When President Obama puts his foot in his mouth, it goes all the way up to his knee (image go away). This morning, Instapundit had two links about Obama's comment on Henry Louis Gates' arrest for disorderly conduct. In one, a Republican representative wants a resolution demanding that Obama apologize to the arresting officer. In the other, Chicago's Mayor Daley said that Obama should have collected the facts before opening his mouth.
In other words, have we finally come to the ultimate "gate" as in Watergate? Are we witnessing a Gatesgate?
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Recipocity Amendment Results
Well, the big vote on almost nation-wide concealed carry failed. Still it was a close vote. Snowflakes live-blogged it. It was a close vote. It needed 60 to pass and won the support of 58 Senators, many of whom are Democrats. We’ve come a long way to get this far and may do better in the future. The Senate has a handy-dandy chart showing who voted for what.
I was struck by one thing in the chart: Senators from what I would call pro-gun states who didn’t vote for this amendment.
I didn’t include certain states in my list—none of the Great Lakes states including Ohio and Illinois. While there are a lot of gun owners up there, I personally don’t associate them with support of concealed carry or some gun rights. That is idiosyncratic and someone may argue with my choices (for instance, someone else’s list might have dumped the New England states). Still, it’s my opinion and without further ado here is my list:
I was struck by one thing in the chart: Senators from what I would call pro-gun states who didn’t vote for this amendment.
I didn’t include certain states in my list—none of the Great Lakes states including Ohio and Illinois. While there are a lot of gun owners up there, I personally don’t associate them with support of concealed carry or some gun rights. That is idiosyncratic and someone may argue with my choices (for instance, someone else’s list might have dumped the New England states). Still, it’s my opinion and without further ado here is my list:
Florida: Nelson (D)So, these senators do not represent the beliefs and traditions of their states’ citizens. It’s called a ballot box people. Use it in 2010 or whenever their term is up.
Indiana: Lugar (R)
Iowa: Harkin (D)
Missouri: McCaskill (D)
New Hampshire: Shaheen (D)
New Mexico: Bingaman (D)
Oregon: Merkley (D) and Wyden (D)
Pennsylvania: Specter (D sort of)
Vermont: Leahy (D) and Sanders (I)
Washington: Cantwell (D) and Murray (D)
West Virginia: Rockefeller (D)
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Sad Panda over Reciprocity
Lately, the New York Times has been a font of anti-gun sad-pandaism. The editors can’t stand that pro-gun people are winning victories in Congress, in the states, and in public opinion. They can’t stand the fact they’re losing. Sad, sad pandas. I feel (almost) sorry for them. At least I’m trying not to engage too openly in shadenfreude, which is not a pretty emotion.
This time our intrepid editors are bemoaning a proposed gun law. Senator John Thune of South Dakota hopes to add an amendment to a military spending bill that would provide gun owners with reciprocity throughout the United States or at least most of it.
The editorial is short on facts. There’s no mention of how the amendment would affect states that don’t have concealed carry laws at all, if there would be intrastate limits on where one could carry (meaning one would have to master the laws of all the states in which one travels), how it would handle Vermont-style systems, and other pertinent facts.
The editorial is long on emotion. It describes the proposal as “…the latest assault on public safety….” It states that it would make illegal gun trafficking between states easier (not sure how, but I’m just reporting here). If cites statistics that describe presumably unlawful killings by permittees, but the numbers cover a two year period and seem cherry picked (unable to tell without more facts--those are good things).
Finally, it hopes Chuck Schumer and Frank Lautenberg are able to defeat the amendment. But, the writers sound desperate. They sound like they’re crying panda tears.
Let’s really make them really unhappy and give our congresscritters a call and support this amendment.
This time our intrepid editors are bemoaning a proposed gun law. Senator John Thune of South Dakota hopes to add an amendment to a military spending bill that would provide gun owners with reciprocity throughout the United States or at least most of it.
The editorial is short on facts. There’s no mention of how the amendment would affect states that don’t have concealed carry laws at all, if there would be intrastate limits on where one could carry (meaning one would have to master the laws of all the states in which one travels), how it would handle Vermont-style systems, and other pertinent facts.
The editorial is long on emotion. It describes the proposal as “…the latest assault on public safety….” It states that it would make illegal gun trafficking between states easier (not sure how, but I’m just reporting here). If cites statistics that describe presumably unlawful killings by permittees, but the numbers cover a two year period and seem cherry picked (unable to tell without more facts--those are good things).
Finally, it hopes Chuck Schumer and Frank Lautenberg are able to defeat the amendment. But, the writers sound desperate. They sound like they’re crying panda tears.
Let’s really make them really unhappy and give our congresscritters a call and support this amendment.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
More Gun Hypocrisy
Yosemite Sam and I took a brief, unplanned, unannounced, and totally necessary break from blogging and even reading blogs, newspapers, and magazines in all but a most superficial way. We were traveling, work has been hell, and we had a short visit from a relative. When you're in the Washington, D.C. area, that means hikes to The Mall, long Smithsonian visits, staring at monuments and memorials. My aching feet.
There's an editorial in the New York Times today that perfectly illustrates anti-gunnies' fervent hatred of gun rights. They allow this hatred to blind them to the implications of their own thoughts. The editorial board opposes an amendment to a bill that guarantee citizens living in public housing the right to keep guns in their homes.
We're talking about a Constitutional right. We're talking about the sanctity of the home. Yet, the anti-gun editors favor restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens. What if an atheist housing administrator regulated the ownership of Bibles or Korans in public housing? What if a housing administrator banned blogging in public housing? Someone, somewhere could make an argument that these are good ideas.
A right is a right no matter where someone lives.
The editors revealed even more short-sightedness where guns are concerned. They stated, "...Congress should be dealing with the national embarrassment that individuals barred from airlines on the terrorist watch list are free to shop for firearms." If Ted Kennedy showed up on the watch list again, the editorial board would decry the list is unfair, arbitrary, that it violates citizens' rights, that there is no way to know you are on the list or get off of it. They would call it a Bush travesty of justice and fairness.
When guns are concerned, it's fair and right that someone on the list, even if they don't belong there, should be denied a basic Constitutional and human right. What hypocrites.
There's an editorial in the New York Times today that perfectly illustrates anti-gunnies' fervent hatred of gun rights. They allow this hatred to blind them to the implications of their own thoughts. The editorial board opposes an amendment to a bill that guarantee citizens living in public housing the right to keep guns in their homes.
We're talking about a Constitutional right. We're talking about the sanctity of the home. Yet, the anti-gun editors favor restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens. What if an atheist housing administrator regulated the ownership of Bibles or Korans in public housing? What if a housing administrator banned blogging in public housing? Someone, somewhere could make an argument that these are good ideas.
A right is a right no matter where someone lives.
The editors revealed even more short-sightedness where guns are concerned. They stated, "...Congress should be dealing with the national embarrassment that individuals barred from airlines on the terrorist watch list are free to shop for firearms." If Ted Kennedy showed up on the watch list again, the editorial board would decry the list is unfair, arbitrary, that it violates citizens' rights, that there is no way to know you are on the list or get off of it. They would call it a Bush travesty of justice and fairness.
When guns are concerned, it's fair and right that someone on the list, even if they don't belong there, should be denied a basic Constitutional and human right. What hypocrites.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)