Remember, They Don’t Want To Ban Guns

The New York Daily News notes:

Even President Obama, for most of his career a supporter of restrictions on firearms possession, has failed on two occasions – his Tucson and State of the Union speeches – to mention one of the most obvious reforms, the banning of semiautomatic weapons likeJared Lee Loughner‘s Glock and the high-capacity clip he used.

The Glock 19 is one of the most common pistols out there, and the New York Daily News thinks banning it is an “obvious reform.” I eagerly await the Brady Campaign to condemn this as a measure that just goes too far. They go on to say the power of the NRA is really caused by our faulty system of American Government, which places too much emphasis on making sure the interests of minorities are protected.

Who are the radical whack jobs here again?

This is a New Idea?

Time To Study Gun Violence As Public Health Issue,” followed by whining that NRA is killing publicly funded anti-gun research. You know, you can still raise private money to do this kind of research:

And here is where I say I am not anti-gun, though I have a severe prejudice against willful ignorance. I would not ban guns, but I would favor a healthy examination of our gun culture.

It’s not willful ignorance. We know exactly what we are doing and we would be fools not to try to prevent this woman from getting our tax dollars to do research on this topic. My constitutional rights don’t depend on the outcome of any study, and I intend to keep it that way. Plus, “our gun culture,” is none of your goddamned business to begin with.

Kristof’s Car Analogy is Epic Fail

This is a favorite of our opposition, so it’s not surprising that Nicholas Kristof  of the New York Times tries to make an analogy that’s so incredibly bereft of any subject matter knowledge of either side of the analogy, it renders the entire point utterly ridiculous. A proper analogy to the assault weapons issue, turned to cars, would be relabeling sports cars as “death vehicles.” Let me write a hypothetical newspaper article, using the correct analogy.

After a series of high profile, mutli-car accidents, which have caused dozens of fatalities, the environmental group American Council to Ban Automobiles has renamed itself in honor Ashley Brandy, a nine year old girl, killed when the minivan her mother was driving collided at high speed with a so-called “death vehicle.” Now named the Brandy Campaign to Prevent Automobile Fatalities, the group plans an aggressive lobbying campaign to ban these types of death vehicles in Congress. Several years ago, citing environmental concerns, ACBA proposed outlawing all vehicles capable of exceeding 65 miles per hour. That proposal met with cool reception in the halls of Congress. While polling showed lukewarm support among the public for banning automobiles that can exceed 65 miles per hour, it has shown that the public does support laws to limit the availability of death vehicles. Advocates have pointed out these cars have no purpose other than to drive at unsafe speeds, and risk killing other motorists.

Several years ago, California became the first state in the nation to outlaw death vehicles. Similar to the California law, the bill currently being advanced in Congress will ban certain excessively fast automobiles by name.  Congress has also, much like their California counterparts, examined features common to these cars, and banned certain combinations of features from appearing on vehicles. Under the current bill it will be unlawful to manufacture, sell, or transfer an automobile with any two of the following features:

  • Spoiler
  • Air scoops
  • Low profile tires,
  • Body panels made of 60% or more composite material by volume
  • Bright red body color
  • Rotating headlights
  • Three or fewer passenger seats.

Congress has also, at the urging of  The Brandy Campaign, added a section to the bill that limits any automobile with V or higher rated tires from having an internal gasoline tank greater than five gallons. “We believe this is an important aspect of the bill,” said Saul Henke, a spokesman for the Brandy Campaign, “This way even if someone drives his death machine at an unsafe speed, he or she won’t be able travel very far before having to stop to refuel, giving authorities or other motorists a chance to catch up and intervene.”

Mr. Henke also expressed concerns that the proposed law does not go far enough. “Because the bill doesn’t ban certain engine configurations, manufactures may easily skirt these restrictions, and continue to make dangerously fast cars. We’ve been working with our allies in Congress in an attempt to close this dangerous loophole.”

Sports car enthusiasts, along with the National Motorists Association, have been attempting to fight the ban. “Sports cars are driven responsibly by millions of Americans every day, and enthusiasm for these machines is as American as Apple Pie,” said NMA Executive Vice President Duane LaPerrier, “The notion that these vehicles have no purpose than driving at dangerous speeds and killing families in minivans is ludicrous.” When asked why anyone had a need for a car that could drive so fast, LaPerrier pointed out, “You’ll still have fast cars, even with this ban. The only thing this will accomplish is putting good people in jail, for such things as adding a fiberglass panel to their car, or buying a spoiler with low profile tires.”

The Brandy Campaign dismissed the idea, noting “Ordinary motorists have nothing to fear from this bill. By banning these deadly cars, we’ll save the lives of hundreds of children in this country. Over 33,000 people die in automobile accidents each year, many of them children.” The NMA has called for better enforcement of the nation’s traffic laws, and harsh penalties for those who drive automobiles irresponsibly. Critics have pointed out that the National Motorist Association has ties to the automobile industry, and represents only a fraction of American Drivers.

Pundits believe the Ashley Brandy Automotive Safety Act will be passed by Congress at the end of the year. The President made banning death vehicles part of his platform, so proponents of automobile safety should be getting a Christmas present from Congress that’s sure to warm their holidays.

That, Mr. Kristof, is how it’s done. And looking at it that way, do you see why people who enjoy sports cars responsibly might be a little insulted, and a little upset? Do you get now why gun owners take advocacy for these laws very personally? This article sounds like it was written in Bizarro world, and in the real world people would laugh any such proposal out of Congress, but that’s exactly what the assault weapons debate is, in the context of cars. What’s the difference? Everyone is familiar with automobiles and driving. Not everyone is familiar with guns, including many people who own them.

Mental Health Break

This time of year, I sure do miss the bright sun. The snow’s been coming down often enough I’m running out of places to pile it next to the driveway. This past snow was about a foot, and heavy. I had to give it a good heave to get it behind the current pile. Perhaps for this reason I’ve had this song stuck in my head:

Below are the lyrics, both in the original Neapolitan language, and the English translation.

Neapolitan lyrics

Che bella cosa e’ na jurnata ‘e sole
n’aria serena doppo na tempesta!
Pe’ ll’aria fresca pare già na festa
Che bella cosa e’ na jurnata ‘e sole

Ma n’atu sole,
cchiù bello, oje ne’
‘O sole mio
sta ‘nfronte a te!
‘O sole, ‘o sole mio
sta ‘nfronte a te!
sta ‘nfronte a te!

Quanno fa notte e ‘o sole se ne scenne,
me vene quase ‘na malincunia;
sotto ‘a fenesta toia restarria
quanno fa notte e ‘o sole se ne scenne.

Ma n’atu sole,
cchiù bello, oje ne’
‘O sole mio
sta ‘nfronte a te!
‘O sole, ‘o sole mio
sta ‘nfronte a te!
sta ‘nfronte a te!

English translation

What a beautiful thing is a sunny day,
The air is serene after a storm
The air’s so fresh it already feels like a celebration
What a beautiful thing is a sunny day

But another sun,
that’s brighter still
It’s my own sun
that’s upon your face!
The sun, my own sun
It’s upon your face!
It’s upon your face!

When night comes and the sun has gone down,
I almost start feeling melancholy;
I’d stay below your window
When night comes and the sun has gone down.

But another sun,
that’s brighter still
It’s my own sun
that’s upon your face!
The sun, my own sun
It’s upon your face!
It’s upon your face!

Always Recruiting for the Cause

I kind of miss the gun-themed custom license plates I’d see around Northern Virginia. There was a minivan with AR15FAN. One vehicle driving out of a shopping plaza near my old apartment had a Virginia NRA plate with LFE MBR. Another truck in the NRA parking lot had HCI LIES. So I am amused that a blog dedicated to amusing custom plates found this one by someone who is hopefully a recruiter:


(Photo courtesy of GR8 PL8S.)

Expanded Parking Lot Laws

NRA is pushing a law in Indiana that would prohibit employers from asking about gun ownership on job applications. I’m guessing because employers have started doing this in response to the parking lot law. So one intrusion into private relationships between employers and employees begets another.

Why isn’t the proper answer to that question “None of your damned business.” Sure, maybe you won’t get hired, but there are worse things. If I saw that question on an application I’d walk out of the place. No government need be involved.

I understand these types of restrictions are common in employment law, but having had to sit through entire seminars on how to interview people, and what you can and can’t talk about, we don’t need yet more of this. It’s already hard enough when someone comes in and starts talking about their dog, sitting there thinking “Can we talk about dogs legally?”

Flipping the Switch

Interesting discussion over at Instapundit on what to do when your government flips off the Internet in an attempt to squash dissent. Ham Radio has become something old people do, to some degree, but it would be the logical backup. Personally, I think once the Government is switching off the Internet to squash dissent, is when it’s time to start thinking about a backup plan that involves hot lead.

Research Funding

The Philadelphia Stinkquirer is joining the New York Times in demanding funding for anti-gun research. This is one case where my opinions on this issue are driven entirely by the motivations of our opponents. Ideally I think better information is a positive thing, and transparency in government is certainly a worthy goal. In a different world, a world where the Courts took Second Amendment rights seriously, and made a habit of striking down stupid gun laws, I’d have little issue with trace data being public, or public money going to fund neutral research into what policies were effective and which ones weren’t.

But the people who want this the most are looking to undermine Second Amendment rights to the greatest extent they can. Since we have the political power to deny them the data and funding they need, we’d be foolish not to do it. So the answer is no, we can’t allow “health experts cannot study ways to reduce the risk of deadly gun violence,” because too many people have a fore drawn conclusion as to what the answer is.

Castle Doctrine: Senate This Time?

Senator Alloway has introduced the Castle Doctrine once again. Since the Senate is where it ran into trouble last session, it makes sense to start out there, though I’d be surprised it there won’t be a concurrent effort in the House. Hopefully with Corbett behind the effort, we won’t run into as many snags, and this can get passed quickly.