Snowflakes in Hell

Ilya Somin has a sobering post comparing gun rights to property rights:

With very few exceptions, the effort to strengthen protection for property rights was categorically opposed by the Court’s liberal justices. Any property rights case that got to the Court almost starts with four guaranteed votes in favor of the government. This has two important effects.

First, any division in the ranks of the conservative justices is likely to be fatal for property rights in the case at issue. For example, Justice Anthony Kennedy voted with the liberal justices in Kelo and several other important property rights cases, leading to important setbacks for property supporters.

This is why we must vote McCain to keep Obama out of the oval office.  McCain is far from perfect, but neither were the two Bush’s, which we would be facing a loss on Heller had it not been for electing them.

As with property rights, the ideological division on the Court also leaves any gains vulnerable to future reversal in the event that a Democratic president is elected. The liberal justices’ opposition to gun rights is also shared by the vast majority of liberal judges on the lower courts. If Obama (or any other Democrat) becomes president, they will likely appoint justices who share these views. Even if Obama does not make this issue a major priority in his nomination decisions, the fact that he will want to nominate justices who are liberal on other constitutional issues will ensure a strong likelihood that they would also embrace the dominant liberal position on this issue. This happened in the case property rights as well. Opposition to property rights was probably not a major factor in Clinton’s choice of Ginsburg and Breyer. Indeed, Clinton was among those who later vehemently denounced the Kelo decision. Nonetheless, these two justices turned out be property rights opponents (even in Kelo) precisely because Clinton did make a priority of appointing judges who are generally liberal, and such judges are likely to be anti-property rights.

Seriously, McCain sucks, except for the alternative.  Let’s not get complacent here, or this day will be all for naught.

Michael Bane has a visual example of guns Obama wants to ban.

Not how I want my national security advisor starting a sentence.

On the election:

This election brings us what is probably one of the worst match-ups in presidential history.  We’re running a conservative democrat against a Marxist, and for some reason I can’t seem to get real excited about our options here.

Read the whole thing.

Barack Obama isn’t too keen on the right to bear arms, but he certainly thinks people who are irresponsible with credit cards deserve some extra “rights”.

Obama needs to pick a veep who is good with gun owners, says news.com.au.  He’s not the only one though.  Of course, the funny thing about this is the Australian media isn’t to up on a lot of our politicians:

There are two front runners. Governor Tim Kaine of Virginia is just like his state - a mix of progressive ideals and conservative values of the old rural south. A pro-gun, pro-life, Church-going family man from the heartland but also a Harvard educated lawyer and greenie.

Governor Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania is described by his local newspaper as “a laughing, back-slapping, forearm-squeezing, all-pro schmoozer”.

He is a political warhorse, renowned for his love of shooting and football as much as his formidable reputation for fundraising, grass roots organising and delivering his key state to Democratic candidates.

His prowess helped Clinton to a 10-point win in Pennsylvania.

Ed Rendell and Tim Kaine are both gun lovers?  That’s news to me.  Last I checked Kaine is getting behind a new round of gun control initiatives in Virginia, and Rendell is trying to bulldog the legislature into passing more gun control laws.  Let’s also not forget that as Mayor of Philadelphia, Rendell pioneered the idea of suing the gun industry out of existence as a public nuisance.

Here’s the type of guns that Barack Rainbow Brite Obama would like to ban.

Hat tip to Instapundit

Dave Kopel talks about some inaccuracies the Brady’s have put forth in the ABC News article.  Namely the statement:

“For John McCain to be the political candidate of the NRA shows how things have changed,” Helmke said.

First off, the NRA hasn’t endorsed McCain’s candidacy, and I don’t have any reason to believe that such an endorsement is forthcoming, though nothing would surprise me considering how stunningly bad Barack Wolfgang Amadeus Obama is on this issue.  Secondly, as Dave points out, McCain on the gun issue is really no worse than Bush, who indicated in 2000 that he would sign a renewal of the assault weapons ban.  Bush apparently has also supporting closing the gun show loophole.  McCain at least opposes renewing the assault weapons ban.

That’s basically Uncle’s reaction.  I don’t have much to add myself.

From Bruce:

As if you needed further proof that voting for Obama is a lot like opening a MySpace account. If you’re over the age of 25 and doing either of those things, there’s something wrong with you.

I’ll admit, I have an account, but I don’t use it.

This has already made the rounds, but I wanted to link to Obama’s record on guns that the NRA has put together because each link gives it a bit more Google Lovin’, so when people search on terms involving Barack Moons over Mihami Obama, it comes up with the truth.  I’ll also add this to my highly searched page showing here.

Kevin says if that happens, he’s voting for Bob Barr.  If McCain actually did that, I would do the same at that point.  That would basically be a message from McCain to the Republican base “I don’t need ya!” in which case, fine.  We’ll see in November.

But I think Newsmax is trying to make a non-story here.  “We don’t talk about our vice-presidential possibilities. But he added: ‘I appreciate Mayor Bloomberg enormously and the great job he’s done as mayor.” in D.C. speak is hardly an indication that Bloomberg is being seriously considered.  My money is going to be someone who the base feels good about, but who won’t scare independents and pissed off Hillary supporters.

John McCain has pissed in too many coffee pots in his own party to win with just the party base, so he’s going to have to court independents and Democrats if we’re not going to have to get used to saying “President Obama.”  He’s not going to come out and say “No, I am not considering your Jewish Mayor” when he’s visiting New York City, which is full of Jewish voters who probably liked Hillary, but who might be offended that Obama’s spiritual mentors associate with anti-semites.

Nonetheless, he can’t win without some of his base, and Bloomberg is too far to the left to bring any of the Republican base along for the ride.  If he does pick Bloomberg, I will vote for Bob Barr too, but I feel pretty good that he’s not picking Bloomberg.

The more good things they say about John McCain, the more we hate him.  They have to be savoring the distinct possibility of Obama in the Whitehouse (and on your shoulder).  Maybe we can all get together and Imagine Obama ‘08.

Rachel Lucas has a very thought provoking post on the election, and says she understands now why people feel they can’t vote for McCain.  I can understand why people feel that way.  I swore a number of times after McCain took this position or that position that could never vote for the guy, but Obama’s success sobered me up on that count really quickly.  I also don’t think Rachel’s analogy between kids using pot and voting works quite neatly.

The reason is that the goal of a parent that doesn’t approve of kids taking drugs is to keep them from taking drugs.  There is a chance that the parents buying pot for their kids, so they have control over it, underestimate their ability to influence the behavior of their children.  They are essentially abdicating their responsibility with no strong evidence that they actually can’t keep their kids away from drugs, and I suspect you’d find a lot of these parents actually don’t have a problem with kids experimenting.

Except for the rare nail biting election, your individual influence over the outcome of an election is infinitesimal.  Elections are acts of collective expression, not an act of parenting, where a significant measure of responsibility and control over the child is maintained.  Either Obama or McCain are going to be taking up residence in the Oval Office next year.  There is no possibility of a different outcome that’s in the space of reality due to the collective nature of the process.  If an analogy to parenting is to be made, it’s a choice between your child dying of cancer, or having to undergo painful treatments that may or may not save their life.  The responsible parent would opt for treatment, because standing back and letting the cancer kill your child is not something a responsible parent would do.

We may not like the choice, but the outcome is decided.  Obama or McCain.  Take your pick.

The last broadcast of HamNation.  Mary Katharine is moving on to bigger and better things.  It’s good to go out with a bang:

Crap like this scares the hell out of me:

Dismiss it all you like, but I’ve heard from far too many enormously smart, wise, spiritually attuned people who’ve been intuitively blown away by Obama’s presence - not speeches, not policies, but sheer presence - to say it’s just a clever marketing ploy, a slick gambit carefully orchestrated by hotshot campaign organizers who, once Obama gets into office, will suddenly turn from perky optimists to vile soul-sucking lobbyist whores, with Obama as their suddenly evil, cackling overlord.

Here’s where it gets gooey. Many spiritually advanced people I know (not coweringly religious, mind you, but deeply spiritual) identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment. These kinds of people actually help us evolve. They are philosophers and peacemakers of a very high order, and they speak not just to reason or emotion, but to the soul.

The reverence of Ronald Reagan that you get from conservatives can get kind of old sometimes, but you will never hear something like this from a Republican or libertarian.  We do not worship our politicians.  We don’t want them to help us find a new way of being.  We do not want them to help us evolve.  Generally, we want them to leave us the hell alone to live our lives.  Obama can try all he wants, he doesn’t speak to my soul.  He is just a man.  Repeat after me lefties: he is just a man.

I’d say thanks to Instapundit, but now I will have to spend the rest of the night trying to restore my faith in humanity.

A lot of folks have mentioned that it’s momentus that for the first time we’ve nominated an African American to head up a major party presidential ticket, and I agree.  But we’re not really past the whole race thing until doing that isn’t momentus, and, in fact, the person’s race isn’t even a campaign issue.  We’re not quite there yet.

Or he’ll whup ya.

They think the next election will be a blowout for Obama, and that America is a force for evil.  I wonder if anyone sought out the opinion of european jews for that poll, well, at least the ones that europeans didn’t kill or drive off the continent.  There’s plenty of evil to go around in this world, and Europe sure as hell isn’t exempt, and damn sure doesn’t get to look down on us.

She’s Governor of Alaska, and pretty young, compared to McCain.  But then again, that’s not saying much.  Still, I think it would be a good choice for him.

Clinton is going to bow out.  Somehow I think she must have gotten something out of this, since Clintons don’t quit.  I’m hearing rumors that Ed Rendell is on Obama’s consideration list for his Vice Presidential pick.  As much as I’d like to see Ed out of Pennsylvania, I don’t want that to be because he goes to DC in a Barack Obama administration.  Obama must lose.  I don’t care how bad McCain is, can America really afford to elect an unrepetent socialist?

And let’s not forget where he stands on gun control.

Another excellent rebuke of Barack Obama’s stance on the second amendment.

Jacob has the latest attack ad against Obama’s position on guns.

From Michelle Obama:

“The way this campaign has been run is the way we need to be forever.  Don’t trust bloggers or someone else’s opinion, because people lie.”

Well, I definitely don’t trust you, Michelle.  You want my pie.

Hat tip to Rachel Lucas

Apparently the reason Hillary was crying is because she felt entitled because she’s white.

I actually agree with him that Hillary feels she’s entitled, but I think she feels that way because she’s Hillary.  I couldn’t give a flying fossilized pterodactyl turd that Barack Strawberry Shortcake Obama is a black guy and Hillary is a white woman.  I’m not voting for him because his policies would be bad for the country, and because I don’t want to elect a president who’s spiritual mentors continue to fan the flames of racial division.  America has had enough of that.