Some surprising support for McDonald v. Chicago’s outcome

Daily Kos: Why liberals should love the Second Amendment.  Yeah, you read that right. 

It’s definitely an interesting piece, and well worth the read.  However, if you live anywhere outside of Kos’s house of Krazy, you’ll scoff at some of the author’s reasoning.  The premise is centered around liberals’ love of the constitution. (hmm, in my Constitutional law classes, liberals were often talking about how to reform, or do away with entirely, the Constitution.  If you love something, why are you always trying to read it in a way that it was clearly not intended to be read?)  The author makes a pretty big deal about the First Amendment in particular, which, I’ve noticed, liberals don’t seem to be too fond of these days.    But, otherwise, the author makes some really good, refreshingly libertarian points.  Read the whole thing.

Old People

are awesome

An 80-year-old Chicago man shot and killed an armed man who broke into his two-story house in a pre-dawn home invasion Wednesday on the city’s West Side.

At about 5:20 a.m., the homeowner and his wife, also in her 80s, discovered the intruder entering their home through a back door. The homeowner, who had a gun, confronted and killed the burglar on the doorstep, police said. Cops said the intruder also fired his gun during the struggle.

“It’s a good thing they had a gun, or they might be dead,” said Curtis Thompson, who lives next door to the couple, the Chicago Sun-Times reported.

Neighbors described the elderly couple, who both walk with canes, as pillars of the community in Garfield Park, where home invasions have been all too frequent.

Their neighbor, Shaquite Johnson, told MyFoxChicago that the two are “heroes” for fighting off the attacker — and that the shooting means there is “one less criminal” walking the streets.
“They don’t bother no one, so why would anyone do that to them?” she said.

One problem.  This old man, by owning the very gun that he used to protect his wife and home, may have violated Chicago’s handgun ban.  Keep your eyes on the Supreme Court for a decision on McDonald v. Chicago.

Why are California police detectives acting like 13 year olds?

East Palo Alto Police Det. Rod Tuason apparently posted the remarks on his Facebook page in response to a friend’s status update, which suggested that gun advocates who carry unloaded weapons openly — which is legal in California — should do so in places like “Oakland, Richmond and East Palo Alto” and not just in “hoity toity” cities.

“Haha we had one guy last week try to do it!” Tuason replied. “He got proned out [laid face-down on the ground] and reminded where he was at and that turds will jack him for his gun in a heartbeat!”

Several comments later, the detective suggested shooting the gun rights advocates, some of whom have carried firearms openly in recent weeks in California’s Bay Area, particularly at Starbucks locations.

“Sounds like you had someone practicing their 2nd amendment rights last night!” Tuason wrote. “Should’ve pulled the AR out and prone them all out! And if one of them makes a furtive movement … 2 weeks off!!!” — referring to the modified duty, commonly known as desk duty, that typically follows any instance in which an officer is investigated for firing his weapon.

Now, I don’t think that this is any real threat to our Second Amendment rights; it’s just some idiot blowing off steam.  But it reveals a shocking lack of respect and forethought by a person who we entrust with protecting that right and others who should have known better. 

White House says that armed citizens at protests are A-OK

here:

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.”

I have to say, I’m impressed.

I’m sad that he needed to, but I’m glad that he did

From the NYT (HT: Ann Althouse):

A day after shooting four men who tried to rob his restaurant supply store, killing two of them, Charles Augusto Jr., 72, was back at work in Harlem on Friday morning. His feelings the day after he pulled the trigger? “I wish I didn’t need to,” he said.

Mr. Augusto, who goes by Gus, opened the shop, the Kaplan Brothers Blue Flame Corporation, at 523 West 125th Street, near Amsterdam Avenue, at 8 a.m. He was accompanied by an employee who had been hit with a pistol during the robbery Thursday afternoon. After the employee was struck, Mr. Augusto picked up his shotgun and fired it three times.

The shots killed two men, James Morgan, 29, and Raylin Footman, 21, and wounded two others, Bernard Witherspoon and Shamel McCloud, both 21, the police said. The two survivors are being charged with robbery, the police said.

Mr. Augusto said he had bought the gun, a Winchester 12-gauge pump-action with a pistol-grip handle, after a robbery 20 years ago and had a permit for it. “Not even touched in 20 years,” he said. “Not even touched. I wish I didn’t need to.”

The employee, who goes by J. B. and declined to give his last name, said that he “lost my mind” while the robbers tried to restrain him with duct tape, and that when he struggled, he was hit with the pistol. “Better him with a tag on his toe than my mother planning a funeral for me,” he said of the gunman.

I have to give him credit for this one

This came in my Patriot Post humor newsletter:

Amazing lack of reading comphrehension

Tennessee has a bill up for hearing that would allow professors to carry guns on campus.  Here’s what the second paragraph of the article says:

State Rep. Stacey Campfield’s proposal, scheduled for a hearing Wednesday before a House Judiciary subcommittee, would allow any full-time faculty and staff member with a valid permit to bring a handgun onto their public college campus.

Got that?  “full time faculty and staff member with a valid permit.”  Not really a difficult concept, not complicated with legalese, pretty simple use of words. 

So, for whatever self-hating masochistic reasons, I have to go and read the comments.  Lets have a look-see, shall we?

I am trained to take out an armed person, others are not. There will be an accident of the worse magnitude if bill is passed. College students are not trained in armed combat, how to space themselves, how to ensure that they only shoot the intended target, how to shoot under pressure, when to shoot and not to shoot.

Every student should be issued an .44 Mag during registration. It would require only a small increase in tuition fees but think of the safety aspect. Wonderful idea!!!

I just see alot more dead kids and teachers in our future because guns are being made so accessible to be everywhere. There’ll be shootings over parking places, looking at girlfriends’ wrong, or other minor petty annoyances.

Now this is one of the most stupid things I have heard in a while, armed (KIDS) on our colleges campus. just what’s with you people

Look kids are going to get guns anyway. It is irresponsible not to teach them how to protect themselves while using guns.

Seriously now:
Have you ever BEEN to college? Lived in a dorm? Do you really think it’s a good idea to arm everyone there? Do you know how many kids are drinking? How much emotion? How many breakups? Fist fights? Kids living for the first time away from the authority they’ve had all their lives: their parents? Do we really want them to have deadly weapons, too? Do you REALLY think that gun crime and injury would go DOWN if you gave all the college students guns? Are you INSANE?

(emphasis mine) That’s out of 36 comments (and there are several others that seriously imply, but don’t specifically state, that they understood it to apply to college students (who are not, for the record, kids, particularly if they have carry permits, which are issued over age 21)).  My favorite, by the way, is the last  one, where not only does the proposal to allow professors with carry permits actually apply to students, but it also applies to students who are living on campus away from their parents for the very first time (most of whom would be 18, obviously), and it would involve giving guns to all of the college students guns. 

Anyhow, I support the measure, but doubt it would do a lick of good, given that maybe2 professors on campus would actually make use of it.  But hey, if some nut-job comes in blazing, I’d sure hope that I was in one of those professors’ classrooms. 

By the way, I had the opportunity to meet Stacey Campfield (the proponent of this bill) when he graciously came to speak at an event sponsored by our Federalist Society.  I was really impressed with his willingness to discuss and debate his ideas, and he was more than happy to invite tough questions from the students.  He is known for being a bit on the extra-conservative side, so a few of the more liberal students discussed staging  a protest.  Notice that I say discussed; they didn’t actually do it, nor did they even bother to show up to ask him questions or see what he had to say.