Cemetery reviews a gun control special put together by News 12 on Long Island. I could tell his expectations where very high when he said of the Mayor of Newark, “Bonus points for Cory Booker for not looking like a fat drunken slob.” That would be an allusion to the mayor of his city, who is.
Year: 2010
It’s Wyatt Palooza Day!
Today is the Philly blog meet known as Wyatt Palooza, which will naturally mean several fruity drinks at Cheeseburger in Paradise. I’m not really much of a fruity drink person, but I will at least have a Mojito in the spirit of the place. When it comes to drinks, I tend to like ones with more booze than sugar. The Mojito, done right, is a good drink. It’s hard to find a place that doesn’t under booze and over sugar, however.
Margaritas done properly, using Cointreau rather than Triple Sec, are also an entirely acceptable drink for spring and summer. Done right means not frozen. A good margarita has too much booze in it to freeze properly. Last weekend Bitter and I made mint juleps, which I also find to be an entirely acceptable and thoroughly alcoholic drink, despite the presence of sugar. Appletinis, or various other martini drinks made with sugar or frozen are blasphemous, and not martinis. You can’t take a chick drink, put it in an martini glass, and call it a martini. A proper martini is a liquor drink with only gin and vermouth. The only acceptable fruit in a martini is a lemon peel. Vodka is also acceptable if you don’t like gin. I’m neutral on the matter of olives vs. lemon peels.
Now that I’ve had my rant about fruity drinks vs. proper drinks, it is time to go prepare for the Palooza!
UPDATE: And who could forget this classic, thinking about Cheeseburger in Paradise:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GW22sAElpE[/youtube]
Congratulations are in Order
As SayUncle pointed out yesterday, the Memphis Commercial Appeal had their panties in a bunch because the NRA lobbyist for Tennessee was actually, you know, lobbying. Now they give us some idea why they were so upset: she flipped the votes of 9 lawmakers. Great work Heidi!
Lawmakers wanted to float a 51% type bill. Those of you from Texas know what this is, because Texas is a 51% state when it comes to establishments that serve alcohol. What that means is if the establishment derives more than 51% of its revenue from alcohol, you can’t carry there. Most states that adopt this have posting requirements, so you’re not required to go get e financial statement before entering a restaurant, but I’m not aware whether the proposed Amendment that Heidi defeated contained a signage requirement. The obvious problem with this is there are pubs that do serve food that nonetheless are defined as “bars” because they don’t sell enough of it. The bill Heidi helped pass basically doesn’t mess with what is a bar and what isn’t, and just allows carry provided you’re not drinking.
Tennessee passed a restaurant carry law last year, but it was vague, since it allowed carry in restaurants, but not in bars, even though Tennessee had no statutory definition of a bar.
Lead Issue Being Addressed in PA
There’s a bill being floated in Harrisburg that’s meant to address Philipsburg Gun Club’s ongoing dispute with the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. I’ve heard from some activists in the state that have issues with the bill, and I have to join in some concern. If you read the text, it creates a state level task force  to investigate the issue. The politicians who have introduced this bill do not concern me. Senators Wozniak, Pippy, White, Eichelberger and Stout are all A-rated, so I think this represents a genuine effort to try to deal with this dispute.
What concerns me is that the shooter’s voice in this debate will be represented by the American Trapshooters Association and the Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs. I have no issues with ATA’s presence on the task force, and think they bring a welcome voice. I do have some concerns with PFSC’s presence on the task force, as opposed to, say, NRA’s. Since Melody Zullinger left, PFSC has fallen on hard times, and they no longer seem to be active within the community. I’m very concerned about putting an issue this important in their hands.
Other than that, I think this bill does a number of good things. It prevents state agencies from closing down shooting at ranges without going through the PA Game Commission first, and even then only under a standard of, “because of scientific proof that the action is necessary to avoid environmental degradation which is beyond remediation.” It also puts the PA Game Commission, and not the DCNR, in charge of promulgating regulations for the management of lead at shooting ranges.
Spitting on the Second and First Amendments
The New York Times manages to do both in a single op-ed. It’s quite an impressive feat if you ask me. Maybe next week they can add support for quartering of troops for the trifecta.
You Can Tell it Just Drives Him Nuts
Holder doesn’t much like Georgia’s bill to allow carry in non-sterile areas of airports, despite the fact that very few of the 40 or so states that allow carry have any prohibition against the practice.
I’m sure the Administration’s position that “Thou shalt have no position on guns,” drives Holder nuttier than a fruitcake. It’s a joy to watch.
Sestak & Specter Cheer Gun Control
Last weekend, Arlen Specter & Joe Sestak took turns embracing various forms of gun control. We captured video of their exchange, and here it what came out of it.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAGa8y2LlPI[/youtube]
Joe Sestak was flat out lying about NRA’s endorsement in the race. About a week and a half before they ever debated, NRA had already endorsed Pat Toomey in the US Senate race. Arlen Specter’s grade has taken a tumble since he has voted against us every time since switching parties.
Bloomberg’s Testimony
The Hill reports on his testimony before a Senate Homeland Security Committee, where he notes that the Second Amendment should be no barrier to arbitrarily denying Americans their right to purchase a firearm.
AHSA Goes TU
The pirate ship, flying the false flag of gun rights, known as the American Hunters and Shooters Association, is apparently no more. Even if they might technically exist, they are gone from the Internets, which is just about as good as dead these days. We bid them farewell. Sorry guys, we’re just weren’t stupid enough to fall for it.
Freedom Has Consequences
Sebastian! Â Please! Â Good God in heaven, man, how can you keep a straight face and say that allowing the Attorney General of the United States to deny a gun to someone that the FBI considers too much of a terrorist risk to get on an airplane should have unfettered gun purchasing rights?
Do you know that this will marginalize your side with the American people so severely that you will lose credibility for years to come? Â Are you insane? Â Or are you just really so blind that there is nothing, nothing, that you could ever, ever support to keep anyone, anyone, from buying any weapon they wish?
God. This one is so simple. Â I cannot believe that you and your commenters can be opposed to this and call yourselves American patriots. Â It’s put up or shut up time, gunners.
There are many aspects of our free and open society that make life easier for terrorists. I think most Americans would agree that preserving our essential liberties is an important consideration when we’re deciding how to deal with terrorism. Whether the Brady Campaign likes it or not, the Right to Bear Arms is one of those liberties, among many others.
I don’t think anyone here really wants it to be easy for terrorists to get guns. I don’t really want it to be easy for them to roam around the country either. It would be really nice if we could identify all the terrorists who are in the United States right now and eject them from the country. But none of these goals can be achieved without destroying essential liberties. This is a consequence of having freedom. In fact, it’s reasonable to argue that terrorism is a consequence of the open society our freedoms and liberty create.
Which brings us to the “no fly” list. It should be noted that the list doesn’t actually stop anyone from flying. That would bring about constitutional issues because the right to travel is a fundamental right under our system.The “no fly” list only applied to travel in and out of the United States. I should note that even this as not been constitutionally tested as far as I know, so it’s still an open question as to whether this is constitutional, at least as applied to American Citizens. My opinion would be that it does not. The right to travel should, within the confines of citizenship, include the right to travel in and out of the country.
I have little doubt the Brady folks don’t like the idea of gun ownership being a right, but it is, and if we win McDonald, it will likely be deemed fundamental. I don’t frame the “terror loophole” issue in terms of guns or terrorists. It’s a question of whether it’s proper to deny American citizens their constitutional rights without due process of law. To that, I think the answer is no. That’s grounds I’m very comfortable disagreeing with the Brady folks on. Despite what the Luntz poll may or may not have said, I believe most Americans, if asked the question framed in terms of denying Americans Citizens their Second Amendment rights because of their presence on a secret government list of suspected terrorists, you wouldn’t get such overwhelming approval.