Oldest known Auschwitz Survivor dies at 108. He lead an underground effort to continue educating Poles, after the Nazis had forbidden the education of “inferior races.” Today I am determined there shall be no more “inferior races” in this world. And what is the best way to make men equal? I think we know the answer more than many.
Year: 2012
Last Debate: We Have Enough Beer
This debate season has definitely taken a few years off my liver so far, but about to begin is the last Presidential debate on Foreign Policy, which is at least something Presidents can control. But I would still consider it unsafe to watch these farces without a healthy about of alcohol to make it tolerable.
UPDATE: The beer for tonight’s debate is Innis & Gunn. I highly recommend the Rum Oak Cask aged Scottish Ale.
UPDATE: The big news is that Mitt Romney apparently supports the insurrectionist view of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms by suggesting we ought to be arming the Syrian rebels. CSGV would not approve.
UPDATE: I don’t know why Mitt Romney considers it a privilege for this nation to defend freedom and stability in the world. I consider it a curse. If the British were still willing and able to do it, I’d be happy to let them have at it.
UPDATE: I have to give a slight edge to Obama on this one. Foreign policy, as a topic, is a softball to an incumbent President. But after the first debate knockdown, and the second debate being a draw at best, I don’t think Obama did anything int his debate to change the momentum of the race.
When Reporters Make Assumptions
Stephanie Jones has an article in Salon that starts off with “If Americans cared as much about their voting rights as their gun rights, they’d be up in arms right now.” And I could say that if the left cared about Second Amendment rights as much as they care about Voting Rights, you’d be able to buy a gun cash on the barrel, no questions asked. I find this kind of attitude infuriating:
These laws — which require voters to show a state-issued photo ID that many Americans don’t have and will have great difficulty obtaining — could bar 3.2 million eligible and legally registered voters from voting in the next election, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, a non-partisan think tank.
Oh, but there’s no concern about millions people who might not be able to exercise their Right to Keep and Bear Arms for the same reason? This is complete and utter bullshit. I’ll put more thought into what to have for dinner tonight than what Stephanie Jones put into this article, for her to parrot such nonsense. Either you can’t condition the exercise of a right on showing state ID, or you can. If you can, it’s acceptable for both rights. If you can’t, it’s acceptable for neither. That’s the debate, and it’s one I think that is worth having. It’s also one I’m perfectly happen to be on the side of requiring no state ID for either, if Ms. Jones can decide voting rights are really that important. But what we don’t get to do is choose rights we like to have the highest protections, and those we don’t to have inferior protections. That’s no way to run a country that claims to be serious about rights and protecting them.
The “Terror Gap” Nightmare
If you listen to our political opponents, no one who gets flagged by the no-fly list can possibly be trusted with a firearm – even in the home or used for hunting. They are clearly a danger to society. We hear stories about babies ending up on the list and all sorts of other problems that come from similar names. However, here’s one that was supposedly an exact match of name, social security number, and date of birth.
Yet, he’s cleared to carry a concealed firearm based on a recent background check, he was cleared to ride on an Air Force flight on his way to a foreign country, and he was given a place to stay on the Pearl Harbor naval base while the bureaucrats took time to clean up their mess.
In other words, a guy who is no apparent danger to our country and has no record that should indicate he’s a problem should be a prohibited person according to anti-gun politicians and groups. No accountability, no recourse, just take away people’s fundamental rights. Thank goodness they aren’t going to win that fight. Instead of losing his right to own firearms, the guy in this story was just out five days of hotel expenses in Hawaii and a trip to see his wife who is serving our country.
Which State Has The Most Legal Machine Guns?
It would seem it’s Virginia. There’s some speculation as to why that is. Of course, if you ever go to the National Firearms Museum at NRA Headquarters in Fairfax, they have an enviable collection. I wouldn’t be surprised if they aren’t single handedly helping contribute to Virginia’s first place finish. There aren’t that many full auto firearms out there, so it’s not inconceivable if a museum that had hundreds of samples is located within a single state, it’s going to bump that state’s numbers up not insignificantly.
Article on Philadelphia Publishing of Permit Holders
Folks might remember a little bit back in the summer, the City of Philadelphia published the names of people who had appealed their denial of concealed carry permits. I had looked into some of the background of these individuals, and found some of the denials rather questionable. A reporter for the Philadelphia Daily News has taken up the story, and talked to some of the people involved here, including an Licenses and Inspections spokeswoman who had to have given the quote of the day by saying, “We touch a lot of people’s lives in a lot of intimate ways.”
It does appear that there are going to be lawsuits over this disclosure, and we’re happy for that. Kudos to William Bender of the Daily News for taking up the story. Gun owners don’t really demand the media be pro-gun, and I wouldn’t classify this article as advocacy. It’s a good example of reporting on an potential unlawful abuse of authority by those in power, and that’s something I believe is in the public interest for journalists to pursue regardless of the subject matter at hand.
Home Ownership
According to Ian Argent: “more fun than a barrel of monkeys on nitrous oxide.” I agree. This summer, I ended up replacing a lot of dirt around a corner of the house where soil was mysteriously subsiding. I was wondering where this dirt could have gotten off to. Recently we decided to renovate my office, which is in the finished basement. I ripped out the baseboard heating units today, and part of the drywall. I ended up discovering a trench drain several inches wide along the perimeter, which was filled with dirt. Under the dirt, I found a weep pipe through the foundation wall that went into the drain. The mystery of the dirt had been solved. Kill me now.
With a hand trowel, some water, and a shop vac, I carefully removed all the dirt to get back down to concrete. It was several trips with a bucket to get it all back outside. The weep pipe is now completely uncovered. The question now is whether it was part of a previous failed basement waterproofing attempt that I have since corrected, or whether it is something I have not yet discovered. Best case scenario this weep pipe no longer weeps. Problem solved! Worst case scenario, it still carries water and dirt, which was cut off to the sump by previous owners who finished the basement and blocked the trench drain with extreme prejudice. The fix for that is non-trivial, and may require a jackhammer, so I am sincerely hoping this weep pipe is extinct, or will at least remain dormant until such time as I can sell the house to the next sucker owner.
UPDATE: I should note that it was disclosed to me at the time of the sale the basement had water intrusion issues, and so I will be required disclose such to the next owner unless I spend the big money to fix the problem permanently, which is not out of the question. But for now, I want to get on with cleaning out and redoing my office, so this can is getting kicked down the road for now.
Listen Up You “Machismo Fantasists”
Go ahead, New York Times, keep insulting anyone who believes that they have a right to defend themselves from criminal attack. It’s not like it motivates voters who realize just how far outside of the mainstream you really are or anything…
Also, did you know that your concealed carry permit is among the “worst measures” of American gun policy? The fact that guns are allowed to be sold at all is a “scourge.” In that case, I look forward to their attacks on their own lawmakers for allowing such horrors in their city. Oh, that’s right, that’s not a “worse measure” because that’s restricted to only the wealthy and politically connected in their city. That’s just fine. It’s when the little law-abiding people want to exercise such rights that the NYT is outraged.
When I see unhinged rants from the anti-gun media, I just kind of laugh. I beg them to keep going, just keep it coming. See, when they unleash their elitism through such insults, it makes gun owners and people who agree with the Second Amendment turn out and vote.
Jindal: “It’s time we protected gun rights.”
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has an op-ed on the need to pass Amendment 2 in November. I appreciate that he broke it down to explain it to those who just assume that gun rights are “protected” without really knowing anything about the legal debates:
Simply put, this amendment to Louisiana’s Constitution acknowledges the fundamental right to keep and bear arms for legitimate purposes, and it requires any restriction on gun ownership be subject to strict scrutiny.
It’s our own Second Amendment, if you will, a new constitutional provision to repair the damage done by past judicial interpretations. You see, over the years, Louisiana courts have applied a “rational basis” legal standard to interpreting our right to bear arms. In reality, that means that the state has almost unlimited authority to confiscate, prohibit or infringe on this fundamental right. Make no mistake, I have no intention of allowing such a bill to leave my desk without a veto, but our liberties should not be held hostage to whims of future legislators and governors. By applying the “strict scrutiny” test, we elevate the protections in our constitution to the same level we provide our right to free speech.
Jindal also goes into the arguments about the federal courts being only vote away from rewriting the Second Amendment and what Congress has done to try and keep some of the assaults on gun rights that happened after Katrina from happening again, but the theme is definitely that Louisiana needs its own protection of the fundamental right just in case the whims of Congress or the federal courts change. I hope that gun owners who don’t normally follow the issue closely down there get a chance to read this piece.
It Doesn’t Matter What You Think, It Matters What They Think
From the Brady Center event, I think it’s worthwhile to point out a question asked by the Center to Justice Stevens on the subject of those horribly, wrongly-informed American people who believe they have rights even though the Brady lawyers know better:
I don’t care how long I’ve been working the activism side for this issue, it will never cease to amaze me the sheer number of gun owners who believe that just because they – and likely all of their friends and family – believe something to be a right, it’s protected by the legal system. That’s simply not true. When it comes to keeping gun ownership legal, it really doesn’t matter what the founding documents actually say. All that ultimately matters is how the government interprets it and enforces any laws they pass on the issue of gun ownership.
It kind of reminds me of a story I was told by a Massachusetts gun owner who was talking to a Pennsylvania gun owner at the NRA convention in Pittsburgh back in 2004. After hearing about the variety of gun laws there and the licensing nightmare that determines what kinds of guns you’re allowed to own and how you can use them, the Pennsylvania guy just responded with, “But this is America!” Yeah, buddy, it is America. Welcome. I just hoped he started paying more attention to the issue after hearing those stories.