The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State …
From Rick Hills of Prawfsblawg:
In my experience, intellectuals (as a class) are ideologically intolerant, easily offended by ordinary humor, and pretentious in their prejudices, which they disguise as universal truths.
I couldn’t agree more. Hat tip to Instapundit (I think)
Remember that VCDL open carry dinner we posted about a month ago? Seems the reporter left out some important context. Go to the VCDL Web Site and scroll down to watch the video. It seems it was a bonafide VCDL event, compete with a state delegate. I would have updated on this sooner if I had known.
Thanks to reader Wai for sending this along. This would not be good for gun rights, as A-B is a big contributor to shooting and outdoor related activities, and there’s a good chance that if they are acquired by a new Belgian master, they might not look too kindly on supporting gun rights.
This is why fighting gun control internationally is going to become more and more important.
According to Thirdpower, the old comments over at the Brady Campaign Blog have gone poof, before Reasoned Discourse set in, have all gone poof. I’m not much of a betting man, but if I were, I kind of wonder of these slides from my presentation, which you couldn’t see on the video, but could hear me referring to, had something to do with it.
I’m willing to bet the Brady Campaign is pretty fanatical about controlling their message. What advocacy groups need to understand is, there’s no doing that in new media. You speak with the message you have, and hope others follow it, but you don’t get much control. Others will argue, and disagree. A few days of studying the gun blogosphere will find as much disagreement as agreement.  But what happens if you’re trying to penetrate new media with a message that’s based on obfuscating issues and deception? It’s not easy, that’s for sure.
I’m going to suggest this is likely a case of correlation not equaling causation, but expect the Brady’s to be touting this high and low. They mention 17 states as having state and local checks, but according to the DOJ, only 13 states have local POCs for firearms background checks, so the sample size is rather small. States which have local POCs:
Of course, that nearly 2/3rds of the states are there are generally pro-gun is something to consider. Another thing to consider is there’s a class of state that has state checks for pistols, and uses NICS for long guns. Maryland falls into that category. Since most crimes and suicides involving a gun involve a handgun, I think a study should include those as well. I’m not sure where they are getting 17 states from, and only 21 states relying on federal checks, since the DOJ states differ, and say it’s 28 states. I haven’t read the study though.
Over at Volokh, Jonathan Adler highlights the slow place the senate is taking on judicial nominations. One thing stands out to me:
By comparison, a Republican Senate confirmed eight of President Clinton’s appellate nominees during his last year in office. Since January 2007, the Senate has confirmed eight appellate nominees, whereas a Republican Senate confirmed fifteen during President Clinton’s last two year.
Adler believes that judicial appointments need to be depoliticized, and I tend to agree (though, as I said, I’m glad the Democrats defeated Bork), but I’m reminded of something Dave Hardy said a while ago in a comment at The Bitch Girls:
Liberals as a general rule see government as a tool to solve problems. They thus are skilled at using it (albeit to create more problems than they solve). Their “best and brightest†go in for government work. When in power, they work to create a government system that will continue to work as they want it to.
Conservatives… well, the social conservatives believe in regulating morality, the libertarian ones don’t believe much in government at all. Their best and brightest stay far away from it. When in power, they at most use their appointments to pay off political favors (pay for work they really don’t want done) and maybe to try, largely in vain, to prevent further encroachments in the short time frame. The political appointments vanish when they lose an election, and there is no lasting imprint. They can’t create a career cadre that will respect liberty, because they have no interest in careerists who would waste their lives working for the government.
The Republicans did what they thought was fair, and the Democrats are doing what they think will win. After all the judiciary is getting way too conservative for them already, I’m sure. The Judiciary is one area I actually think conservatives have been able to make some reasonable inroads against Leviathan, but Democrats are starting to wise up, and do what they do best; use government effectively.
A pretty balanced article about Philadelphia area shooting ranges, and some of the issues surrounding range safety.  Seems one of the clubs had a round get lose and end up hitting a house. Range operators have to be cognizant of how their range is designed, and should seek help from the National Rifle Association on ways to improve range safety. Kudos to the resident who’s house was hit for his attitude here:
Harbert lives just a mile or so from Wicen’s, a long-established range where shooters have been firing since 1928. He and his neighbors insist they don’t want the range closed but they do want stronger safety measures.
I think that’s a reasonable request, and a lot better attitude than the ninnies who just want to come in and close things down. There are ways to make a range perfectly safe, even in a population dense suburban environement. Noise can be abated as well, though not perfectly, since the federal government heavily regulates supressors. It can be hard for smaller clubs that don’t have the money, but the NRA does offer grants to clubs for range improvements, and is something clubs should definitely consider using if they find themselves in a situation where their safety measures are deficient, and they have to shape up or face being closed down.
She’s Governor of Alaska, and pretty young, compared to McCain. But then again, that’s not saying much. Still, I think it would be a good choice for him.
The ACLU needs to get on this like ants on honey. Can someone explain to me why city politicians want to create police states? I’m starting to become an advocate of Congress dissolving DC city government and ruling it directly. Not that I think they’d do much better, but they sure as hell would have a hard time doing worse.