Wow. Aside from the asshole [the grammar suggests that there was really only one of you] who has been celebrating Melanie Hain's death in the comment section of my previous post, there was this by Kim B.--which is clearly superior to anything I wrote, and which captures part of what I was trying to say quite nicely: it's unfortunate that Melanie Hain's death is even being connected to the soccer game incident when the two are unrelated. She was the victim of domestic violence. Period. This is not an issue of gun control - her husband would have had access to weapons no matter what condition the second amendment was in - this is an issue of domestic abuse. Saying that she "deserved" to be shot by her husband in her own home while she was unarmed and unawares is something akin to saying that rape victims are "asking for it." One in three or four women in our country experience domestic abuse in their lifetime; justifying Ms. Hain's very tragic death ...

For a lot of people the tragedy of Melanie Hain [controversial gun-toting mom at her child's soccer game last found dead in apparent murder-suicide at the hands of her husband] represents fodder rather than tragedy. Mike W. quotes one : "Her "constitutional right" put her six feet under....Why should we have respect? I have no respect for people who don't realize the danger of bringing a loaded gun to a kids' ball game. i have no respect for people who think they can get attention by pulling ridiculous stunts. I have no respect for people who think they have the right to intimidate others with threats of violence. By packing heat, you're implicitly saying "treat me with the respect I feel I deserve or I'll blow your brains out." People like that deserve no respect." Another appears in the local blogosphere: This was an Anon at Delawareliberal : When this story first came out about the mom who openly wore a gun to a youth soccer game, ...

Just think of it as my daily contribution to the coarsening of the American dialogue on the Second Amendment. [h/t Real World Libertarian ]

One: 70-year-old man defends himself [h/t Alphecca ] According to Plantation [Florida] police, two masked gunmen came into the Subway at 1949 North Pine Road just after 11 p.m. There was a lone diner, Mr. Lovell, who was finishing his meal. After robbing the cashier, the two men attempted to shove Mr. Lovell into a bathroom and rob him as well. They got his money, but then Mr. Lovell pulled his handgun and opened fire. He shot one of the thieves in the head and chest and the other in the head. […] He is not expected to be charged authorities said. ‘’He was in fear for his life,'’ Detective Rettig said, “These criminals ought to realize that most men in their 70’s have military backgrounds and aren’t intimidated by idiots.” The full story makes it clear [as the excerpt does not] that the 70-year-old former Marine was carrying his weapon concealed. Two: Sacramento county Sheriff admits that more people need to carry concealed weapons [again, h/t Alphecca ] Sacramento County may be...

Gun threads at Delawareliberal are frustrating exercises to read because they quickly descend (and unfortunately I am not kidding about this) into challenges and counter-challenges to send in digital photographs of various commenters' penises and other important intellectual topics like that. Nonetheless, two bloggers/commenters for whom I have respect (Pandora and Dorian Gray) have raised issues that people need to think about with respect to the recent open carry incidents at Presidential and Congressional events. Dorian Gray writes [and I am leaving out all the penis stuff this time DG]: All the things a gun is used for are violent. The discharge of a weapon is by definition violent. Do you scratch your pussy with it? If and where you chose to display one to prove some arcane point has meaning. If someone feels the need to “display openly” a firearm to prove they have a right we are already fully aware they have, what does this mean? What does this have to do with Health Care? ...

But it did. WaPo : Armed men seen mixing with protesters outside recent events held by President Obama acted within the law, the White House said Tuesday, attempting to allay fears of a security threat. Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, said people are entitled to carry weapons outside such events if local laws allow it. "There are laws that govern firearms that are done state or locally," he said. "Those laws don't change when the president comes to your state or locality." Anti-gun campaigners disagreed with Gibbs's comments, voicing fears that volatile debates over health-care reform are more likely to turn violent if gun control is not enforced. "What Gibbs said is wrong," said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "Individuals carrying loaded weapons at these events require constant attention from police and Secret Service officers. It's crazy to bring a gun to these events. It endangers ev...

Here's what Ernest Hancock [who appeared in the original Phoenix video "interviewing" Chris, who was carrying an AR 1-5] said about the event : We worked with the Phoenix police department. They came down to our studio on Friday. We've gone through this with them for 15 years. They have a squad - used to be called the confrontation prevention squad, now called community service. We told them that we're going to come down, I'm going to do the radio show live, we're going to be broadcasting it, and I'm going to have a firearm. I had a 9 millimeter on myself... It was Thursday that I called and talked to Al Ramirez, the representative from the Phoenix police department, and we were discussing - we've been around this rhetoric that was building up around William Kostric, who did this in New Hampshire. We knew this from 15 years ago when Janet Napolitano was a U.S. Assistant Attorney and prosecuted the Viper Militia out of Arizona, and how that was gene...

This is an important part of the story that doesn't seem to be gaining much traction: the fact that LEOs and the Secret Service understand the law and the difference between a political statement and a threat. Here's what the Phoenix AZ police said about the dozen or so protestors who were open carrying outside the venue where President Obama addressed the VFW: Phoenix police said authorities monitored about a dozen people carrying weapons while peacefully demonstrating. "It was a group interested in exercising the right to bear arms," said police spokesman Sgt. Andy Hill. Arizona law has nothing in the books regulating assault rifles, and only requires permits for carrying concealed weapons. So despite the man's proximity to the president, there were no charges or arrests to be made. Hill said officers explained the law to some people who were upset about the presence of weapons at the protest. And in another story : "What he is doing is perfectly legal,...

First, credit where credit is due: I found this video over at Delaware Watch : Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News , World News , and News about the Economy You have to watch the whole thing very carefully. Personally, I don't think Kostic comes off as a goon , which is how Dana perceives him. Nor does he satisfy Chris Matthews by rising to any of the bait to snarl and froth at the mouth. He denies being a birther [says he has no reason to question Obama's legitimacy as President when first asked, but Chris won't let it go], and gives pretty straightforward answers: Was social security a mistake? Yes. Was the Great Society a mistake? Yes. Is health care a mistake? Yes. Couldn't be a politician because he doesn't equivocate. He comes down pretty thoroughly as a hard-line libertarian, but other than his Second-Amendment issue [which I will get to in a second], there is nothing to rank him as either a left- or right- libertarian. He comments that one party wa...

Darryl Perry is running for President ... in 2016 . Darryl ran a write-in Libertarian campaign for Senator in Alabama last year, and he pretty much feels that without a lot of money he needs a real long running start on the Oval Office. If you visit his site, you'll notice that Darryl--while I really like him--is a more radical libertarian than I am. Be that as it may, Darryl has found something really interesting in the new legislation proposed by Rep Peter King (D-NY): Recently the Department of Homeland “Security” issued two startling “reports” concerning “Right wing extremism”. The first report to be leaked mentioned supposed “threats” posed by military veterans and those who support Constitutionally limited government. The second “report” to leak was titled "Domestic Extremism Lexicon" and supposedly rescinded. However, a bill (HR 2159) was introduced by Representative Peter King (NY-3) titled “Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009”. Wh...

This comment by GRex over at Hube's place got me started thinking: They're most likely trying to ride the Craig's List killings and that woman who drove a teenager to commit suicide. Add that to the grandstanding over NCAA football playoffs, and I wonder if there's anything at all that Congress can't mess with under the Interstate Commerce Clause? Here's what the comment made me think: the Interstate Commerce Clause is the (supposedly) (only) Constitutional basis for virtually all major legislation for the past several decades, but what I never see is any calls for an originalist interpretation of the ICC. Yet at the same time we are usually inundated with arguments that the 2nd Amendment was only intended to arm militias, or arguments that the Framers never anticipated automatic weapons to justify gun control. I'm trying to distill this contradiction down to a workable premise, and I think I've got it: Parts of the Constitution that empower the Sta...

First, a semi-random sampling of a local blogger doing her bit to sell the narrative that anyone who is not a liberal Democrat should have to spend all his/her time running around condemning violent extremists because they are to be portrayed as responsible for everything from Glenn Beck to the guy who killed cops in Pittsburgh: This kind of violent rhetoric is exactly the refuge of the worst of the current wingnuts and exactly why they got their outrage on over the DHS report. You can’t protect your own bullying and violent speech without having to cover for the terrorists in your midst too. This comes from the same little merry band that lined up to label Resistnet.com a potentially violent rightwing extremist group that should be on a DHS watch list somewhere. When I examined all their material and failed to find the slightest inkling of violent intent (in fact, quite the opposite), the rejoinder was--I kid you not: What do they mean by keep the powder dry ? Bath powder? So much...

Steven D at Booman Tribune [via jason at Delawareliberal] asks an important question about the recent Binghamton massacre and our society. Here's the gist: It doesn't matter to me why a "crazed" or "evil" (take your pick) individual walked into an immigration services center in Binghamton, New York and shot and killed 14 people seemingly at random. Just like it doesn't matter to me why the kids at Columbine wanted to kill their whole school, or the Virginia Tech shooter wanted to to shoot as many of his fellow students and faculty members as he could before dying, or why the man in Alabama who killed 11 people thought it was a good idea to go on a revenge rampage. Or why anyone decides to take a gun and shoot a spouse, girlfriend or themselves. Discerning the motivations or reasons why people kill each other with firearms is, in the end, a fruitless endeavor. For this is the society we've chosen. We've chosen to live in a society where firearms,...

Anonone left an important comment on my yesterday post about a student investigated by police after a classroom presentation on the right to bear arms. Read that here for context. I would normally respond to A1 in the comments section, but I am at a remote site and the wireless server I'm using won't allow me to access that page. So, A1, this is the best I can do in response. To continue the dialogue I probably won't be able to respond to anything else you offer until late tonight or tomorrow (just so you know). After reading the post, A1 says (in its entirety): Steve, 1) You don't know what Wahlberg actually said. 2) You don't know how he said it. 3) You don't know what his relationship was with the professor or classmates. 4) You don't know what his university relationships were. 5) You don't know his medical or psychological history. 6) You don't know how many guns he owned or if he was bringing them on campus. My point is that there is potent...

From The Daily Campus : Recently, at Central Connecticut State University, a student was brought into the police station after he gave a class presentation about carrying concealed handguns on campus. What was his transgression? He dared to talk about guns in class, which made his classmates feel "scared and uncomfortable" according to his professor. John Wahlberg was in Paula Anderson's introductory public speaking class when the students received an assignment to make a presentation about a "relevant issue in the media." Given the fierce debate about whether or not students and professors should be allowed to carry weapons on campus - ignited by the fatal shootings at Virginia Tech - Wahlberg thought that concealed carry was an appropriate topic for class. It is important to note that while Wahlberg is a gun owner and a Second Amendment advocate, he never threatened to harm anyone during his presentation. After giving the presentation - during which he advocat...

I learned to shoot with one in the Boy Scouts at age eleven. Now, of course, it has become a major political issue in light of the recent killing of a pregnant woman, allegedly by her 11-year-old stepson-to-be. From Alphecca : Advocacy groups often make themselves look ridiculous by going to extremes in what they criticize. PETA is a perfect example. The Brady Bunch is another. What has the Brady Bunch (with the help of ABC News) pissing their collective pants right now is that some firearm manufacturers offer smaller versions of their rifles and shotguns. Let me set the stage. There was a tragic story of an 11-year-old boy killing his father’s girlfriend last week. Understand that this post is not intended to make light of that. What I AM ridiculing is the reaction by Paul Helmke of the Brady Bunch upon learning that the boy used a youth-sized shotgun he’d gotten as a Christmas gift. From ABC News: “To specifically market a gun designed for a kid is outrageous,” said Paul Helmke, pres...

J D Tuccille at Disloyal Opposition reveals a politically incorrect truth [and one that, to his credit, Dana Garrett has always known]: it really doesn't matter if a President Barack Obama--despite current protestations to the contrary--wants to ban guns or restrict their ownership. Why? Because, quite frankly, most gun owners in America will engage in civil disobedience. Cold dead hands and all that. My liberal and progressive friends may be aghast at the idea, but millions of Americans have absolutely no intention of ceasing to cling to their guns. So in that respect--given that Senator John McCain only rates a C+ from the National Rifle Association--whoever gets elected President ... really doesn't matter.