Glenn Beck: “There’s no way you’re ever going to get elected. You make too much sense.”
Posts Tagged ‘Second Amendment’
Texas Senate Race Update for January 31, 2012
Tuesday, January 31st, 2012Brief Candidate Profile: Jason A. Gibson, Pistol Packing…Democrat?
Monday, December 19th, 2011I just got off the phone with newly-filed Texas Democratic senate candidate Jason A. Gibson. (I called when his law firm’s email bounced for some reason.) He says his website, www.jasongibson2012.com, will be up live in a day or two.
I asked him why he was running. He said he was “tired of Washington being dysfunctional” and “tired of being on the sidelines.” He also said “I get things done.”
He says his family has a long history in the Democratic Party, and that his grandfather a union organizer. However, when I noted that my blog was on the conservative side of the spectrum, he mentioned support for two policies not often voiced among modern Democratic candidates: lower taxes and the right to bear arms. Indeed, he said he was a Texas CHL holder, which must surely be an uncommon thing among Democrats these days.
There was a time, of course, when the Texas Democratic Party had numerous conservative politicians among their ranks. But by the 1980s, the party that had once been home to Allan Shivers and John Connally found itself to be captive to the ideological likes of Jim Hightower and Lloyd Doggett, causing the exodus of conservative Democrats like Phil Gramm, Kent Hance and Rick Perry to the Republican Party, which goes a long way toward explaining why it’s been over a decade since the Democrats held a single statewide office in Texas. The majority of Democratic partisans at both the state and national level have nothing but contempt for “Blue Dog Democrats,” and I doubt Gibson can buck the trend.
But we’ll see.
Ezell vs. Chicago: An Extremely Lazy Blogger’s Roundup
Wednesday, July 6th, 2011So Ezell vs. Chaicago has been decided, and the three-judge panel basically bitchslapped Chicago into the 21st Century. Basically, Chicago was saying 1.) You have to get firearms training at a licensed firing range to own a gun, and 2.) We don’t need no stinking firing ranges within the city limits, and the court tore them a new asshole for blatantly disregarding DC vs. Heller.
Even more dramatically, the ruling makes explicit parallels between first Amendment and Second Amendment restrictions, which the Brady Bunch and their liberal Democratic co-conspirators have been denying for years.
I think any decision where the gun-grabber ordinance in question is actually derided in the decision as “thumbing of the municipal nose at the Supreme Court” has to count as a pretty overwhelming victory for the Second Amendment.
If I were a hardcore gun blogger, I’d read the entire judgment, quote chunks from it and offer closely reasoned, pithy insights.
If I were a semi-hardcore gun blogger, I’d skim the decision and offer some quick insights.
However, because I’m feeling very lazy tonight, I’m merely going to link to the writeup over at Snowflakes in Hell, since Sebastian has provided a far better, and more insightful, post than I could on the subject.
As a bonus, in the post just below that, he tears into Rahm’s ridiculous shooting range ordinance, another blatant attempt to deprive Chicago residents of their Second Amendment via absurd regulations, such as:
Requires that range operators inspect every gun brought into the range for safety, and that the caliber is appropriate for an indoor range. You must have a range master for every three shooting patrons. That range master must be on duty at all times. [Even by the standards of Chicago union featherbedding this is outrageous.] Ranges may only sell ammo for use onsite, and must ensure no one leaves the range with unauthorized ammo.
Et Freaking cetera. “Rahm’s ordinance is basically a joke, and an insult. I can’t imagine anyone would even try to operate a range under these ridiculous standards, and I suspect that’s the whole idea.”
Read the whole thing, on both posts.