PETA Will Choose Our Menus for Us

"Jessica Simpson might have a right to wear what she wants, but she doesn't have a right to eat what she wants."

Oh, really?

That must mean I don't, either. Or this guy.

And just what are you going to do about it, Alistair Currie? Pop this out at us?

On the other hand, the lunatic left going after celebrities is always great entertainment.

And that's enough blogging for today. I'm finishing my magazine column on Heller, due tomorrow, but first I have some leftovers from last night's barbecue, so a steak and eggs brunch is in order.

And no, I have nothing against people who make a choice to maintain a vegetarian diet. The operative word, of course, is "choice." Anybody presuming to tell another sovereign individual what they do and do not have a right to eat deserves to be pointed and laughed at, and if they persist, repelled.

Some Help Here...?

A person very close to me has a soon-to-be 11-year-old son he wants to get shooting instruction for. He would prefer it be a dispassionate and qualified teacher rather than himself or a relative, for a number of reasons, proper discipline being primary. He asked me to help him find an NRA-certified instructor who can provide introductory practical instruction for both handgun and rifle.

Does anyone know of a good and qualified instructor--one who is known, trusted, and good with kids--in the Summit County, OH area?

If so, please email me at dcodreaAThotmailDOTcom with contact information. Thanks!

Two from Orlando

WarOnGuns Correspondent Phillip C. just sent me two links:

After 217 years, Supreme Court affirms the right to bear arms
You're right, Phillip, when you say "They managed to slip a little bit of bias in, but it looks like they were trying to stay neutral for a change."

What I find most promising:

Q. Will the ruling allow those who are arrested or convicted on gun charges to challenge their cases?

A. Yes.

High-court ruling recognizes that gun laws only disarm victims
I don't completely agree with this guy, but his opinion piece promotes an individual right to a general audience, so it works in our favor. I do agree that Judge Scalia was being activist, and it may surprise you to find out I agree with a point made by Judge Breyer in his dissent, although obviously not for the same ultimate reason (see pg. 42-43 of Breyer dissent, or 155-156/157 of the .pdf file):

I am similarly puzzled by the majority’s list, in Part III of its opinion, of provisions that in its view would survive Second Amendment scrutiny. These consist of (1) “prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons”; (2) “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons”; (3) “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by . . . the mentally ill”; (4)“laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings”; and (5)government “conditions and qualifications” attached “to the commercial sale of arms.” Ante, at 54. Why these? Is it that similar restrictions existed in the late 18th century? The majority fails to cite any colonial analogues.

Bingo. Sometimes your enemy hands you a chair. Don't be afraid to bash with it.

Scalia manufactured those unnecessary concessions out of thin air, and happy as most gun owners who haven't read the majority opinion are about the outcome, we damn well deserve to know it.

UK Crime Isn't the Only Thing Going Unreported

A study has claimed that much of the gun crime on Britain's streets goes unreported.

So when they tell us how much more tranquil the UK is, we might not be getting the complete story?

What a shock.

"Contrary to its commitment to be 'tough on crime'... the Government's criminal justice policy has been characterised by a reluctance to acknowledge the causal relation between income inequality and violent crime," it said.

In other words, don't remove the vicious elements from society, but implement more wealth-distributing socialism?

This is what ivory tower egghead Peter Squires calls "addressing causes and not just symptoms"?

Peter thinks "income inequality" is a cause, rather than--in general--a predictable result of poor choices, such as not paying attention in school, being lazy, relying on government, having unprotected sex and out-of-wedlock children, being immoral, hanging out with the wrong people...the enabling of which has been committed by the control-all state, as I tried to address in my "elephant" post, where I wrote about "populations most directly affected by and responsive to a continuing history of destructive government policies."

"Income inequality." That's a damned insult on generations that went before, immigrants like my ancestors who were poor, proud, honest and clean, and worked hard to create a better life for themselves and their children. It's an insult to those of us who know what it's like to do the most menial, dirty, tiresome, physically demanding of jobs for the lowest of wages.

As long as they have useful idiots like the good Professor Squires here, the masters can continue to ratchet up their controls, reaching longer and deeper. And producing the results that will allow them to go to the next step, then the next...

Mixed Messages

After Heller, The Gun Lobby’s “Slippery Slope” Is Gone; Reasonable Regulations Ahead

Uhh...Paul...?

I think somebody forgot to give the playbook replacement pages to the Chicago Tribune.

And as for the "slippery slope" argument being a paranoid fiction of "the gun lobby"...

Y'know, change can sometimes be worrisome, and with the new post-Heller phase we're now entering into, it's comforting to know that some thing will remain the same. Like you still relying on deception...

Help Yourself!

General Sessions Court Judge Bob Moon said Friday that crime in Chattanooga "has become so rampant that it is no longer possible for the police department to protect our citizens."

He told a woman who had been pulled from her car and beaten in the head that she or her mother needed to "purchase a weapon, obtain a gun permit and learn to protect yourself."

Aw c'mon, judge--you know an attacker would just take it away and use it against her.

Why not give her some sound advice, like "give them what they want"?

[Via RCB]

Give Them What They Want

That's what we're supposed to do, right?

"It Could Set Precedent"

44-year old Andre Moore is being held at the 18th Police District by the very officers he apparently wanted to kill.

At least that's the message he allegedy sent out to the world in a disturbing, hate filled rant on YouTube.

For some reason I can't find the complete video, but what I've seen so far disturbs me significantly less than this one. And I fear a state-authorized armed force that will batter in a man's door, drag him to a cell and try to destroy his life with legal charges far more than I fear a frustrated, angry guy ranting on YouTube because he's fed up with the enforcers.

All you "Homegrown Terrorists" who comment on WarOnGuns be advised--if precedent is set, they won't end with the hapless Mr. Moore. And our great watchdogs for freedom, the "Authorized Journalists," will be right there in lockstep with "The Only Ones" as another enemy of the people gets dragged off to the gulag.

Here's the thing: If Moore can't say what he did about Philly cops, no one can say that about anyone. So does that mean they'll finally be coming for Ice-T?

How about Michael Reagan?

We're the Only Ones WWE Smackdown Enough

Despite the nature of Marquez's injuries, which included a broken jaw and bruises over her entire face, law enforcement authorities initially sided with the officer.

But she didn't die so she can tell her side, and there are too many witnesses now, and a video, so we need to give up one of ours for the good of the body.

"I've also seen the video, and I know what it shows. But what the video doesn't show is the operation of Wayne Simoes' mind at the time of this incident"...

I know what would be going through his mind if this was someone I loved.

Is it any wonder they think they're "The Only Ones" who should be armed?

[Via Andre D]

If You Won't Let Us Kill You, Will You at Least Commit Suicide?

In other words, rather than telling gun makers what to do, performance-based regulation would tell them what outcome they must achieve: Reduce deaths by guns. Companies that achieve the target outcomes might receive large financial bonuses; companies that don't would face severe financial penalties. Put simply, gun makers -- whose products kill even when used as directed -- would have to take responsibility for curbing the consequent public health toll.

Because carbon offset credits work so well for the environment and indulgences so well for the soul.

Say, would you mind stepping up on this crate and putting this rope around your neck? If you do mind, we'll force the issue, and stump for it under the banner of "common sense gun regulation."

Per McHenry County Sportsmen's Association:

Why would gun-makers agree to "performance-based" solutions where a government agency assesses penalty based on a manufacturers "share of the blame" when makers are already immune to civil prosecution from the consequences of a criminal's actions?

And they're right when they point out "This is wrong on so many levels..."

For instance, what is the value they'll place on a human life? Won't that open the door to outrage? The gun lobby thinks your child's life is only worth...

And this lie: "Our proposal is not a tax on gun sales."

Who do they think the costs will be passed on to?

And yeah, I can see these Tribune Company Marxists, whose Chicago affiliate proposed repealing the Second Amendment as the appropriate response to Heller--standing idly by while the government pays out rewards to gun makers. Yeah, that'll happen. More likely they'll back some collectivist "community leader" who will demand the money be turned over to them--for "youth programs," you understand...

Y'know, I hadn't even read the entire Times editorial when I made that carbon offset crack, but I see it's in there--are these charlatans predictable or what?

[Per Less]

This Day in History: June 29

Resolved, that thirteen thousand coats be provided as soon as may be, and one thereof given to each non-commissioned officer and soldier in the Massachusetts forces, agreeable to the resolve of Congress...