Missing Important Facts, Even When They Take Our Side

When an Oregon paper editorializes that Obama’s pro-gun moves have been sensible, it really has to chap hides over at the Brady Campaign. That’s partially because the paper otherwise supports the anti-gun agenda and is willing to give a pass on some issues, but also because even when they take our side, the facts are wrong. It’s rather funny, actually.

The anti-Second Amendment group last week criticized Obama for “continuing concessions to the ‘guns anywhere’ mentality of the gun lobby.”

The restriction in national parks was unenforceable, and lifting it has caused no harm as far as has been reported.

Likewise, the Amtrak ban on transporting guns in checked baggage was nonsensical on its face, considering that the only people it affected were legitimate hunters and competitive shooters traveling to marksmanship matches. It forced these people to transport their equipment on the highways instead of taking the train. Criminals, on the other hand, if any were taking Amtrak trains, could carry their handguns concealed as they got on the train.

By signing acts of Congress that got rid of these restrictions, Obama did the sensible thing.

So now they’ve been called out on their Chicken Little response to everything we support by a sympathetic group, and that can’t be fun. But the knife has got to hurt a little more since the support for the national park carry is justified by the fact that it hasn’t caused any notable problems. While I doubt it ever will cause problems when it actually takes effect, I’m sure that Peter Hamm is writing a swift response to claim the end of civilization in and around national parks won’t happen until next month. Just wait, that sky will fall soon!

Maybe now the Brady staffers will get a very small dose of what it’s like when the media grandstands on the issue without actually knowing what the hell they are talking about. We’ve been dealing with the problem for years.

A Lesson in Tolerance

Jennifer shares the tale of the day her son learned about no tolerance rules the hard way. I read it in a lesson on just how tolerant Jennifer is of idiots.

I know I could not have restrained my laughter. I also would have advised the vice principal to take me off of speaker phone to let him know exactly what I thought about the situation. But then again, I have little tolerance for the public education system as a whole.

Tough Night for the Brady Campaign

The President’s State of the Union address would have been a prime opportunity for Obama to speak about gun control. The police officer who stopped the Fort Hood shooting was among the audience, but was never acknowledged (none of his guests were, actually, which is kind of shocking). You have all the props there to make a good argument for the Brady Position. Not a peep. Nothing. That has to hurt, especially after they tried to embarrass him by making a media sensation out of giving him a failing grade.

The Magic is Gone

Listened to the State of the Union. I think President Obama does much better as an aspirant than an established politician. He’s not as eloquent when he has to speak to specific political situations, compared to when he can just speak in the lofty and abstract. This past year, the people that supported him have expected him to live up to the lofty rhetoric, and he’s not been able to deliver. He seemed to have moments where he was prepared to admit that, but not too much, you know.

I’ve become increasingly convinced Obama is no Bill Clinton. My disagreements with Clinton on many specific policy issues, including and especially related to the topics this blog covers, are fairly profound. But Clinton had a raw political talent that has been matched in my lifetime only by Ronald Reagan. I don’t believe Obama is capable of triangulating in the face of defeat in the way Bill Clinton did.

My impression of President Obama’s State of the Union Address was that it was doubling down on the concept of him. At this point, pretty clearly that’s neither the “hope” nor “change” many people voted for. If he doesn’t learn quickly, this will not end well for the Democratic Party.

Injecting Race

Josh Sugarmann notes that Pennsylvania is number one in Black Homicide victimization. His solution, naturally, is to “put a focus on reducing access to firearms.” I don’t see any reason to inject race into the equation, other than it makes his numbers work out for states that he wants to put pressure on. Any murder is a problem for society, and the solution to fixing the problem of murder is the same no matter what the race, color or creed of the murderer or victim — locking the criminals up, and making sure they serve real time. Studies have shown that among alleged murderers in Philadelphia, nine out of ten have had prior criminal records, with half being charged with either violent offenses or weapons offenses. Josh’s response is to turn society into a low level prison, where the innocent and guilty are likewise punished.

iPad

So Apple announced the iPad. I was hoping for something more than just a big iPhone. I was also hoping for some advanced form of electronic paper display, maybe one that did color and had a reasonable refresh rate, but I guess no one really develops that kind of thing in secret anymore. It’s an IPS TFT display, but that’s not new. I have to admit to a bit of a yawn over the product. I have a MacBook, I have an iPhone, I don’t think I have a use for an iPad.

If Apple wanted to fill the niche between the iPhone and the Laptop, I think they should have picked a more capable user interface than that of the iPhone. At the least, I would expect this kind of device to handle concurrently running applications.

From When Collective Rights Ruled

Dave Hardy found a copy of an old law review he wrote the year I was born on the topic of gun rights. Back then it looks like no law review would take it, so it was published by a magazine publisher known as Neal Knox. The rest, shall we say, is history.

UPDATE: More from Dave here.

Rodentgate Continues

For those that don’t follow the gory details (and gory is highly appropriate in this case) of Pennsylvania Capitol happenings, it looks like the Capitol Cafeteria has failed yet another health inspection. It was originally closed back in December due to numerous rodent droppings, among other things. The Capitol was re-opened by none other than our own governor, who wanted to show the people of the Commonwealth that rodent crap never killed anyone.

Capitol Ideas asks why Aramark still has the contract. That’s a good question. Just remember folks, these are the same types of people who want to make health care decisions for all of us too.

UPDATE: Now this explains why the Aramark Contract wasn’t cancelled:

But to Rendell, who brought Philadelphia-based Aramark in as the food vendor six years ago, this visit was his way of giving an all-clear to the thousands in the Capitol workforce that the once-popular restaurant is clean and safe again. “I have 100 percent confidence that this is as clean a restaurant now as any facility in the state, and I have no problem eating here,” Rendell said as he dug in, joined by Cathleen McCormick, his top capital projects aide.

Aramark is a big Philadelphia based employer. Patronage is a bitch. This is what you get, people of Pennsylvania, for electing a Philadelphia Mayor as Governor. Never again. Thankfully Ed is one rat who’s droppings we won’t have see around Harrisburg after this year.

Soda More Expensive than Beer

It will be cheaper to have a cold beer than a cold soda if New York’s governor has his way. It may not be a good beer, but beer nonetheless.

“A six-pack of soda is going to cost you approximately $4.99” if the penny-an-ounce tax goes through, Mr. Eusebio said, “where you can pick up beer from $2.99 to $3.99.”

Off to the neighborhood supermarket, where it turned out that Mr. Eusebio’s math was not far off. With the tax, a six-pack of Coca-Cola or Pepsi would cost 2 cents more than a six-pack of the cheapest beer in the store.

It’s a crusade for cash to bridge the gap due to too much spending, and it’s been framed as a health initiative to tax people away from unhealthy beverages. It’s unclear what the next taxes on beer will be when there’s a upward spike in alcoholism.