Mailvox: what to carry

Jonnelle asks: On a related tangent, I would like to ask for a recommendation from the firearm enthusiasts floating around here. An incident yesterday has prompted me to look into buying a handgun. My knowledge and experience is.. um.. well.. non-existent. The intial searches I’ve done for information border on overwhelming.

Firearm enthusiasts here? Perish the thought…. I am of the opinion that the .357 is too big for a woman to carry around easily, especially in a small purse. I recommend the S&W .38 featherweight for the utmost in portability. It’s a revolver not much larger than your palm, holds five shots, has a catchless hammer and is designed to be fired at very close quarters – like through your coat at someone who is trying to pile you into their car. The .38 is a weak round, but hollow point helps take care of that. Since the vast majority of incidents don’t actually require shooting anyone, the important thing is that it’s there and that it goes bang.

The best gun in the world is useless if you don’t have it on you. I would go with two guns, something larger, perhaps a .357 with a laser sight for things that go bump in the night at home, and the featherweight for when you’re on the go. The only problem with the featherweight is you can seriously forget you’ve got it on you.

Space Bunny’s got a Glock 9mm with a laser. She likes it and can hit her target with it.

The verdict is in

15,500 new carry permits in Minnesota, and a grand total of two revoked for unlawful discharge of a firearm in the first year. Neither of the two permit-holders were actually shooting at anyone. So much for the Red Star’s predicted bloodbath.

Mailvox: These enlightened times

BLS writes: Read great economists? What can Dead White Males possibly have to say to a person living in these, the most enlightened times ever? Look, it’s perfectly simple: whatever policy position makes me feel good about myself is right, and since it’s comfortable to me, then anybody who disagrees with me is either too stupid to appreciate my brilliance, or just plain evil. Which are you?

And, of course, should you dare to either identify my brilliant thought as one that has been thought and dismissed before or follow a reasonable train of logic from my assertions to conclusions I don’t like, you will of course be guilty of mischaracterizing my positions. Furthermore, I reserve the right to redefine any concept that has negative connotations, regardless of how easily identifiable and well-understood it might be.

“This time it will be different” is the battle cry of the latter-day socialist. “This is different” is the battle cry of the liberal who is too stupid to realize that he is a latter-day socialist.

Swatting flies

Sarah writes: I don’t think you should get yourself upset over folks like Si or ‘anonymous’. By giving them undue attention and allowing your frustration to be exposed, I have a feeling that such things only make the problem worst. Perhaps you are giving them what they want? Also, it may even, perversely, affirm in their minds that they are in the right.

Please understand, pests like the aforementioned two don’t upset me personally in the least. I get email every day informing me that I am uneducated, stupid, evil and uncaring, a vast cornucopia of unfounded caricature. I actually enjoy this sort of thing, as it’s amusing to have the chance to properly tee off on someone who lobs a nice fat slow one at you. But I find it profoundly irritating when someone is so socially unskilled as to feel the need to defecate in the pool in which numerous people are happily splashing water at each other. As the Virginian said, “say it with a smile.”

I will ban without warning or announcement anyone who repeatedly insults me or anyone else on this blog, whether they are in agreement with me or not. I don’t expect intellectual accord, but I do demand civility. I responded at length to Si’s missive because one rarely encounters a so-called liberal who is willing to state in such outright terms their worship of the State and elevation of the community over the rights of the individual. I wasn’t surprised at the poor quality of his thought; I was surprised that he was so willing to expose it to all and sundry. Most leftists know better.

Still, I give him credit for trying, even if he would have saved himself a lot of trouble by reading the great economists of Left and Right, who’ve covered all of that ground before. He’s welcome to continue posting here if he likes, although Anonymous will have to rest content with the knowledge that his ban from this site was preordained from the beginning of time.

End of the Gold Rush

I always hated the 49ers. I was out in the Bay Area fairly often in the early 90’s, and there have never been football fans who were more annoyingly confident while being simultaneously ignorant of the game. I came to hate them almost as much as I hated the Steelers and the Raidess, not just because they regularly knocked out good-but-not-great Vikings teams out of the playoffs, but because the way in which they won was irritating no matter who they beat. I looked forward to the day when Montana and Rice would be gone, Bill Walsh would be outdated and the franchise would return to the morass of mediocrity.

Then Walsh pulled Garcia out of his hat three years ago and I watched in disbelief as the 49ers somehow managed to stay in contention. But I knew the end was near when the new so-called brain trust brought in Dennis Erickson, who didn’t do much with the Seattle Seahawks the last time he was coaching in the league.

And yet, I find that while I’m pleased to see new powers rising in the NFC West – even if I still have to remind myself that the Seahawks are there – I can’t help but feel a mild tinge of regret for the lost era. I guess it’s easier to despise an arrogant winner than it is to derive real pleasure from kicking the formerly lofty when they’re down.

I will bury you, said the mouse to the elephant

The New York Post reports on Air America: The line-up will pit the new network’s talkers directly against the biggest names in radio. Franken is expected to air at noon and go toe-to-toe with Rush Limbaugh, who has a 15 million-listener head start. South Florida liberal Randi Rhodes will follow Franken and be up against Sean Hannity (WABC), Bill O’Reilly and Bob Grant (both on WOR) in New York. She told her West Palm Beach listeners this week that she plans to “bury” Hannity and Grant. Garofalo is the network’s choice for 8 to 11 p.m., Post sources say. Robert Kennedy, Jr. will host a weekend slot.

I am seriously anticipating the debut of Air America. I predict it will crash and burn in a more spectacular manner than the Hindenburg. Ozzy’s dead guitarist Randy Rhoads has a better chance to beat out Hannity than does this woman. I can’t wait to hear the explanations of how America is too stupid to support their moral superiors.

That’ll put the breaks on.

From Newsday: Four days after presiding over a slew of same sex marriages in his quaint Hudson Valley village, the mayor of New Paltz today was charged with 19 violations of New York’s domestic relations law, injecting the debate over gay marriages in the state with increasing drama and urgency. Jason West, 26-year-old Green Party mayor, was ordered to appear in court Wednesday to answer charges that he broke state law by solomizing about two dozen weddings without a marriage license, according to New Paltz police and West’s lawyer.Chief Raymond Zappone said he and a lieutenant from the town police served a 19-count summons to West Tuesday afternoon and that the mayor faces up a $500 fine and a year in jail for his actions which have attracted international attention and brought the fight over gay marriages squarely into New York.

We may never see Gavin Newsom’s face again. What’s he up to, 3,500 counts?