Gun Nuts Media

Really, we promise. It seems that (surprise, surprise) my former Senator Dianne Feinswine has introduced a bill into the Senate to subject .50 BMG rifles to the restrictions placed on all NFA ’34 weapons, such as machine guns and explosive devices.

Now, while I’ve said in the past that I’d be willing to accept that – that was with the caveat that we got something in exchange for it, such as nationwide reciprocity on concealed carry. Since I really, strongly doubt that Feinswine is going to give us anything in exchange for banning restricting .50 BMG weapons, I’m staunchly opposed to this bill.

Here’s the biggest reason why.

Require the same registration for any “copycat” sniper rifles that might be developed in the future with destructive power that is equivalent to the .50 BMG caliber sniper rifle; and

That is from the text of the bill, and it gives me the willies. It gives me the willies because it betrays that the true intent of the bill is to ban “sniper rifles”, which is a neat political term for “all rifles, anywhere”. In the blog post I linked to, the Armed Canadian rightly points out that there are several calibers that approach the terminal performance of the .50 BMG already.

I’ll be firing off a quick letter to Senators Luger and Bayh; I expect Luger will oppose the bill, and Bayh will be support it.

Recently professional baseball celebrated the anniversary of Jackie Robinson breaking the color barrier in pro baseball. During this, it was pointed out that the number of American born black baseball players was at only 8.4 percent of the pro players, compared to 27% in 1975. There have been a lot of theories tossed out as to why this has happened. As a huge baseball fan, I find this interesting.

Can’t compete with football & basketball
At the inner city level, that is. This line of reasoning makes a lot of sense, actually. Inner city black kids aren’t playing baseball, they’re playing football and basketball. This could be based on the fact that football and basketball have more cultural appeal, or it could just be because it’s easier to get a football field or a basketball court in a park than it is a baseball diamond.

It’s the money
This explanation makes even more sense. The gist of it is that the economic situation of Major League Baseball causes pro teams to look to foreign countries (often in Latin America) or even to Asia. Less recruiting is being done domestically, and more and more that recruiting is being aimed at college baseball players, which are generally less risky to develop into a talent that high school players.

It’s a conspiracy
I’m not kidding. As I was driving to work this morning I (quite by accident) tuned into some idiot morning show full of people complaining that baseball was conspiring to keep blacks out at all levels, playing, managing, and owning. Here was their best piece of evidence, quoted as well as I can remember.

“When you go to a basketball game, you can just feel the blackness. Baseball doesn’t have a halftime show, or cheerleaders, it’s not doing anything to welcome us as a people, or to feel ‘blacker’.”

Now, I have no idea what the hell exactly that means, but it sounds pretty stupid if you ask me.

Ahab Thoughts
Time for my commentary (which is what I do here anyway). I’m of a divided opinion on this issue, because on one hand I feel like my favorite sport (baseball) is loosing out on the chance to snag some truly great athletes, kids with tremendous raw physical potential who never get a chance to make a diving centerfield catch, or hit a 450 foot home run.

On the other hand, baseball has come to represent a microcosm of the cultural diversity of America, where white guys, Latin Americans, Asians, and blacks all play the same game and compete against one another. The decline of black baseball players has opened the door wide for the current generation. As MLB teams lost part of their talent pool to football and basketball, they were forced to search elsewhere for fresh talent. This has indirectly resulted in us acquiring players from other countries such as Ichiro Suzuki, Manny Ramirez, and many others.

While I do think that baseball should place more effort into recruiting on our home soil, I also don’t feel that this should be done at the expense of getting great players from Latin America or Asia.

…to refuse service to anyone. This is absolutely priceless and almost makes my morning. Of course, the lawyer had to get involved:

Simpson’s attorney, Yale Galanter, said the incident was about race, and he intended to pursue the matter and possibly go after the restaurant’s liquor license.

“He screwed with the wrong guy, he really did,” Galanter said by telephone Tuesday night.

Actually, it’s about a property owner exercising his right to refuse service. The owner of the restaurant says it’s because of Simpson’s past, and that he doesn’t want the kind of attention that Simpson attracts associated with his establishment. Good for him.

Unfortunately, I’m sure that Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson are right around the corner, eager and willing to set race relations back another fifty or sixty years.

In the news I see a story regarding a pair of vegan parents who have been sentenced to life in prison for murdering their infant child. They were convicted on charges of: felony murder, malice murder, involuntary manslaughter, and cruelty to children.

When their baby died, it weighed 3.5 lbs (that’s 1.59 kilos for my European reader). That’s about five pounds less than I weighed the day I was born. The jury deliberated for a grand total of seven hours (which is not a lot) before coming back with guilty verdicts. Some excerpts from the article (with Ahab-comments) follow.

Defense lawyers said the first-time parents did the best they could while adhering to the lifestyle of vegans, who typically use no animal products. They said Sanders and Thomas did not realize the baby, who was born at home, was in danger until minutes before he died.

What? YOUR BABY WEIGHED 3.5 POUNDS. How in the name of The Duke did you miss that little detail? I could offer some intellectual commentary, but I’m too gobsmacked by the utter vapidity of the parents in this case. But wait, there’s more.

…their malnourished 6-week-old baby boy, who was fed a diet largely consisting of soy milk and apple juice.

Soy milk and apple juice. Now, I understand that crazies vegans don’t believe in using any animal products, but I wasn’t aware that breast milk counted as an animal product. All this mother had to do was pop a boob out there, and she didn’t. Instead, she let her child die because of her personal beliefs.

I’m pleased by this verdict, for a lot of reasons. Despite my personal feelings about vegans being hypocritical and foolish, I honestly don’t care what you eat or don’t eat, it’s your life do what you want. I do have a problem that when people force their belief system on someone who can’t give consent – under any circumstances. By trying to raise their child as a “vegan”, these parents denied it the essential nutrients that the baby needed to live. Whether that was because of cruelty or ignorance doesn’t actually matter.

That’s the problem with radical beliefs of any type. When take something too far, innocent lives get damaged. This baby could defend himself, he didn’t have a voice to say “feed me some fucking milk, lady”. I guess you could call him the first victim of radical vegetarianism.

Parents have a right to raise their child as they wish. What that means is that my parents can raise me Christian, or vegetarian, or however they please. What they don’t have a right to do is endanger my life because of something they believe in. There was one person at the trial that understood exactly what was going on, however.

“No matter how many times they want to say, ‘We’re vegans, we’re vegetarians,’ that’s not the issue in this case,” said prosecutor Chuck Boring. “The child died because he was not fed. Period.”

And that’s all she wrote.

Update: Eric at Classical Values has more.

Update Part Two: Electric Boogaloo – Ambulance Driver informs me that I don’t do metric conversions very well, in the comments section. Silly me and getting my pounds to kilos conversion bassackwards.

We don’t need no stinkin’ due process or so the saying goes. Sebastian has a post up about the current media meme about a bill before Congress that would remove the ability of people on the “terrorist watch list” to buy guns. I’m not a big fan of secret government lists to begin with; however remover a person’s ability to purchase guns because that person happens to be on the list is a horrifying thought.

Now, I know that some of my readers (most of which come here from Pissed Off Housewife) don’t necessarily support my strict interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, which is fine. I want to try and explain something to those people, to Suzy Soccermom and her friends.

No one who is on the terrorist watch list knows that they are. It’s classified, and that is a good thing from a terrorism prevention standpoint. The problem is that you could be put on the terrorist watch list because your name is similar to that of a known terrorist – or for any number of reasons. Imagine for a moment that instead of denying someone their 2nd Amendment rights because they were on a terrorist watch list, the government was trying to deny them their 4th Amendment rights. That would mean that their home would be subject to search and seizure without a warrant at the whim of the government. It’s a scary thought, that of the government revoking your rights by legislative fiat.

Back to the issue of guns and terrorism, I really, really, really do not want terrorists to get guns. At the same time, being a “suspect” of something does not mean that you are guilty of that thing. The thought of revoking a person’s rights, any of their rights, without due process of law is a scary concept to me. A terrorist is going to get those guns, whether or not it’s legal for them do so isn’t going to stop them.

I can’t be any more clear – revoking a person’s rights without due process of law is one of the most terrifying things that a government can do to its citizens. This bill isn’t about “terrorists”, it’s about “suspects” who haven’t committed a crime on a secret government list being denied the rights available to any other citizen.

But today I’m going to blog about Paris Hilton. I blame LawDog because his post on the subject made me laugh, repeatedly. The problem is that it also riled my feathers, because I’m tired of stupid spoiled rich kids getting special treatment.

I’m doubly tired of people thinking that an anorexic, alcoholic, low-watt bulb like Paris Hilton is some sort of role model. I was even more irritated when I found out that that idiot doesn’t think she should go to jail. I have a question for her, and I suppose her faithful fans. How exactly do any of her meager “accomplishments” exempt her from jail time? Perhaps if she was world renown for feeding starving children with her personal fortune, I could see that; however since she’s world renown for being a spoiled brat – you’re shit out of luck.

But then I found this gem. It’s a petition by her misguided fans directly to the Governator to have her pardoned. Because that certainly won’t enforce the perception that’s she is a spoiled brat. I honestly shouldn’t even be blogging about this – I’m just adding fuel to the fire. My problem is that I’ve come to see Paris Hilton (and those like her) as the poster children of the rapid erosion of manners and decency. It’s a double-edged sword, Paris and her ilk provide the negative example, and parents fail to actually parent their children and cater to their whims.

Let’s go through the looking glass for a moment into the deranged world of Paris and her fans.

We, the American public who support Paris, are shocked, dismayed and appalled by how Paris has been the person to be used as an example that Drunk Driving is wrong. We do not support drunk driving or DUI charges. Paris should have been sober. But she shouldn’t go to jail, either.

This entire paragraph almost made my head explode. If Ms. Hilton had been used as an “example”, her treatment probably would have followed the letter of the law – as laid out in the post from LawDog.

“I feel that I was treated unfairly and that the sentence is both cruel and unwarranted and I don’t deserve this,” Hilton told photographers assembled outside her home Saturday.

I suppose she’s spot on that her treatment is “unfair”, it’s just not in the direction that she’d like you to think. Just sort of as a reminder, if I had done this I would currently be in the pokey, not running around free as bird and ordered to report to serve my time.

Sometimes, when special people get special privileges , I’m okay with it because that person adds value to society. Could someone please explain me to the value that Paris Hilton has added to our lives? Aside from providing countless blogs a target for us to flagellate, of course.

The root of my problem with Ms. Hilton and her ilk lies in my deep and abiding love of manners. You are all aware that I was raised under a very traditional hand, as such I have some very traditional manners. I am frequently disturbed by the current trend among young girls (think 11-18) to become part of what I can only characterize as “slut culture”. Things like vapid consumerism, promiscuity, and alcohol abuse are held up as goals in “slut culture”.

Maybe I’m prematurely old, maybe I’m not progressive enough, but when I hear 13 year old girls, little children talking about how they’re going to “blow this” and “fuck that”, I die a little bit inside. Sure, I blame Paris Hilton – she sets the example. But if Paris wasn’t there, I’m sure some other stupid spoiled whore would step up to the plate and provide the example for these kids.

The problem isn’t Paris – it’s (as usual) the parents of these children who have decided that the word “no” shouldn’t be part of their children’s upbringing. I despair for the future, because for every well-heeled and mannered young boy or girl, there are about a dozen of these little mutants running around.

The Honorable Governor Schwarzenegger:

With regards to the petition currently flinging itself around the internet faster than crap at a monkey convention, I would urge you to not pardon Paris Hilton.

If the petition is true, and Paris is a role model for countless thousands (cries), than it seems that she should now set an example and demonstrate that negative actions have consequences, and that no matter how rich and stupid you are, no one is above the rule of law.

Regards,

Ahab

This whole affair makes me ill – I’m going to the range today.

Update: In case you’re wondering what John Wayne would do, just watch the end of McClintock! how he handles Maureen O’Hara. Ah, simpler times.

I posted a while back on conspiracy theorists, which attracted my very first troll – apparently my most recent decision to ignore him means that he wins. It’s my own fault, really because I forgot the 1st Rule of Internet Arguing.

Arguing on the Internet is like running in the Special Olympics: even if you win, you’re still fucking retarded.

Not really the most eloquent rebuttal I’ve ever posted, but it serves for a laugh.

LawDog also had a post recently on the Tin-Foil Beanie Crowd which was written with his usual flair and humor, and had me chuckling. I do have a new addition to Team Tin Foil, one that I wanted to share with you. As my wife and I returning from Virginia Beach, we happened across an AM talk radio show, unfortunately we lost the signal before I could get the name of the host. In the brief 30 minutes we had the signal (somewhere inbetween Richmond and Williamsburg), here is a rundown of the fun and entertaining “facts” I learned.

1. The Queen of England rules the world.
No joke. This guy actually thought that the Queen of England is the secret ruler of the world; he would refer to her as “Your Whoreness”, and make various references to her dark and secret influence over everyone. The best part was he took a clip from a local newsshow on proper etiquette for greeting the Queen, and used that to explain how we’re being trained like dogs.

2. 9/11 was an inside job.
The same old saw – with a different twist. The Queen (in her supreme power) engineered 9/11 to get her pawns George Bush and Tony Blair to go to war so she could regain territory lost by England. I’m not making this up – I couldn’t make this up.

3. Illegal immigrants are stealing American babies and selling them on the black market.
You should have seen the look on my face.

Now, I don’t KNOW that the Queen isn’t evil – I suppose she could be. I was more amused by the giant hate this guy had going for the Monarchy.