SCALIA'S CLOSE

Opinion of the Court
Justice Scalia, writing for the Majority

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution.

The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26.

But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.

Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

It is so ordered.

HELLER PREVAILS.

Supreme Court says Americans have right to guns
By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.

The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns.

More here.

OBAMA BLOGS - A RESPONSE

I don't normally write responses to other blogs here... instead, I leave responses as a comment. But in this case, the blog only allows comments from "team members" - and as I'm not a member of their team, I can't leave a comment.

For Reference : The Original Article:
NRA Smears Obama's Stance on Gun Ownership

Barack Obama is trying to walk a fine line between protecting the right to bear arms guaranteed under the Second Amendment and clamping down on more than 30,000 deaths from firearms that happen every year in the United States.

However, the National Rifle Association is against any limitations on gun rights, including banning or controlling any kinds of ammunition...

So is the Constitution.

they are also protecting the right of criminals to have easy access to automatic weapons and high kill rate ammunition

No one has easy, legal access to automatic weapons in this country - except people working for the govt.

Making a statement like that shows how clearly ignorant you are about firearms laws that already exist in this country.

I challenge the author to call a gun shop in this country - ANY gun shop, or hell - even go to a gunshow - and try to legally purchase an automatic weapon. Prepare for a stack of govt paperwork, fees, background checks. Prepare to pay $5000-25,000 for such a weapon.

Relatively speaking, there aren't that many automatic weapons in this country available for the average citizen to purchase. It's difficult, time-consuming, and highly expensive to legally own an automatic weapon.

You're asking for laws to be made that already exist.

And furthermore, what the hell is "high kill rate ammunition"?

The laws Barack Obama supports that the NRA are vehemently against include sensible acts like:

Mandatory waiting periods to purchase a gun

Good idea. People in fear of danger shouldn't have easy access to self-defense. Women being harassed by violent ex-husbands should just rely on hope, or perhaps 911 if the line isn't busy.

Requiring citizens to actually register their firearms

So that if the govt decides to ban them, confiscation will be easier.

Mandatory micro stamping of guns to aid tracing weapons

A technology that only works according to - surprise - the manufacturer. Forensic scientists by and large report that such an effort would have a minimal advantage - if any - in helping to solve crime. Furthermore, microstamping is incredibly easy to defeat. Stop watching CSI and do some research.

Banning inexpensive handguns that make it easier for criminals to acquire

Ok, I'm confused - earlier you implied that criminals don't buy guns; they steal them. Are you also against lower-income families being able to legally purchase a firearm?

Limit gun purchases to one gun a month

Why not 2 per month? Why not 1 per quarter? How exactly have you (or Obama) determined that 30 days is the magic number?

Require training for gun owners

Quite honestly, nearly every gun owner I know is well-trained in the use of their firearm. This is a non-issue in most respects.

Restrict gun ownership to citizens 21 and older

Why not 18 years? Why not 31 years? How is 21 years the magic number? Do criminals wait until they are 21 years old to steal guns and kill people?

Eliminate right to carry concealed weapons

Criminals are already forbidden to carry a weapon - concealed or otherwise. So clearly you are attempting to disallow law-abiding citizens from carrying a concealed weapon.

So - how do you feel about me just carrying a gun around town in a holster on my belt, openly for the world to see? You cool with that?

Ban gun shops from operating within 5 miles of a school

Now this is just complete stupidity. The only reason to create such a law is to be able to close gunshops. There's no safety advantage for the school whatsoever.

Ban resale of police firearms which include high powered assault weapons

I don't buy guns that the police have worn out. Nonetheless, I fail to see what you're concerned about such a thing. Police cannot sell a citizen a gun that the citizen cannot purchase (yes, legally) from a store.

Ban high capacity ammunition magazines that are often used by gang members in drive by shootings and not needed to kill a deer

Here's an idea - why not just ban gang shootings? Or shooting out of cars driving down the road?

Oh, wait. There are already laws against such things. Odd that laws against murder and prisons and death penalties haven't stopped gang shootings, yet you think microstamping will.

By the way... to a few of the other posters, who use terms like "KKK" - gun owners' feelings about Obama's gun control agenda have nothing to do with race.

The fact is, Clinton's agenda is no different when it comes to guns. She wants to ban them all as well - she's just less overt about it when making speeches.

MR. 9/11

Morning exchange via MSN...

Bethy: I think I may vomit.
(link)

thorn: btw
thorn: did you know that Giuliani was Mayor of NYC on 9/11?

Bethy: really? i should vote for him then.
Bethy: but....
Bethy: did he walk thru the rubble?

thorn: i believe he may have even seen people working in rubble

Bethy: no!
Bethy: that makes him my president.

thorn; in fact, he may even know barney rubble.

Bethy: well I'm glad my decision is made

ANYONE?

Ask the average group of gun owners who they're hoping the next President will be, and it is not unlikely that the answer will be "Anyone but Hillary Clinton". While I agree that yet another President Clinton would be a nightmare for America, I find myself thinking that "anyone but..." isn't a great answer.

Anyone?

The general idea of "anyone" is of course "anyone but a Democrat" and therefore a Republican. But I find it troubling that at this point in the campaign - during the primaries - that any Republican would be better. Too often, Americans pay far too much attention to the party that a candidate belongs to and not enough attention on their voting record. Having a Republican as the Head of State doesn't automatically mean that your gun rights are in good hands.

For example:

President George H. W. Bush (R) expanded the ban on imposed a ban on the importation several different semi-automatic rifles.

Governor Bob Taft (R) fought an ultimately losing battle against lowering restrictions on carrying concealed handguns in Ohio.

Governor Rudy Giuliani (R) has a substantial anti-gun history.

President George W. Bush (R) clearly stated that he would re-authorize the Assault Weapons Ban if Congress passed the bill and delivered it to the White House.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) recently signed a bill which allows the state to begin requiring the micro-stamping of cartridges.

I could probably fill a few pages with more Republican names... Republicans who spoke of supporting gun owners, yet turned their backs on us once elected. But by now, the point should be clear: during the primary elections, your concern should not be "who can beat Hillary Clinton?". Your concern should be "Which candidate's record shows a clear history of supporting the 2nd Amendment? Which candidate will continue to support my right to own and use a firearm?".

Party labels are of little concern; it is the candidate's record which is paramount.

Do not vote for Anyone.

NOVEMBER 5

A few months ago, I had a discussion on a forum regarding the nature of politics and how to get involved; how to not merely complain from the sidelines, but how to actively change the political landscape. I considered rewriting my thoughts into some sort of long article, but instead I'll simply copy/paste my original post.

I often wonder how much the average gun owner actually does - in a qualitative way - to keep their rights.

It is one thing for people to preach to each other on web forums and blogs. It is another thing to actually contribute money to candidates and PACs that can measurably affect the future in a beneficial way.

I know that many people here can and do contribute their hard-earned dollars to such causes, as well as send letters and make phone calls when the need arises.

But for those that do not, I challenge you to begin doing it.

The next time you're buying 10 boxes of ammo, consider buying 9 boxes instead - and join the NRA.

Instead of spending 10 hours at the range, spend 8 hours - and join OFCC.

Instead of purchasing your 48th 30-rnd AR15 magazine, consider being satisfied for the moment with having 47 mags - and donate money to a candidate who actually agrees with you.

Support the groups and the leaders who will work to ensure you will continue to be able to purchase ammo, shoot at a range, and own an AR15.

Truly - think about this for a moment:

There are just over 2000 members of this forum. What if every member donated $100 - the average cost of 3 of my Walther mags, for example - all to the same cause or candidate?

Do the math. That's nearly a quarter of a million dollars.

Glocktalk.com has just over 72,000 members. If every one of them sent the cost of ONE GLOCK MAGAZINE to the same candidate or PAC, that's nearly 2 MILLION dollars.

People say they are sick of money in politics... and I agree that it's somewhat sickening that the one with the most dollars is the one most-listened to.

But that's reality. Television ads cost money. Radio ads cost money. Print ads, fliers, stickers, buttons, phone lines, campaign trips to Iowa, gas for the vehicles - it all costs money. Reaching everyone in America enough times to not only draw their vote - but convince them TO vote - costs millions of dollars.

Despise it or wish it to be untrue - but ignore it at your own peril.

Today, on November the 5th, I challenge each of you to stand up and fight.

BULLETS ALWAYS FIND A TARGET

I was about 11 years old when I entered the woods with my Dad for my first hunting trip. I was raised in the South, where for many people hunting is as much of a regular activity as going to work or having a large family dinner every Sunday. I don't remember what we were hunting; it might have been squirrels or birds, and I'm sure we would have come home with a deer on the off-chance we'd have been lucky enough to take one, given the amount of racket I made walking about the woods.

As I grew older, Dad's interest in hunting also grew. Many areas of the South are farmland, and it's not uncommon for the farmers to lease their land for hunting to small groups of people. One morning we got up far before dawn, and drove to a small cabin in the middle of nowhere to go deer hunting. It was chilly and dark in the cabin, and 3-4 other men were sitting around a small woodstove when we arrived.

We spent most of the day in the woods, and came back empty handed. I was cold, damp, dirty, and rather tired of the whole experience as we unrolled our sleeping bags. As I began to fall asleep, the men were recounting their various tales of the past couple of days. One man had a brief story I'll never forget.

"We were out last night, didn't see anything though. So finally we decided to come back to camp. But we're walking though the woods, and I heard some noise to the left in the distance... I kneeled down and leveled my rifle, and fired off 3 shots. Never did find anything, so I guess I missed. Was pretty dark out there."

We left the following day, and never hunted with that group again.

I remembered that story as I read about this boy being killed in Oklahoma yesterday. Two police officers were trying to shoot a snake out of a tree, and missed their target. Sadly, one of their bullets found another target: 5 yr-old Austin Haley, who died in his grandfather's arms.

I find this part of the news report to be rather troubling:

(City Manager Bob) Wade refused to identify the officer suspected of firing the shots but said the officer has been placed on paid administrative leave pending the outcome of the investigation.

As I've mentioned before, I work in the media... specifically, I create graphics for the newscasts. Each and every day, I receive photographs in my email from various law enforcement offices - photographs of people suspected of a crime. The law enforcement community creates press releases, and sends them to us hoping that we'll put the information and the photographs on television so that the public will be well-informed about possible criminal activity and the people responsible.

Austin's grandfather has this to say:

"I'm not saying the cop shot him on purpose,” Tracy said. "It was an accident. But let me tell you — if I had a kid and put him in this car and didn't put him in a car seat and he got killed on the way to town, they'd charge me with murder ... and what this cop did is a lot worse than that. ... There was no reason for him to kill my grandson.”

Mr. Tracy is quite correct - that's exactly what prosecutors have done, and continue to do, when children die due to negligence. From the moment a child dies, the party suspected of responsibility has their picture transmitted over the airwaves as quickly as possible.

City Manager Bob Wade will not identify the officer suspected of killing Austin Haley?

I would like to remind Mr. Wade of something. I'd like to remind the Officer, the Noble Chief of Police, their Mayor, their City Council members, and their City Prosecutor: All of you are public employees. You are not royalty. You are not above criticism and your positions do not absolve you of responsibility. You have your jobs because the citizens of Noble gave those jobs to you, in the hope that you would perform your duties with honor and in the best interests of the City of Noble.

And in this circumstance, all of you are failing miserably.

So here's Mr. Wade's contact information, should you care to let him know your opinion on his job performance:

Bob Wade, City Manager
City of Noble
P.O. Box 557, 304 S. Main
Noble, OK 73068
(405) 872-9251; Fax: (405) 972-9363
Email: bobwade@sbcglobal.net

Let Mr. Wade know how you feel about this negligent shooting. And while you're at it, you might ask him about his feelings on government hypocrisy.

TWO SIDES OF THE IMMIGRATION COIN

The White House and Congress have feverishly worked over the past few days to reform immigration. It's a task that some have said would be very long, difficult process - if not impossible. But as with many things governmental, "impossible" can quickly become "possible" if one is merely willing to move the goal post.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, on immigration:

Anyone who enters the United States illegally should be expelled without exception, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told a Senate hearing today.

"Our goal at DHS is to completely eliminate the 'catch and release' enforcement problem, and return every single illegal entrant, no exceptions," he said.

"It should be possible to achieve significant and measurable progress to this end in less than a year."

Chertoff said U.S. authorities are immediately returning thousands of Mexicans entering the country illegally, but "other parts of the system have nearly collapsed under the weight of numbers."

"The problem is especially severe for non-Mexicans apprehended at the southwest border," he said.

"Today, a non-Mexican illegal immigrant caught trying to enter the United States across the southwest border has an 80 percent chance of being released immediately because we lack the holding facilities," Chertoff explained.

"Through a comprehensive approach, we are moving to end this 'catch and release' style of border enforcement by reengineering our detention and removal process."

Opps... my apologies for posting the wrong quote. That's what he said 18 months ago. Let's try that again.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, on immigration:

"If someone has a better solution that's realistic, they should come forward with it", Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, 53, said about the immigration debate on Cable News Network's "Late Edition" program. "But if all people want to do is complain and say, well, this isn't good enough, that's the Goldilocks solution, where it's always too hot or too cold."

Chertoff was joined with Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez. Secretary Gutierrez demonstrated that he doesn't understand the concept of "amesty" with this interesting bit of insight:

Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez insisted that the immigration bill, whose backers hope to hustle through a debate in Congress from Monday, did not amount to an "amnesty" for the millions now in the country unlawfully.

"They would have to pay fines and undergo a criminal background check", he said on CNN Sunday.

"I have the impression that perhaps for some people, the only thing that would not be amnesty is mass deportation," added Gutierrez, whose family fled to the United States from Cuba when he was a child.

"We don't think that is practical. We don't think that's logical. We don't think that's humane. And that would hurt our economy."

Secretary Chertoff - here's the solution you've been grasping for. Take the people that are in my country illegally, and remove them from my country. When you have removed all illegal aliens, then we can all go back to the debate table and revisit the situation.

Perhaps you believe it's not practical, logical, nor humane. I'll tell you what it is, though:

Legal.

Laws necessary to deal with illegal immigration are already in place. There is law and there is precedent. All that is required of you, Secretary Chertoff, is to enforce the existing law. Second Amendment supporters shouldn't be too surprised with this approach, however, given that governments so often choose to create new gun control laws instead of properly enforcing the ones already on the books.

The President set several goals for his administration. Among them were revamping the situation with prescription drugs, improving public schools and reforming immigration. The prescription drug plan is one of the most costly entitlement programs created in the modern era, and the "No Child Left Behind" program has generally been regarded as yet another federal program having lackluster results. With those efforts fading into the twilight, the White House has now spearheaded a disastrous immigration bill.

One hopes that the President has no other improvements on his to-do list.

DO YOU LIKE MUSIC, MR. FINCH?

Quite a few hardcore Bush conservatives are gleefully slapping each other silly in the twilight of the last debate, over Rudy Giuliani's heated remarks towards Ron Paul on the matter of 9/11.

My initial feeling is that Bush supporters are afraid of Paul, because he's rather skilled at offering solutions to problems that the Republicans have failed to solve. Giuliani supporters don't like him because he's not liberal enough. Both groups have been praying for a moment to come for Paul to "screw up" in front of a camera, and thus clear the way for them to gain the nomination without ever having to give straight, informed answers to anything. During the debate, many thought that moment had finally come.

In case you've missed the media uproar, here's a partial transcript of the exchange:

Paul: Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East -- I think Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics.

Giuliani: Wendell, may I comment on that? That's really an extraordinary statement. That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th.

The astute observer will note that Paul did not say that we invited anyone to attack us. He asked, "Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us?" and then summarized the terrorists' own stated reasons.

Giuliani's chastising of Paul is seen by many as a touchdown in the arena of politics. The problem these people going to face - hopefully sooner than later - is what to do when it begins to hit the news cycle that Paul's answer was quite accurate.

From the Canada Free Press:

Equally important, it turns out that Paul's point - that the 9/11 attacks were linked to U.S. involvement in Iraq and the Middle East - was factually correct. Osama bin Laden's 1996 "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places" specifically mentioned the situation in Iraq, blaming the U.S. for the impact of economic sanctions on the Saddam Hussein regime. Bin Laden accused the U.S. of "aggression" against Iraq and the record shows that his anti-Americanism was motivated, at least in part, by the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia.

Yet, Giuliani claimed "I don't think I've heard that before," in reference to Paul's citation of some of these facts. One would think that "America's Mayor" and "Mr. 9/11" would understand the genesis of the attacks that took almost 3,000 American lives.

The blind followers of Republican dogma should stop their victory dance for a moment and consider who actually lost this exchange. Giuliani looked passionate, for sure. But in a rush to defend his image as "America's Mayor", he also looked rather uninformed on the deeper background of the terrorists' motives behind 9/11.

It's been said that if you repeat a lie long enough, and loudly enough, eventually people believe it to be the truth. Those of you that believe we were attacked because we watch Mtv, let our women wear skirts, and drink alcohol are sadly mistaken. The terrorists had their reasons to attack us; they've even gone to the trouble of writing them down for easy reference. If one wishes to understand their hatred, it would be prudent to read what they themselves offer as explanation.

The full article is here, and well worth reading. Thanks go to Radley for pointing the way.

WINDFALL PROFITS

It is often said that there are two constants in the world: death and taxes. Based on the news of late, I believe we can add yet another constant: than Americans will forever complain about the price of gasoline. I can recall a time when gasoline was relatively cheap, by any measure of economy. When I was in college (1989), I distinctly remember paying .82 cents/gallon for regular unleaded. Here in May 2007, it's nearly quadrupled.

I'm no different than anyone else. I have a monthly budget, based on the salary my employer pays me. The more I have to pay for gasoline, the less money I have for other things... be it necessities, or leisure spending. However, the nonstop drone of people complaining about the price of fuel has reached an all-time high. Today I saw a media poll asking "Should the government regulate gas prices?" The results are either astounding or horrifying, depending on your point of view: 76% of respondents answered "Yes".

Quite frankly, it's time for Americans to stop complaining about the Evil Big Oil Companies and pay more attention to who actually makes the most money from the sale of gasoline. So here are some facts about gasoline and the profits associated with it. In case you're a skeptic and don't care for these numbers, be aware that I've personally researched and sourced each one.

According to AAA, today's national average price of a gallon of gas is $3.087. In Cincinnati, I saw the price hovering around $3.15; it's higher in places like California, where laws requiring special blends of gasoline increase the price.

How much profit does Big Oil make for every gallon sold? According to Conoco-Phillips:

A multitude of factors can affect an individual oil company's profit on gasoline sales. However, data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) indicates that when the average price of unleaded regular peaked at about $3 a gallon in the middle of 2006, major companies were making a profit of about 10 cents a gallon on their U.S. refining and marketing operations.

But let's not forget the tax revenue. The national average is 45.8 cents/gallon. New Yorkers pay the highest rate of 60.8 cents/gallon, while Alaskan residents pay quite a bit less of 26.4 cents/gallon.

So how much money are we talking about? The Energy Information Administration lists U.S. Motor Gasoline Consumption for March 2007 at 384,700,000 gallons per day. Yes, that's 11.9 Billion gallons used in that month.

We'll do some quick math for March 2007, using the national tax average of .458/gallon and the average oil company profit of .10/gallon.

Big Oil's Profit: $1,192,570,000
Local, State, & Federal Profit: $5,461,970,600

No, that isn't a typo. In March 2007, the government's profits on gasoline were 4.58 time greater than that of the oil companies - or, 4.2 Billion dollars more. And by the way, we're only talking about gasoline. Diesel fuel and heating oil also come from crude, and of course those are taxed as well.

You'll note that I've consistently referred to the government's tax revenue as "profit"... because that's exactly what it is: profit. The government doesn't spend money to search for the oil, drill for it, extract it, ship it to a facility to refine it, and finally ship it to consumers. Oil companies spend billions of dollars on research, drilling, shipping, and marketing... the IRS simply collects a check.

The naysayers will speak of "federal oil subsidies". My answer to you: do some research of your own, and you'll find that the amount of subsidies awarded by Congress is hysterically minuscule compared to the tax revenues received.

Oil companies make quite a lot of money... I've no argument with that. But the facts are crystal clear - it's not Exxon-Mobil earning windfall profits.

It's Washington.

FREEDOM UNDER SIEGE

One of the most notable turning points in my life came about when one of my closest friends gave me a copy of "The Fountainhead", by Ayn Rand. I still recall the day. It was a late afternoon in early December of 1996. We were sitting in the cafe area of Barnes & Noble on Apalachee Pkwy in Tallahassee, FL having some coffee. I was preparing to move to Cincinnati, and this was to be one of our last long chats together.

Right before it was time for us to depart, he excused himself for a moment and walked back into the store area. Within a few minutes, he returned with a newly purchased book: a parting gift, and gave it to me saying "This is my bible."

Michael Chiang changed my outlook on life that day.

It wasn't a matter of developing a new way of thinking, exactly... more accurately, it was an experience in which you find yourself reading things that echo your own thoughts. Thoughts and opinions I'd held in a very disorganized internal fashion were explored and defined. Rand's philosophy of reason, rationality, and the innate truth that man has the intrinsic right to exist and live for his own well-being are beliefs which drive every day of my life.

I've experienced a similar feeling recently, upon reading this: the first chapter of Freedom Under Siege, by Ron Paul. Find a few spare minutes this weekend. Pour yourself a cup of coffee or open a bottle of your favorite beverage, and read 27 pages of brilliance.

In previous posts, I've focused on the shortcomings of some of the Republican candidates for President. Now I present to you something different: the views and opinions of a man who does not say things to acquire votes, but instead says what he believes.

Stay tuned.

FAMILIAR WORDS

"Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."

Rudolph Giuliani
March 16, 1994

Hm... where have I read something like that before... oh, yes.

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

George Orwell, "1984"

Perhaps that is yet another belief that Rudy will gloss over in his quest for electoral votes. Hat tip to Arracos at the OFCC Forum for finding the speech online.

4 SQUARE INCHES

Regular readers will note that most of my posts have a common theme, relating to firearms in some way. Either the guns themselves, or the laws that affect gun owners and the politicians that write the laws. So you'll have to forgive me for straying off the path a bit... this one is just too much to grind my teeth and ignore.

Today we were treated from a new revelation from musical artist Sheryl Crow. She's currently on some type of environmental tour with her friend and cohort Laurie David, a wealthy environmental activist. To pass the time, Sheryl has been writing down different ideas that occur to her - ways in which we can all save the planet.

Here's the one making the biggest news:

I propose a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting. Now, I don't want to rob any law-abiding American of his or her God-given rights, but I think we are an industrious enough people that we can make it work with only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where 2 to 3 could be required.

4 Square inches per bathroom visit should suffice, except for "pesky occasions". One is left to wonder if it's double-ply. The idea itself is rather ludicrous, but I'd like to draw attention to one particular part: "I propose a limitation be put on how many...". Everyone catch that? A limitation, not a suggestion. How exactly would she propose we be limited in our paper usage? Will this be voluntary, or will there be a ration per-week based on family size? Will one have to apply for an exemption in the event a family member becomes stricken with stomach flu? Will one be able to purchase "toilet offsets" in the same manner than Al Gore has justified his electric bill?

But wait - Sheryl's not finished. Now that she's leaving behind all social rules regarding bathroom hygiene, she moves on to the dinner table:

I also like the idea of not using paper napkins, which happen to be made from virgin wood and represent the height of wastefulness. I have designed a clothing line that has what's called a "dining sleeve." The sleeve is detachable and can be replaced with another "dining sleeve," after usage. The design will offer the "diner" the convenience of wiping his mouth on his sleeve rather than throwing out yet another barely used paper product. I think this idea could also translate quite well to those suffering with an annoying head cold.

We're to continue saving paper by wiping our mouths (and runny noses when sick) on our sleeves. I'm not sure which is more disgusting - a person walking around with their head cold all over their sleeve, or the lack of cleanliness associated with their bathroom visits.

It's little wonder Karl Rove said "Don't touch me", when Sheryl reached out to touch his arm at the Annual White House Correspondents' Association Dinner earlier this week. If she's already experimenting with these strange ideas, I'd rather she not touch me either.

Perhaps her oncologist should schedule some tests for brain cancer...

Laurie David is a special case as well.

While (Robert Jr.) Kennedy admiringly calls her "relentless," others say she's over the top. "Laurie can be effective, but also heavy-handed and a browbeater," said one politically active Hollywood insider, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "She'll go so far as to say that people who drive SUVs are terrorist supporters. That turns people off."

Such criticism doesn't faze Laurie, who indeed produced a set of controversial 2003 television commercials that equated people who buy big SUVS with backers of terrorist training camps. This is a woman who's not afraid to chase down Hummer drivers so she can flip them off from the seat of her Prius.

This from a woman who regularly flies cross-county in a Gulfstream 200, using 1200-1500 gallons of fuel in the process. That's about equal to driving a one Hummer 15,000 miles in a year.

Now don't get me wrong: I have no problem with Laurie David flying around in a private jet, nor do I particularly care that she owns mansions on both the east and west coasts. I'm not bothered that Sheryl's last North American tour consisted of three tractor trailers, four buses, and six cars. And if Al Gore is happy with his 10,000 sq ft home, burning through 18,000+ kWh per month - hey, it's his money.

Here's what I have a problem with: the damned hypocrisy.

I live in a relatively modest condo, and drive a small Japanese car. I don't take a convoy to work, Sheryl. I don't pay $1200 electric bills every month, Albert. And Laurie - I fly on Delta.

When the three of you cut your "carbon footprint" down to the size of mine (without your Purchase Carbon Offsets scam), then you can begin to offer me suggestions on what I can do to stop destroying the planet.

Until then, shut the hell up.

PREVENTATIVE MEASURES

One of the benefits - or downsides - of working in the media is that you are treated to hearing the news throughout the day. Most people that watch the news do so at their leisure, and watch a particular news program at a particular time. Some people make it a point to always watch Shepard Smith on FoxNews; at least 139 people watch Katie Couric on CBS every night.

But those of us that toil every day to create the news have a slightly different perspective. We hear and read all the news - not just the snippets that are edited together for broadcast. Furthermore, we hear all of the broadcasts throughout the day - not just the 6pm newscast. And believe me, the news pieces that air at 11pm are sometimes quite different than those airing at noon or 6pm.

It's not really a conspiracy matter. The news programs have different content based on market research. For example, morning news is typically "lighter" than the evening. People don't like to wake up to gloom and doom... it's not the type of thing that gets them in the mood to drive to work.

Perhaps I should start getting to the point...

Over the past 3 days, I've heard an incredible amount of news related to the Virginia Tech shooting. As the story continues to develop and mature, I'm beginning to sense a particular slant or trend that involves the motivations of Cho Seung-Hui. Writers, researchers and reporters are all scrambling about to learn the details of Cho's past, in an effort to find out what events in his own history led to his final murderous actions.

I've seen reports discussing the fact that Cho came from a poor family, and that he felt a derision towards rich people. I've been informed that Cho was bullied in Junior High School, because he was Korean. I've read that Cho suffering from deep depression. I've seen news reporters remind us all of the symptoms of depression - how to recognize it, and interact with a depressed person. I've listened to people talk about Cho's feelings in inadequacy, as it relates to his mastery of speaking the English language. I've heard his classmates at VT describe him as a loner, and socially withdrawn... rarely talking, and having no friends (nor apparently wanting to form friendships with others).

Quite frankly, I'm sick of hearing about Cho's past and I'm insulted that somehow I'm supposed to feel a bit of pity for the man.

Forgive a quick tangent on an important, but minor matter: please note I called him a "man" in the sentence above. Not a child, not a college kid. He was neither a child nor a college kid. Cho was 23 years old. He hadn't been a "kid" for several years... so please, let's have no more descriptions of him which imply that somehow his age was a factor.

When Cho's victims were staring down the barrel of his gun, his past history was of no consequence. His motivations did not matter. There were only two relevant factors:

1. He had a deadly weapon, and was intent upon killing as many people as possible until he was stopped or became bored with killing.

2. How could one stop such a person from continuing to kill people?

One of the most saddening things about that day was that no one in the building had an effective way of stopping Cho's rampage. Virginia Tech has a firm policy in place which forbids students who are licensed to carry a concealed weapon from bringing a gun onto campus. Virgina Tech is what people call a "designated gun-free zone". Depending on your locale, bringing a weapon into such a place can lead to expulsion or arrest.

It's nothing if not obvious that Cho had no concerns about VT's gun-free policies. Someone who is anxiously planning the death of 32 people is not concerned with any such policy. Gun-free policies only affect one type of gun owner - the ones that would never commit such a crime to begin with.

Some politicians, such as Carolyn McCarthy and Barbara Boxer have already begun to talk about new legislation which will somehow prevent this kind of thing from happening again. They're discussing waiting periods, gun shows, registration, and banning "high capacity" magazines.

Where did Cho purchase his guns? No, he didn't take advantage of the mythical "loop hole" at a gun show. He purchased them from a licensed gun dealer, after undergoing the required federal background check.

How did the waiting period affect him? Virginia prevented Cho from purchasing both guns at the same time; I've read the state has a "1 handgun a month" law. That wasn't a problem for Cho. He purchased his first handgun in early March, and then purchased the second one a month later. He had planned this attack for weeks; a three-day waiting period was of no corcern to him.

High-capacity magazines? Would it have really made any difference if Cho had to reload twice instead of once? Cho wasn't discretely carrying one handgun with a magazine inserted; he was carrying two guns and had extra magazines stuffed in his pockets. I don't believe that his killing spree would have been any less effective if he had to carry five magazines instead of four.

With all their talk of creating more restrictive gun laws, it seems that many lawmakers, colleges, and a few law-enforcement brass are overlooking the one solution hasn't been tried: allowing people more latitude to arm themselves in self-defense.

They made laws to restrict Cho in nearly every way possible. They made him wait to purchase his guns, they declared he could not bring a weapon on campus, and most certainly they've made murder illegal. Cho showed patience with the laws that were inconvenient, and completely ignored the other ones.

That day, the laws only denied the victims their means to defend their lives.

I'm not clairvoyant. I cannot say with certainty that if one student had been armed, Cho would have been stopped. Perhaps that one student would have been the first victim.

However, I can say with certainty what the result will be when no one but the murderer is armed. Watch the news, Carolyn McCarthy. Watch the news, Michael Bloomberg. Watch the news, Sarah Brady. The result is 32 dead college students... all of whom followed your pathetic laws, all of whom were unarmed and unable to offer any effective defense.

You believe that if we can somehow come to "understand" what led to Cho's actions, and further restrict American gun rights, we can prevent such things from happening again. Here's another newsflash for you: crazed murderers don't care about your laws. Once a person has decided they are willing to break one of the highest laws - the one against murder - it's laughable to believe that your law banning guns at school will have any effect.

And finally:

To all the politicians, writers, pundits and police captains who believe guns could not have stopped this tragedy, I ask this question:

When the students were dialing 911, who were they calling for help?

People with guns.

YES, SHE'S PAID TO MAKE LAWS

If you're trying to ban something, you should at least have a clue as to what it is you're trying to ban. Carolyn McCarthy is one such clueless person.



No, Carolyn. A barrel shroud is NOT that "shoulder thing that goes up". It doesn't make the weapon more deadly. It doesn't allow the weapon to fire more bullets, or fire at a faster rate.

Carolyn, a barrel shroud is simply a piece of sheet metal with holes it. When you fire a gun, the barrel heats up. The shroud covers the barrel so that the shooter can't touch the hot barrel and burn their hand.

In other words, Carolyn: it's a safety feature.

The resulting safety factor is no different than the plastic guard on a document shredder. The guard doesn't help the machine shred any faster. It just protects the user's fingers from accidentally being shredded along with the paper.

Kudos to Tucker for not letting her evade the question until she had demonstrated her complete ignorance.

GIULIANI ON REGISTRATION

Those of you that will be voting in the Republican primary should remember this clip as you step into the booth. Whether the next President has a (D) or (R) next to their name matters little. What matters is their dedication to preserving your rights.

On his campaign website, Giuliani writes this as his position on the 2nd Amendment:

Rudy Giuliani is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. When he was Mayor of a city suffering an average of almost 2000 murders a year, he protected people by getting illegal handguns out of the hands of criminals.

Here's the problem: Giuliani's method was not just to take handguns away from criminals. He took it several steps further and sued most of the firearms industry.

He seems to wish to sit on both sides of the fence. On one hand, he says he believes in the 2nd Amendment. On the other hand, his support for that right appears to be limited to certain uses of firearms; ie, he supports the use of guns when hunting, or by law enforcement - but appears to firmly believe that Americans should be restricted in owning a gun for self defense.

Fortunately, the lawsuit was effectively ended after President Bush signed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act in 2005.

Beyond the lawsuit, New York requires a license to own a handgun. Not just to carry one concealed - to own one. If you wish to own a handgun, and keep it IN YOUR HOME - prepare to apply for a license. The license may take up to 6 months to be processed. Furthermore, the decision of whether or not you will be granted a license is solely up to the licensing officer. If you are denied a license, the denial can only be overturned in court by proving that the denial was "arbitrary and capricious."

The 2nd Amendment is clear: your right shall not be infringed. I see no difference in New York charging $439 for a handgun license, and the poll tax which was eliminated with the 24th Amendment.

Don't let the Republican label fool you - Giuliani is no friend to gun owners.

BRILLIANT

Virginia Gun Dealers Hold Contest to Protest New York Mayor Bloomberg's Gun Policy

"Ask about the Bloomberg Gun GiveAway" reads a sign taped to the gun shop's register, beckoning customers to enter the drawing named for New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, whose federal lawsuits against gun dealers in five states have drawn the wrath of Virginia's gun enthusiasts.

Bloomberg says the dealers holding the contest are sick. The dealers call Bloomberg names that aren't fit to print.

You can read the rest here.

Michael, here's a bit of advice for you - trying spending more time worrying about your own police slaughtering unarmed citizens and less time worrying about gun stores in other states.

YOU CALL THIS A "CHOICE"?

FatWhiteGuy is about a big of fan as John McCain as I am. But to be fair, I have about as much interest in having McCain winning the election as the rest of them. The biggest issue I have with the 3 Republican candidates is that I can't determine why they expect conservatives to be excited about the chance to vote for them.

The Democrat candidates are easy to understand... the Republicans, not so much. Let's go down the list:

- Hillary Clinton
If you've hated nearly everything that happened in America from 1980-88, or since 1992, Hillary is your candidate. If your most secret desire is to see Ted Nugent killed with his own black rifle and his remains ground up and used as fertilizer for organic produce - she's your choice.
- Barack Obama
If you're a liberal that wants to win the White House, but think Hillary is far too polarizing - Obama fits the bill. He's fairly unassuming, and to many appears to be the one who can take an even-handed liberal approach to leadership. He's also a new player in the game, so there isn't as much baggage in his closet.
- John Edwards
Erm... given that Edwards lost out the last time he was in a primary, and lost the last time he was on the VP Ticket... I'm not sure why you'd vote for him. The only reason I can think of is that he's a white guy, and you can't bring yourself to vote for a woman or a black guy. Or maybe you just really like millionaire personal injury lawyers.

...onto the RINO's...

- John McCain
Do I really need to retype it all? Nah. Check the post below.
- Rudolph William Louis Giuliani III
Wow. Long name. Almost sounds like royalty. Anyhoo... let's take a look at Rudy's positions: Gay Marriage - Supports It. Abortion - Supports It. Gun Control - Supports It. Now, let me be clear on one particular point: I support gay rights. But it's not stretching reality to point out that the average Bush Conservative doesn't. Nor do they support abortion or gun control. Which begs the questions: a) why is Giuliani a Republican b) how exactly does he plan to convince Republicans that he's not really a Democrat?
- Mitt Romney
I can't tell if Romney is the Republican version of Obama (no huge marks against him yet) or Edwards (white guy.) Possibly it's just a combination of both. Overall, it looks as if Romney is your candidate if you can't stand McCain and think Rudy is one of those New York RINOs.

So which one of the above will I be voting for in the primaries?

None of them. I'm a registered Libertarian.

AND THE ANSWER IS...

The Bethy took a shot in yesterday's game of "Name the Candidate" with an answer of Barack Obama.

Her reasons were pretty good:

I'm going with Obama, because everyone seems to be in love with him right now, and you think that his leftist views are being overshadowed by his charming personality. You don't want people to be deceived.

Unfortunately, I suppose it was a trick question... given that the answer wasn't one of the Democrats I listed at the end of the post.

The correct answer is:



John McCain. Seen here impersonating a pirate.

Yes, one of the front-runners for President in the Republican party has views so far to the left that one can easily mistake him for a Democratic candidate.

No doubt his supporters will do everything possible to obscure his past voting record.

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT...

This is a bit old, but it will never get old.

David Wu (D) Oregon
January 10, 2007