun Works. It only makes sense, I guess, that no D.S. Arms rifle has been linked to any crime in Chicago -- if there WERE any, I'd be wondering where in the hell the gang bangers were getting that kind of money. I guess Jackson's dim-witted asshattery only follows his twisted logic -- the majority of crime in the inner cities committed with guns is committed with handguns, so he's going after the more-expensive semiautomatic rifles.
But his comment that stopping gun manufacturing will halt illegal distribution of firearms does give one pause. If not making guns anymore that criminals don't use anyway will gut the black market for guns, wouldn't stopping the manufacture of guns the criminals do use help it that much more? (No, I DO NOT believe that -- I'm just trying to follow the so-called logic here.) Who's next on that racist piece of shit's hit list? Glock? Ruger? Smith & Wesson? Springfield Armory? (I'd bet on that last one, since it's also an Illinois-based manufacturer of high-end semiautomatic rifles -- and handguns too, Jesse'd score a double on that one!)
As for Jesse and his racism, I suppose some might ask how this particular measure contributes to that...well, I am reminded from a quote Larry Elder mentioned in his book "The Ten Things You Can't Say in America":
"The Wall Street Journal quotes the vice president and general manager of the Austrian company that manufacturers Glocks on the NAACP proposed lawsuit, 'I love it.' He calls the NAACP 'racist.' 'That's what they are, blaming the inner city problems on white gun manufacturers.'"
And yes, when you think about it, that's exactly what Jesse is doing. And then, of course, once again there is the troublesome task of getting all the rifles out of circulation...how about that one, Jesse? Are you going to take them too? Or are you, being the cowardly sack of shit that you are, going to send other men with guns to take care of it?
(h/t David Codrea)

So there was something to that nasty old canard of conservative = racist...

And right about now, I'm sure you're saying, "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? Has Pistolero completely jumped the
shark?"
Well, no. Just read this:

Black conservative talk show host Armstrong Williams has never voted for a Democrat for president. That could change this year with Barack Obama as the Democratic Party's nominee.
"I don't necessarily like his policies; I don't like much that he advocates, but for the first time in my life, history thrusts me to really seriously think about it," Williams said. "I can honestly say I have no idea who I'm going to pull that lever for in November. And to me, that's incredible."
...

J.C. Watts, a former Oklahoma congressman who once was part of the GOP House leadership, said he's thinking of voting for Obama. Watts said he's still a Republican, but he criticizes his party for neglecting the black community. Black Republicans, he said, have to concede that while they might not agree with Democrats on issues, at least that party reaches out to them.
...

Writer and actor Joseph C. Phillips got so excited about Obama earlier this year that he started calling himself an "Obamacan" _ Obama Republican. Phillips, who appeared on "The Cosby Show" as Denise Huxtable's husband, Navy Lt. Martin Kendall, said he has wavered since, but he is still thinking about voting for Obama.
...
Yet Phillips, author of the book "He Talk Like a White Boy," realizes the irony of voting for a candidate based on race to get beyond race.

Sorry, but all that is just so much bullshit. RACIST bullshit, at that. Hell, this is almost the damned textbook definition of the word. Just what else would you call the motive behind voting for someone -- in spite of the fact that you disagree so vehemently with his policies -- just because he's the same race as you? And what the hell ever happened to Martin Luther King's ideal of judging someone based on the content of their character and not the color of their skin? (And yes, one could very well argue that your beliefs, and the government policies you advocate, are indicative of your character.) I'd really, really like to think MLK is rolling over in his grave right about now -- because if it's wrong of white people to judge blacks on the color of their skin, then it's wrong for blacks to do it too -- even if they're doing it to other blacks, and even if they're doing it for what they think are the right reasons. Of course, the black lefties do it too, as evidenced by the attacks Michael Steele faced as he was gearing up to run for the U.S. Senate from Maryland. But no matter who's doing it, it's wrong. As for the supposed "irony" of voting for someone just because of his race to get past the issue of race, I'd just call that a case of cognitive dissonance, and a particularly offensive one at that.

So it seems McCain just might screw us again...

Via just about everyone, comes the news that the Republican nominee in waiting John McCain is considering the selection of Michael Bloomberg as his running mate in the general election. Yes, THAT Mike Bloomberg...the one who, as Bruce so artfully put it, is "... the very embodiment of the Nanny State...The same Michael Bloomberg who has made it his life's mission to bury the firearms industry under mountains of costly litigation..." And, of course, the same Michael Bloomberg who advocates New York-style gun laws in place on the federal level...registration, licensing, you name it. Combine that with McCain's potential appointment of former Ohio senator Mike DeWine as his attorney general -- you know, the guy who's ultimately in charge of the puppy-stompers at the ATF -- and a whole hell of a lot of people should be asking themselves, is it worth it? I love my country more than I hate John McCain too, but at what point is there no meaningful difference between McCain and the smiley-faced Chicago socialist? If you haven't read Bruce's take on that, you really should...

We deserve more credit than this...

From this morning's Houston Chronicle, there's a story on the feds' consideration of a bill allowing national park visitors to defend themselves wih firearms. From the story...

"You read stories about people attacked by animals or who stumble upon meth labs or women who are raped in a national park," the NRA's chief lobbyist, Chris W. Cox, said. "We don't believe law-abiding citizens should be kept from protecting themselves and their families in national wildlife refuges or in national parks."

But opponents, including several former National Park Service officials, say that the current rules are effective — there is little crime in national parks — and that the change would threaten visitors' safety and could easily ruin the family-friendly atmosphere of the parks and other attractions.

For now, guns kept packed

People traveling in national parks and wildlife refuges are required to keep weapons "inoperable or packed, cased or stored in a manner that will prevent their ready use." Someone carrying a loaded gun is subject to a citation and a fine of up to $150.
"A gun will give people a false sense of security that they can approach a bear or a bison," said Doug Morris, a member of the executive council of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees and a former chief ranger and superintendent at Shenandoah National Park in Virginia and Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks in California. "A person with a gun will pull out that weapon and fire away if they feel threatened, even if that fear is illogical."

Yep, you know which side of the argument I fall on, but still I find it quite amazing that the ex-park ranger only addressed the threat of the four-legged predator and not the two-legged one. Wonder why our enterprising journalist didn't ask him about that...or why his response wasn't in the story? But either way, I really think it's a tremendous insult to those of us who own and carry guns for him to say that someone who was carrying, oh, say, a Glock 17 is going to try to take down something like a bear or a bison with it. Anyone who knows anything about guns knows that one of the cardinal rules of armed confrontation is to "bring enough gun." For bear or bison I figure the least amount of gun to bring along would probably be something like the .30-06...which is, I would say, absolute hell to fire in a pistol. No, those of us who want to carry a sidearm on our sojourns into national parks -- and state parks, for that matter -- are going to be carrying them to protect ourselves from the two-legged Homo sapien predators such as Gary Michael Hilton, the piece of human refuse who killed University of Georgia graduate Meredith Emerson as she was hiking in a Georgia state park. The Emerson case should have put to rest once and for all the debate on carrying weapons in parks, and for that matter everywhere else. And it's a testament to the sheer insanity -- and evil, if you want to call it that -- that pervades our national discourse when it comes to defending ourselves vs. waiting on other men and women with guns to do it for us. Evil? Yep, that's what it is. What else would you call the mentality that says you shouldn't be able to carry -- or even own -- the instruments that best enable you to protect your life against those who would take it for whatever reason?

Somebody needs their pee-pee smacked, and HARD...

So I was cruising down The High Road yesterday morning, and what should I find but this...

WHEREAS: The United Methodist Church has a long history of support for gun control legislation. The Social Principles 164 F states the position on the use of violence. Furthermore, the Bible discusses the following imperatives;
1) The Sixth Commandment, “Thou Shall not kill,” not only forbids killing; it also implies that we are obligated to prevent harm and to preserve life and the well-being of human life;
2) The book of Isaiah (1:17) encourages us to seek justice, Isaiah (65:29) speaks of a time when man will neither harm or destroy.
3) Micah 6:8 NRSV “He has told you, O mortal, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?
4) In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus calls us to be peacemakers by saying “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called Children of God”; (Matthew 5:9 NSRV)
WHEREAS: An increase in the incidence of handgun violence has occurred in recent years, with the attendant result of increased deaths. According to Law Enforcement’s Uniform Crime Reports, in the year 2007 in the Central Pa. Conference the murder rate (expressed in per 100,000) in some of 8
our larger cities is as follows: Harrisburg 21.0, York 3.07, Williamsport 3.3, and Columbia 6.31 and, The overall rate for Pennsylvania is 6.2; and
WHEREAS: The Commonwealth’s existing gun laws make multiple handgun purchases easy and cheap encouraging the illegal trade in handguns. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), the enabling factor in the illegal handgun distribution system in our Commonwealth is “straw purchasing” of handguns in bulk by eligible individuals who are, in fact, stand-ins for
prohibited felons who traffic in guns. They then sell to drug dealers, violent teens, and gang members; and
WHEREAS: Statistics provided by the (ATF) Crime Gun Trace Analysis indicate that 76% of the guns used in the commission of a crime in Philadelphia were originally legally purchased within the Commonwealth. However, nearly 87% of that total were not at the time of the commission of the crime in the hands of the original legal purchaser of that weapon; and
WHEREAS: By limiting purchases to no more than one handgun in a 30-day period, legislation would disrupt straw purchases and seriously decrease the number of handguns available to the criminal element for use in violent criminal purposes. Reducing the supply would also reduce the incidence of handgun injury and death within the Central Pa. Conference. Substantial evidence shows that these laws effectively reduce illegal handgun trafficking without negative impact on lawful gun commerce.
WHEREAS: a recent survey, by Greenberg Research, demonstrated that most Pennsylvanians (70%) support enactment of a One Handgun A Month law, and almost all Pennsylvanians (96%) support a law to require the reporting of lost or stolen handguns.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the congregations in the Central Pa. Conference call upon the House and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairs as well as Governor Rendell to enact and sign legislation to place limits on the purchase of handguns by individuals; require reporting of lost or stolen handguns and track registrations; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Board of Church and Society request that the Conference Secretary communicate this resolution to Governor Rendell and Judiciary Chairs; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Board of Church and Society be empowered to form a fully-diverse taskforce to work in coordination with other groups vigorously and continually towards enactment of the aforesaid One-Handgun-a-Month legislation until such time as it is signed into law;
AND FINALLY, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Eastern Pa. Conference of The United Methodist Church encourage the aforementioned taskforce to provide educational materials and resources to congregations in its jurisdiction. These materials should provide information on 1.) the gun violence epidemic, 2.) the causes and affects of readily accessible guns, 3.) how the One-Handgun-a-Month legislation will reduce the supply and the number of handgun deaths, 4.) and finally, afford them a mechanism to use their voices to seek enactment of said legislation, corporately and individually.
Person Responsible for Presenting Resolution: Rev. David Tatgenhorst

It's only been recently, as in the last few months, that I've observed the lobbying of various and sundry churches -- both individual churches and denominations -- for more gun control in various manners, whether it be in resolutions such as this or protests such as the one Michael Pfleger organized in front of an Illinois gun shop. And quite an interesting thought found its way into my head.
I have a pretty good idea of how the religious leftists would react to their tax-exempt status being pulled because of shenanigans like this -- but what about those on the so-called "Religious Right"? I've heard it contended a few times that the Methodist Church has been corrupted beyond belief in the last couple of decades by leftist ideologies, but of course there are still more than a few members of the church who would not agree with the so-called "social justice" strategies, such as this one from Pennsylvania. I wonder what those on the "Religious Right" would say if the tax-exempt status of the UMC was revoked because of the measures they take in advocacy of gun control. It'd make for a hell of a litmus test to find out just where their loyalties lie. Personally, considering the fact UMC was the principal founder of the Coalition To Stop Gun Violence -- which has more or less been advocating federal disarmament of the citizenry since it was founded -- I think their tax-exempt status should have been revoked 35 years ago. (Incidentally, that thread at THR seems to be a pretty good primer on the UMC's anti-gun advocacy.)
Whatever the case may be, it's really quite sickening. I am reminded of an incident from a few years back in Colorado. From the story:

Something extraordinary took place the evening of Wednesday, June 21 in the chambers of the Boulder City Council. 71 speakers rose to argue the philosophy, history, and consequences of civil arms. The administrative hearing started at 6 pm and lasted well past 10:00. Over 50 of those who spoke supported civil arms. Most of the nearly 200 members of the crowd provided moral support, with some wearing "Tyranny Response Team" T-shirts. Bob Glass and others wore Stars of David to symbolize the feeling that gun owners are increasingly being treated as second-class citizens and persecuted with arbitrary, hysterical legislation.

It seems the leftists at the Anti-Defamation League did not think much of the group's tactics and they wrote a letter to Mr. Glass asking him to "refrain from using the Nazi Genocide as a political tool again in the future." Mr. Glass responded (at the same link). You absolutely owe it to yourself to read the entire letter, but here are a couple of choice excerpts:

The TRT is most certainly not trying to "advance its position" by "exploiting" the Holocaust. I am outraged and deeply offended that you would accuse me and the TRT, of such a thing....
If the ADL was truly concerned about protecting Jews, like it purports to be, rather than getting into bed, and sharing the spoils of power with the Democratic Party, it would be the most militant and outspoken defender of the Second Amendment. But no, the ADL has chosen to bow before the Gods of political correctness, so it can keep those contributions rolling in, even at the risk of endangering Jewish lives....
Oh, and by the way, nice going, Bobbie, now you have given the 140 million American gun owners, yet one more good reason to hate Jews....

Before I go back to my own central point, I should say that Mr. Glass pointed out he was not trying to justify anyone's hatred of the Jews but merely pointing out the ADL's dangerous attempt to link leftist issues with Jewish issues. But one could very easily substitute "the United Methodist Church" for "Jews" in Mr. Glass' commentary to the ADL, because the Methodist Church is doing the exact same thing the ADL is doing. No, it isn't right to paint all the Methodists (or any other denomination) with such a broad brush -- but when such a large group undertakes such actions as the UMC has undertaken time and time again, just what else is to be expected? Of course, to be fair, I will point out that the Presbyterians are just as bad. And from what I understand, so is the United Church of Christ, and I am sure there are more. I thought of a pretty apt slogan for the media vis-a-vis how they feel about the right to arms, but the more I read, the more I think it could just as well include the church.
"The mainstream media and organized religion: Using the First Amendment to shit all over the Second since the late 1960s."