Maybe those wise men were, uh, pretty wise. From the BBC News:

Scientists have observed that there is some agent within frankincense which stops cancer spreading, and which induces cancerous cells to close themselves down. He is trying to find out what this is.

“Cancer starts when the DNA code within the cell’s nucleus becomes corrupted,” he says. “It seems frankincense has a re-set function. It can tell the cell what the right DNA code should be.

“Frankincense separates the ‘brain’ of the cancerous cell - the nucleus - from the ‘body’ - the cytoplasm, and closes down the nucleus to stop it reproducing corrupted DNA codes.”

Working with frankincense could revolutionize the treatment of cancer. Currently, with chemotherapy, doctors blast the area around a tumor to kill the cancer, but that also kills healthy cells, and weakens the patient. Treatment with frankincense could eradicate the cancerous cells alone and let the others live.

Scientists are working to isolate the specific agent in the Boswellia sacra tree sap (frankincense).

On the down side, these trees only seem to grow in places that are under Arab control. If this pans out it will be just what we need, another barrel to be held over.

On the plus side, it shows once again the need to protect natural flora as much of it could contain or lead to more natural and less invasive cures for disease. Just ask anyone who has undergone chemo, such as my mother and aunt. Sorry, didn’t mean to sound like a tree-hugger!

I’ll bet most of you wish you were at THIS one! Possibly NWS; depends on your boss.

Sebastian is reporting a good turnout by local folks to fight a proposed lost or stolen gun ordinance being considered. Being considered in violation of Pennsylvania’s preemption laws that is.

One thing I’m proud of is that gun rights advocates are far more active in general than our opposition. We’re willing to fight for our belief in the natural right to self-protection and against those who would deny us such.

Not much time right now but check out:

The New York Times’ “go to Imam” claims Ft. Hood shooting should be blamed on access to guns. He blames the U.S. for it. Sheesh.

An idiot at NorthJersey.com says that guns are useless for home protection and you should dial 911 and keep a club under your bed. Double Sheesh.

The Wall Street Journal has more on McDonald v. Chicago, particularly the wrangling of the lawyers.

I’ve been battling lower back pain for the past couple days. Not sure what I did but when I got out of bed yesterday morning I somehow wrenched something back there. It’s painful to get up from sitting or laying down and it’s painful to rest on my back — which makes using the heating pad difficult.

I went to the walk-in clinic yesterday afternoon and all they really offered was, well, use the heating pad and here’s a prescription to … I declined the prescription. I haven’t taken a prescription drug of any sort for years — not even for my gout. About the strongest stuff I’ll use is Advil.

Anyway, I’ll give it one more day of rest in bed and hope for the best. Oddly, I suspect I get these back pains when I’m a few pounds overweight, which I am at the moment, so I’ve started dieting again. That makes it all the less fun when stuck at home.

I wasn’t aware that a piece of crap like King Police Chief Paula May had the right to declare Martial Law. From WXII TV:

Authorities said the state of emergency declaration would continue until Monday 9 a.m., barring any unforeseen circumstances or severe changes.

Effective Sunday afternoon, alcohol restrictions and a curfew were lifted. All other remaining restrictions would continue until Monday, said Paula May, King police chief.

Other restrictions include a ban on the sale or purchase of any type of firearm, ammunition, explosive or any possession of such items off a person’s own premises.

It would be unwise of me to write here what I think should happen to May and other unnamed authorities in King, and I certainly don’t ever, nor have I ever, encouraged, condoned, or called for violence. That still stands. Now, if God were to send down a few well-placed lightning strikes . . . .

Shades of Katrina, an emergency is exactly when folks are most on their own and need the ability to protect themselves and their homes.

That’s the gist of Idiot of the Day Kurt Andersen’s piece in NY Ragazine:

. . . because in 1787 several dozen coolheaded members of the American Establishment had to meet and debate and horse-trade for four months to do the real work of creating an apparatus to make self-government practicable—that is, to write the Constitution. And what those thoughtful, educated, well-off, well-regarded gentlemen did was invent a democracy sufficiently undemocratic to function and endure. They wanted a government run by an American elite like themselves, as James Madison wrote, “whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations.” They wanted to make sure the mass of ordinary citizens, too easily “stimulated by some irregular passion … or misled by the artful misrepresentations” and thus prone to hysteria—like, say, the rabble who’d run amok in Boston Harbor—be kept in check. That’s why they created a Senate and a Supreme Court and didn’t allow voters to elect senators or presidents directly. By the people and for the people, definitely; of the people, not so much.

He then goes on for paragraph after paragraph explaining why the Tea Partiers are not thoughtful, educated, well regarded, etc. They’re populists, and populists are bad.

Here’s a smattering:

While the tea-party movement is not populist in a coherent economic sense, it has all of populism’s worst historical features—not just the conspiracist paranoia about malign elites but also the desperately nostalgic sense of dispossession, the anti-immigrant anger, the anti-intellectualism.

[…]

Candidate Obama was thrilling to we non-populists because he didn’t resort to the standard populist bag of tricks—no vitriol or demagoguery, no blame-mongering, no pseudo-simple solutions to staggeringly complex problems.

About that last quote. Last time I bothered to listen, he’s still blame-mongering Bush and Republicans. Demagoguery? That was his stock-in-trade during the State of the Union address.

Of course, in a democracy, the people, even the unreasonable and crazy people, have to be made to feel they’ve been heard. But the job of serious Washington grown-ups with big populist constituencies—both presidents Roosevelt, Reagan, even Richard Nixon—is to respond to the rage with the minimum necessary demagoguery, throw them a few bones to calm them down, and then make deals with your fellow members of the elected elite. Civility and sanity and prudence prevail, as the founders intended.

Shitheads like Andersen think of themselves as the elite, the educated, the well-reasoned. And, of course, those of us who disagree with their socialist agendas are violent, racist, uneducated. “That’s what we’re up against, folks,” he seems to be saying.

His advice to Republicans?

. . . in this election year, the appeal of nay-saying and politics-by-tantrum will be strong. For the Republicans, the tea-party movement is an irresistible opportunity to double down on the crackpot emotionalism, an edgy new little anti-Establishment brand extension nominally (but not ideologically) distinct from the tired, discredited old GOP, something like what pseudo-microbrews like Land Shark Lager and Red Dog are to Anheuser-Busch and MillerCoors. If the Republicans, as a result, stick to their just-say-no game, what’s at risk is not merely Democratic majorities and Obama’s reelection, but—not to get too hysterical—the future of the republic.

Ah! If Republicans continue to reject all of the elites’ socialistic and nanny-state ideas, Obama’s reelection is at risk. Well THERE’S reason enough for Republicans to embrace the elitist agenda.

You know, I only point out moronic treatise like this one as a warning to all of just how diseased the minds of liberals are. We here residing outside the rarefied bastions of intellectual thought in NY and LA are too stupid to know what’s good for us and we don’t deserve Democracy. According to Anderson, the founding fathers never intended that any but the tower-dwelling elites should rule over us peasants.

With the help of the West Virginia Citizens Defense League, a bill has been introduced that would eliminate the need for a license to conceal-carry. Details in this email from them.

in yet another worthless piece of legislative grandstanding:

On Thursday, state Sen. Jeff Klein, D-Bronx, and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg held a press conference to tout legislation that would make it a crime to carry a gun while intoxicated — CWI instead of DWI — regardless of your proximity to any sort of tree. Under the proposed law, possession of a weapon by anyone with a blood alcohol higher than .08 would be a class A misdemeanor punishable by a year in jail and a $10,000 fine.

So, will that apply to off-duty cops, almost all of whom are armed when hanging in their favorite saloons? If Robert De Niro hangs with other stars at some hip watering hole, will a cop arrest him when he steps outside? He’s one of the “chosen” who were granted a CCW permit in NYC.

I’m sure all the gang-bangers and thugs will observe the new regulation.

From his Feb 7th, 2010 column in the NY Times:

The truth is that given the state of American politics, the way the Senate works is no longer consistent with a functioning government. Senators themselves should recognize this fact and push through changes in those rules, including eliminating or at least limiting the filibuster. This is something they could and should do, by majority vote, on the first day of the next Senate session.

From his March 29th column in the NY Times:

. . . But the big step by extremists will be an attempt to eliminate the filibuster, so that the courts can be packed with judges less committed to upholding the law than Mr. Greer.

He was for it before he was against it.

Vancouver will have to set aside one of its nanny-state regulations during the Olympic Games. From Yahoo News:

Vancouver’s plan to host smoke-free Winter Games were stubbed out after Olympic officials told the city to make room for people who love to puff, particularly Europeans and the media.

In a city that prides itself on healthy living, bike-riding Mayor Gregor Robertson recognized that Vancouver could not impose its strict anti-smoking culture on legions of visitors to the Games that open on Friday (Feb 12-28).

[….]

While there will be no smoking inside indoor sports venues, VANOC was told by the International Olympic Committee that it must designate smoking areas outside the arenas.

“The IOC did ask us to ensure that (the smoking areas) were available to accommodate … the journalists particularly who are coming, but other spectators that may be coming from Europe or other countries,” said Smith-Valade.

Later in the article, it’s mentioned that while Vancouver’s residents ostracize cigarette smokers, they’re much more tolerant of pot tokers. A bit of liberal hypocrisy?

We pretty much know that Obama will run for reelection in 2012, unless — and it would make for quite a political junkie’s spectacle — Hillary decides to challenge him in the primary.

On the Republican side, who knows? Sarah Palin is an interesting figure but to be honest, she’s not ready for the Oval Office. We’ve already learned the painful way that inexperience is not a desirable trait in a President.

Governors tend to make good presidents but they need a few terms at governing before taking on Washington D.C.

Any suggestions from you folks?

The National Association for Gun Rights has an online petition you can sign, which they will forward to your state’s congresscritters.

The coffee house giant rebukes the Brady Bunch:

Starbucks has brushed aside a request from a gun control advocacy group to ban the display of guns in its retail locations, saying it will abide by laws that allow patrons to openly carry unloaded weapons.

The national Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence made the request in the wake of a series of meetings in local restaurants over the past few months by Bay Area Open Carry, a group that hopes to make it legal to carry loaded guns in California. Peets Coffee & Tea and California Pizza Kitchen responded to similar requests by banning displays of weapons in the companies’ coffeehouses and restaurants.

“Starbucks does not have a corporate policy regarding customers and weapons; we defer to federal, state and local laws and regulations regarding this issue,” Starbucks’ customer relations department said in response to the Brady Campaign’s request.

The Brady Bunch is sending out an email to its members asking them to put pressure on Starbuck’s to ban guns. I suggest that all of you congratulate them on their policy.

On a side note, what’s the good, exactly, of only being able to carry a handgun that is unloaded? Yes, you could — with practice — reasonably quickly slam-home a magazine I suppose. Is that all that California allows? Or is that only for visible firearms and if you have a CCW permit you can then carry a loaded gun? Just curious. I’m spoiled by Vermont’s gun laws, or should I say lack of them . . .

Emboldened — no doubt because liberals are in charge of the government and Lord how they love to over regulate, nanny-state, and protect us from our selves — FBI officials are pushing all internet service providers to keep records of every web site you visit:

The FBI is pressing Internet service providers to record which Web sites customers visit and retain those logs for two years, a requirement that law enforcement believes could help it in investigations of child pornography and other serious crimes.

FBI Director Robert Mueller supports storing Internet users’ “origin and destination information,” a bureau attorney said at a federal task force meeting on Thursday.

I’m not here to defend child porn or the people who visit those sites. Nor am I going to defend wanna-be terrorists who visit sites run by radical muslim clergy.

I AM here to defend some sense of privacy about where people browse. Yes, I know that nothing is private on the internet but sometimes I might visit some sites that cater to gun enthusiasts, or that occasionally express anti-administration sentiments, or that trade in “black helicopter” theories, and I don’t think that’s the government’s business until AFTER I am accused of a crime.

Hopefully, cops and the FBI will still be required to obtain a proper search warrant although we all know how easy — and on what flimsy grounds — those are passed out.

To me this is just another step towards a Big Brother society envisioned by liberals who want to control what we eat, what light bulbs we use, how our thermostats are set, and now what web sites we visit. And remember, these same liberals would like to bring back the “Fairness Doctrine” to control what we hear on the radio.

Liberals want to control everything. The irony is that despite controlling the White House and Congress and most of the Main Stream Media, they still — thankfully — haven’t gotten much done. Viva la Tea Party!

If you want to know why state gun laws should trump local ones, witness what’s happening in Omaha. You could have a valid Nebraska CCW permit but if you simply drive through Omaha and have not registered your gun with the Omaha cops, you’re a criminal.

Anti-freedom types never give up. If you live in Maryland, neither should you:

Senator Mike Lennett (D), District 19, Montgomery County, has introduced SB516, the Maryland Assault Weapons Ban of 2010. His co-sponsors are a veritable Who’s Who of the anti-gun wing of the Senate.

Now’s the time to head this thing off before the hearing is even scheduled and let the members of the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee know that Maryland citizens will not tolerate such an egregious infringement on their rights in the name of political grandstanding.

Information about the bill and about what you can do to stop it is at the link.

Bad news for the mutants; more people (especially women) are arming themselves. From the New American:

Women in Tulsa, Oklahoma, are utilizing the Second Amendment more than ever. Frank Wiley of Tulsa’s Fox 23 news reports an increase of concealed carry licenses among women in Tulsa as a result of police layoffs.

Concealed weapons-carrying classes continue to fill up in Tulsa, Oklahoma, but the majority of the students in the classes have changed from men to women. The enrollment of women in classes has tripled in the last 10 years. In consideration of the recent police layoffs at the Tulsa Police Department, women feel the need to acquire self-defense skills more than ever.

With the economy in the sorry state it is, with un-or under-employment at a staggering 17%, there is the inevitable rise in crime. Muggings, burglaries, and so on. It is vital that self-aware citizens arm themselves.

Yet another medical journal publishes an anti-gun screed:

Based on a review of the available scientific data, Dr. Lippmann and co-authors conclude that the dangers of having a gun at home far outweigh the safety benefits. Research shows that access to guns greatly increases the risk of death and firearm-related violence. A gun in the home is twelve times more likely to result in the death of a household member or visitor than an intruder.

And so on. Frankly, I’ll take my chances. What Lippmann and his fellow a-holes left out is that having a gun in the home is far safer than having a doctor in the hospital. As a matter of fact, the number one cause of accidental death in the United States is medical malpractice in hospitals.

To whit:

Hearst Newspapers has written an extensive article about the prevalence of medical mistakes and how they are the #1 cause of accident deaths in America. You can read the story on the Seattle Post Intellingencer’s web site.

The article states that 98,000 people die every year from medical mistakes. This is more than the number of people killed in the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. Also, more than 99,000 patients succumb to hospital-acquired infections, and most of these deaths are clearly preventable.

And, From Medical News Today:

An average of 195,000 people in the USA died due to potentially preventable, in-hospital medical errors in each of the years 2000, 2001 and 2002, according to a new study of 37 million patient records that was released today by HealthGrades, the healthcare quality company.

Hey Lippman? I know it’s physically impossible but, er, why don’t you try, anyway. You know.

The CSU Board of Governors have proposed a complete ban on all weapons from the campus. The Coloradoan has the latest:

At a news conference on the Oval at Colorado State University, members of the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners said state law prohibits CSU from banning legally carried concealed weapons from campus.

The group has already threatened a lawsuit and has helped students at the University of Colorado at Boulder sue over a similar ban.

Rocky Mountain Gun Owners persuaded CSU about eight years ago to drop a similar plan after holding a similar news conference.

Now here’s the money quote from the local sheriff, who does not support the ban:

Larimer County Sheriff Jim Alderden said in his 11 years as sheriff, there hasn’t been a single problem with a concealed-carry permit holder on CSU’s campus. Alderden helped write the state’s concealed-carry law, which says county sheriffs “shall” issue permits to anyone who meets the basic criteria, including training and a background check.

“Their argument that the ban will make this campus more safe is just not true,” Alderden said.

It’s interesting that while most rank-and-file cops support civilian gun rights, many of their pencil-pushing chiefs do not. Yet, most sheriffs do. Even in Vermont. I wonder why that is?

That’s the title of an excellent piece by Betsy McCaughey:

Amazingly, though the 40% mark is being crossed, politicians continue to propose costly programs that you will have to pay for with the fruits of your labor. No matter who your employer is, you’re actually toiling for the politicians. They’re not public servants. They’re making you a servant. How much more freedom are you willing to give up?

I bet no member of Congress has ever asked you: “Would you rather buy something for your family or re-cover your sofa instead of funding National Public Radio? Would you rather make your own car payments instead of bailing out the auto industry or expanding aid to Africa?

Washington politicians don’t want to hear your answer. The more programs they create, the more followers they gain and the more powerful and celebrated they are.

“Followers” as in special interest group voters. Yes, gun rights supporters are a “special interest group” in a sense, but it doesn’t require that the politician enact a costly spending program; just that he vote with the Constitution and for natural rights.

I remember reading about this cat (at a nursing home) a few years ago that sensed when someone was about to pass on and would curl up and keep them company during their last hours. Now there’s a book about him:

. . . But Dr. David Dosa, who broke the news of Oscar’s abilities in a paper in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2007, said he never intended to make Oscar sound creepy or his arrival at a bedside to be viewed negatively.

Dosa said he hopes his newly released book, “Making Rounds With Oscar: The Extraordinary Gift of an Ordinary Cat” will put the cat in a more favorable light as well as providing a book to help people whose loved ones are terminally ill.

[…]

“I wanted to write a book that would go beyond Oscar’s peculiarities, to tell why he is important to family members and caregivers who have been with him at the end of a life.”

Fortunately, my cats haven’t predicted my own death, yet. I can tell you this, though; they can sense a can of cat food being opened from the other side of the house.

Following the leads of Montana and Tennessee regarding federal gun regulation, Utah is asserting their state rights:

Guns made and kept in Utah would be exempt from federal regulations under a measure the Utah Senate gave its initial approval to Tuesday, despite concerns it could lead to a costly legal fight in a lean budget year.

Senate Bill 11 mirrors one signed into law in Montana last year that’s intended to trigger a federal court battle.

Both are intended to allow guns made in their respective states to be exempt from rules on federal gun registration, background checks and dealer-licensing.

The goal is to circumvent federal authority over interstate commerce, which is the legal basis for most gun regulation in the United States.

Well, no, Utah — and Montana and Tennessee — are not trying to “circumvent interstate commerce” under federal control (allowed by the Constitution) but rather to say that if a firearm is made and sold in the state to a state resident, THEN, it ain’t interstate commerce.

Some leaders in India are calling for more gun control — they already have plenty, in fact, too much. Some of the citizens are fighting back:

Last week, the National Association for Gun Rights India began meeting with lawmakers and consulting lawyers in a bid to stall the proposals. The group’s president is a 39-year-old lawmaker, Naveen Jindal, who studied at the University of Texas business school in Dallas. Inspired by American students’ displays of patriotism, Jindal earlier launched a successful campaign for Indians’ right to display the national flag outside their homes and offices.

Indian security experts appear dismissive of the group’s efforts. “There is no place for a gun rights movement in India,” said Julius Ribeiro, a former police officer who comments on security issues. “That kind of debate may work in America, but it will not work here, because laws are misused and guns can easily fall into the wrong hands. It can get dangerous in India.”

Gun rights advocates respond — using language familiar to Americans — that guns are a deterrent to crime.

“An armed society is a polite society,” said Rahoul Rai, a member of the campaign. He said the movement also reflects the rise of an Indian middle class that can “voice its fears about rising crime, interpret the constitution to articulate their rights to self-protection and bring like-minded people together through technology.”

Shahid Ahmad, who runs a Web site called the Gun Geek said the process of getting a gun license in India is so burdensome that it encourages corruption. To hasten the process, he said, many applicants ask politicians to put in a word in their favor, or attempt to bribe officials and police officers.

I love the idea that they are quoting Heinlein!

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has been rabidly anti-gun-rights for as long as it has been published. So, it’s rather a sharp-right turn when they say they might support a concealed carry permit system. Of course, they strongly temper that with a list of requirements for stronger gun control laws to go along with finally allowing a natural right to be recognized. From today’s editorial:

Two prominent law enforcement officials are ready to back Wisconsinites’ ability to carry concealed handguns with a permit if the law includes tough gun regulations that have been hard to obtain.

We have long been opposed to concealed carry for Wisconsin. But an argument, being made by Milwaukee Police Chief Edward Flynn and District Attorney John Chisholm, makes sense to us. The state should have this law if it is truly part of a larger package that includes closing the gun show loophole, making it a felony to act as a straw buyer and also a felony to carry a concealed handgun without a permit.

[…]

Of course, such a new law won’t make all bad guys rethink guns. And if concealed-carry legislation is crafted, it should be done with reasonable access for law enforcement to the database so they can know who’s carrying; to the public so it can gauge whether the law is resulting in more death or injury; should mandate adequate firearms training for permit holders; and retain private property owners’ abilities to restrict guns from their premises (particularly bars).

First, it should be noted that Wisconsin is one of only two states (the other being Illinois) that do not permit law abiding citizens the ability to protect themselves when away from their home.

Now, I’ve written about Milwaukee’s Police Chief before, including his tepid support for CCW last October. As a compromise, of course. He doesn’t really want it but will concede it if it allows another bunch of gun control laws to go on the books.

So, what does the Sentinel Journal want in exchange for allowing a natural right?

First, closing the “gun show loophole” which — and DOJ statistics bear this out — is not a significant factor in guns used in crime. Making a “straw purchase” a felony? I have no problem with that. Making the carrying of a gun without a permit (i.e. the government’s permission to enjoy a natural right) a felony? I would be against that, too.

I included the last quoted paragraph because the Sentinel Journal would like access to a list of permit holders — a publicly available list is what they desire — so, while they would deny it, they would be able to publish that list. So, I’m against that, too.

Is the trade-off worth it? Should gun rights folks cede to such onerous gun control policies in exchange for finally being able to legally conceal carry in Wisconsin (BTW, you can bet it will be a “may issue” rather than a “shall issue” one) to protect yourself and your loved ones? Or, as the article points out about being caught carrying a concealed handgun — which is illegal but only a misdemeanor in the state — is it worth the risk of a “slap on the wrist” to keep things as they are — no new gun control laws and just “carry” at your own risk?

Consider this the “Open Forum” for today.

Even a year after Bush left office, some Democrat campaign ads are still trying to tie their candidates to GW Bush. Most smart analysts (even Democrat ones) are saying this no longer works (al la Massachusetts) but since Obama is currently in office, turn-about might:

The challenge will be to link Democrats with the administration on such issues as spending, bailouts, healthcare and cap-and-trade while not personally attacking Obama, who remains personally well-liked even as his standing erodes. So, at least in purple states or districts, don’t expect to see an ad where the faces of Democratic candidates are morphed into that of the president—a time-honored approach from past campaigns.

Obama’s favorables are below 50% so I think that it is a viable strategy.

On a side note: Alphecca is — obviously — primarily about the politics of and the media bias against gun rights. That said, I love following the political landscape in general. I eat that stuff up. Aside from our right to vote, most of us have little more power over what happens in Washington than we do over the outcome of the Super Bowl. The behind-doors deals, the lobbyist money, the local pork, the corruption, all of that — unfortunately — rules most of what happens in Congress. But, I certainly like being a spectator to and commentator of it.

I was following links relating to an email I received about a MA bill to study requiring GPS devices being installed in civilian owned firearms and came across this GOAL legislative chart regarding proposed gun control bills in the Bay State.

Sheesh, those folks have way too much time on their hands.

Note: Some of the proposed legislation is good for gun owners so it’s not all bad news.

I posted about it here.

Could Obama have signed his executive order as a step towards disarming us?

Recently the Obama Administration signaled through Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that it was interested in working with the UN on an international treaty to control firearms being sold across international borders. The action to give INTERPOL immunity from the U. S. Constitution (in this case the Second Amendment) is, according to this source, directly related to establishing the groundwork for an enforcement mechanism for such an international gun control treaty, the details of which are not settled yet, but it is apparent that to make any treaty work there would have to be an enforcement mechanism.

A bill, H. R. 4453, has been introduced in the House of Representatives to repeal Obama’s executive order.

If you’re running for the highest office in the state, you ought to at least know something about the state. From the Herald Banner:

Farouk Shami, a Democrat running for Texas governor, still has a lot to learn about state government.

The Houston hair care magnate couldn’t identify the state’s comptroller, attorney general or his own representatives when questioned during a Thursday interview with the Austin American-Statesman editorial board.

Sounds like a candidate for Jay Leno’s “Jay Walking” segment.

“May issue” is discriminatory. Some in Iowa are striving for civil rights:

Several Iowa gun rights groups are working to change the way concealed weapons permits are issued by local sheriffs.

Sean McClanahan, president of Iowa Carry, a Clive-based gun rights organization, said his group is working to change Iowa law from a “may issue” to a “shall issue” system.

Under current law, each sheriff has broad discretion in whether or not they issue permits to carry.

Under a shall issue system, the sheriff would have to grant the permit to an applicant who has taken the required training, passed a background check and is not otherwise disqualified.

Iowa Carry would also like to change state law so that the required training is standardized across the state.

Finally, some common sense:

Republican Party leaders on Friday quashed an effort to impose a political litmus test on its candidates, sidestepping a fight that threatened to divide the GOP and highlighted a split between purists and pragmatists over how best to steer the party in 2010 and beyond.

[…]

. . . the more pressing and politically vital question before the 168 members of the Republican National Committee was a proposal that would have required candidates to take prescribed positions on at least eight of 10 core issues, including support for smaller government and lower taxes, and opposition to same-sex marriage and gun control. Any candidate who failed to pass muster would have been denied funding and organizational support from the RNC.

Even though the policy positions were generally in line with Republican orthodoxy, many in the party were put off by the notion of imposing an ideological checklist — especially as the GOP works to expand support by reaching out to independents and more centrist voters.

“I don’t think it is, or should be, the position of the Republican National Committee to sit on high judgment of someone’s credentials to be a candidate,” Chairman Michael Steele told reporters. “We are about addition and multiplication, not subtraction and division.”

While it would be nice to be assured that everyone running under the Republican banner supports unfettered gun rights, having a whole list of what you must support or not support would eliminate the chance to elect Republicans in some states such as NY, NJ, and of course — Massachusetts.

If Republicans can regain the majority in Congress, it will be easier to put the skids on some of the Democrats’ socialistic plans.