Wrapping up McDonald Coverage...

I'm getting ready to go up to the office and process my late evening interview with Dave Kopel of the Independence Institute...you're gonna want to listen to this one...it's a wide-ranging and very informative interview on gun rights. I have my interview with David Hardy in about an hour, and I'll post it quick like bunny as soon as I can process it.

BTW, check out SHOOTING GALLERY tonight...it's all on pocket pistols, a subject I get a lot of questions about. Ed Head at GUNSITE takes us through everything you need to know.

HUMAN EVENTS delves into, of all things, Glocks, addressing the endless "Glock is inherently unsafe" meme and concludes:

The Glock is an excellent weapon that does what it is designed to do very well. It is simple, robust, easy to maintain, and easy to operate. Glock owners, like all firearms owners, must train diligently, obey all the rules of gun safety, and carry their weapons in quality holsters. They must observe the proper handling and manipulation of their weapons with an almost religious fervor. This must be done so that doing things the right way becomes habit, something that is done out of ingrained custom without conscious thought. The same is true of any gun owner, but it is perhaps more so with a weapon as simple as the Glock. There is nothing inherently unsafe about the pistol, but there is nothing artificially safe about it either.

The same could be said of most firearms...the safety is ALWAYS in the shooter's head, not in any mechanical contrivance of the gun!

My Sweetie the attorney noted that Brady's legal gunslinger, Dennis Henigan, did his usual half-truth rehash of Brady press releases masquerading as an article in The National Law Journal. Henigan says the fundamental right to bear arms is "the most dangerous right." I'll let Joe Huffman over at THE VIEW FROM NORTH CENTRAL IDAHO deal with it:

I agree that guns can be dangerous. But it far from the most dangerous right. I would like Mr. Henigan to do the arithmetic on how many people have been murdered based on the following books:

• The Bible 

• The Koran

• The Communist Manifesto

• Mein Kampf

And that is just off the top of my head with a couple seconds of thought. And when have U.S. courts denied protection of the First Amendment to these books? If "guns kill" then surely these books can be blamed for the deaths of approximately 100 million people just in the 20th Century.

If books "responsible" for the deaths of many millions can be afforded protection under the First Amendment the Second Amendment can surely afford protection for firearms in common use.

Amen to that!