I Just Don't Feel Like Blogging Today

But that is not unusual these days. I am still around, paying attention as much as ever. Probably more than usual. I just don't feel like writing about what is starting to look like the complete destruction of capitalism, as well as this country.

I have to agree with one of my favorite bloggers on this one:

If you've ever been curious about why I don't blog nearly as much as I used to just read the story (link to story here) excerpted above.

It takes a psychic toll to comment upon news which is so relentlessly grim. Imagine that someone you love dearly were dying a slow and painful death from cancer. Would you be eager to describe their symptoms and catalog their suffering in a daily blog?

The nation has already come so far down the road to socialism that it would be difficult to avoid completing the journey under the best of circumstances. The fear and despair caused by another Great Depression would, I fear, be the catalyst the left needs to take America beyond the "soft socialism" of Western Europe and into the kind of totalitarian socialism seen in the Cuba of the Castro brothers or that which is taking shape in the Venezuela under Chavez.

More at the link.

Rest assured, I am not giving up. I have been on the phone and worn out my keyboard with e-mails. I just really don't feel like talking about it.

Obama On Concealed Carry Laws

More about guns. I know, but this is a huge issue with me:

Obama Is Already Helping The Economy

Through higher gun sales:






Pay attention to the last few seconds of the second video. It's just not Obama people are scared of. It's any strong Democrat.

In my opinion the second amendment is the most important right we have. It ensures that we get to keep the others.

H/T: Confederate Yankee

New NRA Ad

Attention gun owners! Thinking of voting for Obama. Take a look at this:



This man should scare the hell out of a gun owner. No, he should scare the hell out of everyone who loves America.

Let's take a look at a few things:

1) The economy:

He wants to spread the wealth. He wants to tax successful small businesses. What he is really saying is he wants to force people who provide jobs for the "little man" into either laying off workers, or cutting their hours and/or bonus incentives.

Obama likes to lay the blame on the Republicans for the recent credit fiasco. The truth is that he and his friends in the democratic party deserve the blame for this mess.

Bush and McCain have been unlucky in that this "house of cards" came tumbling down on Bush's watch. But the truth is; Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton built the damn thing. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd built additions and defended it as long as they could.

I think McCain would be up by 10 in most polls had he had the balls to vote against the bailout. But that is another matter.

2) Universal Health Care:

This is a disaster waiting to happen. I think the only reason this plays so well is that a lot of people mistake this to mean free health care. It is not!!! It will be paid for with more taxes. Not to mention the fact that the government would be in charge of this system. Do you trust the government to run this program efficiently? If so you might want to make an appointment with a therapist before Obama takes over.

3) Associations:

A lot of people are tired of hearing this. The only problem is that it DOES matter who a person chooses to associate with. You can bet, if McCain was friends with terrorists, racist preachers, or shady real estate brokers it would damn sure be "news worthy".

H/T: Hot Air, for the video.

For the Tennessee fans: Know why Obama will never win in Tennessee? Because if you put a G in front of his name it spells GO BAMA!

How Well Is Chicago's Gun Ban Working?

You guessed it, not very well:

As Gov. Rod Blagojevich on Wednesday signed a new law that will put in place tougher penalties for selling guns to minors, he also announced he's got a new idea to help combat the violence that Chicago is experiencing: he's talking to the Illinois State Police and the National Guard to see if they could help.

The Chicago Sun-Times depicted Blagojevich as the "new sheriff in town" Thursday morning in its coverage of the governor's plan to form an "elite tactical team" to help the city fight crime.

"Violent crime in the city of Chicago is out of control," Blagojevich said at the bill signing ceremony. "I'm offering resources of the state to the city to work in a constructive way with Mayor Daley to do everything we can possibly do to help stop this violence," said the governor.

The summer of 2008 will be remembered as especially violent. Blagojevich said there's been a child shot nearly every day since June 26, with 29 Chicago Public School students shot since last fall.

So what does he think will help? Once again, you guessed it, tougher gun laws:

The bill signed Wednesday puts the adult who provides a gun to a minor in the same legal hot water as the minor who uses it to commit a crime.

The bill signed Wednesday means that adults who sell or give guns to minors are eligible for the same sentence as minors convicted of violent crimes -- including murder -- in which they used the weapon.

Not too bad of a bill, but hardly enough to change the crime rate.

How about letting the citizens in Chicago defend themselves? The Supreme Court have said that we have that right. Why does that not apply to the people that are under attack in there own cities? Look, I live in a place where I am completely comfortable walking down any street at 3 o'clock in the morning. We have some crime, but not that much. I have the right to carry my gun with me for self defense. I hope and pray that I never have to use it. But if I do need it, I have it.

I could not imagine living in a place where the chances are hundreds of times higher that I would be a victim, and where I could not defend myself from such odds. I would not live in such a place. But I have a choice, and I know that many people do not. These are good people that are forced to live scared for their lives, because their leaders don't trust them enough to allow them to protect themselves.

Anyone Know Where A Man Could Get One Of These?

Thanks go to Texas Fred for this one.

What Did We Learn From The D.C. v. Heller Case?

A.W.R. Hawkins has an interesting analysis:

The more news coverage of the Supreme Court’s “historic” decision upholding the Second Amendment I saw the more depressed I became. Though I’m grateful for the way the decision fell, I could not help being appalled by the fact that only 5 out of 9 justices now believe that the Constitution is constitutional. In short, the United States is only one liberal Supreme Court justice away from being judicially transformed into France.

...the American people as a whole are ignorant of natural law, the writings of our Founding Fathers, and the Constitution itself. Educators at every level have sought to keep students from being exposed to any mention of America’s gun heritage. As a result, one rarely can come across a college student who has really read the Second Amendment, or Benjamin Franklin’s check on unlimited democracy: “Democracy is two wolves and lamb voting on what to eat for lunch, liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote,” or George Washington’s simple assertion that “A free people ought to be armed.” Such isolation from America’s history and heritage makes it possible for Leftist news outlets to run headlines which state the obvious yet sound groundbreaking to so many.

Emphasis is mine.

I would like to ask for your opinion on this quote from Justice Stevens:

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the justices who voted for the individual right interpretation “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.”

I don't know about you, but I am pretty sure the founders of this country would take offense at this statement. Especially since they had just completed the act of using weapons against their former government to establish this fine country.

The most disturbing line of the article:

Yet the magnitude of this issue persuades me that I have not said enough, and that I even understated the seriousness of this matter in my opening paragraph when I indicated that only 5 out 9 justices now believe the Constitution to be constitutional.

Amen!

I Have A "Dissenting Opinion" For This Comment From Justice Breyer

I would like to say a few words about this comment from the dissenting opinion that Justice Breyer wrote:

"If a resident has a handgun in the home that he can use for self-defense, then he has a handgun in the home that he can use to commit suicide or engage in acts of domestic violence,"

Well that certainly makes since. Let me try some:

If you drive a car you can do it safely, or you can drive 120 miles while drunk. Let's ban cars.

If you have a fork in your house you can use it to eat, or you can poke your eye out with it.

If you have some pain medication you could take it for your bad back (republicans - the one from working too hard, democrats - the one you got from taking a few too many of those pills the night before and falling down the stairs), or you could use them to commit suicide. Let's ban pain medicine.

If you have a baseball bat you could have some fun out in the yard with the kids, or you could settle a dispute with your neighbor. Let's ban baseball bats.

A couple more for any lefty troll that might roam through:

You have a Constitution. You could read it or you can continue to shut one, squint the other and make it read any damn way you want. Let's ban the Constitution.

You have a brain. You could try using it, or you could just keep voting democrat. I would say let's ban brains, but there are so few people using them no one would notice.

Let The Fun Begin, Lawsuit Filed Against Chicago Handgun Ban

Suit filed within 15 minutes of ruling:

The U.S. Supreme Court says Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, and the ruling will likely invalidate the 26-year-old ban on handguns in the City of Chicago.

In fact, the Illinois State Rifle Association has already filed a lawsuit challenging the Chicago ban. They filed the suit within 15 minutes of the high court's ruling.

The NRA plans to do the same:

The National Rifle Association also plans to file lawsuits in Chicago and several suburbs, as well as San Francisco, challenging handgun restrictions there based on Thursday's outcome.

Could be an interesting few years for the courts.

By the way, could someone tell me what the hell this quote from Chicago's mayor Richard M. Daley means? I don't know if it is just me or if it makes no sense at all:

"It is frightening that America loves guns," the mayor said, "and to me, I think this decision really places those who are rich and those are in power, they'll always feel safe. Those who do not have the power do not feel safe, and that's what they're saying. If you're elected officials, you feel safe. You cannot carry a gun into a federal building. You cannot carry a gun into a federal court. So they're setting themselves aside, and really, they're saying to the rest of America that the answer to all the constitutional issues is that we can carry guns. And I just don't understand how they came to this thinking."

Thank you.

Best Lines Of Justice Scalia's Opinion

First off, let us start with the best line of any document to come from the government of this country. It is the reason we have been able to keep the rest of the rights we possess:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Now for the ruling:

In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.

It is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible to ban the possession of handguns so long as the possession of other firearms (i.e., long guns) is allowed. It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon. There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upper body strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.

The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

...the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners and JUSTICE STEVENS propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. But it is easy to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the hybrid definition. Giving “bear Arms” its idiomatic meaning would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war—an absurdity that no commentator has ever endorsed. See L. Levy, Origins of the Bill of Rights 135 (1999). Worse still, the phrase “keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word “Arms” would have two different meanings at once: “weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of “bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.” Grotesque.

It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution. JUSTICE BREYER’s assertion that individual self-defense is merely a “subsidiary interest” of the right to keep and bear arms, see post, at 36, is profoundly mistaken. He bases that assertion solely upon the prologue—but that can only show that self defense had little to do with the right’s codification; it was the central component of the right itself.

A good day indeed.

Read it all here.

Second Amendment Affirmed

The supreme Court affirmed the individual's right to keep and bear arms today. Justices Breyer, Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg dissented.

Justice Scalia wrote the opinion. It can be found here. I am going to take a while to review it and then give my opinion. Check back later for that.

Supreme Court To Rule On The Second Amendment, Possibly tomorrow

And it looks like good news:

...Scalia and Thomas are evidently already on record as supporting an individual rights reading of the Amendment, and from what observers could tell from the oral argument back in March, Anthony Kennedy was himself leaning that way. The decision should drop tomorrow morning so take advantage of the slow news this afternoon and read Mike O’Shea’s primer at Concurring Opinions to prepare yourself...

No Privacy For TN Handgun Carry Permit Holders

Thank you TN House Speaker Jimmy Naifeh:

The Tennessee Department of Safety has issued more than 339,000 handgun carry permits since October 1996. Yesterday, state House Speaker Jimmy Naifeh, using his usual thuggish tactics, killed legislation that would have safeguarded the personal information of those carry permits, and also killed legislation that would have allowed carry permit holders to carry their gun in restaurants.

I am not going to discuss the privacy bill. That one is self explanatory. Every American has the right to privacy.

I do not understand the opposition to the bill that would allow someone to carry their weapon in a restaurant that sells alcohol. The bill plainly states that you cannot be drinking. If I owned a restaurant I would want my law abiding customers to be able to defend themselves. It is time for the 339,000 permit holders to stand up to Naifeh and his bunch.

Go to the link above and take Bill Hobb's advise. I am.

Busy Day

I am having one.

So here is a few things I would suggest you read:

Second Amendment

Obama

Iraq

Iran

One side note is this:

I have been hearing of why I should vote for John McCain because of the Supreme Court nominees. Did they forget the gang of 14? I guess so. McCain would not appoint a conservative judge. The best we could hope for is another wishy washy judge that the democrats would not put up a fight against.

Updated: Here Is A Thought, Go By The Constitution

Washington D.C. is dead set on not going by the Constitution:

D.C. officials said yesterday a decision by the Supreme Court to strike down the District's 32-year-old ban on handguns would force them to revamp the city's stringent gun-control statutes.

"There's just this really anxiety-producing proposition on what would we have if we relaxed these laws," said D.C. Council Chairman Vincent C. Gray, a Democrat. "We'd have to evaluate the court's decision, then look at what revisions in our own statutes would allow us to have the maximum restrictions on guns in the District."

If the Supreme Court decides to void the gun ban, then why not try it the way it is supposed to be. Washington D.C. has a very high crime rate now. Why not let the citizens of the city have the advantage of defending themselves?

Most, if not all of the cities that have strict laws against guns also have higher violent crime rates than the rural areas. The amount of property theft in Washington D.C. is about twice as high as the state of Tennessee. I would guess that more than half, if not two-thirds of the homes in Tennessee have at least one gun. Does it not even register to these people that a thief or mugger might consider this before attempting to steal from you? I know I would.

I know what you are thinking. Tennessee and D.C. are totally different places. Maybe one of the reasons for this is because the State of Tennessee trusts it's citizens enough not to take away there Constitutional right to defend themselves.

So that is what I suggest. Let the people in D.C. have the rights that most of America has. Don't treat these people as less than the people that happen to live outside of the city. As Americans we all deserve to be allowed our Constitutional rights.


Update: Check out this video of a D.C. resident explaining how silly the gun laws are there.

And, It looks like the Supreme Court is headed in the right direction.

Bush's Supreme Court Appointees Seem To Get The Second Amendment

From Reuters:

...

"What is reasonable about a total ban on possession?" Chief Justice John Roberts asked Washington, D.C.'s lawyer, Walter Dellinger, in referring to a controversial provision barring the private possession of handguns.

Justice Samuel Alito, who like Roberts was appointed by President George W. Bush, cited another provision requiring rifles or shotguns be kept unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock, and said it did not seem as if they could be used as such for the self-defense of one's home.

I have been very outspoken in my opposition to some of President Bush's policies. It seems like he made a good decision on the judges he has appointed though. Of course there was that whole Harriet Miers fiasco, but I can cut him a little slack on that. Especially with news like you see above.

Just What Does The Second Amendment Say?

Tomorrow we begin the process of finding out:

On March 18, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in District of Columbia v. Heller. The Court announced its decision to take the case in which plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of the District's gun ban last Fall. The District of Columbia appealed a lower court’s ruling last year affirming that the Second Amendment of the Constitution protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that the District’s bans on handguns, carrying firearms within the home, and possession of loaded or operable firearms for self-defense violate that right.

For the first time since 1939 the Court will decide which interpretation we will adhere to. This is a big deal. I have read several statements in the press that this will only effect DC. Go ahead and believe that one if you want. If this goes the wrong way, the future of this country will change for gun owners. Not just in DC. but all over the country.

Look, the UN wants us to get rid of our guns. Hell, they hold a conference on it every year. Should they read it wrong, we will be headed in that direction.

Who Says Guns Deter Criminals? The Law Enforcement Alliance Of America Does

From World Net Daily:

When sexual assaults started rising in Orlando, Fla., in 1966, police officers noticed women were arming themselves, so they launched a firearms safety course for them. Over the next 12 months, sexual assaults plummeted by 88 percent, burglaries fell by 25 percent and not one of the 2,500 women who took the course fired a gun in a confrontation.

And that, says a new brief submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court by police officers and prosecutors in a controversial gun-ban dispute, is why gun ownership is important and should be available to individuals in the United States.

The arguments come in an amicus brief submitted by the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, whose spokesman, Ted Deeds, told WND there now are 92 different law enforcement voices speaking together to the Supreme Court in the Heller case.

...

"Guns save lives," the brief said. "In the hands of law-abiding citizens, guns provide very substantial public safety benefits. In all 50 states – but not the District – it is lawful to use firearms for defense against home invaders. The legal ownership of firearms for home defense is an important reason why the American rate of home invasion burglaries is far lower than in countries which prohibit or discourage home handgun defense."

The brief said handgun ownership reduces the number of confrontational home invasions, so "the total U.S. violent crime rate [is reduced] by about 9 percent."

Read the rest at the link.

This is probably one of the top 5 cases the Supreme Court has ever heard. Montana officials sure think so.

John Stossel: Guns Save Lives

This is a great article on guns:

It's all too predictable. A day after a gunman killed six people and wounded 18 others at Northern Illinois University, The New York Times criticized the U.S. Interior Department for preparing to rethink its ban on guns in national parks.

The editorial board wants "the 51 senators who like the thought of guns in the parks -- and everywhere else, it seems -- to realize that the innocence of Americans is better protected by carefully controlling guns than it is by arming everyone to the teeth."

As usual, the Times editors seem unaware of how silly their argument is. To them, the choice is between "carefully controlling guns" and "arming everyone to the teeth." But no one favors "arming everyone to the teeth" (whatever that means). Instead, gun advocates favor freedom, choice and self-responsibility. If someone wishes to be prepared to defend himself, he should be free to do so. No one has the right to deprive others of the means of effective self-defense, like a handgun.

Read it all at the link. The money quote from the article:

..."If someone gets into your house, which would you rather have, a handgun or a telephone? You can call the police if you want, and they'll get there, and they'll take a picture of your dead body. But they can't get there in time to save your life. The first line of defense is you."

I heard a discussion the day after this shooting on the radio. Sorry, I can't remember who it was. One of the people said that an armed citizen might have been able to prevent, at least, some of the deaths. The other person raked them over the coals for politicizing the topic so close to the time of the shootings. I guess that all depends on which side of the topic you agree with.

It is a simple fact that an armed citizen is safer in these situations than an unarmed one.

Montana Officials Claim Second Amendment Rights Are Clear

From World Net Daily:

Montana officials are saying that the United States already has resolved any questions about the 2nd Amendment's application, defining that "any person" has the right to bears arms.

That's the issue at hand in a pending U.S. Supreme Court case originating in the District of Columbia, where authorities have banned handguns under the claim that such a limit is "reasonable" and therefore enforceable even given the rights granted by the 2nd Amendment.

...

"If the Supreme Court were to accept the Solicitor General's line of argument, D.C.'s categorical gun ban of virtually all self-defense firearms could well be found to be constitutional. ..."

He warned such a precedent to affirm any and all gun restrictions if they are considered by a judge to be "reasonable" would place those rights on the lowest rung of the constitutional ladder.

How serious are these lawmakers?:

In a joint resolution from the Montana leaders, including Congressman Denny Rehberg, they caution that should the Supreme Court decide to change the U.S. interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and allow those rights to apply only collectively, it would violate the contract under which Montana entered the union as a state.

"The Montana Resolution cautions that a collective rights decision would violate the Montana contract for statehood because when that contract was entered the collective rights interpretation had not yet been invented and the individual rights view was an accepted part of the contract," an announcement from the leaders said.

"A collective rights decision in [the pending court case] Heller would not only violate Montana's contract for statehood, but also Montana's customs, culture and heritage. We hope the Supreme Court will recognize and credit the contract argument, an argument unmentioned in any of the briefs submitted in the Heller case," said Gary Marbut, the president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association.

Good for them. I hope there are a lot more states that come out with Resolutions like this. As a matter of fact, I think I am going to write my representatives now. If you feel inclined to do the same, check out the new "Write to Congress" gizmo in the side bar. Just throw your zip code in there and start writing.