search
top

Weekly Gun News – Edition 58

There hasn’t been quite enough news to get these out every week. But here goes:

You know all the stories about gun sales tanking post Trump? Fake News.

Also, you know the story about how the NRA was never political before the 1977 Cincinnati Revolt? Fake News.

We seem to have a bad track record with these reality TV gun shows.

YouTube is choking the ad revenue out of gun related channels. Google is turning out to be far more evil than Microsoft ever was. Microsoft just wanted to preserve its monopoly. It crushed competitors, not political dissent, and not subcultures. Of course, maybe getting us away from doing this to make money would be a good thing: “The difference between the social media folks and bloggers is the latter owned their content and delivery system. The social media types don’t own and are dependent on the delivery system someone else owns. And it’s their house and their rules.”

More along those lines here.

This might have something to do with trying to stamp out the gun culture via institutions the left controls.

The Federalist: “How The Fourth Circuit’s Support For ‘Assault Weapon’ Bans May End Them” I see a lot of this stuff in Right media. Repeat after me: Gorsuch doesn’t change anything. This was a holding action at best. Whoever is the weak link in the Heller majority is still on the Court.

Everytown and Moms Demand keep floating the figure that ordinary Americans support the permitting system. Well, if you asked me that, I’d think “No” meaning “No, I don’t think people should be able to get licenses to carry concealed firearms,” rather than “No” meaning “I don’t think people should be required to get licenses to carry in order to carry firearms, concealed or otherwise.” I’ve never seen one of their polls that asks the question the right way.

Tam on training and preparedness.

Seriously, I don’t get people who turn themselves in after discovering they got past TSA with a gun. The cops don’t care that you’re good person, or that you did the “right thing” in coming forward. All you’re doing is confessing to a crime. It’s amazing to me this day in age people still believe this kind of fairy tale. If you ever find yourself in such a situation, you’re not going to hold up or hijack the plane are you? No? Then keep your mouth shut, count your blessings, and be more careful next time.

Mike Kelly is throwing his name out there to run against Casey.

Can you believe this is in Slate: “The Second Amendment vs. the Fourth Amendment.

23 Responses to “Weekly Gun News – Edition 58”

  1. SPQR says:

    None of us who dealt with Wyatt were surprised.

  2. Whetherman says:

    “Also, you know the story about how the NRA was never political before the 1977 Cincinnati Revolt?”

    I think I can comment because I was well into adulthood by 1977, had been an NRA member for well over a decade, and a Life Member for several years at the time: I noticed no significant difference, by which I mean, the NRA had been very involved politically before, and remained very politically involved, afterward. That’s stating things simply, but honestly. It was how the average member saw things.

    I remember in particular the legislative columns in the American Rifleman, plus the regular features “A Court Case of Consequence” and “The Armed Citizen,” the latter feature intended to illustrate for political purposes the positive utility of arms in the hands of ordinary citizens for defending society.

    The one specific “political” memory I have is, when the NRA endorsed a candidate for president for the first time, in 1980 — Ronald Reagan. I remember getting a chill. I was an adamant supporter of Reagan, but in my gut thought the new foray into strictly partisan politics would prove to be bad news. With hindsight I have always thought I was right; with the endorsement of Trump, I knew it.

  3. Whetherman says:

    “Seriously, I don’t get people who turn themselves in. . .”

    I suspect people who do things like that were never kids, and if they were, were the kind who never had any experiences with cops; so they still believe everything they learned from their Officer Friendly coloring books.

    • Sebastian says:

      My parents were both pretty actively involved in the town I grew up in. But maybe that’s why I never had illusions. That and I had Uncles who weren’t really “bad” kids, but weren’t angels enough to have not had any unpleasant contact with law enforcement.

      • Whetherman says:

        I suppose there are at least two ways to learn reality; one is to have an “involved” family that knows what really goes on; the other is by personal experience. Or of course, a combination of both.

        Learning by experience, yet coming through mostly unscathed (that is, without a record) is probably unusual, but I had luck in that regard. Of course I never actually did anything criminal, but non-criminality guarantees nothing at all.

    • Sebastian says:

      The worst I ever got was getting pulled over for no good reason driving my dad’s truck because my dad was in a personal dispute with one of the town cops, and thought it was my dad driving.

      • Whetherman says:

        Driving trucks and cars that were mostly old beaters, when I was young, I got pulled over many times for no apparent reason; though as long as “my papers were in order” I would be sent on my way after a bit of harassment. It was very noticeable how that changed as I became more affluent.

        From that grew my theory that the appearance of powerlessness is what affects police behavior. My theory is it is mainly economic powerlessness that they home in on, but, racial stereotyping also probably feeds into that. Being white, I have no data points on that.

  4. Alien says:

    Repeat after me: Gorsuch doesn’t change anything.

    Amen.

    It will take some time to confirm, but indications are Gorsuch is merely a 1:1 exchange for Scalia. It will be the next couple of appointments that are the critical ones. And, given the Leftist hysteria on Gorsuch, we’d better start preparing the Repubs now to stay “manned up” because it’s going to get ugly.

    • Richard says:

      There are only two candidates for the weak link-Kennedy and Roberts. I personally think it is Roberts but Kennedy is possible. He seemed good in the oral arguments on Heller but he is erratic. If he retires as is rumored, we are about to find out.

    • Whetherman says:

      “And, given the Leftist hysteria on Gorsuch…”

      Sincere question: Why do you call it “hysteria,” as opposed to just, strong opposition based on issues he embraces and they oppose?

      Is that much different from our side, which seems to be basing virtually orgasmic ecstasy (that phrase deliberately chosen to be as hyperbolic as “leftist hysteria”) over the guy because he once quoted what someone else said that was positive about gun rights?

      There seems to be plenty of bullshit to go around with this SCOTUS Justice business, and plenty of suckers to shovel it on both sides.

      • Ian Argent says:

        Good point. We’ve gotten to a stage in partisan politics where a SCOTUS pick for one party who is a compromise candidate among the various wings of that party’s coalition can be described non-hyperbolically as an existential threat to the platform planks of a chunk of the wings of the other party.

        • arew says:

          Unfortunately, following the Constitution has become an existential risk to the platform of the Democratic Party… seeing as how their party embraces gun bans, bans on political speech, compulsion for private individuals to violate their religious beliefs etc.

        • Brad says:

          Link

          The left’s response to a nominee of Gorsuch’s caliber makes plain that the issue in their confirmation battles is not the judge. How could it be? The Senate unanimously confirmed this graduate of Columbia, Harvard Law and Oxford University to the appellate court just ten years ago. His opinions there have been models of precision and erudition, principle and collegiality. Small wonder that liberals who know him, like Neal K. Katyal, President Obama’s former acting solicitor general, are making the case for Gorsuch’s confirmation.

          No, all the hysteria is about the proper role of judges – and how judges should judge – in our system of government.

          The left wants judges who act like legislators or delegates to a perpetual constitutional convention, minting new rights and powers that reflect their personal feelings and policy choices. It also wants judges who give the Executive Branch “experts” in today’s vast, over-regulating administrative state the power to make law.

          • Whetherman says:

            “The left wants judges who act like legislators…”

            That wouldn’t be anything like the right supporting Gorsuch because (they claim) he can be expected to play a role in reversing Roe v. Wade, or withdrawing federal protection for same-sex marriage, would it?

            Heading either direction, what you have is people who want SCOTUS justices who will “legislate from the bench.” When the other guys do it, they’re “activist judges.” When your own guys do it, they’re restoring eminent constitutional sense, and defending what The Founders clearly intended.

            I forget how many years ago I started saying, “I’m so tired of bullshit, I’m even tired of our own bullshit.”

      • Brad says:

        Because there’s nothing hysterical about damning Gorsuch as a “radical, right-wing, extremist”!

        http://site.pfaw.org/site/MessageViewer?dlv_id=97628&em_id=74412.0

        Plenty more to find, just from googling ‘anti gorsush hysteria’

      • dittybopper says:

        Seems to me that a person who was confirmed just 10 years ago by unanimous voice vote for a circuit seat can’t be that bad as is being made out. If he’s so bad that he can’t sit on the Supreme Court, then he’s got no business being on the farm team, either.

        The truth of the matter is that the opposition to Gorsuch wasn’t really because of any positions he has, it was payback for not considering Merrick Garland, pure and simple. That, and because Donald Trump nominated him, having had the temerity to actually win the election.

  5. Immediately go out to the unsecure area and take that gun to the car.

  6. Truth Lives Here says:

    “Seriously, I don’t get people who turn themselves in. . .”

    I found myself in a similar situation many years ago. I forgot to remove my Ruger LCP from my pants pocket before walking my 2nd grade daughter into her school. When halfway to her classroom I discovered it still in my pocket. I just walked her to her classroom, gave her a hug and kiss and then walked out. Last thing I would do would be to stop at the office and confess my MISTAKE and risk jail/fines/loss of professional license.

    • Alpheus says:

      A comment on an article at Reason talked about finding a .40 S&W round in his pocket just before going through the metal detectors. He couldn’t back out at this point, so he found an empty pocket tray and then cupped the round in his hand and told the TSA agent “I found this in that pocket tray over there.”

      As he walked away, he found the scrambling the TSA agents were doing over a single bullet amusing…

  7. Alpheus says:

    “””We seem to have a bad track record with these reality TV gun shows.”””

    I decided to look at the comments at that article, and noticed two explanations that could be offered for this (and they could easily go hand-in-hand).

    First (one which I didn’t consider), that Reality TV tends to attract crazy, attention-seeking dirt bags, and Reality TV producers seek such people so that (1) they can stretch out the entertainment value, and (2) so they could show interest in guns in a bad light.

    Second, the laws in general are awful and complex enough that most of us have likely committed acts that can be prosecuted as felonies. The only thing that’s keeping us from being prosecuted is that there isn’t some Prosecuting Attorney who’s out to make our lives miserable. Anti-gun prosecutors can’t help but be drawn to the people who put themselves on such shows.

    • Ian Argent says:

      Top Shot managed, what, 4 seasons and a “repeat contestants” season with exactly one obvious drama llama (and he arguably killed the show).

      Could be the exception that proves the rule, though.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

top