Are You Stimulated Yet?
If you’d believe the likes of Nancy Pelosi, hundreds of millions for birth control, $350 million for prevention of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), and $21 million for sod for the National Mall will all provide economic stimulus.
Yep, I’m stimulated, all right!
The Second Amendment: The Most Inconvenient Truth Of All
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
I am constantly amazed by the anti-gun positions held by so-called experts in constitutional law. Confusing the language of the opening statement between a justification clause or a preferatory clause, both of which were in popular usage in that era, is one thing. But to call oneself a constitutional scholar, having studied the various writings of the framers and their peers about the need for an armed citizenry, and then still believe that the Second Amendment refers to some vague collective right tied to participation in a militia, is simply absurd on its face.
The debate over the meaning of “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” has waxed and waned over the years. But here’s what gets it for me: Imagine, if you will, that the language of the Second Amendment were applied to books:
“A well regulated library system, being necessary to the literacy of a free State, the right to keep and bear books shall not be infringed”
Can you imagine, in any way, shape or form, interpreting that statement to mean that only libraries can have books? Or that books can be restricted to only those who have a valid library card? Or that only government licensed authors can write books?
Language notwithstanding, our framers and their peers wrote extensively about private gun ownership.
No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
—Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.
[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
—James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46
[T]he people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.
—Zachariah Johnson, at the Virginia Convention, explaining how the new Constitution could never result in religious persecution or other oppression
[C]onceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made. The particular states, like private citizens, have a right to be armed, and to defend, by force of arms, their rights, when invaded.
— Roger Sherman, during House consideration of a militia bill (1790)
So my question, then, is how can one refer to themselves as a constitutional scholar, or even a student of constitutional law, and even consider the idea as serious that the Second Amendment means anything other than a) individual citizens have the right to keep (possess) and bear (carry with them) arms (firearms), and b) this right shall not be infringed? How is that possible?
Yet clearly such “learned” people do hold to the collective rights position. That is until the Supreme Court ruled in Heller vs. D.C. that the Constitution does, indeed, recognize an individual right.
But then there is that pesky “shall not be infringed” business. Given our current mish-mash of federal, state, and local laws that restrict what guns can be purchased, whether a license is needed, where it can be carried, and what features it has, it seems obvious that some folks still can’t read. Or don’t want to.
The simple truth is really this: These people know exactly what the Second Amendment says and means, and they just don’t like it. They don’t like the idea that the power of government should be overshadowed by the power of the citizenry. They don’t like the idea that citizens should be capable of defending themselves without police. They prefer that you die at the hands of a criminal in front of one of a myriad of security cameras, instead of “allowing” you to produce a weapon and deter a crime. And they really, really don’t like the idea that “arms” might refer to something other than a handgun with a seven round magazine, a pretty skeetgun, or an iron-sighted hunting rifle.
The truth of the Second Amendment is, indeed, inconvenient if your goal is to effectively disarm the populace. For what purposes, well, that’s for each of us to determine. I, for one, subscribe to the Franklin philosophy: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety”
Eric Holder And The Second Amendment: Like Oil And Water, They Just Don’t Mix
President-elect Obama’s nominee for Attorney General, Eric Holder, is quite possibly the worst choice imaginable when it comes to upholding the Second Amendment. Holder has a long history of support for any and all forms of gun control. He signed on to the amicus brief supporting the District of Columbia position espousing the “collective right” in the D.C. vs. Heller case, has supported handgun licensing, and lobbied for restrictions on guns shows. And if that isn’t enough, a piece of legislation currently in the works (HR 1022) may make grant him the ultimate authority to ban the sale of almost any firearm. If you are not scared yet, you should be.
Holders support for the District’s position in Heller wasn’t limited to the amicus brief, either. He loudly voiced his approval of the de facto ban on private gun ownership, stating, “The Second Amendment does not protect firearms possession or use that is unrelated to participation in a well-regulated militia.”
Holders support for all manner of restriction on the sale and possession of firearms run the complete gamut, from requiring a Federal license to even own a firearm, three-day waiting periods, major restrictions on gun shows, and banning possession or ownership of firearms for anyone under the age of twenty one. Pretty much, if you are breathing, Holder doesn’t want you to have a gun.
But here is the truly scary part: HR 1022, the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007, which died in committee in 2007, is extremely likely to be resurrected in the 2009 session. It includes a a provision that presumptively bans, for private sale, any semi-auto rifle or shotgun ever procured by the U.S. military or a Federal law enforcement agency.
Here the text:
The term `semiautomatic assault weapon’ means any of the following:
(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.
There you have it: Any semi-auto rifle or shotgun ever purchased for use by United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency, or one which the AG even thinks is an assault weapon, will be banned for private sale.
Any thoughts on what Eric Holder wouldn’t ban?
Obama Scorecard: Inauguration T Minus 3 Days And Counting
Though he hasn’t yet taken office, President-elect Obama has all but finished selecting his cabinet and made his thoughts known on a couple of issues. From my perspective, here is where he stands and what I think about it:
- Economy -Seems to be heavily engaged and exercising an active leadership role. He’s coordinating with the outgoing administration to start implementing policy. No one yet knows what the outcome will be, but I give him a solid B for already being in the game.
- Israeli – Palestine Situation – The world is waiting for him to say something, and all they hear are crickets chirping. I would have expected either he or Hillary to say something substantive by now. He gets a D.
- Attorney General Nominee Eric Holder – An anti-gun zealot who filed an amicus brief in the Heller case espousing the opinion that the Second Amendment is a collective, not individual right. He could have done so much better. His choice clearly bodes of things to come. A definite F in my book.
- Closing Guantanamo Bay – The detention center has been a black eye on the face of America for years and it can’t be closed too soon. Free those we can convict, execute those we can, and be done. He gets a B, but only because there have been no executions yet.
- Ending “Don’t Ask – Don’t Tell” – Though no action has yet been taken, indications are that this is a priority for his administration. I applaud in principle, but worry about a repeat of the firestorm that marred Clintons early days in office. I believe that we can allow Gay people to serve openly in the military while simultaneously preserving good order and discipline. He’ll need buy-in from senior officials, and that will take work. Meanwhile, don’t we have more pressing issues? C+ for intent, but deduction for timing.
- War In Iraq – I think Mr. Obama has begun to understand the importance of our presence there and is quietly soft-pedaling the fact that there is no immediate pullout in the works. A definite B so far.
- War In Afganistan – A troop increase is clearly needed before the whole country falls all over again, and he knows that. Another B.
- Reinstating The Draft – I like it for three reasons: The first is that more troops will definitely be needed, and the second is that the troop demographic has been a little too skewed towards those with few other opportunities, and the third is that our country needs future leaders with actual military service. Though I signed up voluntarily, my time in the Navy was a definite personal growth experience as I am sure it will be for todays youth. Mr. Obama gets a B for this one.
Overall, then, I think he gets a B minus, and frankly, I am surprised to be hearing myself say that. His choice of Eric Holder is the biggest negative for me. He seems a bit weak, as predicted, on early leadership regarding foreign issues, but also has his hands full with the economy and the other domestic problems. I suppose it goes without saying that no other president in recent years has faced so many challenges on Day Zero, so this is a pretty good score coming from the Conservative Lesbian.
Chavez: Viva La Revolucion, Um, Wanna Buy Some Oil?
Hugo Chavez is eating crow as he is now quietly courting western oil companies in the wake of the decline in the global markets. Frankly, it couldn’t happen to a nicer guy. For all his repeated nose-thumbing of western leaders and cozy relationships with Russia and Cuba, that and four dollars might buy him some Starbucks.
If citizens of Venezuela don’t wake up soon and oust this Castro posieur they may well end up just like Cuba: fenced in, poor, and repressed, but with with one big difference: Hugo can afford a few more thugs to ensure it’s done right.
Eugenics: Breeding Babies Free Of Breast Cancer
I don’t think that anyone would argue that breast cancer is a scourge on the face of the planet. Far, far too many women have been struck down in their prime by this horrific disease, and eradicating it would be a blessing. But at what ethical expense?
Doctors at Univeristy College London have reported the first birth of a baby girl absent the gene known to cause breast cancer carried by her mother. Doctors screened and discarded a number of embryos to find one without the altered BRCA1 gene, and then implanted that embryo back for a normal pregnancy.
While the goal of sparing future generations of her family the heartbreak of breast cancer is admirable, the methods are questionable. While the people in this case see one baby, others of us see many babies. Each embryo would develop into an individual person. The doctors and parents, then, are playing God, choosing who lives and who does not.
The implication, of course, being that a life with breast cancer is not worth living. Today. What about tomorrow, when we decide that life with, umm, say, asthma isn’t worth living?
“Oh, I wouldn’t want my baby to struggle with that burden! I’ll just pick an embryo that’s asthma free.”
Can you spell G-A-T-T-A-C-A?
Wait until it extends to genetically influenced “undesirable” social behavior, oh, like, perhaps being Gay. What if you want a child with blond hair, und Teutonic features, mit guten… You get the idea.
Eliminating the carriers is not the same thing as eliminating the disease.
Remember, Vlad the Impaler didn’t want any poor people in his kingdom. So he killed them all.
Know of Any Good Southern Cookin’ in Northern Virginia? Tell Me!
Alright foodies, CL has a hankering for collard greens, black-eyed peas, fried catfish, and cornbread: Soul food. So I’m asking, no, begging you to tell me of any really good down home, southern style restaurants in the Northern Virginia region. Family owned and operated is definitely a plus!
Who knows, maybe we’ll all meet there sometime!
An Open Letter To Those Who Would Ban Private Gun Sales Without A Background Check
Our freedoms are hard won, and one of those freedoms is that of individuals to engage in in private sales. The current bill under consideration by the Virginia Crime Commission is an unnecessary intrusion in to the lives of law abiding citizens engaging in lawful activities, and is really just a scheme to register guns sold by private sellers. It brings unnecessary and pointless hardship on both gun shows and the law abiding citizens who attend.
Finally, this bill is an attempt to solve a problem that doens’t really exist – the irrational fear that guns sold between private individuals will be sold to prohibited persons and/or used in crimes. Only a tiny percentage of guns sold in this manner end up thusly: One ten-year federal study shows that less than one percent of all guns sold at gun shows are used in crimes. This fact, coupled with the fact that most guns sold at gun shows are sold by licensed dealers who DO perform checks means that the chance of private sale guns being used in crimes is nearly zero.
Remember, too, that “used in a crime” does not equate to “used by the purchaser or a member of their family in a crime” – in fact, most guns used in crimes are stolen from their lawful owners, a convenient fact ignored by the proponents of this bill. No amount of background checks have any effect whatsoever on firearms being stolen from their owners.
Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither. I think that applies here. Let’s prosecute actual criminals, not burden private citizens with pointless hoop-jumping.
Best Video Game I Played In 2008
I like video games. I admit it. And when I play a violent video game, I want the violence to be, well, violent. I want blood, I want spatter, and I want body parts. I want to know that when I killed someone, they don’t just lay there, they look like they’ve been killed.
Why, you might ask, would a fifty-year old lesbian want to play such games? Because they are fun! And, before you jump to conclusions, I do also enjoy non-violent video games. But that’s another topic.
So here is my vote for the best video game I played this year: Call of Duty: World At War
This is, in my opinion, the standard against which all future First Person Shooters should be measured. It is visually stunning, crisp, virtually glitch free, and supports not just online play, but a new cooperative mode where up to four online players can work together to fight through the single-player scenarios. One of my best friends (shout out to Todd!) and I have spent hours online together battling cooperatively, and this is perhaps the single best feature in the game.
The scenarios are engaging, believable, and intellectually challenging. The environments are sufficiently large and complex so that, as a player, I don’t feel that I am just being led along, but have some amount of control over the direction of the game. Many of the vehicles are operable, adding an additional dimension to the multiplayer modes. The gritty richness really grabs me.
The computer controlled enemies act with more intelligence, not just in a robotic, predictable way. The Japanese run at you with bayonets while screaming as if inspired by Hirohito himself. The Germans seem to exude the Nazi singlemindedness and deadly efficiency so often porttrayed in the movies. The uniforms are authentic, dirty, and varied enough within a scenario that you don’t feel like you’ve killed the same enemy a thousand times.
Finally, World At War brings a new, more realistic dimension to injury and death: more blood, more spatter, and actual body parts. When hit by a grenade or artillery shell, limbs fly and blood gushes. Downed enemies will writhe and moan until dead. Battlefields become scenes of gory destruction. In this game, death isn’t just cessation of life, it’s almost (but not quite) overkill.
As a military veteran and casual student of history, playing this game gives me an opportunity to experience firsthand a small taste of what many WWII veterans fought through and died for. There have been times, while playing, that it has brought tears to my eyes and I’ve paused to say a silent prayer of thanks for these members of the Greatest Generation.
More than just a game, World at War could, and perhaps should be part of every high school history class.
The Conservative Lesbian
