I hope Mr. Michael van der Galien does not mind, but this article definitely deserves quoting in its entirety:

It’s really quite simple: gun control legislation did not reduce violence. Secondly, people started actually reading the text of the second amendment of the United States Constitution. Thirdly, ‘laws allowing concealed weapons proliferated - with no ill effects.’

To put it more succinctly; the idea that outlawing guns makes society more safe was proven wrong, this while Americans started to realize that, just perhaps, the US Constitution actually means what it says.

Who would have thought it could be that simple?

(Bolding added by me - the other author did the italics.)

I really cannot add anything to such a concise explanation of what transpired last week... He hits the high points, and then the highest of them all - the Constitution really does mean what it says. I never would have guessed, eh? How ironic that it took a foreign journalist to recognize that...

But wait!

The above article links to another one, this time written by an American, and this time not quoted in its entirety:

-- Gun control didn't work. In the 1990s, despite its draconian ban, Washington became the murder capital of the United States. Chicago's homicide rate, which had been declining in the years before it banned handguns, climbed over the following decade. Gun control didn't work.

During the time the federal assault weapons law was in effect, the number of gun murders declined -- but so did murders involving knives and other weapons. When the law was allowed to expire in 2004, something interesting happened to the national murder rate: nothing.

-- Laws allowing concealed weapons proliferated -- with no ill effects. In 1987, Florida gained national attention -- and notoriety -- by passing a law allowing citizens to get permits to carry concealed handguns. Opponents predicted a wave of carnage by pistol-packing hotheads, but it didn't happen. In fact, murders and other violent crimes subsided. Permit holders proved to be sober and restrained.

People elsewhere took heed, and today, according to the NRA, 40 states have "right-to-carry" laws. As those laws have spread, the homicide rate has fallen sharply from the peak reached in 1991.

-- The Second Amendment got a second look. In 1983, a San Francisco lawyer named Don Kates published an article in the University of Michigan Law Review arguing that, contrary to prevailing wisdom in the judiciary and law schools, the Constitution upholds an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Numerous legal scholars, spurred to examine the record, reached the same surprising conclusion. Before long, even some liberal law professors were coming around.

Ok, so Mr. Steve Chapman is an American, arguably a journalist, and also understands exactly what took place and why. Good to hear. But he goes on to make a few other interesting points as well:

The majority opinion last week, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, drew heavily on this stack of scholarship to argue that the framers did not limit the right to the context of service in a state militia. Without the stimulus provided by these contrarian thinkers, the decision would never have come to pass. And the Second Amendment would have remained what it was for so long: a curious irrelevancy.

Instead, the right to keep and bear arms has finally taken its rightful place with our other fundamental liberties. It may be the natural course of things for government control to expand and freedom to shrink. But as Jefferson knew, America was founded to reverse that process.

I am not sure I agree with his stance that the Second Amendment was a "curious irrelevancy" before DC vs. Heller, simply because something is hardly "irrelevant" when so many millions of people exercise it on a daily basis... However, I can forgive him that slip of the fingers for what he wrote in the second paragraph, and I bolded above.

I was having a conversation with Better Half last night that governments basically exist to self-perpetuate, pass laws, and control their populace... not a whole lot more. Not for "the good of the people", not for "society", not for the "advancement of mankind"... politicians go to work every day and spend that day ensuring they have a reason to come back tomorrow... and raising their paychecks every year. The Founding Fathers, thankfully, recognized this tendency in governments, and tried to arrange the American experiment in a slightly different pattern, giving power to the people to decide what politicans they want to represent them, what Amendments they want added to the Constitution, and so forth. Unfortunately, as with any body politic, we have been operating on our own behalf for far too long, electing politicians who promise us the world, deliver half of it, and then charge us for all of it (a concept that most voters still seem unable to grasp), with obvious cases in point being our disfunctional Welfare system, the disaster that is Social Security, and so forth.

However, as of the 26th of June, 2008, an essential freedom was returned to the citizens of the District of Columbia, and that decision will likely be used as leverage in the upcoming battles for the rights of the citizens in San Francisco and Chicago, as well as other towns. And maybe, just maybe, once people start getting that heady smell of freedom, and start realizing just how much of it they have given up to our "benevolent", big-brother government... maybe, people will start waking up.

Or maybe I am just an starry-eyed idealist... Such is life.

Trackposted to Perri Nelson's Website, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, The Random Yak, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, Shadowscope, The Amboy Times, Beagle Scout - Support the No More Excuses Energy Act, Democrat=Socialist, Allie is Wired, Nuke Gingrich, third world county, McCain Blogs, DragonLady's World, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Rosemary's News and Ideas, The Pink Flamingo, CORSARI D'ITALIA, Nuke's News, Right Voices, and Stageleft, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

You know, living in Southern Kalifornistan as I do, things like this should not surprise me any more:

Can anyone venture to tell me what, exactly, is wrong with this particular sign? And, no, there is nothing faded out or anything on the sign - that is the way it was originally printed. Oh, and the real cherry on top of this mess? This sign is posted right outside a school. Way to go, American public education system!

You know, I am not a terribly religious person... I do not go to church every Sunday (and, in fact, have not been in quite some time), I have a hard time narrowing down what my beliefs exactly are (outside of the generic term "Christian"), and I am hardly what one would consider "evangelical". That said, having attended Roman Catholic and Lutheran schools, and been brought up Episcopalian and Anglican Catholic, I do know all manner of religious trivia.

Thus, an interesting thought bounced through my brain upon reading this particular news article in the New York Times:

Emily Nordling has never met a Muslim, at least not to her knowledge. But this spring, Ms. Nordling, a 19-year-old student from Fort Thomas, Ky., gave herself a new middle name on Facebook.com, mimicking her boyfriend and shocking her father.

“Emily Hussein Nordling,” her entry now reads.

With her decision, she joined a growing band of supporters of Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, who are expressing solidarity with him by informally adopting his middle name.

The result is a group of unlikely-sounding Husseins: Jewish and Catholic, Hispanic and Asian and Italian-American, from Jaime Hussein Alvarez of Washington, D.C., to Kelly Hussein Crowley of Norman, Okla., to Sarah Beth Hussein Frumkin of Chicago.

Jeff Strabone of Brooklyn now signs credit card receipts with his newly assumed middle name, while Dan O’Maley of Washington, D.C., jiggered his e-mail account so his name would appear as “D. Hussein O’Maley.” Alex Enderle made the switch online along with several other Obama volunteers from Columbus, Ohio, and now friends greet him that way in person, too.

What was that thought? Well, my weblog moniker of "Linoge" comes from somewhere, and, in specific, that origin would be the Stephen King story "Storm of the Century", wherein the antagonist (played amazingly by Colm Feore) went by that particular name... which, if you fiddle with the letters a bit, can be respelled to "Legion". "Legion", of course, has some interesting roots in the Bible:

Mark, Chapter 5

1 And they came over to the other side of the sea, into the country of the Gadarenes.
2 And when he was come out of the ship, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit,
3 Who had his dwelling among the tombs; and no man could bind him, no, not with chains:
4 Because that he had been often bound with fetters and chains, and the chains had been plucked asunder by him, and the fetters broken in pieces: neither could any man tame him.
5 And always, night and day, he was in the mountains, and in the tombs, crying, and cutting himself with stones.
6 But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him,
7 And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with you, Jesus, you Son of the most high God? I adjure you by God, that you torment me not.
8 For he said to him, Come out of the man, you unclean spirit.
9 And he asked him, What is your name? And he answered, saying, My name is Legion: for we are many.
10 And he sought him much that he would not send them away out of the country.
11 Now there was there near to the mountains a great herd of swine feeding.
12 And all the devils sought him, saying, Send us into the swine, that we may enter into them.
13 And immediately Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand;) and were choked in the sea.

Honestly, I find this correlation my mind drew to be all manner of ironical... especially considering the incessant attempts at ascribing deific qualities to Barack Hussein Obama. No, I am not saying that Barrack Hussein Obama is a demon, but the correlation ("We are called 'Hussein', for we are many.") was just too amusing not to share. But, hey, my brain works in strange ways... and is apparently on a Biblical bent this week.

Hat tip to Say Uncle.

One of the things the Brady Bunch always goes on and on about is the danger of "spraying from the hip", when it comes to semi-automatic weapons. On that I agree with them - shooting from the hip is wildly inaccurate, and will not result in terribly many rounds hitting the target... which, after all, is the whole point of shooting at it. (And, yes, I know that is not what the Brady Bunch is actually talking about when they use that phrase...)

However, when you are standing about three feet away from your target, that target happens to be a 32in. by 36in. by 1.5in. sheet of metal covered with what amounts to be car paint, and you are looking to make a piece of art out of it... "spraying from the hip" actually turns out to work pretty well.

By way of example, I give you Matt Stromberg, a professor at the Savannah College of Art and Design:

The Savannah College of Art and Design professor of foundation studies and sculpture uses rocket fuel, explosives, pyrotechnics, propellants and munitions to create earth-shattering art. These energetic materials are used to manipulate metal, wood and paper -- using destruction to create art.

Stromberg’s creations include sculpted metal panels. He’s also used a submachine gun to create pigment-infused solid rocket-fuel paint that is literally shot into stone.

“I think it stems from a long-term interest in energetic materials,” Stromberg says. “Recently, with the birth of my daughter, my wife and I were thinking about what we are going to teach her. I want to encourage her to seek out things in life she finds interesting.

“I’ve always liked energetic materials,” he says. “I think the risk-taking is a big part of it, which is probably a key element of being an artist.”

Stromberg first began experimenting with energetic materials last year. It’s not something for the faint of heart. “I would say it’s very dangerous,” Stromberg says.

Special licensing is required to handle some of the materials Stromberg uses. That can get expensive, but a SCAD Presidential Fellowship for Faculty Development is helping with those costs.

It’s also providing funds for research and safety training with Explosives Educational Services Inc. in Texas. “Lately, I’ve been watching hours of safety films,” Stromberg says. “Doing this makes you really focus on safety. It’s all about concentration, education. I follow the safety protocols.”

In July, Stromberg will conduct research at testing facilities owned by Accurate Energetic Systems, LLC in McEwen, Tenn. The company, which manufactures explosive compositions and specialty products, has a variety of testing areas with trained personnel and safety managers available at all times.

The creation of explosive art can’t be done in a studio. “I have a couple of sites I use,” Stromberg says. “For more dangerous work, I use acreage in Effingham County that’s owned by a colleague.

He has gotten a fair bit of attention across Savannah, and if you want to see some further examples of his work, he has some videos set up on YouTube.

I wonder if the long-distance outdoor ranges that have them have ever considered painting up their steel targets after they are done with them and trying to sell them... Of course, just how perforated is one of those at the end of its operational lifespan?

Hat tip to Gizmodo, again.

For any of you who are as addicted to Lego bricks as I (still) am, this comprehensive Lego-brick-related post over at Gizmodo should answer just about all the questions you could probably ever think of, and then some. For instance, my two favorites are:

Approximately 19 billion Lego elements are produced per year. 2.16 million are molded every hour, 36,000 every minute. More than 400 billion Lego bricks have been produced since 1958. There are about 62 Lego bricks per person of the Earth’s population.

... and ...

...We use rubber to produce Lego tires—did you know we’re the world’s largest producer of vehicle tires?

Hm... Legoland is right up the road...

People are stupid. In this particular case, I do not blame the Darwin Award candidate - i.e., the child - but I lay every last ounce of blame at the feet of his incompetent, irresponsible, and generally idiotic parents. I would like to say this kind of thing is relatively unusual, but the last time I and my family were at Yellowstone, I happened to see a lady actually walk up and pat a sleeping bison. It opened one eye, looked at her, and went back to sleep, but still... how gorramed stupid can you get? Of course, at the time, I was seeing it all over my shoulder as my parents hussled me away so we would not get splattered with the highly-probable impending blood spray...

Sadly, in this day and age, this will simply cause a call to have the bison removed from Yellowstone, rather than having the moronic parents hung up by their toenails. Just goes to show how much our American culture values responsibility and accountability.

Daniel, Chapter 5:

1 Belshazzar the king made a great feast for a thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand.
2 Belshazzar, while he tasted the wine, commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels which his father Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem, that the king and his princes, his wives, and his concubines might drink therein.
3 Then they brought the golden vessels that were taken out of the temple of the house of God which was at Jerusalem; and the king and his princes, his wives, and his concubines drank from them.
4 They drank wine, and praised the gods of gold and of silver, of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone.
5 In the same hour came forth fingers of a man's hand, and wrote opposite the candlestick upon the plaster of the wall of the king's palace; and the king saw the part of the hand that wrote.
6 Then the king's countenance was changed and his thoughts troubled him, so that the joints of his loins were loosed and his knees smote one against another.
7 The king cried aloud to bring in the astrologers, the Chaldeans, and the soothsayers. And the king spoke and said to the wise men of Babylon, "Whosoever shall read this writing and show me the interpretation thereof, shall be clothed with scarlet and have a chain of gold about his neck, and shall be the third ruler in the kingdom."
8 Then came in all the king's wise men; but they could not read the writing, nor make known to the king the interpretation thereof.
9 Then was King Belshazzar greatly troubled, and his countenance was changed in him, and his lords were dismayed.
10 Now the queen, by reason of the words of the king and his lords, came into the banquet house. And the queen spoke and said, "O king, live for ever! Let not thy thoughts trouble thee, nor let thy countenance be changed.
11 There is a man in thy kingdom in whom is the spirit of the holy gods. And in the days of thy father, light and understanding and wisdom, like the wisdom of the gods, was found in him whom King Nebuchadnezzar thy father -- the king, I say, thy father -- made master of the magicians, astrologers, Chaldeans, and soothsayers.
12 Inasmuch as an excellent spirit, and knowledge, and understanding, interpreting of dreams, and interpreting of hard sentences, and dissolving of doubts were found in the same Daniel whom the king named Belteshazzar, now let Daniel be called and he will show the interpretation."
13 Then was Daniel brought in before the king. And the king spoke and said unto Daniel, "Art thou that Daniel who art of the children of the captivity of Judah, whom the king my father brought out of Jewry?
14 I have even heard of thee that the spirit of the gods is in thee, and that light and understanding and excellent wisdom are found in thee.
15 And now the wise men, the astrologers, have been brought in before me, that they should read this writing and make known unto me the interpretation thereof; but they could not show the interpretation of the thing.
16 And I have heard of thee that thou canst make interpretations and dissolve doubts. Now if thou canst read the writing and make known to me the interpretation thereof, thou shalt be clothed with scarlet, and have a chain of gold about thy neck, and shalt be the third ruler in the kingdom."
17 Then Daniel answered and said before the king, "Let thy gifts be to thyself, and give thy rewards to another; yet I will read the writing unto the king, and make known to him the interpretation.
18 O thou king, the Most High God gave Nebuchadnezzar thy father a kingdom, and majesty and glory and honor.
19 And for the majesty that He gave him, all people, nations, and languages trembled and feared before him. Whomever he would he slew; and whomever he would he kept alive; and whomever he would he set up; and whomever he would he put down.
20 But when his heart was lifted up and his mind hardened in pride, he was deposed from his kingly throne, and they took his glory from him.
21 And he was driven from the sons of men; and his heart was made like the beasts, and his dwelling was with the wild asses. They fed him with grass like oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, till he knew that the Most High God ruled in the kingdom of men, and that He appointeth over it whomsoever He will.
22 And thou his son, O Belshazzar, hast not humbled thine heart though thou knewest all this,
23 but hast lifted up thyself against the Lord of heaven. And they have brought the vessels of His house before thee, and thou and thy lords, thy wives, and thy concubines have drunk wine from them; and thou hast praised the gods of silver and gold, of brass, iron, wood, and stone, which see not nor hear nor know. And the God in whose hand thy breath is, and whose are all thy ways, hast thou not glorified.
24 "Then was the part of the hand sent from Him, and this writing was written.
25 And this is the writing that was written: Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin.
26 This is the interpretation of the thing. Mene: God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it.
27 Tekel: Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting.
28 Peres: Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians."
29 Then commanded Belshazzar, and they clothed Daniel with scarlet and put a chain of gold about his neck, and made a proclamation concerning him, that he should be the third ruler in the kingdom.
30 In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain.
31 And Darius the Mede took the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old.

Upon hearing the news that Wilmette, Illinois, has already suspended enforcement of its 19-year-old ordinance banning handgun possession, the first thought to go through my mind was, "Well, at least it is good that some towns can recognize the writing on the wall."

Yes, it is quite true that the Heller decision, finally published yesterday, only specifically address the handgun ban in the District of Columbia and nowhere else. However, even a halfwitted lawyer can easily understand the precedent this particular case set, and how it could easily be used as leverage against other cities' bans and restrictions and such. And, in the cases of smaller cities that probably do not have a terribly large operating budget, much less much money set aside for legal battles they are undoubtedly going to lose, it is simply wiser, and simpler for everyone involved, for them to simply back away from their previous legislation banning handguns, rather than forcing someone to bring suit against the town, costing themselves and the town (and thus the town's taxpayers) an excessive amount of money to no real purpose. After all, with the Supreme Court's precendent at the plaintiff's back, the case would have a foregone conclusion before it even started. And that is exactly what Wilmette decided to do:

"The Law Department and the Police Department have suspended enforcement of the ordinance pending further review by the Village Board," Wilmette village attorney Tim Frenzer said Thursday. "Based on the decision today, at a minimum it calls into serious question the continued viability of the ordinance."

Frenzer said questions remain about how directly the court's decision will impact local gun laws in Wilmette and other parts of the country. Washington is not a state, and each state has its own legal language governing the right to bear arms.

"That aside, the opinion will require further review and discussion by the Village Board, but it's prudent at this point to suspend enforcement of it," Frenzer said.

You will have to excuse Tim for his "D.C. is not a state!" flailing... I will certainly grant him that the District of Columbia assuredly is not a state. However, the Supreme Court's ruling pretty authoritatively declared that the Second Amendment, and thus the entirety of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution it is attached to, applies to D.C., and since the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Second Amendment already apply to the states of the Union (and have for the past few years), the argument is pretty much moot. Like I said, though, you will have to excuse Tim - after all, gun-grabbers around the country are scrambling for new and more-creative ways to work around this disastrous (for them, at least) ruling, so this particular argument was bound to surface at some point.

And, in the same token, you have to give him credit. No pointless, drawn-out, useless case. No screaming and bemoaning. No meaningless cries to repeal the Second Amendment. Tim and the governing body of Wilmette recognized they lost, realized they lost in a perfectly legal, American manner, rearranged their town to meet the requirements implied and stated by the new ruling, and went back about their lives.

If only everyone had that kind of integrity and honesty.

Instead, we have mayors offering to have a duel to settle the "problems" raised by the Supreme Court ruling, state's attorney generals simply ignoring the ruling in its entirety, and every gun-grabbing, hoplophobic, anti-rights organization out there trying to weasel words, make mountains out of microscopic "victories", and generally proclaim victory while being swallowed by the massive jaws of defeat.

Forgive me for my momentary crudeness, but be a fraking man, grow a pair, and at least have enough backbone to admit either that you were wrong, or you lost... or better yet, both. At least then, you will have gotten past the denial phase, and can at least move on to leading a normal, rational life, instead of somehow proclaiming that you won when, in fact, you got your asses summarily handed to you. Because, in case you have not already noticed, the moving hand has writ the writing on the wall... and freedom-loving, rights-supporting, People of the Gun are already moving fast to make it as bold and as permanent as possible. But, hey, at least we People of the Gun are a fair bit more friendly than the Persians and Medeans were...

Hat tip to Anthroblogogy and Say Uncle.

In exchange for the blatant self-aggrandizement I did in a previous post (hey, Google-bombs are kind of fun!), I figured I would put up another one of these. The general premise is that you are free to ping this post (and every other post in this category), as long as you link back to it. Consider it free Google PageRank inflation, or something.

In celebration of the recent Heller decision, I performed one of my many duties as a law abiding gun owner and procured another method for safely storing my rifle and pistol. This is not to say I did not have one already - I do - but I am also about to move, and the current storage solution I am enjoying would not provide the protection I think is necessary for what amount to be very expensive pieces of hardware. This thought is further backed up by the destruction of the case my pistol was residing in during my last move - the pistol came out perfectly intact and function, but the case was effectively destroyed. That particular case was at the lower end of the price/quality scale, so, this time, I took a slightly different tack on the situation.

The problem with my current storage is that it is a soft-side case - namely, this one. It works great going to and from the range, what with its side handle, backpack straps, thick padding, lockable zippers, and velcro straps to hold everything in place, but it also provides no rigidity, no external shell, and no real proection save from droppage, gentle knocks, and possibly weather. However, like I said, it was easily lockable, and thus met the standard definitions for a law abiding gun owner's storage solution - after all, there is no such thing as a case that can stop someone determined to get into it, short of a full-blown, anchored-to-the-floor safe, and this thing would certainly deter a child, unskilled thief, or other unauthorized person interested in procuring my firearms. And it gave those firearms a good storage location - after all, just leaving them in their boxes on a high shelf hardly meets any requirements. All checks in the boxes filled... except when it comes to moves and airline flights.

In the interests of both ensuring that my $1800 rifle and $500 pistol survive the move, as well as giving me the capability to possibly attend such interesting events as the Gun Blogger Rendezvous (and maybe a Boomershoot if I can ever get the time, money, and scope-age), I had to purchase something that meets the Airline Transport Association requirements (which, by the way, are not very clearly delineated anywhere on their webpage), and hopefully Specification 300.

Well, after hours of poking around, comparing prices, contrasting capabilities, looking at pictures, taking measurements, checking specifications, poring through warranties, and all the rest of the joys that one can experience while tracking down items on the internet, I finally decided on a Pelican 1200 for my Baby Eagle and a 1720 for my M1A SOCOM II, procured here and here, respectively. The prices are a bit steep, I will say that much... However, Pelican has a really simple warranty - if it breaks, they replace it. Period. For the life of the item. I guess that means that if you were somehow able to slag the entire case, they might not replace it, but for my purposes, that will do just fine. And not only will these cases protect the firearms in question during their move (at least, I hope so, and, if not, the cases are easily replaceable, and will hopefully manage to protect the firearms, even in death), but, just like any other law abiding gun owner, I am concerned about the possible theft of my firearms, and while these particular cases still will not stop a person with the right tools and determination, they will certainly serve as further deterrence, and they will certainly keep children or other at-risk groups away from them. And, hey, if I ever have to go through another Katrina, at least the cases, and the guns inside, will float... and just about hold Better Half up, to boot.

Sadly, I will not be able to provide a review of the cases until I actually receive them, but by way of a review for B&H, shortly after purchasing the cases, I happened to stumble across a cheaper price for the 1200. A short phone call later, and B&H refunded the difference to my credit card - granted, it was only six dollars and change, but it was still nifty of them to do that.

(And, yeah, I know I am a little behind on the whole "law abiding gun owner" thing, but despite not receiving the email, I am still trying to do my (admittedly little) part.)

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, The Random Yak, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, , Phastidio.net, The Amboy Times, Cao's Blog, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, third world county, Allie is Wired, Faultline USA, McCain Blogs, DragonLady's World, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, Dumb Ox Daily News, , Stageleft, Right Voices, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

First off, I would like to state that all of the hoplophobes, anti-rights activists, and anti-self-defense folk out there can respectfully get bent.

As you can probably guess at this point, the decision concerning District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290) has been passed down, and I think excerpts from it say it the best:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

(Emphasis added by me.)

The full text can be found here.

This is a victory, but is far from a complete and utter one. The 5-4 nature of it concerns me slightly, but considering that a Supreme Court ruling is either "yes" or "no", we still come out ahead. However, as both Robb and Sebastian point out, this is not a time to take a break and rest on our laurels, and it is even more of a reason to ensure a gun-grabber like Barack Hussein Obama does not become our next President. Go forth, hit your ranges, buy your guns and accessories, celebrate, and be sure to get a good jab in at any hoplophobes you know, but know that the anti-rights, anti-self-defense, anti-guns, and anti-common-sense groups out there amongst us are certainly not going to give up, and neither should we.

Oh, and I do love how Justice Scalia basically came forward and said, "Yes, the Second Amendment means exactly what it says." I can just hear the collectivists across the country rending their clothing and gnashing their teeth...

However, both Better Half and I agree with the author over at Politics, Guns, and Beer about the best quote from the entire decision:

In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners and JUSTICE STEVENS propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. But it is easy to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the hybrid definition. Giving “bear Arms” its idiomatic meaning would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war—an absurdity that nocommentator has ever endorsed. See L. Levy, Origins of the Bill of Rights 135 (1999). Worse still, the phrase “keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word “Arms” would have two different meanings at once: “weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of “bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.” Grotesque.

Scalia does have a way with words...

As with just about any other weblog owner, I do keep an eye on my traffic and what sites are referring to me - after all, it is sometimes interesting to see what other people write about you and your writings. More often than not, though, most of my traffic is search-engine based... And sometimes you come across some genuinely odd searches. But, sometimes, you stumble across one or two that gives you a warm fuzzy inside - like this one:

"obama second amendment"

Yup, that is me at the bottom. Sure, I am at the bottom of the list... but the list alone shows just how wide-spread the word is about Barack Hussein Obama's lack of support for, and outright opposition of, the Second Amendment.

To say that Barack Hussein Obama is a "former constitutional law professor" is an insult against anyone who actually practices that profession.

So, needless to say (since my own weblog demonstrates the validity of what I am about to write), I have been pretty quiet on the whole Heller case situation, simply because I lack the expertise, experience, and general-purpose knowledge of the situation, how the mechanics work, and the finer points of the case itself to make an educated guess about anything. What is the line? Better to be silent and thought a fool than open your mouth and prove it?

At any rate, it is looking like tomorrow is the day... As the immortal Susan Ivanova once said, "No boom today. Boom tomorrow. Always boom tomorrow."

So how do I think it is going to go? I think I am just going to stick with my current "watch and wait" plan, but I cannot say as though I am terribly encouraged by the fact that the Surpreme Court has postponed this one to the very last possible time... to the point of adding another opinion-release day. Granted, adding the additional date probably indicates the understand the gravity of this particular case, but beyond that.... Well, I guess I will just bide my time and see what happens.

Oh, right, he reminds me of... me. Righto...

You definitely need to check out the videos and vignettes on his webpage to fully comprehend my meaning...

Hey, I figured you Heller Dwellers could use a distraction from your incessant F5-ing... not that I blame you, granted - I will, after all, be checking my RSS aggregator in the morning to see what the situation is. That said, I might also be kidnapping Better Half and dragging her to a theater this weekend...

Remember that big fraking bug I encountered a few weeks ago that could withstand 70-mile-per-hour wind?

Yeah, his buddies know where I live. And I am not sure if they are too happy with my removal-by-carwash method of dealing with him.

So anybody got any clues as to what to call this thing?

23JUN08 2116 Update: It turns out this thing is a Ten-Lined June Beetle, or polyphylla decemlineata, as shown near the bottom of this page and this one. Still not going to screw around with it.

Yeah... I know... There really is no excuse.

(Though, in my partial defense, that is my cat (even though my parents are his current staff, they refuse to take ownership of him - cranky little twit, he is), and I did take the picture.)

So, thanks to some leftover credit from hooking up my TiVo to Amazon's Unbox service (a concept which, by the way, still blows my mind - I hop on my computer, go to a webpage, order up a TV show, and it appears on my TiVo, and eventually my television... gotta love technology), I was able to catch up on all of the Battlestar Galactica episodes I missed, including Razor, and I have got to say... woah.

First, Admiral Cain would have shot me. There is no rutting way I would have followed her orders when it came to the Scylla, and since she tended to get in a killing mood when people disobey her... yup. Tactically, she was correct - the Pegasus needed crew and equipment to continue its battle against the Cylons, there is no doubt about that. But she was thinking on too short of a scale - yes, it is their mission, as military officers, as a ship's crew, and as the ship itself, to take the battle to the enemy, especially after said enemy just glassed twelve whole planets and killed God alone knows how many people. But considering the fact that they received no word of survivors form the colonies, they have to treat the situation like they are the last humans in... well... the universe. And taking those humans into repeated and increasingly deadly combat, while simultaneously shooting, and killing-through-stranding, some of the few civilians you happen to come across? Yeah, you might win the occasional battle against the toasters, but you sure as hell will lose the war.

Second, I find it all manner of amusing that the humans got to Earth after someone glassed it. And, yes, that does have to be Earth - granted, the stars projected in the Tomb of Athena on Kobol were possibly thousands of years out of date... But considering that Battlestars plot their FTL jumps and other navigation based off constellations, something tells me they can account for drift. Furthermore, the probability of different stars happening to align to perfectly represent those twelve constellations from some other planet are so small as to be effectively zero, so we are just going to have to accept this is Earth. The real questions are who nuked it, when, and why... And I guess that is what the rest of the season is for.

Third, what is the deal with Starbuck? Dead (as in ship-exploded-on-gun-camera-footage-dead), not dead; harbinger of death, guide to Earth... And what is with Adama 1 and Adama 2 just going along with it? Hope is one thing, but, damn..

For only having half a season left, this show has a lot of loose ends to either tie up, or chop off.

Excuse the shoddy quality of the following images... I did not want to use a flash at the range (for more-or-less obvious reasons) so my camera compensated by boosting its ISO through the roof (1600 for both images, I believe). Of course, on the flip side, it is useful to have a camera with an ISO range up to 3200, otherwise this would not have been possible, or would not have come out nearly as well as it did (or not, as the case may be). Click to enlarge, in both cases.

Anywise, first up, we have the problematic BSA sight, mounted to my M1A SOCOM II (in addition to a Harris HBLMS 9-13 bipod underneath). And, yes, I do have to make do with the illogically-reduced-capacity 10-round magazine... after all, this is Kalifornistan.

Second, this is an image through the sight downrange, using the biggest dot, at its brightest setting, on a man-sized target at 25 yards. I tended to use the smallest dot at the dimmest setting, but that did not show up too well on the camera, and you have no idea how hard it was aiming the gun on-target and then lining up the camera behind it as it was...

I should be in bed, but this goes along with my previous post:

"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."

These words were written by Jeff Cooper in his "Art of the Rifle".

So, no, all of you hoplophobic, anti-rights folks out there - a gun does not kill people, or cause crime, or any of the other actions you ascribe to it. It is, in fact, perfectly inanimate and incapable of any independent reasoning, thought, or impulse. It is, however, usable by men, both good and evil. And when the good folks are still legally permitted to own and carry firearms, they can make every effort to prevent the evil ones from acting, or ever doing anything ever again... But when you disarm the lawful, good, reasonable folks by passing and enforcing laws, regulations, and restrictions that criminals are not going to follow anywise... the evil men are going to run rampant, unchallenged, and unobstructed, and you just successfully made the situation worse.

Me, I would like for that to not happen, if it is all the same to you.

M1A SOCOMs are loud. Or at least that is the impression I am getting. The below is an actual exchange from the range:

Me: *shooting for the first time since two new guys got to the lane next to mine*
Guy 1: ...the hell?!
Guy 2: SOCOM.
Guy 1: Oh...

Sights that cannot keep zeros are problematic. Remember a while back, I purchased a BSA red-dot sight. Unfortunately, this is a case of "you get what you pay for" - I paid all of 30 dollars for it, and it is performing about as well as you would expect for that price. First off, out of the box, it was high and left by about six inches on both counts - it was rather amusing, after a fashion, since I was aiming at the center target of five, and hitting the upper left one almost perfectly. I was able to get it zeroed, and then, mid-string, it just cut out on me. Off the rail it came, dismantled a bit, reassembled, and everything seemed fine. Back together, back on the rail, and back to being about three inches high and left - only the adjustment screws had not moved at all. Explain to me how that works? A bit more fiddling, and it is near enough to zero, but with enough variance that I am a bit concerned that it will not hold. And, of course, every time I remove the sight to clean the gun or replace its battery or for whatever reason, I will have to start all over again. Is that normal? Admittedly, this is my first rifle and first accessory sight, so I honestly have no idea, but that seems all manner of headache-inducing. By the same token, what is a better sight than the BSA? Yes, I know, an EOTech or Aimpoint, but those are still out of my price-range... was thinking something sub-$100, but still capable of holding a zero. No magnification is required, and red-dot is not even required, just something better than the not-so-useful iron sights on the M1A - and, yes, my accuracy did improve noticeably with the red-dot over the irons, at least when the former was close to zeroed. Yeah, I know, the whole, "But it's 30 bucks!" thing did not work out... go ahead... rub it in.

Speaking of accessories, a sling would help a lot. The M1A SOCOM II is heavy, there is no way around it... all of that accessory metal up forward gives it a pretty substantial nose inclination. Something tells me wrapping my arm in a sling might help a little - hell, it does with just about any rifle, why not this one? I am liking the set up Dirtcrashr has put together, but he has the advantage of working from an AR-15-pattern platform, so the butt mount of his sling can go... well, pretty much wherever he wants. Mine is limited to either the integral ventral mount that all M1As and M-14s have, or buying one of those strange butt-diaper-strap units, and I am not so fond of the latter option, as you might have guessed. Will have to think on it some... Who knows, the tacticool goodness of the SOCOM II may be violated by a vintage milsurp web strap... Or maybe one of those shiny Cadex grips over at Viking Tactics... would at least give me a better hand-hold. Of course, first, I would have to move out of the People's Republic of Kalifornistan to a reasonable, rational state where one is legally allowed to put a forward grip (or, horror of horrors, a pistol grip) on a rifle...

Shoot the pistol first. I dunno about the rest of you all, but trying to shoot pistol after shooting a hundred-odd rounds of rifle is just not doable for me. My right shoulder comes out of the rifle experience a wee bit sore, and the rest of the muscles in my arms are a bit worn out from supporting the thing, compensating for it, and trying to keep still. On the plus side, even the Baby Eagle felt like a feather after shooting the M1A for a while.

Misconceptions about guns are more plentiful than bullets. Especially these days, given the price of ammunition. Anywise, while I was out in the shop section of Iron Sights, a girl was looking in the pistol case, and said, "So which of these has the least chance of putting me on my ass?" In a credit to the salesperson, he was able to keep a straight face, and point her towards the 9mm/.22 section. Of course, five minutes later, she asked, "So which has worse kick, a Glock XX or XX?" I do not remember the numbers, but they were both 9mm... and, thankfully, no one saw my smile as I headed for the range. I know I should not laugh at ignorance, but her education seemed well in-hand between the salesperson and her boyfriend (Marine-ish, from the looks of him), and I was more amused at the Hollywood stereotypes showing through. Fact is, a 12-year-old could probably handle a 9mm with relative ease, assuming the grip was small enough for them... but to anyone not familiar with firearms except through the media and the news... well, you and I both know the ideas they would get.

Wardrobe is important at the range. It is always said that women should avoid wearing anything low-cut, or really cut at all, at a range... being an organic brass-catcher is rarely adviseable. And while my Better Half may fall out of her chair upon reading this, I might just avoid wearing comfortably-baggy pants to the range in the future. I was sighting in the M1A using its bipod set up on the lane bench, and sitting on a stool myself, and occasionally, brass would happen to land in what could be an uncomfortable location if I left it there too long. Distracting, that.

Baby Eagles are filthy little things. Again, this is my first pistol, so this may be the case for all firearms, but I swear, this thing must have exhaust vents spraying every which-way. I disassemble it for cleaning, and the entire trough of the lower section is filthy (even the guiderod... how does that work?), much less the rest of the gun. Great pistol, and I have been very happy with it over the years, but sometimes I just want to stuff it in the dishwasher.

Alignment of cleaning supplies matters. That Militec stuff I got a while back worked like a charm on the M1A - in fact, the barrel looked pretty damn clean right afterwards, unlike the Baby Eagle, which had fouling all up and down the barrel, and shot probably half as many rounds. Oh, and the rifle shot Serbian milsurp ammunition (so God alone knows the quality), while the pistol was fed Winchester White Box. That said, I made the mistake of storing the Militec sideways, in a ziplock bag, in an ammo can. The last bit was a saving grace - what leaked never made it out of the can. It did, however, strip labels off things, and now the inside of the can has a healthy sheen. Note to self - store upright, in the future.

Traffic sucks. Just a general-purpose observation.

Surprisingly, after not having shot anything for about eight or nine months, my accuracy really was not that bad. Not terrific, mind you, but not atrocious. Now if only I had the funds to keep up and improve on the practice, and maybe snag a toy or two in the process...