Snowflakes in Hell

Thirdpower takes on some anti-gunners and ends up chatting wtih Gary Mauser.  Good show.  It’s interesting to me that they accuse a lot of second amendment scholars of being gun lobby stooges, when a lot of the time there’s either no association, or very little.

But, of course, we’re not the only ones who do this.

… when they pry it from my cold dead hands.  Well, I actually have a smaller LCD model that’s more energy efficient, but if I did have a plasma TV, well, you know…. cold dead hands.

I’m glad Countertop is dedicated to helping me overcome my inherent issues with the idea of eating squirrel. Given that I seem to be collecting friends who view squirrels as delectable lunchables, I may have to give this a try at some point.

The subject of my very first post, Loretta, was a recent convert to the idea of eating squirrel. She had been converted to it by my friend Carrie, who I had previously been pursuing before Bitter.  She is the sister of a friend of mine, who also also speaks highly of dining on tree rat.

So we really have quite the squirrel eating happy family going on here at Snowflakes in Hell, so I will have to reconsider my belief that squirrels not fit for human consumption.

Via Syd of Front Sight, Press:

 By an overwhelming 81-10 vote, the Senate passed Sen. Vitter’s amendment to prevent any funding to foreign organizations that infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of lawful American citizens. Any organization that adopts a policy anathema to the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment would no longer be eligible for U.S. financial assistance—including the U.N.

That’s quite a margin.   But this is still an entirely symbolic victory.  We’re still a ways off from being able to repeal the meaty chunks of federal gun control laws, unfortunately.

Via John Lott, on Mexican gun laws:

Gun control advocates claim that the problem is guns from the US. Here is my question: Why is it that if the Mexican’s can’t control the drug trade, they are going to be able to stop the drug gangs from getting the guns that are necessary to protect their drug businesses?

I think the whole gun issue is mostly developing a bargaining chip that can later be used against the United States.

All I can say is, I’m glad I live in Pennsylvania.  California isn’t the only state to institute approved handgun lists.   Also playing this game are Massachusetts and Maryland.  Bitter has a Massachusetts compliant SIG, which basically involves drilling a hole in the chamber so you can see brass in it.   Stupid feature for stupid people, and it adds about 200 bucks to the cost of the gun.

But those features only work for people who would know enough to check the standard way, by actually checking the chamber.   It’s just a way to make selling firearms in the state more of a hassle, so fewer do, this driving up the price.  Higher prices mean fewer legal gun owners, which make more onerous restrictions politically easier.

Don’t believe me?  California has banned lead bullets for hunting.  This is serious folks.  The slippery slope is real.

Chris has a very excellent post on 12 step programs:

That said, if someone is given a sobriety order (which I think is very rarely justified, but that’s another argument entirely) and they violate it; back in jail they go. I have no problem with that. That is a behavioral remedy, and requiring people modify their behavior to avoid harming those around them (presuming that is the true purpose, rather than the belief that substance abuse is immoral) is a fundamental part of civilized society.

The remedies of our justice system MUST only be behavioral; once law dictates conscience, we are nothing but slaves. One must hope that through behavioral remedies we can aid people in coming to a less harmful thought pattern and lifestyle, but we cannot force them to think or feel as we wish.

So, I have no problem with a court ordered de-tox, or court ordered and enforced sobriety (including returning them to prison as a penalty) under appropriate circumstances; and if someone VOLUNTARILY wishes to enter treatment to prevent that from happening, I’m all for it. Ordering someone into therapy though, is both ineffective, and a violation of the fundamental human right of freedom of conscience.

I couldn’t agree more.   Read the whole thing.