...and we should care about that, why, again?

From a story in this morning's Houston Chronicle, on the impending execution of double murderer Jose Medellin:

"Most of our friends abroad have long since come to the conclusion that this country, on this topic, just doesn't get it," said Southern Methodist University history professor Rick Halperin. "This state is seen as uncaring and hateful. And this case is just right on the top."

Uncaring and hateful. After what Medellin and his fellow thugs did to those two teenage girls that hot summer night in 1993, it's the state of Texas that's seen as uncaring and hateful. A recap, from the same story:

Students at Waltrip High School, Jennifer was 14, and Elizabeth had just turned 16. Their lives were filled with the things that occupy teenage girls. Friends recalled Elizabeth, who was beginning to dabble with makeup, as a "social butterfly." Jennifer tried her hand at basketball before concluding she wasn't cut out for athletics.

On June 24, 1993, the girls were at a party at a friend's apartment when they realized the lateness of the hour. Following the railroad tracks through T.C. Jester Park, they concluded, would shave 10 minutes off their trip to Elizabeth's Oak Forest home.

As the girls made their way past a thicket near White Oak Bayou, they stumbled onto the tail end of a drunken gang initiation. When they blundered into the group of youths, Medellin — 5 feet, 5 inches tall and weighing just 135 pounds — grabbed Elizabeth and flipped her to the ground. Jennifer, drawn by Elizabeth's scream, turned to help and was herself captured.

As the teens cried and struggled, six gang members took turns raping them.

Finally, gang leader Peter Cantu told Medellin, "We're going to have to kill them."

Gang members Derrick O'Brien and Raul Villarreal looped a belt around Jennifer's throat, pulling with such force that the belt broke. Cantu, Medellin and Efrain Perez strangled Elizabeth with a shoelace. Then they stomped on the girls' throats for good measure.

Four days later, police, acting on a tip from a gang member's brother, found the teens' bodies, badly decomposed in the summer heat.

The victims were identified through dental records.

Judge Cathy Cochran, a member of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which last week rejected his appeals, wrote that Medellin bragged to his friends that the victims had been virgins until they were attacked by the gang.

"His written confession," Cochran wrote, "displayed a callous, cruel and cavalier attitude toward the two girls that he had raped and helped to murder. Surely no juror or judge will ever forget his words or his sordid deeds."

After all that -- and don't tell me those motherfuckers outside the United States don't know the history of this creep or his little friends -- it's still the state of Texas, and its attempt to bring justice to the families of Jennifer Ertman and Elizabeth Pena, that's seen as "uncaring and hateful." As another blogger said some time ago on a different subject, "Telling, isn't it, that the presumption for ‘humanitarian consideration’ automatically accrues to the guilty…and never to his victims?" I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd love to tell every one of the self-righteous pricks and prick-ettes in question in no uncertain terms to go fuck themselves.

Now I know how the older folks feel...

...as I sit here and Alan Jackson's "Chasin' That Neon Rainbow," of all things, is playing on Rowdy Yates' Country Gold on KILT. This is just, I don't know what you'd call it. Surreal? Stuff I actually remember coming out on the radio, stuff I remember from when it was NEW, actually being considered classic country now. I still don't feel a day over 18, but it's just a bit weird...

Same Story, Different City, Shorter Timeline...

If you'll indulge me, this is gonna be another one of those regional radio rants...
It would seem that Cumulus Media is doing to 99.5 the Wolf in Dallas more or less the same thing that Westinghouse/CBS/Infinity did to KIKK 95.7 in Houston, albeit on what looks to be a shorter timeline...

KPLX/Dallas morning co-hosts Tara and Justin Frazell exited the station today. APD Smokey Rivers, News Dir. Chris Sommers and co-host Missy remain on the morning show. Cumulus Sr. VP/Programming and KPLX PD Jan Jeffries says there are no immediate plans to fill the positions. "We have a building full of very talented people who are stepping up," he says.

Combine that with the revamping of the Wolf's playlist that was announced some months back, and yes, it looks like the same thing's going on in Dallas at KPLX that went on at KIKK in Houston in the late 1990s on up to November 2002...changing the music, firing the on-air personalities, in short, what Cumulus is doing is destroying the brand, and apparently turning what was once a unique and quite successful station into a carbon copy of pretty much every other major-market country station in the land. I wonder if it'll end up playing "smooth jazz" like what eventually ended up on 95.7. Should be interesting to see, interesting like a car wreck, that is. It's a shame, but it was damn good while it lasted. I remember listening to 99.5 a couple of years after they completely revamped it into The Wolf and thinking, "Wow, they've really got a good thing going on here" with their mixing so much Texas and classic country into the playlist. I must admit, though, I did think there was something that was, shall we say, not quite right with hearing "Coming up, Texas country from Faith Hill!" Maybe there are inherent flaws to varying extents with every kind of radio branding campaigns, but overall what they had going on with 99.5 The Wolf was something with actual substance behind it. At least they played actual Texas artists with Faith Hill and all the other Nashville stars instead of just calling the same old playlist "Texas Country." Of course, as one writer states, this sort of thing might not have been able to work anywhere else:

Geography gave it the opportunity to position as "Texas Country" and that gave it the ability to play anything from Waylon & Willie to George Strait to the local heroes that hadn't yet achieved national stardom (Pat Green, Jack Ingram) or never would (Charlie Robison, Robert Earl Keen). The Wolf was always a yesterday-and-today station (at the outset, its library went back to at least the late '60s), but Philips' emphasis on active records (and willingness to sit out some more passive national hits) made the station feel a lot more Top 40.

Still, though, the fact is that it worked in Dallas for, from what I understand, the better part of a decade. And while there are certain things that might well have needed to be changed, I just don't see why those things would have to be the two things that made the station into the great thing it was -- the music and the voices. I can't help but agree with one of the comments someone made at radio-info.com:

The Wolf was once a great station, but Cume-less has destroyed it. Just look at the talent they had when they were really, really strong, and look at what they have now. Nothing against the current talent, but I don't think it compares to Amy B, Cody Alan, Dingo, Jeremy, Tara, and Justin. We are witnessing the end of an era of what was once a dynasty.

Like Justin says, I guarantee you we will "see him down the road", and hopefully it will be as he helps another station push the Wolf into extinction.

A-yep. I guess it was all bound to happen sooner or later, but still, it's incredibly sad to see.

Makes me wonder...

So I saw this in the Chron this morning, and I got to thinking...

Last Wednesday's decision by the International Court of Justice, the World Court, ordering the stay of the executions of several Mexican inmates in Texas, pending review and reconsideration of their convictions, was the right thing to do. Before Gov. Rick Perry rejects this decision out of hand, he would do well to consider how defiance of the World Court ruling will affect the safety of Americans abroad who rely on the same treaty protections that Texas violated in these cases. Gov. Perry and the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles should concur with the World Court and order a reprieve of the executions until those convictions are reviewed and reconsidered.
...

American officials can provide a number of services for Americans in trouble to assure proper and fair treatment. And on countless occasions, U.S. consular officials have interceded with foreign authorities to protect the rights of wrongly detained Americans. But in order to secure this access for Americans traveling abroad, the United States had to ensure that it would provide access for foreigners in the United States. This is what it did in signing and ratifying the treaty.

Our good faith goes a long way in securing the good faith of other nations. This is not a capitulation of sovereignty, as has been suggested by agenda-pushing commentators. Indeed, it is the ultimate exercise of sovereignty for the United States to accept treaty obligations which will benefit Americans abroad.

I can almost understand their point, but for the severity of the crime that Jose Medellin participated in. It just seems outrageously simple to me, but then perhaps that's because I am not a politician -- if you don't wanna pay the ultimate penalty, don't commit the ultimate crime. I'd argue that the same principle applies to American citizens in foreign lands as well -- if they stay out of trouble then they really shouldn't have anything to worry about. Which is more or less what this guy said, with this great closer:

...especially for Mexico: when you accept our Second Amendment as a valid defense for being in possession of a gun in Mexico, we’ll (maybe) listen to you about the death penalty....

A-yep. Speaking of Second Amendment rights being infringed upon...yeah, it's bad enough that it happens, but what about when it happens due to an honest mistake? Reading this op-ed piece this morning, I was reminded of the fate of onetime Southeast Texas FFL holder Thomas Lamar Bean...

Bean, 62, was a licensed gun dealer, who had never been in trouble with the law except for a few minor traffic violations. Those who know Bean say he is an upstanding citizen of Orange County, Texas.
On March 12, 1998, Bean attended a gun show in Laredo. After the show, he decided to have dinner across the border, in Mexico. Prior to entering Mexico, Bean emptied his Suburban of all firearms except on the backseat Bean had forgotten to remove a box that contained 200 rounds of ammunition.
Bean was stopped at the border crossing of Nuevo Laredo, Tamulipas, Mexico. Mexican authorities saw on the backseat, in plain view, the ammunition box.
Bean was arrested for importing the ammunition into Mexico. Just nine weeks later, on May 27, he was convicted and sentenced to five years in a Mexican prison. In all, he was incarcerated in Mexico for approximately five months before being released to the custody of the United States under the International Prisoner Transfer Treaty. He spent another month in La Tuna Penitentiary, a federal prison in Anthony, Texas, before his nightmare ended on Oct. 21, when he was released from prison under supervision.

After Bean was released from prison, he took action to get his FFL and 2A rights restored. However, as the story states, in 1992 Congress prohibited the ATF from using funds appropriated to it to even investigate applications for relief. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, which basically ruled that inaction by the ATF on Bean's application did not equate to a denial of Bean's application, therefore there was effectively nothing for the court to reverse.
The long and short of all that is this: Thomas Bean served time in prison and was stripped of his God-given right of self-defense, protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, for an honest mistake. (Unlike, of course, this piece of shit Medellin, who made a conscious decision to do what he did.) And through a loophole effectively passed by the United States Congress, there's absolutely nothing Mr. Bean can do about it. Yet as far as I've seen, absolutely no one has stood up for him. Why don't Ellis, Jackson and their ilk push for justice for those like Mr. Bean?

"...Van Halen, NOT Van Hagar..."

I must admit, I got a kick out of this...

I'm ripping Van Halen's Best Of, Volume I right now, and listening while it rips.

We're currently at "Dance The Night Away", which means we're about two tracks from where the train veers off the rails, three tracks from where the cars start to pile up, and five tracks from where body parts start hitting the ground. You'd think time would dull the pain, but it never gets any easier to watch...

I am reminded of the line from Joe Dirt, where David Spade's title character is reeling off a list of his favorite bands: "I'm a rocker through and through. Here's a list of my favorite bands: AC/DC, Van Halen NOT Van Hagar, Skynyrd, Def Leppard..."
I never was a fan of the post-David Lee Roth Van Halen myself. Nothing at all against the other band members, but I think Roth more or less WAS Van Halen and things just weren't the same after he left. The Red Rocker just didn't do it for me, though by himself he wasn't bad at all. (Of course, I only REALLY discovered them after their heyday; I was only three months old when Van Halen's self-titled debut album was released.) There is at least one glaring flaw in that best-of set from where I sit: Eddie Van Halen's guitar instrumental "Eruption" isn't immediately followed by "You Really Got Me." I don't know if the solo was meant to be an intro to the song, but that's the way I've always heard it and it works GREAT. It's always made the hair stand up on the back of my neck, and isn't that one of the things good music is supposed to do? I've always thought that the guys covering "You Really Got Me" on their very first album was quite a ballsy move on their part. To this day it's my favorite song of theirs -- with the "Eruption" lead-in, of course, both of which can be found on that eponymous 1978 debut. The Kinks' 1964 original was all right, but David Lee Roth and the boys really took that song and made it their own. I love it, yes, I do...

Say what, Kemosabe?

You know, I could have sworn the U.S. Supreme Court last month clearly said this sort of chicanery was unconstitutional...

Dane von Breichenruchardt, a gun advocate and adviser to Heller, said further legal challenges are likely because city officials continue to insist on stringent regulations.

"They think they're above the Supreme Court," he said, echoing other gun rights advocates.

Von Breichenruchardt, president of the Bill of Rights Foundation, said that as long as the city outlaws most semiautomatic firearms, Heller likely will be prohibited from registering his weapon of choice — a .45-caliber Colt pistol. Heller said he'd return today to register a different weapon.

.45-caliber Colt. I'm guessing that'd be John Browning's masterpiece that nowadays is made by everybody and their brother, some variant of the Model 1911. The Court clearly said that arms in common use were protected by the Second Amendment, and considering, once again, that defensive sidearms such as the Glock and 1911 variants -- both of those, of course, are semiautomatics -- are close to the top of the best-seller list of guns in this country, it would only follow that they're in common use by the citizens. Which means, of course, that the D.C. regulation that bans most semiauto firearms looks on its face to be unconstitutional as per the decision handed down in Heller v. D.C. I am led to believe that Mr. Heller and his representatives knew exactly what they were doing, though -- they were looking to take action so Heller would have standing to take the D.C. authorities back to court to have these particular regulations struck down. It'll be interesting to see what the courts do with this.
On with the show, commenter dtb had this to say, in comments:

for the record I'm not anti gun. just pro-gun law

I read that and I was reminded of a really good answer to the old question, "You have a permit to carry that?"
"Yeah, I have a permit. It's called the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution."
But you know the Second Amendment is never what they mean when they say things like "I'm pro-gun-law." No. It always means various and sundry regulations that directly contravene that amendment, from background checks right on up to outright bans -- you know, things that would have had our Founding Fathers beside themselves with rage. All of which brought to mind an exchange in an old movie, slightly modified, of course...
"I'm not anti-gun. Just pro-gun-law."
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Random Thursday Hits

I was reading Scott Chaffin early this morning, and a commenter over there offered a pretty good explanation of the mess we're in vis-a-vis the devaluing of the dollar....

When the Fed bails out these banks and mortgage lenders, where do you think they are getting the money? They aren't! They’re printing it. They are giving them newly printed Federal Reserve Notes and the buying power is tremendous for the ones they give them to. As all those greenbacks trickle-down, they lose value. With all those extra dollars in circulation the value of each dollar drops, and the purchasing power drops along with it.

For the record, I think he was making way too big a deal about Phil Gramm's comment about America being a nation of whiners. To the extent Americans expect the government to solve various national problems, I'd say Gramm was spot-on. Back to the money, though, it'd be nice if the politicians would at least look at the way the money supply's being fucked with as part of the culprit behind high oil prices instead of constantly demagoguing oil companies. But of course that would take some modicum of integrity, which is something most politicians at the national level are sorely lacking.
Speaking of oil, I really liked how Ann Coulter responded to the Democrats' assertion that we can't drill our way out of the current energy crisis. From what I remember she said that was more or less like saying you can't eat your way out of malnourishment or that you can't drink your way out of dehydration. Drilling may well not be the long-term answer, but over the short term while we find those elusive alternative energy sources, I think we'd be wise to take advantage of our own resources instead of competing for the rest of the world's resources. If we have the oil and the means to extract it, then it deserves to be asked why in the hell we're not getting it already.
Moving on, Kurt Hofmann over at Armed and Safe had a hell of a good quote the other day about government regulations on gun sales:

I happen to be one of those "extremists" who believe that the government should have no more ability to control the sale of firearms than they control the sale of screwdrivers (in other words, no ability to infringe on that which shall not be infringed).

That was just awesome, and I agree 110 percent. If some people are so dangerous the government doesn't trust them with guns, then what the hell are they doing walking the streets? And why don't the gun-control groups have any problem with these predators walking the streets? I always thought the Brady background check was symptomatic of some huge flaws in the American "justice" system. But of course, such a perspective is way, way beyond the ken of simpletons like Paul Helmke and Sarah Brady.

Finally today, on a non-political note, George Strait's Troubadour cd doesn't bring back the best of memories for me, to say the least, but that record's title song is arguably one of the best songs he's ever recorded. The rest of the cd is pretty good too, but that song just really stands out. He may well be an old troubadour, especially compared to all the rest of the folks on the scene -- but he's still just as on top of his game as he was 20 years ago. When he goes home to his Texas ranch for good, it's gonna be a huge, huge loss for country music -- but the genre is immeasurably richer for his contributions.

A bad way to go about it...

I must admit, I had a pretty visceral reaction to this, on a couple of different levels:
(http://www.thebitchgirls.us/?p=8404)

Just because you don’t participate in a sport and haven’t been introduced to it doesn’t mean you get to start throwing people off the lifeboats. ...Will those of you who are angry at NRA for defending one unpopular sport allow them to stand down on that one? Because I’m sure if you polled all gun owners, many of them would be okay with not “wasting resources” to defend the indefensible guns.

To address the very specific issue of pigeon shoots - no, I have never participated in one. Yes, I have known people who have participated in them regularly. It’s not something I can say I’d jump up to do. By that same token, I’m not going to jump up and volunteer to get my ass up before the crack of dawn and sit in a deer stand in the cold. In fact, whenever I do eventually go hunting someday, I’ll probably hunt some kind of bird because that’s my sport of choice. It doesn’t mean I’m going to throw deer hunters the bus because I don’t feel like joining their little group....

For all the talk about helping us get hunters on board with defending against infringement on self-defense issues and gun bans, it’s dismissive attitudes like this on the shooting side that will help turn them off of the idea of helping us out. Anyone who wants to be an effective activist can’t be seen volunteering to drive the bus that will run over the other group.

I gotta say, I think that's a piss-poor way of defending something. I don't think that just because humans make sport out of something that automatically makes it worthy of defending. If the most that can be said of something like a caged pigeon shoot is that calling it out for the blood sport it looks to be will piss off the people who do it, well then I have to wonder just what the utility is in spending resources defending it. I mean, if it has any kind of benefit vis-a-vis preventing the spread of diseases to animals, humans or other pigeons or something along those lines, then that's the basis on which it should be defended. I mean, hell, ask the pistol shooters in (formerly) Great Britain how approaching gun ownership from the perspective of defending their sport turned out -- and that was a sport, by the way, that could and does quite often have a hell of a lot more of an immediate benefit than something like a pigeon shoot. (To be honest I don't know enough about the pigeon shoot to make enough of a comment one way or the other as I write this, but I will say at first glance that it does look to be absolutely ghastly...) And I would say that if the hunters are going to tell the defensive shooters to go to hell just because we don't defend their sport, then I'd say that's more of a reflection on the pettiness of that contingent than anything else. I can't help but think that putting self-defense -- whether it be with a pistol or an Evil Black Rifle -- on the same level of importance as hunting is to cheapen the value of self-defense. The fact is, it's in everybody's best interest to get on the pistol/black rifle bus. I mean, yeah, it's our problem too if the hunters don't get on board that bus, but still I can't help but think that if Abe Maslow had designed his hierarchy of needs with gunnies in mind, self-defense would be closer to the base than hunting.
And then there's the age-old hunters vs. shooters aspect of this. Personally, I am sick unto death of hearing people shriek about how "we shouldn't offend the hunters!" I remember reading somewhere -- it might well have been on Michael Bane's blog -- that there were 20 million hunting licenses issued in the U.S. every year and between 60 million and 80 million gun owners in the United States. Doing the math, that comes out to between 66 and 75 percent of gun owners in the U.S. not being hunters. Add in the money that the shooters spend on ammunition and accessories, the fact that various defensive sidearms and semi-automatic rifles are the biggest-selling firearms in the country, and it makes me wonder, why are some people so hell-bent on not offending the hunters, let alone to the point that we make such extreme contortions with our ethics? Um, quite frankly, I think that's bullshit, and I make no apologies for that.

...do these people think we're stupid?

By "these people," I mean, of course, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, or The Organization Formerly Known As The National Coalition To Ban Handguns...
http://csgv.blogspot.com/2008/07/freedom-vs-responsibility.html

As German theologian and Nazi resister Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote, "Responsibility and freedom are corresponding concepts. Factually, though not chronologically, responsibility presupposes freedom and freedom can consist only in responsibility. Responsibility is the freedom of men which is given only in the obligation to God and to our neighbour."

There are at least a couple of ironies here, both of which apparently escaped Michael Beard and his evil minions. One is the fact that Beard talks about responsibility at all. After all, I've said it elsewhere, and so have many others, including Kurt Hofmann over at Armed and Safe: Freedom IS responsibility. This responsibility includes watching out and being responsible for yourself in all areas of life, and this includes self-defense, against everything from petty criminals to tyrannical governments bent on your enslavement. And Michael Beard and his cohorts don't support using lethal force for defending yourself from anything on that continuum. On one end, we have Beard saying, "The privatization of public safety is a dangerous issue in our society. And I've always seen that as the beginning of the loss of liberty." If you'll recall, he said this after Arlington, Texas grandmother Susan Buxton made national headlines when she was recorded on a 911 tape shooting an intruder who broke into her home. So that leaves one to think that Beard and his organization thinks Ms. Buxton should not have done anything to protect herself, that she should have waited for the Arlington police to show up and take care of it, or just "given him what he wanted" -- in short, that Ms. Buxton should have just let the Arlington Police Department take responsibility for her safety, despite the fact that various courts have ruled over the years that the police are not responsible for individuals' safety, but only that of the public at large. On the other end, we have Beard's colleague Ladd Everitt contending that "the government should have a monopoly on force." Which brings me to the next irony.
You'll note that Beard quoted a member of the Nazi resistance. Where's the irony in that, you ask? Well, it lies in the fact that if Beard, Everitt and the rest of that gang had their way, there would have been no way for the opponents of the Nazi regime to mount a resistance that was anywhere near effective. After all, while Hitler was not directly elected, he came to power directly through the democratic process.
(http://www2.dsu.nodak.edu/users/dmeier/Holocaust/hitler.html)

The Nazis gradually devised an electoral strategy to win northern farmers and white collar voters in small towns, which produced a landslide electoral victory in September 1930 (jump from roughly 3% to 18% of the votes cast) due to the depression. Refused a chance to form a cabinet, and unwilling to share in a coalition regime, the Nazis joined the Communists in violence and disorder between 1931 and 1933. In 1932, Hitler ran for President and won 30% of the vote, forcing the eventual victor, Paul von Hindenburg, into a runoff election. After a bigger landslide in July 1932 (44%), their vote declined and their movement weakened (Hitler lost the presidential election to WWI veteran Paul von Hindenburg in April; elections of November 1932 roughly 42%), so Hitler decided to enter a coalition government as chancellor in January 1933.

Upon the death of Hindenburg in August 1934, Hitler was the consensus successor. With an improving economy, Hitler claimed credit and consolidated his position as a dictator, having succeeded in eliminating challenges from other political parties and government institutions.

In light of that, I have to ask -- do Beard, Everitt and the rest of that gang think Hitler's "undesirables" should have rolled over and taken what Hitler and his forces eventually handed to them? I can't help but think the answer is yes. How do these people look themselves in the mirror every morning?! On with the show...

The recent Supreme Court decision in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller has set the principle that there are legitimate restraints on the constitutional rights of individual citizens to own firearms. This is consistent with the view of our Founders that government regulation was an integral part of not only the Second Amendment, but ordered liberty in general.

I'd love to know who wrote the history book Beard got that out of, and why in the hell he hasn't demanded his money back, because he was woefully mis-informed. As has been covered on numerous occasions, the regulation mentioned in the 2A referred to training with one's weaponry to assure proficiency with it -- NOT government regulations of and restrictions on the business of selling arms. After all, anyone who's read what the Founding Fathers had to say about government in general knew that they regarded it with extreme distrust, as a necessary evil, one might say -- with an emphasis on the evil part, because the Founders had seen up-close and personal what government could do when it was left to its own devices. They regarded it with so much distrust that they made sure the people would have the means to overthrow it if it got to be too big for its britches. Once again, the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

Do Beard and his cohorts really think the Founders would have approved of the government telling the people what kinds of arms they could and could not own? That the Founders would have approved of the government imposing certain conditions on the ownership of said arms? Does that jibe AT ALL with the words reproduced above that the Founding Fathers penned 232 years ago? If so, how?

...and what, really, is so bad about that?

From the comment section of a Houston Chronicle story about Walmart pulling a Mexican comic book containing a character that some saw as racially offensive:

They will however, continue to sell clothes made in sweatshops,
Rap CD's (sic),and Guns.

To be honest I don't know enough about the whole "clothes made in sweatshops" thing to make an informed comment on that -- but if Walmart keeps selling rap cds and guns, well, so what? (Hey, guess what, smart guy? They're gonna keep sellin' ammunition, too!) I don't understand what's so bad about guns OR rap music. I can't stand rap music, to be honest, but hey, maybe if people didn't buy that shit Walmart wouldn't sell it. To be sure it's not the most wholesome thing in the world, but then again you'll find artists in just about every other genre singing about not-so-wholesome topics too. To cite one of my favorite examples, all the Cross Canadian Ragweed cds in my collection, I picked up at Walmart (with the exception of the double live cd recorded in Tulsa). "I pulled out my Old Timer, I cut that boy from ear to ear..."
And if we advocate pulling some of that not-so-wholesome music from the shelves, the only fair thing to do would be to pull it all. And where would that leave us? Without a lot of great music, no doubt, none of which as far as I can tell had no discernibly negative impact on society. I know many might say that rap music has had a horrible effect on blacks in this country, but I think to say that is horribly condescending to black people. They have choices just like the rest of us. After all, how many Texas red-dirt country music fans do you see going out and robbing banks or killing lovers who did them wrong? Not that many, I would think, and certainly not enough to point to Texas/red-dirt music as a contributing factor to the decline in the region's culture (if there was anything wrong with the culture, which, of course, there isn't).
And the same, of course, can be said of the guns Walmart sells. That in itself is a bit of a flawed argument, as Walmart doesn't even sell the kinds of guns favored by the drug dealers and gangs that are shooting each other down. But even if Walmart did sell personal defensive arms in the lower 48, well, so what? Once again, inner-city blacks have the same free will the rest of us do, no matter what certain people might think. And again, to deny that, to blame it on anyone or anything but the people doing the killing, is a racist cop-out. No matter what stupid assholes like Cam'ron might think.

Mandatory volunteer service...isn't that like "jumbo shrimp"?

As if it wasn't bad enough that that socialist bastard Barack David Lee Roth Obama wants my guns and more of my money, now I find he basically wants to extort my time from me, too...

He said he would make federal assistance conditional on school districts establishing service programs and set the goal of 50 hours of service a year for middle school and high school students.
For college students, Obama would set the goal at 100 hours of service a year and create a $4,000 annual tax credit for college students tied to that level of service.

Oh, now, isn't this just peachy! As if so many college students don't have their hands full now with working to pay for the rent, bills and car note along with their tuition, now we have this smiley-faced empty suit coming along and throwing more bricks in the bed of that truck. As someone who's going to be putting himself back in that pool -- going back to school and working to pay the bills and tuition as well -- I take this sort of thing VERY personally. I have one college degree, and I busted my ass for it, going to school part-time while I hustled the shopping carts off the Walmart parking lot 40 hours a week to pay my rent AND car note AND phone and light bill, along with my tuition. I guess that $4,000 tax credit would be a fair form of repayment for that time, but it deserves to be asked where the money to fund those tax credits is going to come from. You might even say that's yet another form of wealth redistribution, and a particularly underhanded one at that. Whatever the case may be, I got a huge kick out of this comment at Larry Correia's place:

I won’t do 100 hours of community service. I won’t do ONE fucking hour of community service. Community service is for people who don’t pay parking tickets or get caught driving with an expired license. The thought of being forced to do community service pisses me off so much I just might go pee in some homeless guy’s bottle of Thundebird out of SPITE.

A-yep. As far as I'm concerned my working to pay my bills is enough community service all by its lonesome self. I serve my community through the time I sell to my employer. Why isn't that good enough for Barack James Hetfield Obama? This was better put, though, by a commenter over at Professor Stephen Bainbridge's blog:

I perform a socially useful function, by dint of the fact that I am lawfully employed doing something that other people, uncoerced, give me money to do. It’s part of the deal that I turn up on time and produce stuff. Fair enough. That’s my job. But being a citizen is not a job. The government has no rightful say as to how I order my life in any respect other than its direct effect on others, and assuming that by not ‘volunteering’ I am somehow being parasitical on society is essentially fascist (and I’m not just using that as the Argumentum ad Hitleram)...I won’t use the ‘some of my best friends are Jewish’ defence that I do a lot of volunteer work on my own: I don’t. But it’s not up to plaster saints like Barack Obama to guilt me into doing so. By just rolling out of bed on time five days a week, turning up to work, and not breaking any laws, I have fulfilled my side of the bargain. The Self-Righteous Brothers can bugger off.

Amen, brother...
And for all you leftists out there raising fifteen kinds of holy hell about Blackwater and its contracts with the government, fucking explain to me how what Blackwater does for the military overseas is worse than this:

We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set...We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.

Is it wrong that when I read that, it evoked the term "roving bands of armed thugs"? I should say that by no means do I think Blackwater is composed of "armed thugs," because unlike this so-called "civilian national security force" Obama talks about here, at least Blackwater provides a valuable service for our troops overseas. I honestly can't see any kind of redeeming feature for this CNSF. Like Larry Correia, I wonder exactly what the purpose of such a force is, and why it's preferable to the "well-regulated militia" mentioned in the Second Amendment. Could it be that the types of people who consider themselves part of said militia -- or the military itself -- would not be in agreement with the goals of Obama's civilian national security force? Like the man said, that's some scary stuff. Can you imagine the media outcry if it had been John McCain putting forth such a proposal?

...um, say what?

Barack Obama,on the foreclosure crisis in the U.S.:

If the government can bail out investment banks on Wall Street, we can extend a hand to folks who are struggling on Main Street.

Perhaps we can, but that doesn't necessarily mean we should. I wonder if he and his cohorts ever stopped to think that maybe giving government handouts to the Wall Street investment banks was a bad idea for the very same reason bailing out private homeowners on Main Street is, i.e., it just encourages more of the very same bad behavior. It would seem the esteemed (sic) senator is still under the impression that two wrongs make a right. I honestly thought the vast majority of us learned that two wrongs DON'T make a right somewhere around the first or second grade at the very latest. Call it just one more piece of evidence that education doesn't necessarily lead to intelligence or enlightenment -- yes, even when that education is at a supposedly top-tier institution like Harvard University. But then, you never know. He might have just said that because he thought all those ig'nernt rubes who cling to their religion and guns -- as he apparently sees those of us in Middle America -- would think it sounded good. Either way it doesn't speak well of him, as a man or someone who aspires to lead this great country.

A little music for the Fourth...

I've always been a huge, huge Ray Charles fan. You hear people talk about a singer now and then and they'll say something like, "He could sing the phone book and it'd be an instant classic." And so it was, with the R&B crooner from small-town Georgia who was completely blind by the age of seven. I'd say he could probably take any genre short of thrash metal and fit right into it, even country; although I never was a big fan of the countrypolitan sounds of Charlie Rich and Ray Price, which was where Charles positioned himself in the country genre, somehow you'll always find me leaving the radio right where it is when "Crying Time" or "I Can't Stop Loving You" comes on the classic country station here.
But to my ear, the finest piece of Charles' repertoire just has to be not one of the blues or country standards he made his own, but his rendering of "America the Beautiful," the old Katherine Lee Bates poem that was put to the music of Samuel Ward, the composition that many believe should be our national anthem. I'd bet a good chunk of change that a lot of people think that because of Ray Charles.

More Leftist Shrieks re: Heller

...this time from Mark Moron Morford, of the San Francisco Chronicle:

Here is your Bush-loaded Supreme Court, for one regrettable example, addressing the much-misinterpreted Second Amendment for the first time in eons. Here is the majority of the court basically arguing that, in case you forgot, much of America still blindly loves its guns, and of course handguns are a nice addition to any God-fearing family's arsenal of ridiculous self-defense weaponry and therefore banning a device designed to do nothing but kill other humans is just plain wrong.

I read the decision in Heller v. D.C., or at least a pretty good chunk of it. Nowhere in it did I see anyone "argue" that "much of America still blindly loves its guns." But then I guess it would have been just way the hell too much for me or anyone else to expect a whacked-out leftist like Mark Moron Morford to approach this topic with anything within 100 light-years of intellectual honesty or integrity. He goes on to say...

It is, by all accounts, a severe, dark cloud of a decision...

Now, if you'll click that link, you'll be taken to a roundup of newspaper editorials and op-ed pieces from around the country, including the Washington Post, the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times. Hey Marky, does the term circle-jerk mean anything to you?

...surely that's what the founding fathers intended, more paranoid NASCAR dads stocking Glocks in the rec room to protect the rug rats from those icky drug-dealing rapists who never come.

Nah. The Founders would have likely preferred they stock long guns. Something like an AR-15 or even better, AR-10. Or maybe even some of each. They say the pistol is just what you use to fight your way to your rifle, but then I really didn't expect some candy-assed drama queen like Mark Moron Morford to know that. Oh, wait...from what I hear, Mark Moron Morford is openly gay, so it might be "stereotypical" for me to call him a drama queen. But then I'm just going on what he's writing. I'm pretty sure that's a hell of a lot more solid than the paranoid NASCAR dad stereotype. Which bodily orifice do you think Marky pulled THAT one out of?

Is it worth mentioning how handguns kept in the home are much more likely to be used for suicides and homicides, not to mention fondled by those same curious rug rats who find daddy's little Elvis in the sock drawer and decide to aim it at their sisters?

Sure it's worth mentioning -- mentioning in the context of it being an out-and-out lie, a contention that's directly contradicted by statistics. But Mark Moron Morford isn't interested in the truth. He is and always has been about little more than drama-queen hysterics.

Worth pointing out that the self-defense argument is not only pathetically illogical, part of a silly pseudo-cowboy mythology, it's also statistically untrue, a perpetual, insidious lie that's undermined the American identity for generations?

As Ace Ventura might say, "Oh re-he-he-heeeeeaaaallllyyyy?"


What a blithering fool. Call this one a three-fer! Here we have:
1. Another big-city media type using the First Amendment to shit on the Second, AND
2. Another instance of a leftist casting gun control as a liberal talking point, thus further setting back the cause of getting the RKBA to the point of being a non-partisan issue, AND
3. Another instance of a member of what could arguably be called a vulnerable segment of society -- the homosexual community -- effectively arguing they shouldn't be able to defend themselves from violence. I guess it was only natural that such a watershed event was going to bring these loons pouring out of the shadows, but still it's a thing of perverse beauty to behold.

"...a bag of loot"?!

Somehow I knew Lisa Falkenberg wasn't going to like much the fact that the Harris County grand jury no-billed Pasadena resident Joe Horn for shooting two burglars who broke into his neighbor's unoccupied home last October....

These are good times for gun owners.

Between the U.S. Supreme Court striking the D.C. gun ban and the clearing of Pasadena vigilante Joe Horn, I'm halfway expecting Gov. Rick Perry to issue an executive order this afternoon granting the long-held wish of open-carry petitioners to grant their right to sport handguns in hip holsters.

I read that and seriously got so caught up in what she said about the open-carry executive order that I thought she actually wrote that Perry WAS going to sign that order, and thought, "Oh, HELL yeah!" But then I went back and read it again and got what she was actually saying. Huh. She was saying that she was halfway EXPECTING Perry to sign that order. And with her typical air of condescension, no less. Oh, and she's saying that like it's a BAD thing...

...deadly force is justified if the shooter "reasonably believes" it's immediately necessary to stop the burglars from escaping with the stolen property. It's also justified if the shooter "reasonably believes" that "the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means."
Now, Texas law isn't known for its progressive trend-setting. Ours is the same state that had to be told recently by the nation's highest court that we can't wait until indictment to give poor people attorneys to defend themselves. But this statute appears to be particularly antiquated.

George Dix, a law professor at the University of Texas, located its predecessor in criminal code from the mid-1850s. The statute, very similar to the modern one, was found in the "Chapter of Justifiable Homicide," which also included an article explaining the circumstances under which it's justified to kill a slave.

Oh, nice work, Lisa. I'm sure your leftist professors are incredibly proud of you this morning, finding a way to link Joe Horn helping his neighbor out with killing slaves. Works really well with the "RACIST!" angle that's being covered by the professional race-baiters and grievance-mongers at LULAC. Really, though, what's that provision have to do with the one Joe Horn was no-billed under?

...(Horn) seemed to realize early on that needlessly shooting two men — regardless of their criminal behavior and illegal immigrant status, of which Horn was unaware at the time — would weigh heavily on him.

If I didn't know better, I'd say Lisa, who was mercilessly flogging Horn in her assigned space six months ago, is almost trying to sound like she feels sorry for him now. But I'm guessing that what she's really trying to do is make it sound like deep down he knew he shouldn't have shot those bastards. The fact is, though, that pretty much everyone who is forced to pull the trigger in self-defense feels pangs of regret for that decision and never really gets over it 100 percent. I'm betting Horn knew this. Still, he did what he thought to be the right thing. And yeah, I'd still be honored to have him or someone like him for my next door neighbor.

This case has never been about gun rights, or self-defense.

Perhaps not, but it is very closely related. Part of the rationale behind the whole concept of carrying a weapon is that those who carry them can not only protect and defend themselves from harm -- or deprivation of property -- but that they can do the same for others as well, thus producing a net benefit for society. It's that protective instinct that brings forth the warriors, the sheepdogs, if you will -- and if it were suppressed as I'm guessing people like Lisa Falkenberg think it should be, the consequences would be dire, not just for our society, but for Western civilization. We are our own best protectors -- and those for our neighbors as well, quite literally.

The little old man from Pasadena gunned down two men like dogs. For a bag of loot.

Wow. Just...wow. I am absolutely flabbergasted here. I guess she thinks Joe Horn should have just let those two thugs make off with his neighbor's stuff, stuff that man busted his ass for, stuff that it took that man no telling how long to get. I guess this is just an offshoot of that pernicious "just give them what they want" outlook, but still it's no less infuriating. I bet you that if it was HER stuff it wouldn't have been just "a bag of loot." If there is any justice in the world, sooner or later people who talk shit like this are going to come home one day and find their houses ransacked and looted, and everything they've worked for, GONE. And they will bloody well fucking deserve it.

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."