McDonald vs. Chicago

I am still reading and trying to analyse Chicago vs. McDonald but I can tell you that the general consensus was that we won. We won big. Here are a few of the things other gun bloggers have had to say, courtesy of Kurt Hoffman at Armed and Safe:

Howard Nemerov, the Austin Gun Rights Examiner (GRE).

Paul Valone, the Charlotte GRE.

Sean McClanahan, Des Moines GRE.

John Longanecker, Los Angeles GRE.

And finally, David Codrea, National GRE, where you will also find a link to the 214 page ruling.

Kurt Hoffman, however, takes a more pessimistic view of both Heller and McDonald citing the liberal minorities dissent. You can read about it here. I tend to think this is the more correct analysis. I would note that Sonja Sotomayor sided with the minority here, in essence claiming that the Second Amendment does not incorporate. But during her hearings, she said the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right. Did she commit perjury when she said that? Hmmm. It was a 5-4 decisions that by all rights should have been a 9-0 decisions, as should Heller.

But, congratulations are in order to Alan Gura, and to Otis McDonald. Alan Gura will be heading up a case here in North Carolina, that you can read about here.

The War on Guns: Is Bill O'Reilly claiming 'all' Mexican cartel guns come from U.S.?

The War on Guns: Is Bill O'Reilly claiming 'all' Mexican cartel guns come from U.S.?

David Codrea reports on an something that Bill O'Reilly supposed said that is a blatant lie. But this quote to me is more telling:

O'Reilly has the most popular cable news show out there, a huge radio following and consistent best seller status for his books. While he defines himself as an "independent" and an admirer of Robert Kennedy, what's telling is it serves the agenda of the political left to attack him as an arch-conservative. Based on near-universal acceptance of that misdirection, it appears to be working, which makes it convenient for characterizing anyone who takes a more hard-line stance as "pretty extreme."

Anybody think that doesn't serve a purpose in terms of defining the acceptable ideological boundaries for "mainstream" political discourse...?

Codrea, here, is channeling Glenn Beck, who has pointed out that over time, the window of "mainstream" thought has been shifted leftward, little by little. Then, anyone to the right of the window becomes an "extreme right wing conservative" whose thoughts are "clearly out of the mainstream." Some Constitutional restorationists may be conservative, but not all of us by a long shot. Remember that what we want, what we demand, is a restoration of the Constitutional Republic, and a return to the true rule of law. It is only by turning back to our Founders' ideas that we and our progeny can truly live in freedom.

Is Civic Duty an Option?

An interesting, and hopefully thought provoking article by "Bargain Citizen" in today's American Thinker. Bargain Citizen asks the very relevant question Is Civic Duty an Option? A quote:

Then there are those who waste countless hours absorbed in things which matter not. Don't get me wrong, life requires a healthy balance. Indulging in relaxation or entertainment is great. Over-indulging while not bothering to lift a finger on behalf of one's civic duty is a different story. For those who are lost in today's proverbial circuses - be it Oprah, American Idol, People magazine or an ever-growing variety of sports and video games - they merely contribute to our collective problems.

This is the very reason I started this blog, and others have done something similar as well: to wake up my fellow citizen. There are many things you can do depending on your time and talents. You can work for a candidate. You can be a precinct person for your party. Indeed, precinct jobs often go begging, but will allow you to begin burrowing into the party and influencing party decisions. You can become an INFORMED voter. Talk to your friends and co-workers. Volunteer to stuff envelopes, or address mailing labels, or...well...there are literally hundreds of things you can do. But don't be one of those who distract themselves with what I call circuses. Keeping abreast of your teams, or of popular culture is entertainment, but don't engage in too much of it. Don't let it become more important than your very liberty.

Open Carry Is Good for the Cause

Dan Bidstrup, Denver Gun Rights Examiner had a great article hailing those with the courage to open carry their weapons on 20 June 2010. The article, Bravo to those who open carry their weapons, makes a point that I have also made in the past. Namely, open carry is not for everybody. You have to have a certain temperament, and a burning desire to educate the public by example. Here in North Carolina, you are likely to have many conversations with nice police officers, many of whom believe themselves to be "only ones," and wouldn't take a shine to an armed citizen. I however, prefer to go about my business with as little fuss as possible. Like one of Dan's commenters, JohnF, I believe the true Constitutional answer is Vermont style carry-that is you can carry open or concealed, as you choose, with no permit required either way. If you can own a gun, you can choose to carry it.

By the way, you are reading the Gun Rights Examiners, right?

John Stossel-Guns Save Lives

John Stossel today has an article up at Townhall.com entitled simply Guns Save Lives. It is true, of course. Guns do save lives, and more importantly, more often than not save the lives of the innocent and the law abiding at the expense of the criminal and predatory. We don't often get that message from a nationally syndicated columnist like John Stossel, but we should. Oh yes, you and I know it, and we talk about it often. David Codrea's blog, War On Guns, runs a constant counter commentary to the message that guns must be tightly controlled. While Mr. Codrea has a very devoted following, the truth is that he doesn't reach that many people. So when a guy like Stossel writes that Guns Save Lives, I think we should all cheer-and cheer on Mr. Stossel.

Of course, the fact that Stossel can write that Guns Save Lives is due, in no small measure to the many unsung heroes like David Hardy, John Lott, David Kopel, Stephen Halbrook, David Codrea, and many others who made the case over many years that the writers of the Constitution had it right when they wrote into our founding documents that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. After all that has been written, what part of that doesn't the New York Times not get?

An Explanation

For those of you who continued to check into my blog over the last month, a bit of explanation is in order.

On May 17th, I received a panicked call from my brother to the effect that my father was in the hospital, with something that had not yet been identified, and that my help was needed. Needless to say, I went immediately, and ended up staying for a month to help out. My mother also has health issues which needed to be addressed, as well as getting Dad out of the hospital and back on his feet.

Having returned, I am still catching up, but I hope to be blogging again soon. Fortunately, Mrs. PolyKahr had a friend who came over and assisted her here, for whom I am very grateful.

Goofball Warming Caused by Sun-Who Knew?

Marc Sheppard today in the American Thinker takes a comprehensive look at the state of climate science, as reported from Heartland's Fourth International Conference on Climate Change. Quite a few of the heavy hitters in climate science seem to have been there. They all seemed to be telling the same tale: that the global temperature rises and falls with changes to the Pacific Decadal Oscilation (PDO) and with the Total Solar Irradience (TSI).

So who knew that the Sun causes the earth to heat up. Huh.

However, the Democrats have decided that your having too much money is the cause of goofball warming, and have designed a scheme to relieve you of your excess, to their advantage, of course:

Obama would have learned much from CEI’s Chris Horner’s segment, in which he quoted a Center for Data Analysis (CDA) analysis that projects a nationwide renewable electricity standard would:

* Raise electricity prices by 36 percent for households and 60 percent for industry;
* Cut national income (GDP) by $5.2 trillion between 2012 and 2035;
* Cut household income by $2,400 per year for a family of four;
* Reduce employment by >1,000,000 jobs; and
* Add more than $10,000 to a family of four’s share of the national debt by 2035

Any bets on whether we will be able to stop them?