search
top

Wednesday News Links

It’s time to clear the tabs and RSS feed out again, so here’s the news:

Gun News:

Here’s the press coverage of the protest-counter-protest this past Monday. They weren’t evenly matched groups, but it was impossible to tell that because our side didn’t have a plan and they did. More here at Levittown Now, which has better coverage.

I have to agree with SayUncle, it’s not like we didn’t know Hillary was anti-gun. Her problem is that she has no legacy. Everything she’s tried has been a failure. The big problem the Dems face is they’ve burned up all their political talent, and political talent matters more than most other things.

2014 Boomershoot fireball!

Mostly wins in Florida for us this year.

Did the NRA convention cause a dip in teen crime?

Looks like the unity at the Bundy Ranch is falling apart. Here’s an article that talks about how close this situation came to a bloodbath.

Mass shooting averted? These never get much press. Not a high enough body count.

NRA’s statement on “Operation Choke Point.”

Dave Kopel talks about “Smart” guns, and how armed jews saved lives.

Jim Geraghty: The left’s war against the gun culture.

A 12-year-old girl successfully protects herself from a home invader with a .40 caliber Glock. Meanwhile, gun control groups would like to put parents like her’s in prison for allowing her access to a firearm. I’d also note if smart guns were mandated, she’d likely have been successfully kidnapped.

Miguel is also unhappy with Alan Gottlieb’s rehashing of Manchin-Toomey. One thing I would mention is that Coburn was kicked out of the negotiations with Schumer et al, meaning they rejected his amendment. No one really got behind his amendment because it wasn’t going to satisfy anyone.

Charles C.W. Cooke: The terminal vagueness of “Everytown”.

I don’t think too highly of firearms as a fashion statement, but this probably has enough Chicago establishment types in a fit I’ll give it a pass.

S.E. Cupp: Bloomberg’s Everytown will make more enemies than supporters.

Another anti-gun protester tries to stifle free expression.

Common sense calls for the repeal of the Second Amendment, according to Jerry Large of the Seattle Times.

Important cultural distinctions between the land culture of the east and west.

Gun safety moms hope to be 2014s soccer moms. Aren’t they already the same thing?

Legislative:

New Jersey’s magazine and gun ban continues to move forward, now in the Senate.

There’s a movement to impeach Attorney General Kathleen Kane. Given who’s heading up this, I’m not sure anyone takes it seriously.

Bozos in Gun News:

If you’re going to OC your AR-15, in your hands, I might add, and not slung, you should do us all a favor and not be drunk and belligerent.

Threatening local businesses is usually not a good way to gain sympathy for your cause. Neither operating checkpoints.

Journalism!:

The Augusta Chronicle thinks federal reciprocity is unlikely. Clearly they haven’t been paying attention to the vote tallies when this has come up.

Off Topic:

Not good results in the primaries yesterday for the tea party.The North Carolina results are a strong indication that the GOP rank and file is undergoing a shift from prioritizing purity to prizing victory.” Purity doesn’t do you any good if you can’t get elected.

Looks like a lot of tea party groups are doing mostly nothing to actually advance the cause electorally. The worst thing the Tea Party could do is become subsumed by the DC money changers.

13 Responses to “Wednesday News Links”

  1. mike says:

    RE: Repealing the 2nd Amendment.

    I think the way to move forward on this is to propose two constitutional amendments – one strengthening the 2nd Amendment and one weakening or repealing it. Then see whose grassroots win. I imagine even the threat of that would shut down any 2A constitutional amendment/repeal talk for a while.

    Alinsky’s make them live by their own rules and all that..

  2. RP says:

    Hillary’s statements have me feeling queasy. I don’t want to deal with 4-8 more years of this bullshit.

    Its upsetting that multiple left-leaning gun owners have told me Hillary won’t be so bad because Congress will block her gun control. Even if that’s true, we’ll still be stuck with her rabidly anti-gun appointees to federal courts, vetoes of anything remotely pro-gun, more buying panics, executive orders, reinforcing the perception that being anti-gun isn’t a campaign-killer, etc, etc.

    Of course ranting in opposition to CCW is stupid considering how mainstream it has become. She should keep her mouth shut about CCW and keep her rhetoric limited to background checks. There are over 1mm license holders in each of PA and FL. Not sure about OH, but I’m sure its significant. But keep pissing off huge voting blocs in critical swing states, Hil.

  3. Bitter says:

    RE: “No one really got behind [Coburn’s] amendment because it wasn’t going to satisfy anyone.”

    I would argue that none of the anti-gunners looking for more ways to trap gun owners got on board because it was clear cut and easy to understand. I also think he introduced it too late into the debate. Ultimately, we beat everything for the time being, but I think Coburn should lead on the issue and round up the GOP support first if this comes up again since he has already thrown it out there. Then, bring the borderline Dems on board, and Schumer doesn’t get to control the playing field anymore.

    • Sebastian says:

      I think the reason it came late in the debate is because we don’t really want to help them pass anything if we don’t have to. Every time we beat this issue back, it gets us through the next crisis. Coburn’s proposal is a bone to be thrown when we can’t hold them off any longer. Once it seemed we could beat everything, it had no appeal to our side, and it never had appeal to our opponents.

      • RP says:

        Coburn’s proposal is a bone to be thrown when we can’t hold them off any longer.

        I don’t think that’s a viable strategy. If the situation is such that we’re struggling to hold them off, they’ll have too much leverage to entertain any proposals that aren’t highly favorable to them. If the antis think they have a good change of getting a gun control bill passed, they are going to laugh at something like Coburn’s proposal.

        If we’re going to have a UBC law that isn’t a steaming pile, it would have to be preemptive as Allan Gottlieb advocates. Preemptive as in before we’re in a situation like the Newton aftermath. Using it as an in-case-of-emergency measure won’t work.

        • Sebastian says:

          Most of the time, legislative processes don’t work all the quickly. There was sufficient time in the 90s to water down the AWB, and despite the best efforts of the antis over the years, we did manage to get a instant background check bill rather than the lengthy waiting periods they originally wanted.

          After Virginia Tech, we had a successful “in-case-of-emergency” measure pass. We had never before preemptively offered a bill to deal with mental health records. The Brady Campaign ended up declaring victory, even though we got a lot more out of the deal than they did.

          I also believe the House being in Republican hands gave us a lot more breathing room than if the House were also controlled by the Democrats. Had something passed the Senate, there was a good chance we could use a House version of Coburn to roll up enough votes to get that out there. Then the Senate would be in a position to have to decide on the House version, and pass something, or take a total loss.

  4. Regarding Billary…………..doesn’t matter who she is, what she is, what’s she done or not done, or has a legacy or not…..all that matter’s is that she’s a Democrat. This will be yet another lesson that politics are like pro wresting…Democrats are the WWE selling out Wrestlemania MONTHS before it’s announced who will be appearing, while Republicans are the small wrestling bouts in the local VFW hall struggling to get people to come see wrestlers whose glory faded away 10 years ago or so…..

    Get ready for eight years of 90s flashbacks.

  5. beatbox says:

    I think we should push people to go on the record as to why they oppose the Coburn approach. I’ve done this with a few people and invariably they end up saying “Because there is no way to track who owns the gun!”

    But…..I thought Manchin was not registration?

  6. Andy B. says:

    Thanks for the link to the story about Metcalfe’s attempt to impeach Kane. I had heard about, but hadn’t gotten around to searching for any articles about it.

    Metcalfe must be a bigger smacked ass than I had thought. I wouldn’t shed any tears over Kane’s impeachment, but Metcalfe would have a much stronger position if he just focused on her quashing of the sting operation — which sounds so politically dicey that it even makes committed Democrats queasy — and didn’t try to link impeachment to her refusal to enforce the ban on same-sex marriage, which position is a positive with a good many people. Also, the quashing of the sting operation at least has a chance of having involved some actual impeachable criminal actions on Kane’s part, where declining to enforce a widely unpopular law, while citing the constitution, sounds within the realm of legitimate prosecutorial discretion.

    Given those things, Metcalfe’s initiative smacks of being nothing more than an election year charade to wow the folks back in his district — who must be an odd lot, considering that a jackass like Metcalfe keeps getting reelected.

  7. Scott says:

    Purity doesn’t do any good if you can’t get elected.

    But if you get elected and don’t do any good what was the point?

    Simply to say “our side” won? So what.

    Run on principle. If elected govern on principle.

    If the majority want to elect the other guy we can’t stop them. But we can give them a honest choice.

    That doesn’t mean trying to get crackpots elected, just that we get rid of the CINO’s and find people who will do more than pay lip service to the principles.

    • Sebastian says:

      You make a good point, but choices in politics aren’t binary between “good” and “evil.” I can offer one anecdotal example. George W. Bush was far from perfect on many issues, the least of which was RKBA. He sailed into office supporting the Assault Weapons Ban. Yet if it hadn’t been for Alito and Roberts being appointed to the high court, almost everyone agrees Heller would have lost, and that would have been the end of the Second Amendment.

      If McCain had won in 2008, even if he’d have been a one termer, we’d still likely have two more votes for the Second Amendment on the Court, since Kagan and Sotomayor would not, probably at worst, be one more, if not two more votes in our favor.

      You can do a lot of good through imperfect candidates, and we’ve suffered a lot through the quest for the perfect. What you want to do is look to move the ball more in the direction you want. If you hold out for the perfect candidate, you’re probably just handing your mortal enemies an easy victory.

      • Richard says:

        Given that Stevens, Souter and Burger were appointed by Republican Presidents, I think this is an unwarranted assumption. Might have happened the way you said or might not. Considering Stevens recent anti-2nd Amendment activism does not inspire confidence.

  8. Alpheus says:

    “If you’re going to OC your AR-15, in your hands, I might add, and not slung, you should do us all a favor and not be drunk and belligerent.”

    I completely agree with this sentiment, but what amazes me is that the article specifically states that hundreds of people OC without being belligerent or drunk. I consider this a good sign!

    (Normally I’d expect a news article to be silent on the subject of good behavior of “gun nuts”, if not outright implying that this is a typical example of a gun advocate…)

top