Politics

Hypocrite

/ hsoi

Via SaysUncle I read that Chicago’s Mayor Richard Daley has the luxury of armed guards.

A third escapee, a convicted murderer, had the misfortune early Monday of stumbling upon a Chicago police officer who was guarding Mayor Richard Daley’s vacation home that is about a block from Lake Michigan.

The officer, Michael Smith, chased the suspect on foot and handcuffed him at gunpoint.

In a statement, Smith said he had just checked his BlackBerry for a physical description and photos of the three escapees from Indiana State Prison about 10 miles away.

Shortly after, Smith, who was sitting in a car while guarding Daley’s home, said he looked in the rearview mirror and spotted two disheveled men.

Gosh, isn’t that just dandy? The Chicago Mayor — notorious for his anti-gun stance — has people that guard his house. And those guards, they have guns. To boot, Mayor Daley doesn’t have to pay these guards out of his own pocket: the taxpayers do that. Boy, that must be nice!

So let’s see: he doesn’t want Chicago citizens to have guns, he does what he can to make it difficult or impossible for the citizens of Chicago to be able to protect themselves and their homes (let alone their vacation homes!), but he has them for himself. And it’s most evident that guns can be used by good people for good things.

Mayor Daley, you’re quite the hypocrite. Unfortunately I don’t see you doing anything to resolve that.

Yeah, we’ll see about that

/ hsoi

… of course, I’d rather not see about that, but given the way things are going these days I get the feeling that Sotomayor is going to be confirmed for SCOTUS.

So when pressed about Heller, she reluctantly admits that yes RKBA is an individual right (contrary to her previous words, actions, and beliefs).

Then I hear she’s not going to let her personal views affect how she would rule on cases.

Sotomayor said flatly to Alabama’s Sen. Jeff Sessions: “I do not permit my sympathies, personal views or prejudices influence the outcome of my cases.”

I’ll believe it when I see it, but frankly I’d rather not have any chance to see it in the first place.

Updated: Bitter has some coverage.

If there, why not here?

/ hsoi

John Stossel makes a good point:

during [President Obama’s] trip to Africa, he said: “No business wants to invest in a place where the government skims 20 percent off the top”.

But of course the American government skims off much more than 20%.  Federal taxes alone are roughly that, and when you add in state and local levies, plus the burden of regulation, government in America eats at least 40% of GDP.

If African governments’ skimming off 20% is a bad thing, why is America’s 40% okay, and why is the President trying to make government bigger?

Sporting purposes

/ hsoi

Eugene Volokh discusses the notion of “sporting purposes” when it comes to firearms.

He discusses how the San Francisco, California Police Code explicitly delimits firearms based upon “sporting purposes” and denies hollow-point ammo, mentioning many established brands by name. His main point:

Rather, my point is how the ordinance seems to deliberately marginalize defensive purposes for gun ownership. Sporting purposes are labeled legitimate, and other purposes, including defensive ones, are labeled illegitimate.

This is quite true, and even from within the ranks of gun owners you can find a split along these lines.

Why isn’t self-defense a legitimate purpose? I’m not asking this rhetorically, nor am I asking this to those that consider it to be legitimate. I’m asking this specifically to those that think firearms are only legitimate for sporting purposes, or that think firearms are not legitimate under any circumstances. I honestly want to know what and why you think defensive uses of guns are not legitimate.

Furthermore, working to ban hollow point bullets demonstrates ignorance of the topic. Yes I know, they love to refer to them as “cop-killer” bullets, anything to get an emotional rise. Are hollow point bullets more effective at stopping? Yes they are, when compared to “ball” ammunition. Furthermore, hollow point bullets are safer because they are designed to stop within and not continue through. Look at these numbers. If you must defend yourself against a bad guy, you want to ensure to stop the bad guy, not that the bullet might pass through the bad guy and hit an innocent on the other side. When it comes to stopping an attacker, hollow points bullets are more effective in stopping power and safety; there’s no reason not to use them. Can a bad guy use a hollow point to kill a cop? Sure. But hollow points work quite well in the hands of us good guys against bad guys too. They don’t discriminate. 🙂

While I may enjoy sporting activities with my firearms, my primary purpose for having firearms is defensive. I may study all sorts of empty hand martial arts, even weapon-based martial arts (sticks, swords, etc.). But because I know those things, I also understand their limitations. A gun isn’t a be-all-end-all, but it serves a good purpose towards keeping me and my family safe. It goes back to the Boy Scout motto of “Be Prepared”; better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

But hey, if you don’t think defensive purposes are legitimate, then I’ve got a yard sign for you. Are you willing to post that sign?

It’s not about guns, it’s about liberty

/ hsoi / 4 Comments

Howard Nemerov examines if the Second Amendment to the US Constitution actually works.

But he goes further than that:

According to some, every crime victim must successfully use a gun to fight off an intruder, and every criminal must be unable to use a gun in furtherance of their enterprise, or else the Second Amendment is a failure and should be removed from the Bill of Rights.

Curiously, these complainers never apply the same criterion against other rights. Since their comments seem to consistently evoke counter-points from other readers, it would seem their exercise of free speech isn’t getting them anywhere, so are they going to lobby for repeal of the First Amendment?

OH! They already have!

McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform.

Fairness Doctrine.

Old Media coverage of the civil right of self-defense.

Their actions identify them as anti-Liberty. It’s not about guns.

Feminist hate

/ hsoi

Suzi brings up an article by a Feminist on Feminists hating Sarah Palin.

Regardless of my or your feelings in Sarah Palin, there’s no question the way she was handled and portrayed during her time in the national spotlight during the 2008 US Presidential election was just … well … mindboggling.

I did think it was most curious how the feminists were all up in arms and probably her biggest bashers. I guess Sarah Palin wasn’t “female enough” for them.

Anyway, give the article a read. It even acts as a bit of a microcosm for the whole election itself:

None of these characters are real, of course. Yet, weirdly, people were much more interested in these fictional beings than they were in the real individuals who were vying for political office last year. There were times in 2008 where I felt that the entire national discourse had become one of those scripted faux-reality shows, where nothing is real and the producers edit everybody into barking stereotypes. And the people at home just watch and point and snicker. We’re actually having an election here, I kept wanting to say. These are the people who want to run the country. Don’t you want to know who they really are?

Where to begin?

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

Foo.c points to this Washington Post article on Obama’s tax pledges:

President Barack Obama promised to fix health care and trim the federal budget deficit, all without raising taxes on anyone but the wealthiest Americans. It’s a promise he’s already broken and will likely have to break again.

The article contains all sorts of money gems on how to pay for the healthcare proposals:

Continue reading →

More buyer’s remorse

/ hsoi

Yesterday I mentioned Colin Powell having buyer’s remose over Obama.

Now Ted Rall expresses his. (h/t RobertaX)

He [Bush] was the worst president the U.S. had ever had. Until this one.

On major issues and a lot of minor ones, Obama is the same as or worse than Bush. But Bush had an opposition to contend with. Obama has a compliant Democratic Congress. Lulled to somnolent apathy by Obama’s charming manners, mastery of English (and yes, the color of his skin), leftist activists and journalists have been reduced to quiet disappointment, mild grumbling and unaccountable patience.

I don’t care about window dressing. Sure, it’s nice that Obama is intelligent. But policies matter–not charm. And Obama’s policies are at least as bad as Bush’s.

Some numbers:

Bush was the biggest spender in history, running up a $1.8 trillion deficit with wasteful wars and tax cuts. But next to Obama, Bush was a tightwad. Glamour Prez hasn’t been around six months, yet the Congressional Budget Office reports that he already has quadrupled the deficit by an extra $8.1 trillion. “The total debt held by the public [will] rise from 57 percent of GDP in 2009 to 82 percent (!) of GDP in 2019,” reports U.S. News & World Report.

Obama is sinking us into financial oblivion 72 times faster than Bush.

Where’d the money go? Mostly to insurance companies. Banks. Brokerage firms. Who used it to redecorate their offices and give themselves raises.

Against logic and history Obama claimed his bailout package would create jobs. Instead, unemployment has risen by 1.3 million. Has Obama’s plan saved a single homeowner from foreclosure? Reporters can’t find any.

Some snark:

I liked Bush better. He wasted our money when the economy wasn’t quite as sucky. And he didn’t insult us by pretending to care. Come on, Barack, smirk! Truth in advertising!

Some admission:

Obama has done more damage than Bush. And no one’s stopping him. Which makes him worse.
Sorry, Mr. Bush. If I’d known what was coming, I would’ve been nicer.

The sad thing is, if during the election folks just looked at Obama’s track record (you know, his actions while he was in the US and Illinois Senates, not all of his charismatic election-time talk), you would have been able to see this coming.

Buyer’s remorse?

/ hsoi / 3 Comments

Colin Powell expresses his concern over the current adminstration:

“I’m concerned at the number of programs that are being presented, the bills associated with these programs and the additional government that will be needed to execute them,” Mr. Powell said in an excerpt of an interview with CNN’s John King, released by the network Friday morning.

[…]

But, he said, “one of the cautions that has to be given to the president — and I’ve talked to some of his people about this — is that you can’t have so many things on the table that you can’t absorb it all.”

“And we can’t pay for it all,” said Mr. Powell….

Remember that segment in Eddie Murphy’s Raw where he talked about crackers? Back before November 2008, Obama was a Ritz cracker. Now people are discovering he’s just a Saltine. 🙂