Lunch Links

Thursday, February 26th, 2009
  • Obama to reinstitute “assault weapons” ban. Attorney General Eric Holder cites the violence in Mexico as part of the reason. Of course, ending the drug war would do a lot more to end the violence in Mexico. But we can’t have that. The only acceptable actions in a crisis are those that strengthen government and inhibit freedom, not the other way around.
  • Canadian mounties say they tased a man five times–killing him–because the man intended to harm them with . . . a stapler. Does that make these guys the new “gun nuts?”
  • Really bizarre story: Chicago man keeps getting tickets in the mail for parking infractions he couldn’t have possibly committed.
  • (Very gradual) change we can believe in.
  • Mermaids!
  • Healthy eating hysteria has kids afraid of food.
    Digg it |  reddit | |  Fark
  • 53 Responses to “Lunch Links”

    1. #1 |  Ukulele & All That Jazz | 

      Mermaid’s dream…

      I have somewhat of a thing for mermaids. So when The Agitator posted this link about a double amputee who gets realistic-looking mermaid tail so she can swim, I was thrilled. A quick excerpt from the article:

      "Good: double amputee gets pros…

    2. #2 |  MikeL | 

      “Much like a spoiled child, gun enthusiasts will cry when their favourite toys are taken away.”

      This is a great argument for not letting children have firearms, but I fail to see how it relates to a responsible adult.

    3. #3 |  supercat | 

      //I really struggle to understand why it’s so important to be allowed to have assault weapons. I mean, I can just about see a case for handguns – for self defense, but Assault weapons are for, well making Assaults.//

      How often are so-called “assault weapons” (as distinct from machine guns) used for criminal purposes by anyone other than government personnel? What is it about them that makes them so nasty? Have there been huge numbers of drive-by bayonettings?

      The objection to the AWB isn’t so much that someone who might have bought an AR15 would have had to buy a version with an integral muzzle brake instead of a threaded barrel, but rather that if the government is allowed to ban some weapons for one set of arbitrary and capricious reasons, there is no reason it couldn’t impose any number of additional arbitrary and capricious bans to the point that it was impossible to find any weapon that didn’t fall afoul of some particular restriction.

      Further, divide the number of “assault weapons” in the hands of people who are not on felony probation or parole, by the number of innocents killed by such people wielding such weapons. Pretty big number. Now compute the same figure for such weapons in the hands of the police. In whose hands are such weapons more dangerous?