Road Rage

Not mine, don’t worry. In the news yesterday:

The victim, a painter, was driving a city truck with another employee in the passenger seat at about 8:30 a.m. when he made a turn on the 1800 block of Palou Avenue, angering a nearby driver, said Officer Albie Esparza, a police spokesman.

The motorist began cursing at the painter, who tried to drive away. The assailant pulled out a gun and fired numerous shots, one of which hit the painter in his shoulder, Esparza said.

My sympathy and wishes of full recovery to the wounded city employee.

The gunman was transporting a pistol in his car, not locked in a container – illegal in California.
The pistol was loaded – also illegal.
By any reasonable person standard (as far as one can tell from the article, anyway), the city employee has not presented imminent danger of death or grievous bodily harm to the gunman, and did not have ability or opportunity to cause such harm. Which means the use of force by the gunman was unjustified and therefore illegal.

Care to speculate what is more likely:
a) the gunman was an upstanding citizen, on his way to a Bible study group, or
b) he was a criminal?

Care to speculate whether any of the above is going to stop gun control advocates from citing this incident as evidence that we need more gun control laws?

Advertisements
Published in: on June 18, 2011 at 9:47 am  Leave a Comment  

GOP Debate

A couple of thoughts on yesterday’s debate and candidates:

  • Romney: you got to hand it to him, his continued defense of Romneycare while attacking Obamacare shows that he has balls. Unfortunately it also shows that he’s not willing to admit his mistakes and recognize that his version of healthcare is just as flawed as Obama’s.
  • Bachmann was overselling herself yesterday. Too many obvious slogans. I cautiously like her, though. Cautiosly, because her social views have me worried. I don’t want a president who is going to push a pretty extreme position on abortion and gay rights. If she sticks to the economy, I think, she has better chances. Her opponents understand that too, and will pull her into social discussion, and she seems to be the type of person who will not hold her opinions back and avoid the issue, which deserves respect, but is not going to help her.
  •  Pawlenty has no balls. Attacking Romney behind his back, and then backpedaling when face to face during the debate … That’s not how you win respect and votes. Not my respect and vote, anyway. That, plus on social issues he’s as hardcore as Bachmann, maybe worse. Two strikes.
  • Gingrich: too much of a liability. ’nuff said.
  • Santorum: didn’t say anything that would distinguish him from the rest. We’ll see.
  • Cain sounded very reasonable. His lack of government experience can play both for and against him.
  • Paul: I very much agree with his position on economy and social issues, so that was good. He seems a little too isolationist on foreign policy for my taste, so that has me worried. Also, he seems a lot less “polished” in how he talks and presents himself. It’s very difficult to imagine him actually taking on and beating Obama in an election.

Overall, I did not see a “winning” candidate. Don’t get me wrong, any of them would very likely do better than the current President, but then so would many potted plants, and you don’t see them running for office. IMHO, we need a candidate with good track record (business and government), who would run on economic and foreign policy issues and take “let’s follow 10th amendment and leave it to the states or to the people” position on social issues. Oh, and eloquent enough to take on Mr Teleprompter in a debate.

Published in: on June 14, 2011 at 9:46 am  Leave a Comment  

Bill of Rights is a loophole?

Kommiefornian gun laws only make sense if you’re a rabid hoplophobe, or a gun-owning masochist. And certain morons politicians are trying to put even more “sense” into them.

AB144, which by now is pretty much one step from becoming a law, is a shining example.

First, a little background. 2nd amendment to the US Constitution guarantees that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Note the “and bear” part. It means that just allowing people to buy firearms, and then requiring them to be kept locked in a safe, is not going to cut it. Now, there are two basic ways to carry a firearm: concealed, meaning that no one knows whether you carry or not; and open, meaning that it sits in a holster on your belt (or whatever you preferred holster placement is) for the world to see. I think few people would argue that concealed carry is much more convenient: you don’t scare people, and the gun only comes out when you have to protect your (or someone else’s) life. Concealed carry in Kommiefornia requires a special CCW license, which is theoretically obtainable. In practice, in most urban counties, getting a CCW is slightly less realistic than winning a state lottery, finding pirate treasure or cashing Enron stock at $90. But if you dare to challenge this situation in court, they will tell you that under Kommiefornia law, the “…and bear…” part is satisfied, because you can carry openly, as long as the gun is unloaded. When you ask what is the point of carrying an unloaded gun, they will tell you that you can carry ammo too, just not in the gun. The logic of having to spend time loading, when every second counts, is dubious, but that’s a separate very lengthy discussion.

Now, let’s get back to AB144. It makes open carry illegal. Plain and simple. When  OpenCarry.org organized a few meetups, and got press coverage of how armed people are walking the streets, and nothing bad happens, certain morons politicians soiled their pants became concerned and decided to do away with “…and bear…” part altogether. Sure, if you’re scared, take away my rights. Because it makes perfect sense, right?

What is going to happen to all the lawsuits about CCW that got dismissed because open carry was allowed? My feel is that they will get re-opened, and AB144 will be overturned. It will cost the state  a chunk of money, and make people less safe in the mean time, but when did that ever stop the morons politicians? The blood-boiling part is that it will be my tax money paying for the state’s defense of taking away my rights, but that’s another separate and lengthy discussion. Some folks in gun rights community got excited because if AB144 passes it opens the door to make challenges of current CCW issuance more realistic. Personally I don’t believe that will happen. Kommiefornia courts will more likely return things to the way they are now than allow CCW to all who can qualify for one.

Now, take a look at this quote:

“There are problematic issues of guns carried in public,” Portantino said. “This loophole should be closed. You do not need a weapon to buy a cheeseburger or a cup of coffee.”

Which loophole is that, Assemblyman? The guns are carried in public because of the right, that according to 2nd amendment to US Constitution, you, Sir, shall not infringe!  Now, after this right has been upheld by DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, you are calling it a loophole? Who elected this idiot? Ah, Pasadena. Well, good people of Pasadena, I hope you’re happy now. Your elected representative can’t tell the difference between a constitutional right and a loophole.

And as for not needing a weapon when buying a cheesburger or coffee, have you ever heard of City Grill in Buffalo, NY?  What about Luby’s in Killeen, TX? What about McDonalds in San Diego, CA? How about Brown’s Chicken in Palatine, IL? Take a wild guess: what do all these places have in common?

Published in: on June 11, 2011 at 3:00 pm  Comments (1)