Category: Uncategorized

In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

KevinLeave a comment

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:

Column 1
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton

Column 2
North Carolina:
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton

Column 3
Massachusetts:
John Hancock
Maryland:
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton

Column 4
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean

Column 5
New York:
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark

Column 6
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Massachusetts:
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire:
Matthew Thornton

Have a good holiday. Remember what it was about, 230 years ago, and what these men were risking when they put their signatures to that page.

Another Convert

KevinLeave a comment

Almost everyone who experiences an epiphany on the gun-rights question, at least in my experience, comes from an opposition to the right to arms to the support of it. Those (very) few who go the other way are (also in my experience) those who discover in themselves a fear of loss of self-control. They believe they personally cannot handle the responsibility of firearm possession and – since they are obviously “normal” – therefore no one else can either (with the curious exception of those members of society who draw a government paycheck.)

One of the best examples I can reference is that of the authors of the gun-control meta-study Under the Gun: Weapons, Crime, and Violence in America. Authored by James D. Wright, a professor of Sociology at Tulane University, Peter H. Rossi, a professor of Sociology at the University of Massachusetts (Amherst), and Kathleen Daly, a Sociology professor at Yale, Under the Gun was an examination of all the gun control studies that had been performed up until 1978. I’ve mentioned it before. The one excerpt from the book that I like best of all is this one:

The progressive’s indictment of American firearms policy is well known and is one that both the senior authors of this study once shared. This indictment includes the following particulars: (1) Guns are involved in an astonishing number of crimes in this country. (2) In other countries with stricter firearms laws and fewer guns in private hands, gun crime is rare. (3) Most of the firearms involved in crime are cheap Saturday Night Specials, for which no legitimate use or need exists. (4) Many families acquire such a gun because they feel the need to protect themselves; eventually they end up shooting one another. (5) If there were fewer guns around, there would obviously be less crime. (6) Most of the public also believes this and has favored stricter gun control laws for as long as anyone has asked the question. (7) Only the gun lobby prevents us from embarking on the road to a safer and more civilized society.

The more deeply we have explored the empirical implications of this indictment, the less plausible it has become.

That’s from the last chapter, Policy Implications, but it is far from the whole chapter. Here’s some more I haven’t quoted before:

American progressivism has always taken a strong and justifiable pride in its cultural pluralism, its belief that minority or “deviant” cultures and values have intrinsic legitimacy and are therefore to be at least tolerated if not nourished, and certainly not be suppressed. Progressives have embraced the legitimacy of many subcultures in the past, including tolerance for a vast heterogeneity of religious beliefs, regional diversities, a belated recognition of the rights of American Indians, and tolerance for immigrant peoples. And more recently, progressives have hastened to affirm the legitimacy of black culture, Hispanic culture, youth culture, homosexuals (and, for that matter, nearly every other subculture that has pressed its claim for recognition.)

A critical issue in modern America is whether the doctrine of cultural pluralism should or should not be extended to cover the members of the gun subculture. Is this cultural pattern akin to the segregationism of the South that was broken up in the interest of the public good? Or, is it more akin to those subcultures that we have recognized as legitimate and benign forms of self-expression?

The authors don’t answer that question, placed as it was in the last paragraph of their 1983 text. The following twenty-three years of the gun control movement, however, has.

This evening I ran across a post at the blog OK So I’m Not Really a Cowboy that brought all of this back up again.

How The Left Made Me A Gun Rights Advocate

People on the left talk a good game. About freedom and empowerment. About prosperity and harmony. Which is all fine and good until you realize that they intend this to happen by instituting government control of all aspects related to the above. But what really gets me about them is that they turn a blind eye to the negative (but all-too-often expected) consequences of their illogical actions. The gun control debate is a perfect illustration of both their disconnect from causality and their inherently statist outlook. Which is–perversely enough–the reason I became a gun owner.

Go read the whole thing.

And for further examples, may I suggest these earlier posts of mine?

How do you Convert a Gun-Phobe? Put One in Her Hands!

Fear, The Philosophy and Politics Thereof

How Do You Get Your Rights Back?

Awakenings IV

KevinLeave a comment

Gun-Lust.

You ever come across something that just really grabbed your attention? Something that made you say “I want that”? I feel that way about the Porsche 997 Carrera 4S, for example, notwithstanding that the cost of the car far exceeds what I originally paid for my home.

One gun I’ve wanted for a long time is a nice, custom Browning Hi Power, JM Browning’s last (and some say best) handgun design. I already have a 1911 (yes, I know – “Only one?“), but I’d really like to have a Hi Power. Problem is, I have pretty big, fleshy hands, and the Hi Power doesn’t have a beavertail frame. On the 1911, this is a simple fix – get a beavertail grip safety installed. On a Hi Power, this means welding, grinding, polishing, and refinishing. Otherwise I get to be a blood donor somewhere in the middle of the first magazine as the hammer nibbles away at the web of my hand. Even bobbed hammers aren’t much of a help.

I’ve seen a number of nicely done custom Hi Power pistols like the ones by Yost-Bonitz Custom, but like a Porsche, they’re just way too far out there in price for my wallet.

Then I stumbled across this lovely piece currently in stock at California’s famed Bain & Davis gunshop:

It’s advertised on the GunsAmerica website: “This 40 S&W Hi Power has a custom welded beaver tail safety. 3 1/2 lbs trigger job, AO Express sights. Black Moly Coating of all steel parts. and other extras. Well, it has a beavertail, but it’s not a safety. It has an ambidexterous safety, however. That is one workmanlike Hi Power, and it’s not outrageously priced.

But I just put new brakes and four tires on my truck. No can do.

It’s fun to look, though. Maybe next year.

(*sigh*)

KevinLeave a comment

Why People Keep Guns for Self-Defense.

Story 1:

Home-invasion spree led to killing

Five robbers who broke into a house and killed a man while his wife and children were home early Monday are believed to have invaded four other South Side residences and attempted to break into another in a spree that began Sunday night, police said.

Three of the five suspects had been arrested by Tuesday morning and Tucson police continued to look for the remaining two men.

The crime spree is said to have began Sunday at 9:15 p.m. in Pima County when several men entered a home in the 10000 block of South Oak Canyon Lane, near South Country Club Road and East Summit Street, while the family was home, said Lt. Michael O’Connor of the Pima County Sheriff’s Department violent-crimes section. The robbers confronted the residents, demanding money, drugs and valuables. When they left, the men stole two vehicles, abandoning one a short time later and fleeing in the other, which is described as a light-colored Lexus.

Nearly five hours later at 2:02 a.m., robbers forced their way into another residence, in the 800 block of West Milton Street, near South 12th Avenue and West Drexel Road, and demanded money, but left the home without taking anything, said Sgt. Decio Hopffer, a Tucson Police Department spokesman.

Around 3:15 a.m., robbers made their way to the 7300 block of South Via Hermosa, near South Cardinal Avenue and West Los Reales Road, where they forced their way into a residence, O’Connor said. They confronted the homeowners, pistol-whipped a man and fired a shot but did not hit anyone. It was unknown what was stolen at that home, but the men fled the scene.

The next home to be hit by the robbers was in the 2600 block of West Vereda Las Muchas, near West Valencia and South Mission roads, around 3:30 a.m., O’Connor said. Several men pounded on the door, trying to force their way in, but when neighbors were awakened and came out to check on the noise, they got into a vehicle and left.

After that unsuccessful attempt, the robbers arrived at a home in the 1800 block of West Arroyo Vista Drive at 3:45 a.m. where they once again forced their way in and demanded money, but did not get any and left the scene, Hopffer said.

Then the group made its way to the home of 35-year-old Martin Guillermo Rodriguez in the 6300 block of South Beardslee Drive, near Valencia and Mission.

They forced their way into the two story home at the end of the cul-de-sac where Rodriguez’s wife, children and relatives were staying, Hopffer said.

They demanded money and gunfire broke out, he said. Rodriguez was hit and the men left in a white sedan.

At 4:44 a.m., Rodriguez’s wife called 911 to report that her husband had been shot, Hopffer said. Police arrived two minutes later, but Rodriguez was pronounced dead in his home shortly thereafter.

The motive remained unknown Tuesday, but police did say that it did not appear to be drug-related.

“These suspects were out there on a crime spree, hitting homes, hitting people,” Hopffer said. “They did not hesitate to use violence and kill a person. The community is safer as a result of having taken these violent individuals off the streets.”

Thomas Michael Hernandez and Adrian Valenzuela, both 19, and 18-year-old Andy Chavarria Gonzales were booked into the Pima County jail on more than a dozen charges each, including first-degree murder, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, kidnapping, discharging a firearm at a structure, armed robbery and burglary.

Hernandez was arrested early Tuesday while Gonzales and Valenzuela were arrested Monday. They were each being held on $2 million bond.

Hernandez was recently released from prison in March after serving only 10 months of a 2 1/2-year sentence for an aggravated assault charge, according to the Arizona Department of Corrections Web site.

He was to be on supervised release until July 16, the Web site shows.

Gonzales and Valenzuela were indicted by a grand jury on weapons-misconduct charges that stemmed from an incident in April, according to online court records.

Valenzuela has had several other run-ins with the law, including being indicted on a drive-by-shooting charge in an October 2004 incident and a charge of weapons misconduct in November 2005, according to online court records. He is currently facing drug charges as well.

Police are still seeking two men, who are described as being 18 to 20 years old with shaved heads.

Anyone with information is asked to call 911 or 88-CRIME, the anonymous tip line of the Pima County Attorney’s Office.

Story 2, also from here in Tucson:

Homeowner exchanges gunfire with would-be burglars

Imagine waking-up in the middle of the night to the sound of someone trying to break into your home.

A Southwest side homeowner says that happened to him early this morning on South Sparrow Avenue, near West Los Reales Road and Camino de Oeste just east of the Pascua Yaqui Indian Reservation.

“There’s been so many home invasions,” says Alex Morales, “Like what happened down the street. You get scared for your life.”

So, Alex Morales, who lives with his wife, two children, and two grand kids says he didn’t think twice about grabbing his gun when burglary suspects tried to enter his home.

“It’s not that you’re trying to protect what you have; you’re scared for your life, and you’re scared for your family’s life that they might do something to them,” says Morales, who woke up to see a man trying to pry his back door open with a crow bar.

He then grabbed his gun, and rushed over to the door.

“I told him, ‘Either get out of here, or I’m going to blow your head off!’ “

Then Morales said it appeared the intruders tried to run away, so he headed towards the front of the house.

With gun in hand, Morales rushed down this hallway and straight towards the front door.

He went on the door step and then he heard gun shots and says he was forced to exchange fire with the car that was fleeing.

Morales said, “I walked out and they had seen me and they stopped and they shot twice at me, so I got my gun and shot about three or four times at them again.”

Morales doesn’t believe he hit the suspects and, so far, nobody has been arrested.

Whatever the case, Morales says that because he has a family to look out for and protect, if someone tries to rob his house again, “I’m not going to hesitate. If they want to come back, and try to do it again, they are more than welcome. I’ll beef up security and get a few bullets for them. There’s a bullet for everybody that wants to come to my house.”

But Dr. Arthur Kellermann wants you to believe that having a gun in your house for self-protection is more dangerous to you and your family than being disarmed.

If a gun ban was actually passed, who would be disarmed? The home invaders or people like Alex Morales?

KevinLeave a comment

Hey! I’m “This Guy”!.

I was on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show late this afternoon, and dropped Hugh an email:

I was one of your last callers on Thursday (6/29). In the beginning of the Mark Steyn interview you said:

“I’ve always thought we were going to win this war, and I’ve always thought we’d summon the political will to do it. But today’s Supreme Court decision, coupled with the House of Representatives’ refusal to name names in their resolution condemning the action of the New York Times, and the similar reasoning coming out of the United States Senate leaves me wondering.”

Then you asked Mark, “What’s it going to take?”

As I said, I’ve been struggling with that question myself. I’ve been a blogger for a little over three years, and while my particular concentration has been on individual rights, I sometimes (often) stray into other areas of politics. Last weekend, as I said, I posted a piece specifically on this question, “A Terrible Resolve.” In short, unless the Jihadis strike a major blow against us, here, in the continental United States, we aren’t going to get serious and we’re going to give up.

As I say in the piece:

“And here we are again. This time we’re engaged in combat with enemies that wear no uniform, that blend with the civilian population, that use that population as a shield as well as a target, and who embrace their own deaths. Our soldiers, once again, are in the unenviable position of having to determine which woman, child, or old man is harmless, friendly, or a killer. Sometimes we make mistakes. And, as before, sometimes they might not be mistakes.

“But still, we’re restrained. No carpet-bombing. No nukes. In fact, we’ve gone so far as to drop precision-guided bombs filled with concrete in order to minimize the risk of killing innocents or destroying important infrastructure. However, we’re willing to unapologetically kill women and children when the target requires it.

“The question is, ‘How much longer will this restraint last?’

“The Wilsonians want us out for diplomatic reasons. The Hamiltonians don’t want to keep paying the financial bill. The Jeffersonians don’t want to keep paying the bill in blood.

“The Jacksonians want us to take the gloves off.”

Please do read the whole thing. It will probably depress you further, but it will remind you that there are a lot of people out here in the shaft of the spear backing up the people on the point.

The “shaft of the spear” bit had to do with the caller right before me, “Major Mike,” who commented that the NYT story and today’s SCOTUS decision were going to send a message to the soldiers on the point of the spear that there was nothing backing them up.

Well, Hugh must’ve read the piece and liked it, because he linked:

Bonus Question: Who’s better read and more trustworthy on basic matters of logic? NYTer Eric Lichtblau, or this guy?

Well, Dammit, There Goes Another One

KevinLeave a comment

Instapundit informs us that publisher Jim Baen has died, and links to an obituary by author David Drake.

Dammit.

Jim Baen was the proprietor of Baen Books, my favorite publisher for some time now. Baen Books publishes Drake, Lois McMaster Bujold, Elizabeth Moon, John Ringo, David Weber, Eric Flint, Jerry Pournelle, and many, many others. He gave many new authors their first shot, among them Elizabeth Moon and Lois McMaster Bujold, I believe.

A while back, Baen books had this included at the back of each volume:

TRAVIS SHELTON
LIKES BAEN BOOKS
BECAUSE THEY TASTE GOOD

Recently we received this letter from Travis Shelton of Dayton, Texas:

I have come to associate Baen Books with Del Monte. Now what is that supposed to mean? Well, if you’re in a strange store with a lot of different labels, you pick Del Monte because the product will be consistent and will not disappoint.

Something I have noticed about Baen Books is that the stories are always fast-paced, exciting, action-filled and seem to be published because of content instead of who wrote the book. I now find myself glancing to see who published the book instead of reading the back or intro. If it’s a Baen Book it’s going to be good and exciting and will capture your spare reading moments.

Another discovery I have recently made is that I don’t have any Baen Books in my unread stacks — and I read four to seven books a week, so that in itself is a meaningful statistic.

I found myself in full agreement with Mr. Shelton. And the reason he (and I) looked at the publisher’s mark first was because of Jim Baen. He published stuff that was good, not because it was written by a “name.” For example, here’s a list of my favorite Baen books:

The General series by S.M. Stirling and David Drake:

The Forge,
The Hammer,
The Anvil,
The Steel,
The Sword,

The Miles Vorkosigan saga by Lois McMaster Bujold,
The Belisarius series by David Drake and Eric Flint,
The Hammer’s Slammers series by David Drake,
1632 and all of its sequels by Eric Flint et. al,

And that’s just a taste. I’m not a big fan of fantasy, but Elizabeth Moon’s The Deed of Paksennarion is excellent, as is Lois McMaster Bujold’s The Spirit Ring.

The Baen website informs us, “The surviving partners of Baen and his heirs intend to continue Jim’s legacy of innovative, independent publishing. Longtime Baen Books executive editor Toni Weisskopf will be acting publisher and direct day-to-day operation of the company.” I hope they are up to the task. They have great big shoes to fill.

A Blogger Walks the Walk

KevinLeave a comment

Tim Tyrell, aka “Gunscribe” and author of the blog From the Heartland, decided to try to illustrate to the Lincoln, Nebraska City Council the stupidity of their proposed ban on concealed weapons, now that Nebraska state legislature has passed a “shall-issue” concealed carry law. He tried to do so in a most graphic manner. He open-carried at a City Council meeting – in full compliance with existing law:

Pistol-packer tries to make a point to City Council

Tim Tyrrell Sr. went to the City Council meeting on Monday with a loaded 40-caliber Glock handgun on his hip.

And that’s perfectly legal.

Until now, council members haven’t been concerned enough about their safety to ban anything other than cell phones from the council chambers.

Even though plenty of angry citizens march down to city hall on a regular basis, there are no metal detectors at the door; no signs asking people to leave their guns at home.

Tyrrell was trying to make a point about the concealed weapons ban on the council agenda: Even if Mayor Coleen Seng’s proposed ban were to pass, nothing would prevent people from carrying around unconcealed weapons. (He did not testify at the meeting; the council won’t have a public hearing on Seng’s proposal until July 31.)

Tyrrell is a disabled veteran and firearms instructor who writes a blog called “From the Heartland.” He has debated the gun rights issue with Lincoln Police Chief Tom Casady, and even called Casady before Monday’s meeting to let him know he’d be packing heat.

Casady supports the mayor’s proposal to exempt Lincoln from recently passed state legislation that will allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons beginning in January. Tyrrell believes Seng’s ban would do nothing to prevent criminals from carrying guns.

“Anybody who wants to can go to a gun shop, buy a firearm, a box of ammunition and a holster without knowing anything about what they’re doing, strap it on and walk down the streets of Lincoln and be perfectly legal,” Tyrrell said.

The new state conceal-carry law will put people through their paces — a background check and training — in order to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon, he said.

“The people that the mayor is worried about are already carrying and they’re not gonna stop,” he said.

As it is, no city ordinance or council rule bans weapons from pistols to bayonets in the council chambers.

Years ago, one particularly colorful “regular” council meeting attendee often wore a single-action Colt revolver on his hip, Casady said, and eventually took to bringing all manner of weapons to the meetings, including a wooden club called a shillelagh.

“(That) worried me because he could be rather volatile at times,” Casady said.

While Casady believes Tyrrell is a law-abiding citizen, he doesn’t think it’s a good idea for people to go around displaying a pistol on their belt and doesn’t think weapons should be allowed into meetings of governing bodies. But if people are going to bring guns to council meetings, he said, “I’d rather have it out where I can see it.”

The Public Building Commission — which maintains city and county government buildings — considered banning weapons, but decided to wait to see what happened with Seng’s proposed ordinance.

State law will ban concealed weapons in some public buildings come January, but nothing in state law or Seng’s ordinance would stop people from bringing an unconcealed weapon into city hall, according to City Attorney Dana Roper.

Good on ‘ya mate, but I don’t think the exposure of the Mayor and Council’s hypocrisy will do much good. That’s like water off a duck’s back to a politician. Hypocrisy, along with bull-headed obstinancy, is their stock-in-trade.

I am encouraged by the reader’s comments, however. Only three of them were clueless bigots. The rest were quite positive.

KevinLeave a comment

Oh For…

Secondhand smoke classified as lethal

Surgeon general says there’s no safe level

By Miriah Meyer and Jeremy Manier
Tribune staff reporters
Published June 27, 2006, 10:48 PM CDT

No amount of air filtration can eliminate the health hazards of secondhand smoke, according to a new U.S. surgeon general’s report that could challenge a controversial loophole in Chicago’s impending ban on smoking in public places.

The report surveyed 20 years of scientific evidence about the effects of secondhand smoke and found that even trace amounts cause immediate and damaging effects in non-smokers. That led Surgeon General Richard Carmona to conclude there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke.

“The debate is over as far as I’m concerned,” said Carmona. “Based on the science I wouldn’t allow anyone in my family to stand in a room with someone smoking.”

Some 126 million non-smokers in the U.S. are exposed to secondhand smoke in their homes and workplaces, putting them at a 20 percent to 30 percent greater risk for lung cancer and heart disease, according to the report. It attributed an estimated 50,000 deaths each year to secondhand smoke exposure, 430 of them babies who succumb to sudden infant death syndrome.

The new report comes 20 years after the surgeon general concluded for the first time that exposure to tobacco smoke causes lung cancer and other ailments in non-smokers. Since then, science has expanded the list of diseases and conditions resulting from exposure to include SIDS, developmental effects in children, heart disease and the risk of other cancers.

The findings have “tremendous public policy implications” and should give ammunition to cities and states trying to enact smoking bans, said Stanton Glantz, director of the University of California at San Francisco’s Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, who helped draft the paper.

“Tremendous public policy implications.” Yes, I bet it does.

Tell me, Dr. Carmona, if you wouldn’t allow anyone in your family to stand in a room with someone smoking, is that true for a closet? A living room? A ballroom? A warehouse? Where do you draw the line? “Oh my God! Someone in Kentucky is smoking a cigarette!”

If cigarette smoke is “lethal,” then why are my parents at age 71 – smokers until about five years ago – still alive? Why am I? After all, they smoked around me from birth until I moved out of the house. Same for my sister. My brother still smokes – and that means he’s still living, too. My grandmother on my father’s side smoked until she died – in her eighties.

What you see here is the initial salvo of the last battle over property rights. It’s the final step down the slippery slope that started quite a while back.

“Sandra Starr, vice chairwoman of the Princeton Regional Health Commission . . ., said there is no ‘slippery slope’ toward a total ban on smoking in public places. ‘The commission’s overriding concern,’ she said, ‘is access to the machines by minors.'” — New York Times, Sept. 5, 1993, § 1, at 52.

“Last month, the Princeton Regional Health Commission took a bold step to protect its citizens by enacting a ban on smoking in all public places of accommodation, including restaurants and taverns. . . . In doing so, Princeton has paved the way for other municipalities to institute similar bans . . . .”— The Record (Bergen County), July 12, 2000, at L7.

(Both quotes courtesy of Eugene Volokh.) What we’re headed for is a government mandated ban on smoking in your own home – and the excuse will be (as it usually is) “It’s for the CHILDREN!“

And then what else will the .gov decide that you are unqualified to decide on your own?

KevinLeave a comment

Thank You, Chris Muir:.

EDITED TO ADD: An even BETTER tribute to Rob: YouBitch‘s The New Guy – go read! Rob would have LOVED it!

UPDATE: Dipnut of Isn’tapundit writes a hell of a eulogy. (And it would be nice if we got more than one post every six months, Dipnut. I’m just sayin’.)