NOVATOWNHALL

And what does he think he’s doing challenging Virginia Congressman Frank Wolf for the Virginia 10th District Republican nomination?

10th District Republican primary candidate Vern McKinley (center) with Dick Heller, plaintiff in District of Columbia v. Heller, and McKinley’s wife, Nona, at the April, 2008 Nation’s Gun Show in Chantilly.

Folks, I am taking Vern McKinley very seriously because anything can happen in a publicly invisible election as the June 10 GOP primary certainly will be - and Vern has a valid message. If he gets a scintilla of the money he needs to get that message out, Frank Wolf will be toast, and we may get a true citizen-legislator representing us in the House of Representatives.

It is not insignificant that Dick Heller, plaintiff in DC v Heller - the case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court which may have an immense impact on 2nd Amendment policies throughout the nation - spent most of a weekend last month visiting with attendees at the Nation’s Gun Show event in Chantilly … in the general vicinity of Vern McKinley’s booth. Heller was not campaigning, but there was a clear common interest between McKinley’s supporters and Heller, who might understandably have taken offense at Frank Wolf’s refusal to support the effort by Virgil Goode to overturn DC’s gun ban.

Prior to meeting him at the gun show, my only familiarity with Vern McKinley was based on a local Republican event where he addressed the local committee, and my impression was that Vern speaks like a regular guy - not a “political orator.” For me, this is not a negative, because I am more and more interested in the notion that our government is supposed to be one where regular citizens make the decisions. Furthermore, our current political leadership in America is a minefield of “orators” whose heads are firmly implanted where the sun don’t shine.

Vern carries a well-worn copy of the U.S. Constitution in his jacket pocket, and in our conversation he noted first of all that “home rule doesn’t override the Second Amendment.”

But his disagreements with Frank Wolf extend far beyond the issue of gun rights.
Read the rest of this entry »

It may not be all that life is about, but it definitely is a part of what life is all about:

Tomorrow, Dan, ACTivist, Jacob and I will be at the range for a good number of hours and an exponentially larger number of rounds, plinking, blasting and challenging each other’s mettle.

Targets and clay pigeons will be obliterated, skills will be honed, glorious machines will be brought to bear, manhoods will be questioned, and epithets will fly amidst the cordite. God willing, it is going to be a VERY politically incorrect afternoon.

I promise a semi-comprehensive range report.

Gosh, we do have a gift for controversy here. As a matter of balance, to bring the love, I feel compelled to offer some middle-of-the-road, common-sense subject matter on which we all can certainly agree: The sheer awesomeness of the AK-47.

First, some serious treatments. (If your attention span has you seeking short, stupid entertainment - and why else would you be here - go ahead and skip the first two videos. They require too much … brain-thinking.)

Remember how those “anti-drug” films they showed us in elementary school back in the early 1970s, er, kind of made you curious about drugs rather than repelled by the idea of them? Well, this two part documentary about the AK-47, “The Real WMD,” might have a similar effect.

Rather, will have a similar effect.

Documentary Part One:

Documentary Part Two:

Now, on to the intellectually manageable material.

Why do I want an AK-47. Why do YOU want an AK-47? Simply because: It costs $379, you cannot kill it, and it does this.

Such a raw artistic expression of the human psyche: A huge statue of an AK-47 in Iraq. Who among us cannot relate to that?

This is politically incorrect, and you know that’s not a term I toss around lightly. But you almost have to watch it at least twice, because we were all children once.

Even if you are A) wasted off your ass, and B) not mechanically inclined - which I imagine would be an absolutely terrible state of affairs - you can field strip and reassemble one of these babies in the time it takes to gather your gun cleaning materials to work on your AR-15.

And no roundup would be complete without the mother of all AK-47 videos. (Credit to the original).

…or at 86.  The WaPo article says 83, the photo caption says 86.

 In any event, he was a great actor, and a fine representative of the NRA.

Next time someone tells you that the reason you don’t have to rely on yourself to defend yourself, remember this story from the LA Times

If the attackers had used a knife, baseball bat, or picked up a fire poker from the fireplace once inside, the result would be the same. The police arrive just minutes after the call, but when seconds count, your life will depend on how you will be able to defend yourself. This woman probably would not have been able to defend herself from two men armed with anything without having a firearm to protect herself. And while others may doubt it, I do not doubt that part of the reason for criminals brazenly breaking into homes is because they know the people in CA probably do not have guns (it is very difficult in CA to get a concealed carry permit).

Please note: This is not to say that the police did not do an excellent job here as far as they could. You cannot expect a police officer within seconds of every house in the country. Their professionalism in this case is exemplary, but barring Superman becoming a police officer, they will never be quick enough in cases like this.

It appears that the Supreme court will clarify one of its earlier rulings. The all important swing vote on the court, spoke as follows …

Kennedy said that in his view, the amendment says “there is a general right to bear arms, quite without reference to a militia.“

One good thing the current US President did was pick a couple of improvements for the SCOTUS. In Heller v. DC the case of U.S. v. Miller will be superseded. Miller has been the basis for many of the gun bans enacted, including the one in DC. The court in Miller erred; it attempted legal jujitsu and stumbled.

A reading of the decision in Miller shows the innate mendacity of the left in its quest to ban the public from owning arms. Justice McReynolds repeatedly stated in Miller that the individual had a right to keep and bear arms. Despite his efforts, this case has been a bane upon the country and has only caused misery for lawful gun owners. The gun bans enacted under the umbrella of Miller, directly impact an individual’s inherent, natural right to self defense. Many despots in other countries enacted gun bans because such bans enable despots to terrorize the populace under their regimes. All of these bans where enacted under the banner of public safety and order. If this sounds familiar it should as these are the tactics of the left in America the past 80 years.

Read the rest of this entry »

This article in the local paper of record reminds why the U.S. Supreme Court is about to provide the hottest popular discussion of judicial issues in years:

So hot, that court administrators already have agreed to release audiotapes of the seminal Second Amendment case, practically the moment the justices adjourn after what promises to be a lively debate about what the Founding Fathers were thinking more than 200 years ago with respect to the rights of individual Americans to possess firearms.

A lot of people who don’t follow the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) on a regular basis will be paying extraordinarily close attention to DC v Heller because the Court’s decision will have an impact on firearms laws throughout the country. If you live in Virginia, you are mighty interested in whether you can accidentally take a wrong turn off the GW Parkway with a gun in the car and not commit a felony. If you live in DC or New Jersey or a number of other states, you are interested in whether you might eventually be allowed to defend yourself with the same level of force the criminals have.

The NRA and other 2nd Amendment advocacy organizations will be promoting the news on this issue heavily, which will resonate around the country.

But perhaps the most immediate beneficiary of the controversy which begins next week will be John McCain, the Republican nominee for president. Because no matter how or whether the Supreme Court rules, voters will be reminded of the Supreme Court’s significance.

By extension, they will be reminded of the president’s significance in offering Supreme Court nominations in the case of vacancies, which could very well be two during the next president’s term in office.

As friend and NVTH visitor G. Stone reminded me, if you are thinking of working against McCain, be sure to think about the types of Supreme Court justices a President Obama or Clinton would offer up. Although McCain is not the best public official on the 2nd Amendment by a long shot (a refrain that would apply to him on a large number of issues) he is head and shoulders above the two Democrats.

This advice is what influenced me to mostly shut up about the presidential election this year and lay off my budding Lou Dobbs hagiography. In my case, “supporting John McCain” means “not running John McCain into the ground at every possible chance,” so the SCOTUS issue made me a “supporter.” Plus providing occasional links like this.

And obviously, on a host of other vital issues that could come up before the Supreme Court, among this troika of presidential candidates the best hope for nominating good judges - however dubious it may be - is definitely John McCain.

If the McCain camp is smart, they will be publicizing the heck out of the Supreme Court’s DC v Heller proceedings and all related media stories beginning approximately now.

Loudoun Easterner editor Martin Casey is a well-meaning fellow but he does not always get it right.

Regarding this week’s front page story (and dig that crazy graphic) on Gov. Tim Kaine’s veto of the bill which would have allowed concealed carry of firearms in establishments that serve alcohol, the editorial “Back to the Wild West?” asks

In today’s society, why does anyone other than a law enforcement officer need to take a gun, concealed or otherwise, into a restaurant or bar?

Having weapons, concealed or not, in public places — restaurants, bars or otherwise — is a scary thought that conjures up movie scenes from “Shane” and “Gunfight at the OK Coral.”

We want our law enforcement officers to carry weapons for our defense if necessary. Permits to carry concealed weapons should be issued rarely through a process rigorous enough to assure that permit holders have sound reasons for carrying a hidden weapon and also are responsible and sane persons.

Mr. Casey’s editorial displays two of the key assumptions that separate gun control proponents from 2nd Amendment supporters: Outright fear of guns, and a thoroughgoing faith that law enforcement personnel will always be there to protect us.

From the perspective of those who are not subconsciously afraid of firearms, this attitude is like flinching at the sight of a hammer or baseball bat. But cultural conditioning being what it is, many otherwise reasonable people fall into the fallacy of seeing the tool, rather than the carrier, as the problem.

The real issue is whether it is sensible for law-abiding citizens to leave their safety and security completely in the hands of law enforcement officials.

Even the gun-fearers don’t really believe this. They lock their doors at night because they know the police can’t be everywhere at a moment’s notice. Most of them probably do not have a problem with people who take self-defense courses. Kung fu kick to break a jaw - ok. Learn to stick a key in the attacker’s eye - ok. But when it comes to having a gun to defend yourself - well, that is a step too far. As though any situation in which a law abiding citizen might feel the need to protect herself with a gun is magically transformed into a situation where the cops are right nearby, every time.

It’s totally illogical, a position that simply has not been fully thought through by the gun control advocates.

I think the root of the disagreement comes down to an irrational fear of firearms and fervent hope of never having to come close to a firearm. If you read it, you will see that Mr. Casey’s editorial definitely seems to reveal such a personal aversion.

Rather than a carefully considered public policy position, gun control advocacy is more akin to fear of spiders.

A further note: The bill in question was aimed at allowing concealed carry permit holders to bring their guns into restaurants without having to display them openly, as long as they are not consuming alcohol. That’s right: Under current Virginia law it’s perfectly fine to go into Applebees wearing a firearm on your hip as long as everyone can see it.

For those who are less ostentatious and confrontational, which means nearly all concealed carry holders, they have to leave their guns in the car when they go out to eat. Leaving your gun in the car is generally not considered a good thing, the key reason being the possibility of theft. The bill simply would have allowed people who have been certified to carry a firearm all day long to keep it with them when they go out to eat.

Below the fold is visitor Loudoun Conservative’s response to the editorial.
Read the rest of this entry »

Since the topic of gun videos just came up in this thread, it seems appropos to provide a few pretty entertaining ones now that everyone is in the mood.

First, you have to watch this to get the whole AK-video Zeitgeist (and if you are not a gun person, the context here is that it can easily take 45 minutes to clean a regular rifle if you are not an expert):
-How to clean and strip your AK-47

Then, you are ready to enjoy this superb work of art. (Go watch it right now - it’s not what you’d expect). Guy shooting an M16 with the killer soundtrack by MIA (”paper planes“) and AK-47 cleaning video as the oboe or sax part. Mind infesting stuff, my friends, tell me if you can’t watch it over and over (headphones recommended, or else blast the volume).
-M.I.A. how to strip an AK-47
-(based on this video)

A US soldier describes a captured weapon - pretty cool.
-New AK-47 captured from dead Insurgents, Look at what they shoot at us

What a gun!
-Trying to kill an AK

Interesting wonk stuff…
-AK 47 vs M16

And from the Darwin department
-if you want to see something absolutely ASININE beyond words, check out the javelin catcher. And I have to say, though perhaps not from sadness, I cannot explain the fact I cry when I watch this. And I cry a little more each time. I literally have to clear the drops from my glasses. This one grows better with repeated viewings. I wonder how many of you will react the same way ….

Finally, not a video but this is just really funny if you can get over the, uh, legal aspects.
-AK-47: Semi-Auto to Full-Auto Conversion

I’m sure we’re not going to change any minds on this topic here, until the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man comes to visit for a weekend and we spend a day at the range. And I don’t want to keep beating a dead horse who, had he been carrying, would have at least had a fighting chance against the thugs who cornered him in the parking lot where the tragic miscommunication ensued. “Hand over your wallet.” “Neigh! NEIIGGGHHHHH!” Blam blam blam blam blam!

But let me just pose this common sense question. Where would you feel safer walking at midnight: In an area where only criminals have guns, or one where law-abiding residents can carry firearms?

Across the river from Virginia - where citizens can carry firearms for self-protection - is Washington, DC, where they cannot. The DC gun ban has been a spectacular failure, and the DC firearms death rate is by far the highest in the nation.

As Jonathan Rauch argued with regard to ending “hate crimes” against gays,

If it became widely known that homosexuals carry guns and know how to use them, not many bullets would need to be fired. In fact, not all that many gay people would need to carry guns, as long as gay-bashers couldn’t tell which ones did.

Exactly.

John Stossel noted yesterday that

Criminals have the initiative. They choose the time, place and manner of their crimes, and they tend to make choices that maximize their own, not their victims’, success. So criminals don’t attack people they know are armed, and anyone thinking of committing mass murder is likely to be attracted to a gun-free zone, such as schools and malls…

How, then, does it make sense to create mandatory gun-free zones, which in reality are free-crime zones?

Another common sense question: If you were a criminal thinking about where to set up shop, would you choose the area where the citizens are empowered, or where they are sitting ducks?