"Look, I teach Constitutional Law, and I know that individual communities need to take illegal handguns off the street. If they do that by making all handguns illegal, so much the better. By the way, NRA = bad. Supreme Court decisions that strike down handgun bans = good. Now let me finish my waffle; they told me I could eat all I want—they'll make more."

h/t: Captain Ed at Hot Air.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 06:26 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 95 words, total size 1 kb.

Yeah, Professor: I do agree that when Scalia discussed the virtues of handguns over longarms for those with less upper-body strength, he probably had women in mind, along with the elderly and disabled. But the Kool-Aid consumed by orthodox feminist groups—and even readers of mainstream women's magazines, such as Family Circle and Women's Day—is powerful stuff: we have been told repeatedly for years and years that merely having a gun in the house puts us and our children in danger, and that handguns are terribly easy for potential attackers to turn against us. Because, you see, they often have greater upper body strength.

For more of the nonsense we've been reading about for decades about how women are "armed and in danger," skim through this discussion thread over at McArdle's place, and find those juicy bits that display how egregiously the gun-grabbers have been "lying with statistics" to women for years.

(X-posted at Right Wing News.)

Posted by: Attila Girl at 12:06 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 168 words, total size 1 kb.

And today, it really, really is: The palm trees stand out against the foothills. The hazy sunshine is just the right kind of hazy. The overpriced blueberry muffins from Ralph's seem slightly less overpriced.

The New York Times is focusing on how shocked, shocked the hoplophobes are about the Heller ruling: Dianne Feinstein is regurgitating her very best made-up "facts," and Mayor Daley is afraid that Chicagoans will attain the means to defend themselves from crime, which will, of course turn it into the Wild West all over again (without, of course, those pesky Chi-town typewriters).

It's all just music to my ears; turn up the volume, Baby.

Gun-control advocates across the country reacted with shock and outrage at the Supreme CourtÂ’s decision to strike down the District of ColumbiaÂ’s ban on handguns today, saying the ruling would threaten gun-control measures in other states.

If there was any doubt that other bans would be in peril, the National Rifle Association quickly put those questions to rest when it announced shortly after the ruling that it would file a flurry of lawsuits challenging restrictions in San Francisco, Chicago and several Chicago suburbs. The law in Washington, which spelled out rules for the storage of weapons and made it extremely difficult for most people in the district to legally possess a handgun, was among the strictest in the nation.

“I consider this the opening salvo in a step-by-step process of providing relief for law-abiding Americans everywhere that have been deprived of freedom,” Wayne LaPierre, the executive vice president of the N.R.A., said in a statement.

In its 5-to-4 decision, the court ruled that the Constitution protects an individualÂ’s right to own guns, not just the right of the states to maintain regulated militias. It also said that the District of ColumbiaÂ’s requirement that lawful weapons be disassembled or limited by trigger locks was unconstitutional because it made them virtually useless.

In Chicago, Mayor Richard M. Daley, a staunch supporter of gun control, called the decision “frightening” and said he was bracing for a fight with the gun lobby, which has long criticized the city’s ban on the sale and registration of handguns for everyone but police officers and a handful of others. Enacted in 1982, the law was created in response to the murders of two police officers and the assassination attempt on former president Ronald Reagan.

“Does this lead to everyone having a gun in our society?” he said at a news conference. “If they think that’s the answer, then they’re greatly mistaken. Then, why don’t we do away with the court system and go back to the Old West? You have a gun and I have a gun and we’ll settle in the streets.

“They’re changing the rules,” Mr. Daley said of the Supreme Court. “Why should we as a city not be able to protect ourselves from those who want guns in our society?”

Of course, the way the "rules" are being changed is by bringing them into conformity with that older set of rules, the Constitution—maybe Daley should read that thing someday. He might learn something.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, a former mayor of San Francisco, which also restricts the owning of guns, reacted strongly to the ruling, saying she was “viscerally affected” by it and worried for the nation’s safety.

“I speak as somebody who has watched this nation with its huge homicide rate, when countries that have sane restrictions on weapons do not have that homicide rate,” she said. “And I happen to believe that this is now going to open the door to litigation against every gun safety law that states have passed — assault weapons bans, trigger locks, and all the rest of it.”

Next thing you know, citizens will have to take action themselves when they see a crime in progress, rather than allowing public officials to be slain every time some crazy person ODs on Twinkies.

The ruling was quickly seized upon by John McCain, who in recent months has tried to repair a fractured relationship with the gun lobby stemming from his support of regulations on gun sales at firearm shows and other restrictions. Mr. McCain praised the decision today, and used it to renew criticisms of his Democratic rival, Senator Barack Obama.

“Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today’s ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right — sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly,” Mr. McCain said.

Mr. Obama, however, was more careful and moderate in his statements about the ruling, saying it would provide “much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions” across the country.

“I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures,” he said. “The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe.”

Provided that those reasonable restrictions don't include doing bad things to any actual criminals, of course.

More coffee for me, I think. And a fresh peach—which, yes: I do dare to eat one. I dare, and I dare, and I dare.

Had I mentioned that it's a beautiful day?

Posted by: Attila Girl at 12:03 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 925 words, total size 6 kb.

. . . on the Heller case? Glad you asked. Via Insty, Mike O'Shea has some thoughts on the possible implications—in the form of a handy-dandy "top ten" list.

(X-posted on Right Wing News.)

Posted by: Attila Girl at 02:41 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 40 words, total size 1 kb.