More Good Second Amendment News

A federal appeals court refused to hear the appeal on the ruling overturning DC’s unconstitutional ban on guns. The appeals court refusal sets the stage for this to be heard by the Supreme Court:

The judges ruled that the city can’t prevent people from keeping handguns in their homes or require that that registered firearms be kept unloaded and disassembled.

The decision sets up a potential Second Amendment showdown in the Supreme Court. The city has 90 days to file a petition for review. An attorney for the six plaintiffs says arguments could come as son as this winter if the high court agrees to hear the case. WBAL Radio

This is big news and only affirms that the Second Amendment applies to the people, not to the militia. It is also important because it gives a chance for the Supreme Court to finally rule on the matter.

If the SCOTUS agrees with the ruling, how many members from the left side of Congress will try to undermine it? I wonder if the next Democrat in office will try to change it. I wonder because the Democrats are quick to point to the idea of stare decisis when they are grilling a nominee about his position on abortion.

It is amazing that Liberals will fight tooth and nail to keep abortion, an item that is not mentioned in the Constitution and then fight just as hard to take away our right to guns, an item clearly enumerated in the Constitution.

I hope we can get a ruling that will put an end to the assault on our rights by Handgun Control Inc, the Brady Campaign and others who would disarm us in violation of our rights.

Didn’t the Liberals Say that Dissent is Good?

Has anyone noticed that people who do not believe in global warming, or at least that man is responsible for it, are called deniers? Those of us who refuse to be bullied by groups of people who have decided that the issue is settled and that everyone must believe it are looked down upon as selfish and arrogant. People like Sheryl Crow call us arrogant and claim that we drive around in war like machines (as opposed to her Air Force like jets) just because we refuse to buy into something that has yet to be proved. There are more scientists that disagree with the whole idea of global warming than espouse it but those professionals are dismissed as either wrong or being in the back pocket of big oil. One thing is abundantly clear and that is the global warming crowd refuses to allow anyone to have an opposing opinion. As soon as one is presented the person is dismissed as uneducated, uninformed and arrogant. Name calling is a great tool when one can not use logic to prove a point. Since global warming has not been proven the only thing the GW crowd can do is call names and attempt to shame and coerce people into believing.

I find it interesting that this crowd was the same one that told us having a differing opinion about the war war patriotic. Before I go on let me make my opinion on this clear. I believe that people are entitled to have a differing opinion and that a different point of view does not make one unpatriotic. It is healthy to have debate and I admire those who were against the war from the start and stuck to their guns. Not because I agree with them but because they had the courage of their convictions. People like Hillary Rodham took decisions based on the popular mood at the time.

Dissent is a good thing, we were told, when those who were not on board with the war on terror were called unpatriotic. People like Cindy Sheehan screeched about how it was patriotic to dissent and I could not agree more. What is unpatriotic is espousing defeat for your country and then assisting the enemy in that defeat. Like it or not, we are in the war and the only way out is to win. Interestingly, those who said Bush had no plan for after the hostilities have shown no plan for after their surrender. What will they do if our troops are forced to leave?

Back to the topic. How can people tell us that dissent is good and that they are just as patriotic and then say that we are arrogant if we do not agree with them on global warming? Are we not afforded the same right to dissent as they expected? Are we not allowed to question the legitimacy of claims that have no proof? Are we not allowed to form our own opinions? Are we not allowed to live our lives as we see fit without some global warming tree hugger forcing a compact fluorescent bulb on us?

The double standard rears its ugly head again. The do as I say, not as I do crowd expects to be able to disagree when they see fit but deny that right to those of us who refuse to march lock-step down the street singing Kumbaya while passing out the collection plate to buy carbon offsets.

Speaking of offsets, there is good news on that front. The folks over at RightPundits.com have come up with liberal offsets for folks who need to offset any liberal slip, any liberal tendency, or any un-conservative behavior. Enough of these might even help a liberal gain some sense and become a conservative. Head over there and get yours today.

I am a global warming denier. Dissent is healthy in a free society and I refuse to give up my right to believe as I wish. I also know that if we could get Gore and Crow to keep their mouths shut the world would be a better, cooler place.

Besides, I do my part by keeping my Jeep tuned up….

Paris Hilton Got What She Deserved

I am not one of these people who is all gaga over Paris Hilton. She is an attractive woman but not drop dead gorgeous and if it were not for her celebrity and money she would be another plain Jane blond bimbo who couldn’t pour water out of a pail if the directions were written on the bottom. Hilton was arrested for driving while intoxicated and got a very light sentence. They called it reckless driving and fined her $1500 (a mere pittance to her) and she was required to sign up for an alcohol class.

In my home state of Maryland it is not uncommon for people to get a probation before judgment with attendance at AA two times a week for 1.5-3 years, 26 weeks of alcohol abuse treatment, Drunk Driving Monitoring Program which involves monitoring once a week for a period of time (a breathalyser is used on each visit and there is random drug testing), attendance at the Shock Trauma Course to see people who were involved in gruesome alcohol related accidents, suspension of license for 120 days, an alcohol restriction on the license which means that an alcohol level of one-fourth the legal limit is a violation of probation, and a fine. Most of the requirements have an associated fee and the person on probation is required to pay those fees. Additionally, the person has to get and keep a job which is tough with a suspended license.

Paris decided that she did not need to follow the rules and she drove on a suspended license a number of times thus violating her probation. In Maryland, violation of probation for the average guy means jail time. Hilton figured that this did not apply to her because she is rich and famous. I do not buy her argument that she thought her suspension was for 30 days and then she could drive to and from work and I do not buy her lawyer’s assertions that this is what he thought and told her. She has an army of lawyers at her disposal and it would not be difficult, in fact it would be part of their job, to check and see exactly what restrictions were placed upon her. I also do not buy this idea that she just signs what is put in front of her and did not know. Let me make it as clear as I can, SHE KNEW SHE WAS BREAKING THE LAW. Arriving for her hearing 10 minutes late sort of reinforced her disregard for the law.

Hilton thought, as so many rich people do, that she was above the law. She figured that her celebrity and her money could get her out of any trouble and that following the rule of law is for the rubes who adore her. I can’t blame her for this attitude because the celebrities in our society have gotten away with so much that they just expect that the laws do not apply to them. OJ and Robert Blake murder, athletes drive drunk, shoot up bars, and beat people up, Michael Jackson molests little boys, and politicians like Dianne Feinstein and Harry Reid break ethics laws all the time and they are rewarded for their criminal activities. Hilton certainly believed that she was able to escape the judicial system because that is what is done for those of her stature.

Well at least one judge saw it differently. Hats off to Superior Court Judge Michael T. Sauer (we need more judges who will do the same thing) who decided that Hilton was no different than the thousands of other people who pass through his court with similar stories and circumstances. Most of those people really do need to drive to get to work and can not afford to hire a driver or sit at home during the suspension. They must work while Hilton has enough money and enough lawyers to ensure she does not break the law. No, she broke it and she knew she was breaking it.

I hope that 45 days in a regular jail is a humbling experience for her and that she realizes she is no better than anyone else. I will not hold my breath on that one. As for her mother who claimed that this was a waste of taxpayer money. Any woman who has a $3000 handbag should not talk about wasting money.

Source:
My Way News

Big Dog

Now Who is Using Fear?

Bill Clinton warned of looming disasters in the area of health care (is this to help his wife with universal coverage) and said the next president will have to address these things. Wasn’t Hillary Rodham, Clinton’s wife, the one who said the Republicans use fear to push their agenda? I guess it is fear mongering if you warn about terrorists and not fear mongering if you warn of a health care crisis. Bill Clinton also said a very interesting thing:

He said the next president should solve the “biggest, baddest problems”; take small action when the whole problem cannot be addressed; never appoint incompetent political allies to positions of disaster response; never let political ideology blur scientific evidence; and cooperate nationally and internationally. Yahoo News

I imagine this was a shot at Bush and his appointees but it would not take too much digging to see the great number of appointments that Clinton made who fit the bill of incompetent whether it was in regard to disaster response or any other area. Never let political ideology blur scientific evidence unless you are discussing global warming, then you may blur all you want. How about not appointing incompetent people period?

This is an anti Bush stump speech for Rodham’s candidacy veiled as a speech of concern about health care.

Soon they will be parading Chelsea around. When they do, you will know they are in trouble.

Big Dog

Jackass of the Month; May 2007

I left Jack Murtha up for March and April because he is such a big Jackass he deserved two months. I was going to put up a poll but decided that Harry Reid’s comment about the war being lost earned him the top spot by default.

So, the May 2007 Jackass of the Month (JOTM) is Harry Reid of Nevada.

He will have his place of dishonor in the sidebar where the Dog can take care of bidniz’

Big Dog