As the District of Columbia busies itself throwing sand in the gears of the latest Supreme Court ruling, I can't help but be reminded of the Jim Crow laws in the deep south.
I see gun control as fundamentally racist and I'm gonna tell ya why below the fold.

It has been nearly a year since the tragic Virginia Tech massacre and that fact is dominating the current news cycle.
As the debate rages on about how best to proceed, perhaps this is a good time to review what led up to it.
(flip)

When discussing the 2nd Amendment with gun control advocates, the discourse will often drift to the original intent; giving "We the People" the means with which to defend ourselves from a tyrannical regime.
At this point, their responses become eerily reminiscent of George H.W. when asked about abortion on behalf of his daughter in the event of rape; complete shutdown and refusal to contemplate the scenario.
So I will posit the worst-case scenario directly and ask: When Plan "A" is denied you, just what the heck is your Plan "B"?

The '06 midterm election can fairly be called the most spectacular congressional ass-whuppin' in recent history. The People swept the incumbents out of power as the inevitable consequence of hubris, ineptitude, lack of accountability, lack of oversight, and the complete disregard for the Constitution.
Out with the old and in with the new, right? Well...not necessarily. You see, Pelosi and company were granted the authority to step in, but with that authority they were also charged with a responsibility: To right the wrongs foisted upon us by the Bush administration and to re-establish the checks and balances necessary for responsible leadership.
Unfortunately, they haven't chosen to honor their mandate, but they have found the time to further their own Authoritarian agenda.
There's a well-known adage about those that fail to learn from history.

read on...  

As we all know, MSNBC hosted the first Republican debate of the '08 cycle at the Reagan presidential library Thursday night. They also set up a poll at their website to rate the candidates.
They are now interpreting their results to tell us that Romney "won".

But according to the results, he didn't. Why are they intentionally mis-representing their own results?

Update: ABC is up to the same shenanigans and C-Span lets the cat out of the bag.

See here for questions pondering what should be done about this:
Upset!- Freiheit

More beyond the flip...

Show of hands: How many of you gun control advocates actually believe what the Brady website tells you? Today I'm going to point out every single outright lie in just one pamphlet and prove to you exactly why the assertions are false.

And flip...

We have a habit of getting lost in all the noise about Constitutionality, Judicial review, "cop-killer" bullets, and political expediency. All of these issues are moot if we can't establish that gun control actually works.

edit
A chuckle-worthy exchange from the comment section:
Gun control advocate:

Pre-sale ballistic fingerprinting -- Proven to be effective at catching criminals who use guns (not 100% effective but more effective than not doing it).

My response:

Supporting evidence? To the best of my knowledge, pre-sale ballistic fingerprinting has never led to the conviction of even one offender.

Gun control advocate:

of course it's never led to a conviction, because it's never been done.

Apparently "proven" has some definition I wasn't previously aware of.

Anywho, on to the entry...

Okay, so the Brady background check didn't catch the madman; didn't keep him from acquiring handguns. One of the central tenets of gun control has been exposed as less-than-ideal and the next copycat mass execution isn't long in coming.
So what are we going to do about it? It's clear that many of you aren't receptive to the pro-gun solution (widen CCW access), and it's becoming painfully obvious to even the casual observer that the gun control types have no idea what to do.

Follow me beyond the fold and I'll explain the current system to you and exactly what you must do to make it more effective.

"Guns are incapable of obeying the law and psychopaths are disinclined"-GoSlash27

Last night I requested proposals for legislation from the gun-control crowd. I was seeking a specific course of action that could result in less bloodshed in the future.
Somewhere in all the noise I did manage to receive some signal.
(edit: five comments in four hours? Five?!? If I didn't know any better, I might think that the gun control folks have no idea what to do!)

And flip...

The senseless massacre at Virginia Tech has once again ignited the gun control debate. Proponents of gun control are proclaiming that more rigid controls might have prevented the bloodshed while the pro-gun community insists that the guns aren't to blame.
 What has been overlooked in the debate is perhaps what is most crucial: which camp has proposals that can actually work?
This story will hopefully 1) serve to illustrate the pro-gun mindset and 2) spark a useful and meaningful dialogue between the two camps in the hope of reaching the mutual goal of both sides: reducing gun violence.

Let's talk it over on the flip-side.

The previous entry in this series dealt with The myth of the accidental gun death And showed conclusively that guns are simply not a significant source of accidental death as some would have us believe.

This time I will address the single most prevalent cause of death involving firearms: Suicide.

Aaand flip...

Another diary in a series that exposes the Washington emotional manipulation of a fundamental American right.

Gun control: the myth of the accidental firearm discharge...

Damon turns to Racquel and whispers a secret in her ear; "My daddy has a gun and it's really big. Want to see it?"
A half-hour later, Racquel is lying on the floor. She will be dead before she arrives at the hospital. The more humorous (and more common) variant of this sad scenario is the one in which Darrel turns to his second-half-cousin and says "hey, watch this"...

Accidental firearm discharge (or, as more commonly called within the shooting community "negligent discharge") resulted in death in the United States 661 times in 2004 according to the CDC. That's nearly 2 per day!
Each occurance is a tragedy. It sounds like an epidemic...until you compare it to other causes of death.

More beyond the fold...

At least, according to my highly unscientific poll conducted just last night.

How did this come to be? Why are Kossacks (and every other progressive internet forum I can find) so far out of the mainstream?

My suspicion is because we're more involved, more informed, and have come to the realization that "gun control" is ineffective, bad for America, bad for progressive causes, and bad for the Democratic party.

Follow me beyond the fold and I'll explain...

It took me a long while to catch on, but I finally did it.
It all started with last week's D.C. appellate court decision that struck down the D.C. handgun ban as unconstitutional. As I'm researching the subject trying to figure how it'll all play out, I took a look around at the pundits, the politicians, and the Dem base in the hopes of gauging the reaction and maybe getting a feel for the next move.
I noticed something very curious: The majority of the Democratic rank and file that weighed in do not support gun control!

Bet you thought you were in the minority, huh? So did I. So did I...

When I penned (so to speak) my original diatribe against Wonkette the other day, I had no idea it would raise such a furor. Although I'm no journalist I decided I couldn't rest until I had gotten to the bottom of the episode and maybe practice just a little journalistic integrity in the process. Just because...you know...it has been so neglected up to this point...
So moving on, what I have discovered and What It All Means.

Perusing the internets last night led me to a highly suspect entry on her blog:

http://www.wonkette.com/...

It's a startling insight into the seedy underbelly of the NRA and it's racist, xenophobic followers.
Or at least it would be if it were true...

 Flash back to the 2004 democratic primaries. I, a lifelong registered Independent, was sitting in my living room watching a primary debate between the Dem offerings.
 As Wes Clark was speaking, I became very angry at the state of American presidential politics. Here was the man who was far and away the most qualified candidate to fill the office of President of the United States, and I knew for certain that he wouldn't be allowed to run.
 I pondered the sitting president's qualifications:
 Coke head. Alcoholic. Not very bright. Smirks too much. Does exactly what the party tells him. Dad was president...
 I was angry because I knew that once again I'd be offered the lesser of two evils instead of the two best candidates in the land. Then it dawned on me: I was the problem....

 Adventures of a moderate
 Episode 1: Introduction

 To those of you reading this on Redstate, I am 'that Moby' that shows

up occasionally and argues against your partisan rhetoric. You have

made me completely unwelcome, but I plan on sticking in your side until

I am banned.
 To those of you reading this on Kos, I am 'that instigator' that shows

up occasionally and argues against your partisan rhetoric. You

have made me completely unwelcome, but I plan on sticking in your side

anyway. Although you folks have shown more tolerance to my presence, if

not my viewpoint.