Penis “jokes”, freedom is about killing people, guns are only good for killing, armor piercing bullets, and racism. Not bad for a four panel cartoon.
But they left out kids killing kids, explicitly saying gun owners are stupid and crazy, the NRA is a lobby for greedy gun manufactures, and we worship guns.
Nonetheless, the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment decisions have made a major difference. In particular, they have offset the gun-control community’s longstanding effort to “denormalize” firearms ownership — to portray it as something threatening, deviant, and vaguely perverse, and hence demanding strict regulation, if not outright prohibition. That effort went on for decades, and received much media support. Two decades ago, it seemed to be working.
But with the Supreme Court saying that it’s clear the Framers regarded individual gun ownership as “necessary to our system of ordered liberty,” that effort must be seen as a failure now. Gun ownership by law-abiding citizens is the new normal, and the Second Amendment is now normal constitutional law. It will stay so, as long as enough Americans care to keep it that way.
Glenn Reynolds
June 29, 2010
The New Normal: The Second Amendment After Heller and McDonald
[They are still trying to “denormalize” it. They do it with zero tolerance in the schools for even a sandwich bitten to look like a gun, registration, licensing, publicizing concealed carry license holders along with sex offenders, and here and here for example. See also my gun cartoon of the day topic.
We came very, very close to losing this via “denormalization”. It’s how the holocaust came into being and it’s not that much of a stretch to imagine a similar fate for gun owners had we not been able to turn it around.
We must continue to normalize it. The safe and responsible exercise of a specific enumerated right is not something that should ever be looked down upon. Those that disparage it should be derided, scorned, and humiliated and the Heller and McDonald rulings give another great tool to accomplish that with.–Joe]
In the Facebook thread here a commenter points people at his blog post on the McDonald ruling:
Yesterday at 11:35am
And the response? It’s typical:
Suzanne MacDougall Avilato the
above poster, take your H&K 93, shove it up your ass and pull the trigger.Yesterday at 12:46pm ·2 people
Sara L.
MessengerCould
have said it better myself Suzanne, he has to be a nut.Yesterday at 12:52pmSara L.
MessengerYou are
sick.Yesterday at 12:56pmSara L.
MessengerI am not
mad but, people like you who shoot off their mouths don’t need guns.Yesterday at 12:57pm
Suzanne MacDougall AvilaThank
you, Sara. He’s not even worth arguing with. He can take his filthy mouth and
his guns somewhere else.Yesterday at 1:20pm
There is lots of other stuff worthy of comment in the thread as well. I particularily liked the irony of this one:
Richard J. OsborneRepeal
the Second Amendment. It belongs on the scrap heap of history along with the
provisions of the Constitution that protected slavery.Yesterday at 9:04am ·
If they can repeal the Second Amendment then people could repeal the 13th Amendment as well. For some reason they can’t seem to grasp the principle of freedom.
I was reading the article titled “Supreme Court extends rights of gun owners” and I was annoyed with the title. The Supreme Court didn’t extend anything. It recognized the pre-existing right and said local government may not infringe that right.
Then I thought about the picture they used in the article. It wasn’t of gun owners and gun rights activists waiting for the decision. It was the anti-rights people:
Would the LA Times have used a similar picture of the KKK standing outside the Supreme Court waiting on a decision regarding the rights of non-whites with such a neutral caption? What’s the difference? The Brady Campaign and the KKK both want to use the force of law to suppress the rights of others. Sure, the KKK sometimes took violence into their own hands. But the Brady Campaign has a lot of innocent blood on their hands too. Some of it via criminals enabled by disarmed victims and some of it via the enforcement of repressive gun laws against private citizens (Ruby Ridge and Waco are the better known examples).
The biggest difference that I see is had the KKK been standing outside the Supreme Court there would have been more of them. The KKK had far more public support and members than the Brady Campaign ever has. They are fringe group by any definition of the phrase and they need to be politically extinguished.
Would a political cartoonist say this about “allowing” blacks the right to vote and keep their job? Yet the anti-gun people talk about the Supreme Court “allowing” people to own firearms.
Don’t forget what Bill Clinton said about rights.
Through this lawsuit in North Carolina we intend to show that state emergency powers statutes that allow government officials to suspend fundamental civil rights, including the right to bear arms, are unconstitutional and therefore should be nullified. Citizens do not surrender their civil rights just because of a natural or man-made disaster.
Alan Gottlieb
June 29, 2010
SAF SUES TO OVERTURN NORTH CAROLINA’S ‘EMERGENCY POWERS’ GUN BANS
[I expected something in New York City or maybe New Jersey. But I suppose this was fairly low hanging fruit with lower risk.
It may also be that it will take some time to incorporate the McDonald rulings into the filings for those jurisdictions.–Joe]
Rob reports on something that gives me a warm glow.
Almost as rewarding is the Wikipedia entry for the Brady Campaign shows the membership as 50,500. Nice (you heard it here first)!
But then I noticed the link in the Wikipedia entry for the citation supporting that number no longer lists the number of members. Apparently the Brady Campaign didn’t like having the information being that public. It seems to you can request that information but the numbers are not public.
Hmmm… apparently I had an impact on them.
Well, it’s not as if Winston Smith from the book Nineteen Eighty Four is editing history in this case. It’s only the Brady Campaign attempting to implement Nineteen Eighty Four.
The Internet is forever and we have backups.
The baby’s name is McDonald.
The “proud parent” really should be labeled “SAF“. But since the cartoon was drawn many years ago with a completely different intention they can’t really be faulted for that particular error.
The intent, of course, was to claim the NRA has no limits as to who may own and use a gun.
We are practical guys. We don’t want to win on philosophy and lose on freedom. The end question is, can law-abiding men and women go out and buy and own a firearm? Today the Supreme Court said yes – anywhere they live!
This decision cannot lead to different measures of freedom, depending on what part of the country you live in. City by city, person by person, this decision must be more than a philosophical victory. An individual right is no right at all if individuals can’t access it. Proof of Heller and McDonald will be law abiding citizens, one by one, purchasing and owning firearms.
The NRA will work to ensure this constitutional victory is not transformed into a practical defeat by activist judges, defiant city councils, or cynical politicians who seek to pervert, reverse, or nullify the Supreme Court’s McDonald decision through Byzantine labyrinths of restrictions and regulations that render the Second Amendment inaccessible, unaffordable, or otherwise impossible to experience in a practical, reasonable way.
What good is a right without the gun? What good is the right if you can’t buy one? Or keep one in your home? Or protect your family with one?
Here’s a piece of paper – protect yourself. That’s no right at all!
Victory is when law abiding men and women can get up, go out, and buy and own a firearm. This is a monumental day. But NRA will not rest until every law-abiding American citizen is able to exercise the individual right to buy and own a firearm for self defense or any other lawful purpose.
Wayne LaPierre
June 28, 2010
Statement by Wayne LaPierre Executive Vice President, NRA and Chris W. Cox Executive Director, NRA-ILA Regarding U.S. Supreme Court Decision McDonald v. City of Chicago.
[SAF also has a statement. Tomorrow’s QOTD will come from it.
Expect the NRA and SAF to be racing to file cases within minutes or at most hours, from now. I’m placing my money, literally, on SAF.–Joe]
For the last week the tension at work has steadily increased. I came home at 3:00 AM on Saturday morning and was back at it by 8:00 AM. I went to sleep at midnight last night and was working again by 5:30 this morning.
From Thursday morning until this afternoon I had not checked checked email.
I finally have my stuff under control and am trying to catch up on a few things on the home front.
There are hundreds of blog posts that I probably won’t get caught up on for a week. There are over 400 unread news alerts about various things that I’m going to just mark as “read”. If something important happened that I missed out on I’ll probably eventually see it on one of the blogs I read.
Now, I’m going to take a nap.
As if it has ever happened at any gun show, NRA convention, a gun range, and any other place where nearly everyone has a gun.
It only takes one solid data point to disprove a hypothesis and we, over the years, have millions of solid data points. Do they have even a hint of one?
Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.
James Madison
[And this is why those that wish to govern us also attempt to keep the masses ignorant. It is only by enforcing ignorance that they can become our rulers.–Joe]
There is no clue this artist has heard of the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arm. There is no clue they understand that evil is enabled by gun control.
They did do a fairly good job of rendering the guns so I guess I can’t insist they are totally clueless.
We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54-55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.
Justice Antonin Scalia
June 26, 2008
District of Columbia, et al., petitioners v. Dick Anthony Heller, No. 07-290, Page 64
[It’s not the role of our legislators or the executive branch either. The only legal way for them to try is through a constitutional amendment and even that has some serious problems because the formation of the union was dependent upon those first ten amendments known as the Bill of Rights.–Joe]
I’ve seen it before and let it go, but today I ran into several variations of, “Once you get the sights adjusted, this gun is very accurate” in different places on gun forums and product reviews.
Serious shooters should know the problem with that assertion, but not all shooters know it. These were shooters making the assertion after all.
Accuracy and sight adjustment (or zero) are not the same thing.
(Joe uses the term “sight angle” or “indicated sight angle” which makes more sense when you think about, which of course he has)
Accuracy is the ability of the firearm system (the gun itself, the ammo and the sighting system) to place shots consistently. The sights could be “off” considerably (bullets impacting far from the point of aim) and that gun is just as accurate as if it were putting your bullets exactly at the point of aim.
The difference is in sight adjustment, but that in itself has nothing to do with accuracy. Accuracy = consistency.
It has been said that “Sometimes the first duty of intelligent men is the restatement of the obvious.” — George Orwell (Thank You, Walter Williams, for pointing that out)
You intelligent men have your assignment, then. Carry on.
The Million Mom March stated their beliefs as:
All Americans have the right to be safe from gun violence in their homes, neighborhoods,
schools, and places of work and worship. All children have the right to grow up
in environments free from the threat of gun violence. Gun violence is a public
health crisis that harms not only the physical, but also the spiritual, social,
and economic health of our families and communities. The availability and
lethality of guns make death or severe injury more likely in domestic violence,
criminal activity, suicide attempts, and unintentional shootings. It is possible
to reduce the number of deaths and injuries caused by gun violence with
reasonable, common sense policy.
With such a warped sense of what a right is, or can be, it is no surprise they didn’t last long. Now the Million Mom March essentially no longer exists (it’s “officially” part of the failing Brady Campaign) and the NRA is stronger than ever.
Who’s the moron now?
I concluded, unhappily, I had been born into a world dominated by a rampaging monster called ‘law’ that was both all powerful and all stupid.
Fred Hoyle
[The most recent info about the TSA is what reminded me of this. But every waking minute of any day would also qualify.–Joe]
I think this was published during the active reign of the Beltway Snipers.
It’s not funny. There is not even a hint of an element of truth in it. What is the point other than to demonize the NRA?
Would this be appropriate if it “NAACP” or the name of a gay rights organization were substituted for “NRA”? After all, the snipers were people of color and probably were gay. But there is no evidence either of them were members of the NRA.
In all of the years since I have become an amputee, I can honestly say that I have can’t think of a more upsetting and humiliating experience than what I endured at the hands of TSA at the airport.
…
No person should be subjected to this level of humiliation.
Peggy Chenoweth
May 31, 2010
Humiliation… And Now I’m Angry
See also the video from a local TV station on the incident.
[H/T to an email from Breda.
Read the rest of the story to find out they peered into her four-year old’s diaper because he talked to his mother. Your blood will boil.
I also have a story to tell soon when I’m not so swamped with things at work. It’s from a cousin of Barb’s who works with explosive as part of her job. It’s about the time she has spent in jail, how the TSA ignores her blasters license, how she has missed planes, it’s terrible and it’s all for show. And, unfortunately, it’s all my fault.–Joe]
We learn from Bayoubuzz, via Michelle Malkin that U.S. District Court Judge Martin Feldman, who told Obama his power is limited, is now receiving death threats;
“Last night, Feldman served as a celebrity judge at a cooking contest at a school gymnasium in Uptown New Orleans. Due to the threats, Feldman was accompanied by a federal marshal security team.
It is a sad indictment of our society today that a judge with such a sterling record of integrity and service to his country would be subject to such threats. Feldman was appointed to the federal bench by President Reagan in 1983. Today, he is in the eye of a political hurricane unlike anything he has ever experienced.”
A sad indictment of our society today? Not my society, thank you. Leave me out of this. This is about the Left. And it’s not an “indictment” of the left so much as another in a very long string of verifications of the left’s mindset. It’s also a vindication of the American Founders’ ideas. See; they knew our government would try to seize power unconstitutionally. That’s what happens as a matter of course. That’s why they took steps trying to prevent it. After having taken these steps, they also knew things would come to blows once in a while. Those who lust for power simply cannot help themselves, and they routinely resort to threats and violence. That’s what political power is at its fundamental level, after all– threats and violence for the purpose of taking our treasure and trampling our liberty.
That being said; an actual death threat most likely means that the person making the threat isn’t going to act. Otherwise they’d just go for it without all the talk.
Judge Feldman; I hope you’re packing heat, and know how to use it.
He’s accused of being a tool for the oil industry. I suppose anyone who favors liberty and human rights (asuming the judge does– I don’t know) is a “tool” for this, a “tool” for that, and a “tool” for any worthwhile activity, so long as that activity doesn’t violate anyone’s rights. We’ll see if the good judge can make that argument with such clarity, or if he’ll cough, splutter and squirm like a Republican.
log post on today’s Supreme Court ruling: http://wwwtoecheesecom.blo