Much Ado About Nothing -- Gun Raffle Edition

The Pima County Republican Party held a raffle in order to raise money for get-out-the-vote efforts. The raffle prize was a Glock 23 pistol. Raffling off guns is fairly common and normally passes without much reaction, except from the more rabid gun-haters. But in this case Pima county happens to be the same one in which Representative Gabrielle Giffords was shot. Even though deranged lunatic Jared Loughner shot her, many people appear to think the inanimate object, a similar type of Glock handgun was to blame. Since she was shot with a Glock handgun, the Glock brand must be tainted with evil. How dare those Republicans raffle off the same brand? This just proves how evil Republicans are, or at best, that they are totally insensitive jerks.

To those of us who don't assign some sort of taint to brands of inanimate objects because they happened to be used by killers, this is much ado about nothing. From a purely political perspective, the raffle was a bad idea, precisely because this sort of reaction should have been entirely predictable. But that doesn't mean the reaction is justified, or based on anything more than the usual stupidity regarding guns.

Arizona's Immigration Law

I haven't posted anything about it until now because illegal immigration is not a hot-button issue of mine. I favor greatly-expanded legal immigration from Mexico and other Latin American countries, and support an amnesty program that would allow current illegal residents to obtain citizenship. In general, I think the vast majority of illegal immigrants benefit the U.S. and our economy. But having said all that, I don't have a major problem with the Arizona law -- if I understand it correctly.

Border states such as Arizona do have serious problems caused by illegal immigration. The federal government has failed to control the border, and the states have to act on their own. Although I am inherently suspicious of any increase in police powers, it appears that the Arizona law merely allows/requires police to enforce existing immigration law, although certain specific provisions might not stand up under court scrutiny. I see nothing to warrant the hysterical, borderline crazy overreaction by the usual suspects. Byron York, writing in the Washington Examiner, does a good job debunking some of the apparently misinformed criticism.