Snowflakes in Hell

Via War on Guns a quite good editorial taking The Administration to task for its brief:

Which raises the question:  What the heck was the Bush Administration thinking?  For decades, a critical component of the Republican coalition has been working class gun owners who are bothered by the Democrats’ embrace of gun control.  Republicans actually seem to have won that battle, with Democrats backing off of gun control legislation in the recent Congress.  Why after enduring so much hostile press would the Bush Administration sell out the NRA at this critical juncture?  And why make the reversal in a difficult election year, when the support of gun control opponents will be so critical to Republican fortunes?

What’s it have to lose selling anyone out at this point?  Bush is about as lame duck as they come, and I’ve never gotten the impression he’s all that concerned about his party’s fortunes.  The Bush family are wealthy New Englanders with no real connection to the gun culture.  As the article points out:

The less generous answer lies in the reality of the Bush Administration.  Contrary to the caricatures painted by liberals, there are precious few issues that the Administration has not sold the Right out on.  No Child Left Behind, the prescription drug benefit, monstrous budget deficits, McCain-Feingold, Patient’s Bill of Rights . . . all of these issues cross the gamut of modern politics, and all of them are issues where the Bush Administration’s Rovian plotting has placed it at loggerheads with standard conservatism.  Even on judges, where the Administration usually wins plaudits, conservatives forget Harriet Miers, and forget that two of Bush’s first ten Court of Appeals appointments were Clinton appointees.  Is it really that hard to believe that the Administration would lurch to the left on the issue of guns?

No, not hard to believe, but we still get to be pissed.

The Virginia Senate rejected the gun show bill 9-6.

In the Virginia SWAT raid gone wrong which resulted in a homeowner killing an officer. Over at Captain of a Crew of One.

I absolutely believe that Officers have every right to defend themselves and fellow officers, but “suppressive fire?” I don’t suppose any thought of innocent people living next door or walking down the street two blocks over should be any concern to Police officers now should it???

WTFO? Suppressive fire is something you use against an opposing ARMY, not something you use against one guy wh0 may be a criminal…or may just be a guy who thinks you were trying to rob or murder him.

It sounds to me like the cops who think they are an occupying force or invading army are the ones who need to “get their minds right.”

Am I wrong???

No, you’re not. Read the whole thing. I do hope the officer making that comment is unaware of what suppressing fire generally entails, and is merely talking out his ass. If that guy is on a SWAT team, that’s scary indeed.

UPDATE: Radley has more.  Go read.  I also agree about his comments about not making this about individual officers, or about the officer killed.  That an officer was killed because of these poor tactics is a tragedy.  This is a systemic problem in our society that goes beyond individual departments or people.

The Three Little Pigs is deemed “offensive to Muslims” by a British government agency, and was disqualified from winning the agency’s award.

Ahab has another story of a gun owner who forgets he’s carrying and gets through security, then proceeds to “do the right thing” and tell the TSA about it.

If you get past security at an airport with a gun, leave the secured zone immediately and count your blessings.  There is no get out of jail free card for doing “the right thing.”  The right thing for you is not to confess to the authorities about the crime you just committed.

Looks like Paul Helmke doesn’t have any problems with the Bush Administration DOJ filing. Helmke knows a gift horse when he sees it, and isn’t going to look this one in the mouth. The Brady Campaign has everything to gain and nothing to lose by fawning over this brief. They won’t mention that six years ago they were furious about DOJ adopting the individual rights view, which is identical to the one they are now applauding.

When your back is against a wall, you have nothing to lose. Bush has offered Brady two things with his brief. The first is a way out of their nightmare. An individual rights ruling that means nothing is something Brady can work with. Remanding back to District Court will likely preserve most of the DC ban, despite what the DOJ may actually think about it.  It’s not likely to cause state laws to be threatened in the circuit courts.   Incorporation will be far less likely.

Furthermore, Paul Helmke is aware that gun owners are furious with Bush over the brief, and that this situation puts NRA in a real pickle for 2008. With the gun vote furious at Bush, and with McCain or Romney the likely nominee at this point, NRA is in a very poor position heading into this election. That’s the icing on the cake for the Brady Campaign. Paul Helmke isn’t stupid folks, and what you’re witnessing here is a brilliant political move on the part of the Brady Campaign, compliments of the backstabber in the Oval Office.

Dave Hardy has the story.

Rendell has endorsed Hillary Clinton for 2008.   Sorry about the all election coverage.  Not much going on in the blogosphere gun wise.  If you have news you think ought to be covered, drop me an e-mail.

Seen on a forum:

I’ve tossed around the idea of a life membership before but I’m terrified of receiving a notice that my life membership is about to expire and the only way to prevent it is to send more money!

Over at Keyboard and a .45:

We are going to have a choice in the general election. A choice between a far left statist, and a left leaning statist (quiet possibly a left leaning, authoritarian statist). This makes me sick. It also makes me angry, but not angry enough to just say “forget it” and sit the whole process out.

We have legislators to elect. Since we have pretty much lost the White House already, we have to work even harder to get rid of the dead wood and elect quality representatives on Capitol Hill. Look to your local elections, and fight the good fight.

That’s good advice.  The best thing we can do to advance our cause is work to get politicians elected at the local level who support liberty.  They’ll eventually work their way up to leadership positions.

Jeff sounds about as depressed as I am.  I should note that my mind is not yet made up about what to do, but you’ll all be exposed to my thought processes as time wears on, in all it’s horror.  Jeff says:

Here’s an unpleasant prediction: Hillary or Barack will be the next president. Watch for “sensible” gun control laws to strip away our remaining rights. Better stock up on incandescent light bulbs ’cause they’ll be illegal, too. Kiss trans-fats goodbye.

I think we have to seriously start considering the prospect of what a Obillery presidency will mean for us, and start preparing for it.   I’m not seeing energized Republicans out there, I’m seeing Republicans who are already acting like the 2008 election is lost now that Fred is out.  The big question I will be asking myself over the next few months is whether there’s any real difference between McCain and Romney that warrants me not throwing my vote away.  In the general election I’ll be asking the same thing compared to Obillery.

I am willing to throw my vote away in either a protest vote, or leaving the presidential ballot unchecked.  But I will have a powerful incentive against doing so considering who the Democrat will be.  I’m willing to be wooed.

1992:

So, people are angry at Bush for not being a real conservative, it’s looking like this Clinton thing has some real momentum, and it’s quite likely we’re likely to have a quirky independent candidate enter the race.

2008:

So, people are angry at Bush for not being a real conservative, it’s looking like this Clinton thing has some real momentum, and it’s quite likely we’re likely to have a quirky independent candidate enter the race.

Will Ron Paul enter the race as an independent?  I can’t figure out any other reason why he’s sitting on that war chest while pulling single digits in the delegate count.  I think he will.  We remember what happened when the GOP vote split in 1992.  The same thing could happen in 2008.

What I really want to know is where the gun vote is?  Huckabee hasn’t had much appeal outside of evangelicals, many of whom are concerned about gun rights as well, but Huckabee hasn’t run on that message, other than talking about hunting.  Fred and Ron Paul were the only real pro-gun candidates in the race, and both of them combined don’t add up to Huckabee’s Delegate count by a long shot.  Are a lot of gun owners voting for McCain in the primary?  For Romney?   I doubt it, but it’s possible.

Want to know why the GOP is such a fair weather friend to gun owners? It looks to me like we’re not voting in the primaries, or are actively supporting candidates in the primaries who have crappy records on the issue compared to other candidates.  If gun owners were voting their issue, Fred would be doing better than he is, and would still be in the race.  Gun owners need to be more involved in the primary politics of both parties if we want to stop voting lesser of two evils candidates.  That’s really the only way to change the direction of the party.   One can vote third party, but that didn’t work out for the malcontents of 1992.  I don’t think it will work out too well in 2008 either.

We have blown our chance in the primary, and that’s going to mean getting behind a ho-hum compromise candidate, or handing the keys to the White House to Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.  The choice is ours.

Some people are seemingly mystified that conservative bloggers are thinking seriously about McCain now that Fred’s out. Others are suggesting the Republic doesn’t deserve to live at this point. I’m not counting myself in either of those camps.

It may make me alone among gun bloggers, but I’m here to suggest that John McCain isn’t bad enough to justify handing the election to Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, henceforth to be called Obillery for convenience sake.

Take for instance, the American Conservative Union’s ratings of the candidates. McCain has a rating of 83. Hillary has a rating of 9. Obama has a rating of 8. What about on guns? I don’t think any of us have any doubt about Obillery will do in regards to guns. McCain has at least always opposed the assault weapons ban. Romney has said he’s in favor of a new one. Romney has said he supports Massachusetts’ fascist gun control laws. McCain’s voting record on guns overall is a mixed bag.

This isn’t anything to get excited about, and McCain is going to have to work hard to make peace with the base, including gun owners, if he wants to have a sure shot at beating Obillery in November. Without a doubt the campaign finance reform act is his biggest sin, and it’s hard to get over. I trust McCain on fiscal issues, foreign policy issues, and believe he’d put better candidates on the federal court than Obillery.

My only other choice at this point is Romney, and I don’t trust him on anything. I also don’t think Romney has any appeal with Independent voters, who you need to win this day in age. Where else do I go? Stay home? Don’t say Ron Paul. He has 6 delegates total so far. He’s not going to win the nomination, and even if he did win the nomination, he’s not going to win the election. Ron might hope to be the spoiler in an independent or third party run, and the GOP might even deserve that. But I think we all either need to start thinking who we can live with, or start getting used to saying “President Clinton” again, and enjoy our guns while we can still possess them.

I agree with Countertop, agreeing with Mark Corallo.  Fred is a shitty politician, which is why we all liked him.  He was willing to speak principles when everyone else was looking for sound bites.  He was willing to level with people rather than trying to tell them what they wanted to hear.

It’s a sad statement on our political climate that it doomed him to defeat, but in this day in age, we need a candidate who believes what Fred believes, and who can talk Fred’s talk, but who can also present those principles in such a way that it makes an emotional connection with voters.  That was one of Ronald Reagan’s real talents, and also, whether we want to admit it or not, one of Bill Clinton’s as well.

Fred’s departure has destroyed all my optimism for 2008, but I will continue to look for a candidate who can carry a message of freedom, limited government, federalism, and adherence to this country’s founding principles to the unwashed masses of voters.  It’s sad though, that 2008 will not be that year.