Friday, January 04, 2008

Batman vs The Riddler

When the man with the bat tried to attack the driver, investigators said, the second driver pulled out a gun and shot the first driver twice...

The shooter – whose identity has also not been released – had a license to carry a concealed weapon and investigators said he acted in self-defense and will not immediately face charges.

You know, "riddled with bullets..."?

Ahh, forget it.

Still, riddle me this, Caped Anti-Gun Crusaders: Would you prefer if the man being attacked had been unarmed and bludgeoned to death?

[Via Tony G]

If I Were a Carpenter...

...I'd be hammering back at Carpentersville.

Tony G shows us there's no shortage of little wooden heads supporting the destruction of guns.

World of Paulcraft

Apparently, sometime around 8:30 PM EST on Tuesday, a throng of Alliance members took to the streets of Ironforge in a surprisingly well-orchestrated in-game demonstration designed to drum up support for (very real life) Republican dark horse presidential candidate and Internet darling Ron Paul.
Pretty cool, but he'll need to get out of the virtual world and into the real one. it is encouraging that he's doing double-digits in a state where agricultural subsidies and cheap migrant labor are factors favoring Huckabee and McCain. I don't know what to make of Rudy's poor showing, since he blew Iowa off, but Paul getting more than three times Giuliani's support at least shows us Big City Republicans and the Heartland aren't much of a match.

What's clear is, the networks keeping Ron Paul from the televised debates are abusing the public facilities they rely on for their private profits to advance their special interest political agenda. After Iowa, how do you keep Paul out and leave Giuliani in? Especially now that their own quoted "double digit" criteria has been met in the only "real" poll taken to date. These damned elitist "Authorized Journalist" gatekeepers are supposed to report stories, not engineer their outcomes.

[Via Thirdpower]

Marko...

Polo?

Fighting for Liberty identifies the "Only One" from yesterday's post.

Spiffmo

Regular WarOnGuns readers will remember Tomato 7.

Ben has pulled up stakes and reincarnated his blog as Spiffmo.

Check it out.

Granting Rights?

I just received the following email, in response to "'Privileges' Watch," my current Rights Watch column in GUNS Magazine:

David, I appreciate your time and effort in support of 2nd Amendment.

However, you make a statement in the article that I believe is incorrect and I thought I'd bring it to your attention. 4th para. into the article, "The Bill of Rights grants no rights. To believe that it does reverses the proper role...."

Please read the Sixth Amendment below:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Also, the Ninth Amendment states:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Anyway, my red flag goes up when I hear or read sweeping general statements like that. The Bill of Rights does include the granting of certain rights, at least one is clearly stated in the 6th Amendment.

Be well,

ER
It's an interesting perspective, and I'm not trying to be stiff-necked, but I don't believe I'm wrong in this. The Sixth Amendment is not granting a right, it is acknowledging one codified in English Common Law and predating the Constitution, as do discussions of judicial powers and jury trials in the Federalist Papers. I guess we could also bring up differences between civil/legal rights and natural ones, and the dangerous blurring of what "rights" are, particularly with politicians bandying about terms like "Patients' Bill of Rights", etc., in an attempt to pander for votes and defraud people out of real ones...

But I'm starting to digress. I will cede that a right to trial by jury is meaningless in the absence of government, and that at one point, a body of men decided that a jury trial was a right to which government would yield. But that decision was also made about everything else we consider "unalienable" as well, and we see them being alienated all the time.

As for the Ninth Amendment, I believe the fact that it states rights are "retained by the people" speaks for itself as predating the article, and goes to the core of why some warned against including a Bill of Rights in the first place--so that what was enumerated wouldn't be construed as all that there was.

It's an interesting question, and I'd be interested in hearing more thoughts on this.

Britney Spears is On the List


Police were called to Britney Spears' home Thursday night in a custodial dispute that lasted nearly three hours before an intoxicated Spears reportedly turned over her children to ex-husband Kevin Federline.

She can't or won't control herself, but wants to impose controls on us.

This Day in History: January 4

It is not in the pages of History perhaps to furnish a case like ours. To maintain a post within musket shot of the Enemy for six months together [without powder] and at the same time to disband one Army and recruit another within that distance of twenty odd British regiments, is more than probably ever was attempted: But if we succeed as well in the latter, as we have hitherto in the former, I shall think it the most fortunate event of my whole Life.