Cowboy Confessional

Insanity is an ugly thing, especially when packaged in pretty emails.

Last week there was an interesting case adjudicated in the D.C. Circuit court. The case was Parker vs. District of Columbia.  Aside from the fascinating aspects of the case, and how cleanly it played out in the D.C. Circuit unencumbered by state law issues, the best part was the utter panic this ruling installed in the Brady Campaign.

I was forwarded a fund-raising email in which the Bradys shouted shill about a decision by “activist judges.”  It is ironically comical to see members of the political left complain about what member of the political right did for years.

More to the point, I’m at a loss as to how anyone could perceive the decision to be “activist”.  Perhaps my strict constitutionalist stripes show, but when the majority opinion focused on what the term “the people” means in the broad scope of the Constitution, I fail to see where “activism” enters the discussion.  To wit, from the majority decision:

In determining whether the Second Amendment’s guarantee is an individual one, or some sort of collective right, the most important word is the one the drafters chose to describe the holders of the right — “the people.” That term is found in the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments.  It has never been doubted that these provisions were designed to protect the interests of individuals against government intrusion, interference, or usurpation. … The operative clause, properly read, protects the ownership and use of weaponry beyond that needed to preserve the state militias….

One must be truly bound to their cause, or heavily medicated, to ignore the guiding Constitutional principle in a judicial ruling and thus view the enforcement of a clearly stated right to be judicial “activism”.

But I digress from the theme of today’s missive, that being the hilarity provided by Sarah Brady and company.  Their Chicken Little like message made some comical claims, which no doubt invigorated their irrational hordes (nothing like a little fear to get political blood pumping).  One such claim that caught my eye was:

… completely disregarded the democratically-expressed will of the people of the District of Columbia, depriving D.C. citizens of a strict handgun law enacted thirty years ago.

To Sarah’s way of thinking (if I may distort the term “thinking” to an unreasonable degree) the will of the people expressed in the Constitution is somehow subservient to the will of a city council filled with convicted crack smokers.  Any junior high civics student understands the principle of preemption, and will attest that a Constitutional right trumps a local legislation any day.  If not, the city council in whatever Hell Sarah now resides could legislate away her free speech rights (which I admit would be a tempting thing to do, but my firm belief in Constitutional protection forbids thinking seriously about it).

The Brady bugbear email contained enough historical inaccuracies and  theatrical statements that space does not allow reciting them all.  They claim all courts (aside from the 5th) have ruled against an individual right to bear arms (not true), and they scream that this decision will wipe away all local gun owning restrictions (unlikely).

Which brings up the obvious fakery of the Brady Campaign.  Collectively they claim to not be a gun banning organization.  In fact, their web site has this tidbit in the “About Us” section:

Brady believes that a safer America can be achieved without banning guns. Our stand is simple. We believe that law-abiding citizens should be able to buy and keep firearms. … Second, there are certain classes of weapons that should be out of bounds for private ownership. They include Saturday-night specials, which are used almost exclusively for crime, military-style assault weapons like Uzis and AK-47s, and .50-caliber sniper rifles, which serve no ordinary sporting purpose.

(emphasis mine)  Note the following:

• They say they are not about banning guns.
• Then they say they are about banning guns, just certain types.
• The types of guns they would ban do not include all handguns.
• Yet they wet themselves when a handgun ban is overturned.

Only a New York Times editor could not see through this charade.  And the fun has just begun.  The formerly great District of Columbia undoubtedly appeal for an en banc hearing, and failing that, it will head onto the Supremes. 

Hope Sarah raises lots of money.  They’ll need it.

Bookmark to:

One must marvel at politically motivated editorial writers and other developmentally disabled persons.

Nowhere is this more clearly demonstrated than at the San Francisco Chronicle (well, perhaps the New York Times, but theirs is a case of chemical dementia, not organic inanity).  Today their Op/Ed page was littered with text so irrational that I read it as a plea for strong men in white jackets to come to their rescue.

To wit, a piece of low grade effluvium titled “Afghanistan on the edge“.  The piece begins with a standard propagandist tactic of making a false statement in the opening paragraph, to set a foundation of argument for the remainder of the diatribe.  In that paragraph the Chronic’s editors proclaim that a recent bombing was “… proof of the U.S. failure to prevail in a country that should have been our central front in the war on terrorism.”

First, how did we not “prevail”?  No doubt the enemies that are al Queda and the Taliban make feeble attempts from time to time to disrupt life in Afghanistan, but the U.S. did indeed prevail.  In short order, not only did the we drive the Taliban nearly into a collective grave, we continue to kill their members.  Just last year a minor stink was raised when some of our soldiers taunted some Taliban bastards while roasting the remains of their fallen jihadists.

But more to the point:  when was the last report from Afghanistan that women were being shot in the back of the head for unveiling their faces in public?  When were young girls last barred from going to school?  At what point did the populace arise against the American “occupiers”?  These manifest changes somehow elude an organization that supposedly keeps up on the news (I say “supposedly” because what is reported in the Chronic bears little resemblance to actual world events). 

More inexplicable than the Chronic’s ineptness at reporting news is their inability to make rational judgements.  In the same paragraph cited above, the editors at the local fish wrapper factory claimed Afghanistan was the “… central front in the war on terrorism.”

The Chronicle sure don’t understand terrorism, jihad, or al Queda.

The current infestation of Islamofacists is a completely decentralized network, rarely relying on central command and control, much less central operational support.  This war, the Third World War, the one declared by bin Laden in 1996, is global in scope.  The Islamos have attached in Russian, China, Southeast Asia, South America, New York, and in the air over the Atlantic.  There is no “central front” because there is no center of an organization, nor a central target on their death list.

I could continue dissecting the Chronicle’s crazed composition, but I have tickets to see Joe Ely, Guy Clark, John Hiatt and Lyle Lovett tonight, and one minute of their music means more to the collective sanity and safety of the world than a million column inches of the Chronicle’s editorial disorder.

Bookmark to:

Some people purport that oysters are aphrodisiacs.  Nonsense.  This is a ruse by men to make certain sexual favors more palatable to women by the virtue of comparison.                                      

Bookmark to: