The left-wing must be having a dreary day. For months it has controlled the debate. Say what you want about the statists, but they are very, very good at manipulating symbols and orchestrating media hysteria.
They aren't quitting this morning as their vox pop pretensions collide with reality in the form of a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. But they are not advancing, either.
Three bills are directly important to libertarian thinkers.*
One is relatively innocuous. It strengthens straw-purchase laws already on the books, and even pro-2A Sen. Chuck Grassley promises to support it if his clean-up amendments are accepted. It will be reported out of committee and has good final-passage prospects.
The other two are vile.
The Feinstein bill to ban some assaultish-appearing rifles will also be favorably reported out by the Democrat-controlled committee, but there isn't a smart dime in Vegas which gives it much chance of senate passage.
The same senators will also send the "universal" background check bill, in one form or another, to the full senate. Then Sen. Schumer has two pertinent problems: (1) To persuade a majority that criminals will submit to the law {square the circle} and (2) Explain how it can be made practicable without a complete national firearms registry {convert pi to a rational number}.
So, the Obama-stoked fearfest aside, we appear to hold strong cards, even in the Senate. The house, of course, is stronger, and I doubt that even Bloomberg has enough money to buy off that body this early in the election cycle; 2014 is another matter.
---
*A fourth would appropriate money we don't have for more school security. The number being tossed around in the markup stage is about $400 million over a few years -- about enough to create a new federal office in charge of saying that we need more school security.)
Mar 7, 2013
Mar 6, 2013
Zimmerman "Stuns" Court Observers?
His lawyers waived a separate hearing on a Stand Your Ground defense, and ABC News headlined the stunning of "court observers."
Maybe some "observers" are more easily stunned than others. I doubt many students of self-defense law were even trickle-charged.
George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin. Beyond that, the debate is open. If it was legally justifiable -- as it may have been -- it was on grounds other than Florida's Stand Your Ground law. Zimmerman left that legal cloak behind when he stopped his car, got out, and initiated the confrontation. A suspicious looking kid quietly walking through your night-time neighborhood is grounds for calling the cops, watching from a discreet distance, and taking steps to protect yourself in case he confronts you.
Zimmerman's self-defense argument will succeed or fail based on a judicial determination of what happened after he faced Martin and then, as he alleges, walked away. The details are in dispute and foggy. That's why we have courts.
---
Stand your ground law laws should be universal -- a simple affirmation of your right to use all necessary force to stay alive when a criminal threatens you. If we insist that they give full police power to every guy with a suspicion, we'll lose them, state-by-state.
Maybe some "observers" are more easily stunned than others. I doubt many students of self-defense law were even trickle-charged.
George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin. Beyond that, the debate is open. If it was legally justifiable -- as it may have been -- it was on grounds other than Florida's Stand Your Ground law. Zimmerman left that legal cloak behind when he stopped his car, got out, and initiated the confrontation. A suspicious looking kid quietly walking through your night-time neighborhood is grounds for calling the cops, watching from a discreet distance, and taking steps to protect yourself in case he confronts you.
Zimmerman's self-defense argument will succeed or fail based on a judicial determination of what happened after he faced Martin and then, as he alleges, walked away. The details are in dispute and foggy. That's why we have courts.
---
Stand your ground law laws should be universal -- a simple affirmation of your right to use all necessary force to stay alive when a criminal threatens you. If we insist that they give full police power to every guy with a suspicion, we'll lose them, state-by-state.
Yesterday's loaf
I found a nice recipe for 100 per cent whole-wheat bread. It was even better when I decided to substitute butter for the vegetable shortening and hard molasses for the sugar.
But I hate incomplete recipes. This one lacked a reminder: "Prior to leaving the kitchen, position the cooling loaf well back on your counter, beyond paw reach of an ungrateful sneaking thieving inconsiderate greedy thoughtless furshlugginer sonuvabitch of a Labrador retriever."
But I hate incomplete recipes. This one lacked a reminder: "Prior to leaving the kitchen, position the cooling loaf well back on your counter, beyond paw reach of an ungrateful sneaking thieving inconsiderate greedy thoughtless furshlugginer sonuvabitch of a Labrador retriever."
Mar 5, 2013
The gun news from Lunchtime O'Booze
Just in case you haven't had your fill of media ignorance on firearms technology, I offer this one. It's part of a live blog from The Guardian (of England) of Senator Feinstein's hearing on her bill to ban assaultish-looking weapons.
A Dr. Begg is testifying about his dismay as he tried to treat Newtown victims. Then:
Begg presents a horrible video in which a ballistics expert demonstrates what a bullet from an AR-15 can do. The expert in the video shoots a block of gelatin-like material – flesh-like material – with a .22 rifle. Then he shoots one with an AR-15. The .22 bullet passes cleanly through. The AR-15 bullet goes in and then explodes.
It's certainly possible to compact more ignorance into a short paragraph, but most writers would be hard-pressed.
It would probably do no good to set this reporter down and explain, slowly, in short words, that a video illustrating a point of physics with ballistics gel is neutral rather than "horrible." Now, if it used a Fleet Street reporter to demonstrate the same point, that would be "horrible." Wouldn't it? Well, uhhhh...
Never mind his conflation of bullet diameter with terminal ballistics. We could just send him a telegram stating "An AR-15 is almost always a .22 rifle." Maybe that would send him to a library where he would occupy himself in close study of Guns for Dummies -- and looking in vain for evidence that criminals typically use bullet which "explode."
But to end on a positive note, he appears to have done a thorough and professional job of informing his reading public about who cried and at what level of intensity.
---
Title credit to Edwin Newman in Strictly Speaking
A Dr. Begg is testifying about his dismay as he tried to treat Newtown victims. Then:
Begg presents a horrible video in which a ballistics expert demonstrates what a bullet from an AR-15 can do. The expert in the video shoots a block of gelatin-like material – flesh-like material – with a .22 rifle. Then he shoots one with an AR-15. The .22 bullet passes cleanly through. The AR-15 bullet goes in and then explodes.
It's certainly possible to compact more ignorance into a short paragraph, but most writers would be hard-pressed.
It would probably do no good to set this reporter down and explain, slowly, in short words, that a video illustrating a point of physics with ballistics gel is neutral rather than "horrible." Now, if it used a Fleet Street reporter to demonstrate the same point, that would be "horrible." Wouldn't it? Well, uhhhh...
Never mind his conflation of bullet diameter with terminal ballistics. We could just send him a telegram stating "An AR-15 is almost always a .22 rifle." Maybe that would send him to a library where he would occupy himself in close study of Guns for Dummies -- and looking in vain for evidence that criminals typically use bullet which "explode."
But to end on a positive note, he appears to have done a thorough and professional job of informing his reading public about who cried and at what level of intensity.
---
Title credit to Edwin Newman in Strictly Speaking
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)