Sebastian – Page 724 – Shall Not Be Questioned

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 aÂ MojitoÂ 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.

MargaritasÂ done properly, using Cointreau rather than Triple Sec, are also an entirely acceptable drink for spring and summer. Done right means not frozen. A goodÂ margaritaÂ 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 Â 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, “becauseÂ of scientific proof that the action is necessary to avoidÂ 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.

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

Peter Hamm from the Brady Campaign seems to be rather insistent this morning that I get on board with their “Terror Loophole” legislation:

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.

The New “Terror Weapon”

The Kel-Tec Sub 2000, because anemic pistol caliber carbines are obviously now the new sprayers of death and destruction, and weapon of choice for terrorists. See, it’s scary because it’s a rifle, but it’s really a pistol. This rifle folds up for compact storage, but it’s unusable in its folded state. New York Times worries that it’s all too easy for them to carry out a Mumbai style attack with one of these.

There’s a reason he didn’t do that kind of attack. He was going for something spectacular. If he had gone for a mass shooting in Times Square, well, it’s been done before, and “shot by police” isn’t exactly the headline your typical jihadist wants. The key difference between Mumbai and here is that our police officers, even the ones in New York City, can generally hit what they shoot at, and aren’t uncomfortable employing their pistols or employing rifles in a Mumbai kind of situation. Even in New York City, where its citizens are forbidden from protecting themselves, I’d give a Times Square shooter about two or three shots before the NYPD drops him.

Bloomberg’s solution is to use the terror watch list to prevent things like this from happening. Which seems to have worked oh so well for keeping this guy out of the country in the first place. These are the people Bloomberg demands we put our lives in the hands of. Personal protection isn’t an option in his world.

UPDATE: To be fair to the New York Times, I thoughtÂ theirÂ article was at least researched. Years ago the ignorance they would have displayed in regards to the guns form and function would have been astounding. They are still playing their old games, but at least now they are getting basic facts right.

Record Sniper Shot by the Numbers

Recently a British sniper made a record shot with a ~~.50~~Â .338LM [I should read] Caliber rifle. Joe Huffman gives it to us by the numbers. This is one thing that consistently amazes me about our opponents demonization of ~~this caliber~~ long range calibers. It’s like suggestion that because we make scalpels freely available, that means surely that unscrupulous individuals will be able to do their own quadruple bypass surgery, and wouldn’t that be just awful? They ignore the tremendous amount of skill, and not inconsiderable amount of luck, that goes into employing rifles at these kinds of distances.