:: Rossnordeen.com ::

This is a test post, please ignore.

The Fairmont Papers: Black Alternatives Conference December 1980

Judicial Activism Reconsidered

:: 9:31 AM ::
...

And now a bad article on guns: "Fire at Will" is an article in The Nation by Jon Weiner, defending the work of discredited historian Michael Bellesiles. Clayton Cramer comments here and Instapundit has comments here and here.

:: 10:14 PM ::
...

Three good articles on gun control today, both mention ballistic fingerprinting. Thomas Sowell writes in "The sniper and the gun controllers" that:

Gun control laws would no more have stopped the current sniper than they stop innumerable other gun crimes in places with some of the strongest gun control laws in the country. Even the latest nostrum of the gun controllers -- ballistic "fingerprinting" of each gun that is sold -- already exists in Maryland, where this orgy of murder began.

There is no record of anyone's ever having been convicted of any crime as a result of this procedure. People who know something about guns -- which many gun controllers do not -- have pointed out how easy it is to change a gun's ballistic "fingerprint." But the real bottom line is that this law has no track record of working.

And Jacob Sullum points out in "Fingerprint Resistance" that:

[A} gun's "fingerprint" changes with use, and it can be deliberately altered by switching parts or scraping the inside of the barrel. Criminals who don't know how to doctor their weapons can simply use one of the 200 million or so guns already in circulation. And even if they use a gun whose signature is on file, they can escape detection if they steal it or buy it from a source other than a gun store, which is what they usually do anyway.

Finally, Steve Milloy asks, "How Reliable Is Ballistic Fingerprinting?".

:: 10:09 PM ::
...

This is sufficiently funny that it's worth putting on both my blogs: If you missed last night's Late Show with David Letterman, you missed Robert A. Mundell, 1999 Nobel Prize Winner in Economics, read "Top Ten Ways My Life Has Changed Since Winning The Nobel Prize".

:: 7:17 PM ::
...

Glenn Reynolds says that the right to keep and bear arms should be "The Next International Right".

:: 10:42 PM ::
...

In "Q and A With Ted Galen Carpenter", the Cato Institute scholar answers questions about Middle East and possible war with Iraq. When will the warbloggers denounce Carpenter as an idiotarian?

:: 10:19 PM ::
...

Steve Chapman points out that the Cuban misile crisis, wasn't a crisis at all in "Missing the Point on the Cuban Missile Crisis":

Missiles based in Cuba could hit their targets in America much quicker, but that had no real significance. It didn't change the important thing: The Soviet Union lacked the firepower to take out our entire nuclear force in a surprise attack. So if they used their nukes first, they would be inviting us to incinerate their entire country.

Chapman points out the relevance to today's problems:

So what are the true lessons that can illuminate how we handle Saddam Hussein?

The first is that we shouldn't exaggerate the danger posed by nuclear weapons in the hands of hostile regimes. The second is that those governments may want such armaments for self-preservation rather than aggression. The third is that we shouldn't go to war to address a danger that we can easily suppress with our nuclear arsenal. All three undermine the case for attacking Iraq.

Read the whole thing.

:: 6:01 AM ::
...

Dave Kopel & James Swan write about anti-hunting propaganda in "Shot Through the Heart".

:: 10:33 PM ::
...

Stefan Sharkansky says "Justin Raimondo Discovers His Calling".

:: 9:45 PM ::
...

If you're looking for photos from last Thursday's get-together at Gregory's, they're right here.

:: 11:08 AM ::
...

Ivan Eland points out that "Declassified CIA Report Undercuts Bush's Desire to Invade Iraq":

The CIA's newly declassified judgments on the likelihood of Iraq's use of weapons of mass destruction severely undercut the Bush administration's case for attacking Iraq. The CIA noted that Iraq now appears to be deterred from initiating terrorist attacks against the United States with conventional, biological or chemical weapons. But if the United States invades Iraq and attempts to depose Hussein, the CIA concluded that he would be more likely to conduct such attacks.

Gee, so attacking Iraq might have the opposite effect that we hope for? Who could have guessed that a government invervention might not turn out they way government bureaucrats promised?

:: 10:12 AM ::
...

I've you've come here looking for the Frankie's pre-reunion pictures, they are right here.

:: 10:08 AM ::
...

Happy Columbus Day, everyone! Be sure to read "A Libertarian Looks at Columbus Day".

:: 10:05 AM ::
...

"Confessions of a Serial President Hater" is an amusing cartoon by Peter Bagge from the latest issue of Reason. I love the titles of the fictitious books referenced: I'm Back! by G. Cleveland, A Bloke Named Polk, Impeached! The Andrew Johnson Story and many more.

:: 9:59 AM ::
...

In "Six Republicans Against", Alex Whitlock writes about the six Republican Congressmen who voted against the recent Congressional authorization to use force against Iraq.

Spotted via Off the Kuff.

:: 6:55 PM ::
...

Blogatelle's Hubby has some great advice on unarmed self-defense in "You Are The Boss Of You", but he is a bit too dismissive of carrying a handgun for self-protection.

:: 10:07 AM ::
...