The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State …
Criminal Profiler Pat Brown is back on CNN. This time she didn’t misspeak, and I think offers some pretty good advise to women:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F56mnFYAGO4[/youtube]
Can’t really argue with that. Thanks to Jason for spotting and encoding this for me.
These are two people who should really pick topics to talk about where one of them actually has a friggin clue. From Illinois:
Jeff Berkowitz: What about the state, should there be some state controls on the sale of guns?
Terri Ann Wintermute: I don’t have a problem with the waiting period. I don’t have a problem with registration.
Jeff Berkowitz: Would you like to see a ban on assault weapons?
Terri Ann Wintermute: It depends on what’s on the list?
Jeff Berkowitz: Semi-automatics. How about that? Do we need more semi-automatics out there?
Terri Ann Wintermute: I don’t know that we do.
Jeff Berkowitz: So, you might want to restrict semi-automatics.
Terri Ann Wintermute: It depends—Is it used for hunting? Is it used for sport?
Jeff Berkowitz: Well, you can hunt people or you can hunt deer.
Terri Ann Wintermute: Exactly. Or is it used for hunting people.
Jeff Berkowitz: So, the same gun can be used for multiple things. Do people who hunt deer need semi-automatics? Is that the way it’s done, I don’t know. I am not a hunter.
Terri Ann Wintermute: I don’t know. I think you can—there’s a description of whether it goes into the chamber–
WTF? Seriously, do either of you have any idea what you’re talking about? If not, do us all a favor: DON’T. Yes, semi-automatics are used for hunting, they are used for shooting clay pigeons. Even scary looking “assault weapons” are used for service rifle competition, and numerous other recreational activities. They are also damned useful for self-defense, as evidenced by the fact hat police are using them almost exclusively these days.  So go get a clue, or leave it to people who actually know this stuff.
It scares me that “there’s a description of whether it goes into the chamber” is making public policy.
Well, maybe not ever, but as long as I’ve been doing them. I went to the range tonight to see what I could produce. The answer was crap. I think what frustrates me the most about this match is I just have a hard time seeing the target. I posted a 1.5 inch ring target, and I can hit that consistently, but put me on the shrinking circles, and I feel lucky to hit the 8, which is the same size.
I think the difficulty is just having a really weak point of aim. The numbers in the circles are a little distracting. They are difficult to see. I think Conservative UAW guy has done a good job here. He’s managed to frustrate me more than the Golf match! At least there I could aim at color!
Anyway, results, rimfire iron, were:
Two handed, weaver stance, 25ft – 52 points out of 91
One handed, bullseye stance, 25ft – 36 points out of 91
88 points total.
I’ll see if I can return to the range before the end of the month to beat this score. I might not have time though. If I do return, I might give it a shot with the Glock. The Glock certainly isn’t a precision shooter, but I’m comfortable with it, and I want to see if maybe that counts for something. The larger caliber could also help turn some of those near hits into hits :)
Today Ed Rendell is on a roll:
The bill – HB1590 – earmarks about $950 million annually for roads, bridges and mass transit. The money would come from sources that include boosting tolls on the Pennsylvania Turnpike by 25 percent in 2009 and increasing the toll rate by 3 percent each year thereafter. It also would allow I-80 to become a toll road.
Rendell said the plan represents “by far the most significant amount of money devoted to transportation needs in the history of the commonwealth†and should put roads and transit in good shape for the next 15 to 20 years.
Supporters say tolling along the 313-mile, east-west route would be set up to eliminate or minimize fees for local drivers by building collection sites at New Jersey and Ohio borders. However, the bill doesn’t specify how that would work.
When Ed Rendell was elected, he said:
We are the second oldest state in the Union because too many of our young people are leaving Pennsylvania. They are leaving Pennsylvania behind for opportunities elsewhere.
And he vowed to change that. Well, Ed, I’m a young person by most people’s definition, and I’m seriously considering leaving the Pennsylvania, where I have lived all my life, for a southern or southwestern state, because you can’t stop raising taxes and trying to take away my personal liberties.
No one will take you seriously as a blue state if you don’t enact a smoking ban.  Because we’re all about freedom and personal choice.  I miss good old fashioned liberalism, I have to say.
Gov. Ed Rendell has called for a ban on smoking in most public places as part of his broad “Prescription for Pennsylvania” agenda to lower the cost of health care, broaden its availability and improve its quality.
Ed Rendell can take his Prescription for Pennsylvania, and stick it where the sun don’t shine. Surrender personal freedom to keep health care costs down?  Oh yeah, that’s a road I want to go down.
Sometimes I swear we don’t have any politicians that have even the remotest concept of liberty. In this world, I am an extremist, and that’s sad, I think.
Because New Jersey’s gun control laws aren’t working, Bob Menendez and Frank Lautenberg are upset about Tiahrt:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNUFYl3VQr4[/youtube]
At least he’s honest and admits it’s for pushing for more gun control and for lawsuits, and doesn’t accuse Tiahrt of cutting off police access to the trace data.
Of course, he fails to mention that the Fraternal Order of Police and BATFE favor the Tiahrt amendment as well. Nor does he mention why they are opposed to it: because abuse of the trace data has interfered with legitimate law enforcement investigations.  Exactly the kind of abuse Menendez is supporting in this video.  Next time a politician tells you they support gun control as a crime control measure, don’t believe them.
HatTip to Blue Jersey
Menendez’s candor doesn’t surprise me. He’s from a state where you can say things like that, and it won’t hurt you.
Apparently these folks have never heard of training. Or know nothing of the severe ammo shortages that are plaguing the military and civilian market alike.  But why bother to check facts when you can just jump to conclusions.
I have an update to my post from yesterday. The Senate session information is up, and I have a link to the bill that passed.  The Senate bill (I was looking at house bills yesterday, wrong place to look):
It does update the definition of firearm for receiving stolen property and theft, as the house bill I posted yesterday did. I support this measure, since it extends penalties for stealing or receiving all firearms, not just handguns. This strikes me as sensible.
The bill also requires the police to trace guns recovered from juveniles and make a determination as to how the juvenile came into possession of it, even though the Brady Campaign and numerous other groups would like us to believe the Tiahrt amendment prevents law enforcement from doing things like this. Â Passing a handgun to a juvenile is a crime in Pennsylvania, except under limited circumstances (target shooting, hunting, etc), so the police can trace the gun.
Very important to note: The state police registry has been stripped out in this version! It did not make final passage. This removes my major objection to the bill.
I will have to agree with the NRA’s acquiescence to this bill. Pennsylvania isn’t passing gun control, no matter what the Inquirer and city politicians would like to dupe the citizens of Philadelphia into believing.
Anyone remember back in the early 90s when the NRA got in trouble for suggesting that the ATF were a bunch of “jack booted thugs”?  It caused President Bush to resign his life membership.
They want to take it from 5 cents to $10 dollars. No word yet on what Hillary’s position is on the cigar tax, but I’m betting she’s for it. This will be sure to create a burgeoning black market in tobacco products, which will, of course, become violent. The federal government won’t outright outlaw tobacco, but they will tax it out of existence.
I’m really glad to see those Democrats protecting people’s civil liberties against the evil Republicans, let me tell you.
UPDATE: Sigivald points out:
Closer reading suggests they want to raise it from 5 cents to 54 percent, with a cap of $10.
Not $10 per cigar, flat.
Not good, by any means, but not the same as a $10 tax on a $8 cigar.
One of the problems with blogging is not always having the time to read everything very carefully. Â Corrections and clarifications are always appreciated.
Of course, I still think it’s a crappy tax increase.