Making it illegaler

What does a “lawmaker” do when he’s afraid someone may break the law?

Why…introduce a law making it illegal to break the law of course.

With the exception of any person who lawfully possesses a handgun, no person shall possess any weapon set forth in subsection A of § 18.2-308 while in the Capitol of Virginia or in any other building owned by the Commonwealth and used predominantly for the conduct of the business of the General Assembly.

So if you are unlawfully in possession of a weapon, you can no longer unlawfully enter a a state government building…because it would be unlawful. Again.

Or something.

Hat tip to VSSA Blog


Further Evidence…

…that it’s all over but the crying.

The once important Sarah Brady is now reduced to personally leaving comments on gun blogs (about the 15th comment down).

Granted, Sebastian and Bitter are a couple of the higher profile gun bloggers out there, but still…

Also note that she doesn’t even bother trying to address the substantive issues raised and takes the opportunity only to point out that she actually used to be a Republican but has since “seen the light”.

However she seems to have missed the fact that, at least for her agenda of strict gun control, the light she saw was apparently the headlight of the oncoming train.

That is, of course, not to say that we can rest on our laurels. These are control freaks we’re talking about here. Their behavior is not rational and does not follow rational patterns. They will never stop, regardless of how little support they get or how foolhardy it looks to people not afflicted with their disorder. So, even though the truth appears to be winning over the falsehoods that they spread, we have to continue to remain vigilant. If we relax our guard and one of their false premises is allowed to stand unchallenged, it could plant a seed of doubt, which could spread like weeds in the minds of the uninformed and a future generation may have to fight the battle all over again as we have for the past 20 years or so.

It would be a grave disservice to our children and grandchildren were we to allow that to happen.


Regarding the Playoffs

I’ve never been a “fan” of the 49er’s, but I had nothing against them either.  Up until a few minutes before game time yesterday, I was rooting for them because it’s been awhile since they’ve been to the big show and I thought they were due.

Right up until the utter disrespect and despicable actions shown by the crowd during the singing of the National Anthem.   I realize they weren’t booing the anthem, but were rather booing something going on on the field, or on the big screens, but the fact that we could barely hear the rendition of our anthem for the cheers and boos absolutely infuriated me.

When I attended the two NFL games I’ve been to, there were, admittedly, some people not showing proper respect during the anthem, but for the most part, the crowd stood, and paid their respects, so I’m pretty sure that egregious behavior is not endemic to the NFL.

The 49ers can bite my keister.  They’ll never get my support again.  If their fans can’t control themselves for two minutes during the national anthem to show their respects to the nation and the service members who were on the field, I have no respect for them. At All.

BTW:  The rendition of the national anthem…at least what I heard of it over the boos and catcalls, was beautiful.


Custody Case

Indianapolis, IN – A seven year old boy was at the center of a Marion County courtroom drama yesterday when he challenged a court ruling over who should have custody of him. The boy has a history of being beaten by his parents and the judge initially awarded custody to his aunt, in keeping with child custody law and regulation requiring that family unity be maintained to the highest degree possible.

The boy surprised the court when he proclaimed that his aunt beat him more than his parents and he adamantly refused to live with her. When the judge then suggested that he live with his grandparents, the boy cried and said that they also beat him.

After considering the remainder of the immediate family and learning that domestic violence was apparently a way of life among them, the judge took the unprecedented step of allowing the boy to propose who should have custody of him.

After two recesses to check legal references and confer with the child welfare officials, the judge granted temporary custody to the Indianapolis Colts Football Team, whom the boy firmly believes are not capable of beating anyone.

Contributed via e-mail by CB


Stand by for even higher food prices

Family friend and blogger vanilla, in a recent post, noted as an aside:

A side effect of the wet weather that we observed as we travelled across the Heartland, and a most serious one it is, too, is the fact that much of the farmland is not yet planted, or even under cultivation. In fact, much of it is under water. This, combined with the serious flooding in the Mississippi Valley, bodes ill for us all.

 I’d noted the rough midwestern weather and Mississippi valley flooding with interest, but that aspect of it hadn’t occurred to me…although it should have.

Not getting the fields planted before memorial day?  That’s trouble.

Even if they get planted in the next couple of weeks, the plants will be at their most fragile stage during the hottest, driest part of the summer and, in many places, won’t be ready to harvest until there is real danger of losing it to freezing temps.

We’ve already been experiencing serious inflation of food prices (which the government conveniently doesn’t count in calculations of the official “inflation rate”); this spring’s weather means it’s going to get worse before it gets better…if it ever does.


The 90 Percent myth:

The definitive answer:

It has now become quite common to hear U.S. officials confidently assert that 90 percent of the weapons used by the Mexican drug cartels come from the United States. However, a close examination of the dynamics of the cartel wars in Mexico — and of how the oft-echoed 90 percent number was reached — clearly demonstrates that the number is more political rhetoric than empirical fact.

Good stuff.  Go read it all.

Bringing in the New Year with a bang…


We’re in Indianapolis right now. We decided to make the trip out to visit my sister.

She is doing remarkably better by the way, but I’ll update on her condition in another post.

This is about the Indianapolis New Year’s celebration last night.

Holy Cow.

The friend that I stay with doesn’t live in a ritzy neighborhood in the best part of town, but it isn’t the slums either. Typical quiet, friendly middle class neighborhood.

He warned me yesterday about this but I took his warning with a grain of salt. Back home, we hear fireworks that could be mistaken for gunfire all night long on New Year’s Eve…but I couldn’t believe what we heard coming from all around us last night here in Indy.

It sounded like freaking Fallujah out there.

Obvious semi-automatic gunfire everywhere. Mainly sounded like pistol fire, but one series of 10 or 12 shots sounded amazingly like 7.62×39 and I heard a couple off in the distance that could have been 5.56 fire. A couple of blasts that could have been fireworks, but sounded more like shotguns.

I’ve lived in several big cities in my life…some with less than stellar reputations and often in somewhat less than “high class” neighborhoods and I’ve NEVER heard anything like that.

I kept expecting to hear lead raining down on the roof at any minute.

And what’s even more amazing…not a single mention of it in the paper this morning.

People wantonly firing guns into the air in celebration of the new year has apparently become so unremarkable in Indianapolis that it doesn’t even rate a single line of print in passing mention.



More anti-gun researchers admit…

That there is no gun show loophole (link to pdf).

The money quote:

Federal law makes no distinction between sales occurring at gun shows and other sales; there is no such thing as a gun show loophole.

The author’s list reads like a who’s who of anti-gun “researchers”:

Garen J. Wintemute, MD, MPH, David Hemenway, PhD, Daniel Webster, ScD, MPH, Glenn Pierce, PhD, and Anthony A. Braga, PhD

As with the last example, which was penned exclusively by Dr. Wintemute, the overall tone of the piece is, unsurprisingly, anti-gun…but the fact remains that even their own researchers are beginning to admit that there flatly is no such thing as “the gun show loophole”.

I personally believe that this is a calculated tactic.  As a necessary step toward their desired end goal of completely eliminating private ownership of firearms, the Brady Campaign has been trying for years to incrementally end private transfer of firearms, “closing the gun show loophole” being nothing more than a “good first step”.  I believe that these researchers are losing hope in the Brady plan of attack and have simply decided to bypass Stalingrad and strike directly for Moscow.

The advantage to this for us, is that we now have studies from their own researchers that finally and unequivocally admit the truth that we’ve known all along:  That the contributions of gun shows to criminal access to guns is insignificant and that, in fact, the “gun show loophole” is a myth.

Surveys suggest that from 4% to 9% of gun sales nationwide occur at gun shows. Most sales at gun shows are made by licensed retailers, and most private-party gun sales are made else- where. Federal law makes no distinction between sales occurring at gun shows and other sales; there is no such thing as a gun show loophole.

Surveys of persons incarcerated for gun crimes suggest that less than 2% of them acquired their weapons at gun shows.

Gun Shows and Gun Violence: Fatally Flawed Study Yields Misleading Results, Garen J. Wintemute, David Hemenway, Daniel Webster, Glenn Pierce, Anthony A. Braga, American Journal Of Public Health, August 2010


Well, now that you mention it…

Town Hall meeting questioner:

I would like to know specifically, article and section of the Constitution, that gives the government the right to run our health care.

Senator Mark Warner:

So I take, I take by your question, I take by your question, I take by your question that you would get rid of Medicare and Medicaid or would you, are you, let me make sure I understand: You’re advocating doing away with Medicare, right? Because that’s a government program. I just want to make clear that you are suggesting doing away with Medicare? But one thing, listen, there is, there is no place in the Constitution that specifically says health care. There’s no place in the Constitution that specifically says education. There is no place in the competition, in the Constitution, there is no place in the Constitution, there is no place in the Constitution, there is no place in the Constitution, there is no place in the Constitution that talks about you ought to have the right to get a telephone, but we have made those choices as a country over the years.

He was on the verge of an epiphany until he proclaimed that ignoring the Constitution is perfectly acceptable because “we have made those choices over the years”.

Why even bother having a Constitution if our overlords can just “make choices” that over-rule it whenever they want?

I would also add: I don’t remember when getting a telephone was declared a constitutional right…someone refresh my memory on that one.

BTW: This is currently listed under the tag of “(not) in the News”. I’ll move it to “In the News” if someone can point me to any Legacy Media outlet where this story was reported.