Snowflakes in Hell

I suspected this was the case, but according to this article, it seems that it was actually the case:

Helmke, of the Brady Campaign, said the group suggested to Washington that it rework its gun laws rather than press on with an appeal. A broad Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment could jeopardize a variety of laws, including waiting periods for handgun sales and California’s machine gun ban, he said.

I understand why The Brady Campaign would want that to happen.  Strategically, it made sense to reword the laws to be near-prohibition, similar to NYC, and force us to go back to court with a weaker case.

But Fenty had to do what he had to do, politically.  Fenty isn’t President of The Brady Campaign, he’s Mayor of Washington DC.  It might not be the rational thing for their side, but politics are seldom rational.

“This is the capital of the United States of America,” Barnes said. “What kind of message are we sending when you say we want more guns?”

We’re sending a message that we take our constitution seriously.

Hat tip to Cam Edwards.

There’s a move afoot to make Pennsylvania an initiative and referendum state, much like California.   No thanks.  I share our founding father’s skepticism of direct democracy.  Most people just don’t have enough information to make informed decisions about government, which is why we have republican government, where we elect people to represent our interests for us.

I don’t exempt myself from this ignorance.  I’ve more than a few times thought something sounded good, until I heard more information about through a legislator.  I much prefer to leave the ugly details to a delegate, than undertake them myself.

Let’s not take Pennsylvania down this road.  I have no desire to live under a state government that allows two wolves and a sheep to decide what’s for lunch.

From Scott Adams:

I keep wondering why I don’t get mad about the government chipping away at my freedoms in the alleged interest of fighting terrorism. I used to think it was because I thought the tradeoff was worth it. But I suspect the real reason is that losing a few more freedoms would just get lost in the rounding.

Sad but true.

You know it’s a slow day when I’m linking to college papers.  This one is from King’s College, a catholic college in Northern PA.

 Of all the pronouncements made at the NRA conference, my favorite was provided by Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas . Mr. Huckabee stated, “watching ducks land on a lake in Arkansas in the winter is about the closest to Heaven as you can find on this earth… and as someone who believes, according to my faith, I will go to Heaven when I die, I am pretty sure that there is duck hunting in Heaven!” No, that’s not a typo, he said, “Duck hunting”. Apparently, Mr. Huckabee’s sincerest wish is that upon reaching the gates of Heaven there will be a sign which reads: OPEN SEASON , as we all know Jesus Christ was an avid hunter. I’m sure God fully supports the killing of His creatures (in Heaven no less,) whom according to most conservatives, He painstakingly created in a day. Although I must give Governor Huckabee due credit, because in a single statement he mentioned faith, God, and guns. That’s the conservative trifecta.

The gun  part of the party tend not to be the same as the god part.  No doubt many guns owners are people of faith, just like most golfers are.  But we’re a different faction of the conservative movement, for the most part.  And what’s so weird about enjoying duck hunting?

I fully realize that in many parts of this country, hunting is considered a rite of passage as American as baseball, and the second amendment guarantees that the right to own a hunting rifle shall not be infringed, but can’t we all get together on the assault rifle? In today’s world, with a professional police force in every town and city across America , is there a need for citizen militia?

What is an assault rifle?  10 bucks says he doesn’t know.  I feel safe in this bet, because clearly he doesn’t know current federal law either:

Now, I am not naïve enough to think that stricter gun control laws will eradicate violent crime in this country, but it certainly would decrease them. Would anyone argue that a mandated federal background check on all purchases of handguns could have prevented the Virginia Tech massacre? Would any of the proposed gun restriction measures, when conducted properly and efficiently, help prevent handguns and assault weapons from falling into the hands of criminals? I believe it is a place to start.

We started that in 1994 dude.  But to cut the kid a break, he was probably pooping in the sandbox in 1994.

A few posts today about liberals coming around to the idea that gun control doesn’t work:

Ahab

Uncle

You have to imagine the Brady’s aren’t happy about these types of developments.

UPDATE: One more 

I was hoping we’d hear about whether cert would be granted today, since today was the day it was supposedly due.  I noticed the docket says it’ll still come out by today, but the the attorneys in the case say November.

Dave Hardy asks an interesting question:

What I’ve always found interesting is — why is the 2nd Amendment considered a conservative issue, and gun control a liberal one? I have some theories which I am exploring. One is simply social and has nothing to do with logic. Liberals are less likely than conservatives to come from socio-economic groups that use or like guns. But why would that override consistency? (Esp. when it comes from persons who think (1) Bush is an incipient Hitler, we are tipping to a police state yet (2) the government should have the power to disarm the populace)?

I tend to think that gun control mostly happens when the established political order feels threatened. NFA happened as we were going through the turmoil of the Great Depression. GCA ‘68 was spurred by the assassinations of political leaders like President Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy and Dr. King. The Brady Act, the crown jewel of the gun control movement of the late 80s and early 90s, was spurned by the assassination attempt on President Reagan.

I’m not actually sure that gun control, at its root, is so much an issue of progressive vs. libertarian or conservative, so much as the political establishment vs. the people.

We’ve been successful as a movement because we’re all beneficiaries of a system that was intended to put the people as paramount in the political order; that all power of the political establishment to govern was ultimately derived from the consent of the people, that agreed to give up certain rights in order to enjoy the benefits of just government. But in giving up some rights, the people retained others, and among those was the right to bear arms.

I think this has always been somewhat of a threat to the political order, especially the leftist political order, which does not see itself as a necessary evil to protect the rights of men, but as a movement to shape society as they would like to see it. Seeing people as objects to be molded into thinking and behaving correctly, belies a certain intellectual arrogance and self absorption. This is certainly not limited to the left. You can see it on the right in spades as well. But many of those elements of the right also embrace gun control.

I think the attraction to gun control is rooted in a fear among the political establishment that their power is threatened by the idea of power being distributed in society; power that could be used against them. This might seem paranoid, but I think it odd that political turmoil, particularly assassination, seems to be a primary impetus for gun control measures.