I don’t ordinarily do anti-endorsements for NRA Board members, but I have been known to make exceptions. This is one of those exceptions: It’s time for Ted Nugent to be off the NRA Board of Directors, now that he’s doubled down on his previous statement of calling President Obama a “subhuman mongrel.” I get that the term “racist” is being thrown around so casually these days for things that aren’t racist, that its meaning has been debased as a word used to describe actual racism. But I believe this is actual racism.
Usually we use the word “mongrel,” to describe a dog which is mixed breed. We currently have a President who is half-white and half-black. So how exactly, Ted Nugent, is calling Obama a “subhuman mongrel,” essentially comparing him to a mixed bred dog, not racist? According to the dictionary, this term has a history enough of racist use to be noted as such. If a Nazi said the same thing about a half-jew, would you give them a pass on the racist thing? I think most of us wouldn’t. There are plenty of ways to insult this president without having to drag his race and ethnicity into it.
What Ted Nugent said here is absolutely racist, and he should have apologized for it rather than doubling down. Get off my side Ted Nugent! The only way this is going to happen is if NRA members stop voting for him.
But U.S. Circuit Judge Frank Easterbrook cut him off abruptly: “What if somebody decides to possess a bazooka?”
“It’d fall into a longstanding prohibition,” Vogts replied.
“No, there’s no such prohibition; they were only invented recently. It was once perfectly legal to own automatic weapons like Tommy guns.”
“But that dates back 80 years ago.”
Easterbrook was not convinced. “Yes,” he said, “but the Second Amendment dates back to the 18th century. Why does that matter? I don’t see how you can say fully automatic weapons are okay to ban because some states banned them in the 1950s. How is it rational to distinguish a ban laid down 150 years after the Second Amendment from one laid down 200 years after?”
I think it’s important to consider what the court was trying to accomplish with that presumption, which is that commonly used firearms are deserving of protection. I don’t think too much more needs to be read into than that, which is what I think the attorney for the plaintiff was trying to stick to. The argument Easterbrook is asking, I think, can be left for another case.
But I agree with Easterbrook that the common use test, and “longstanding prohibition” doctrine is imperfect, and was largely an effect of trying to exclude machine guns from protection. I think the test should be whether the arm in question is in common use by police as well. One should not just look at commonness in the civilian population. Any gun control law that has a police exception to it should automatically be treated with strong suspicion by the courts, and any arm that is part of ordinary police equipment should be unequivocally protected for civilians as well. That would include pistols, shotguns, semi-automatic rifles, and the standard capacity magazines that go with them. It would also include body armor, chemical sprays, tasers, and batons. It might even include true assault rifles, as they become ever more common in police inventories. I think such an evaluation would create a far more equitable balance between the people and the state than a narrow understanding of the common use test.
Bob Owens over at Bearing Arms has what is probably the big story of the week. I would seem that some of the ads that Bloomberg’s outfit was trying to pass off as private sellers in their latest report prepping the ground for gun control in Vermont, were actually Federally Licensed Dealers. The FFLs are apparently quite unhappy with having their copyrights violated and their names smeared. It would be nice to see an FFL get a judgement against Everytown, and relieve them of some of Bloomberg’s money. I noticed Bob Ownes hailing the Fact Check organizations on Twitter this morning, so hopefully this report will give Everytown yet another black eye for being fast and loose with the facts.
Everytown for Gun Safety: This PAC spent $665,000 on state races this past cycle, according to the center. Most of the group’s money came from former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and went to the Nevada State Democratic Party, with smaller donations to state Sen. Justin Jones, who sponsored a gun control measure last session, and state Sen. Debbie Smith.
The article goes on to say that most of the spending was paying signature collectors for the ballot measure. Ballot measures are a game where all that really matters is enough money. Very strong and organized grassroots energy is about the only thing that can defeat a ballot measure if you can’t outspend your opponent. With enough money, it was a fore-drawn conclusion he’d get enough signatures. You want to understand why?
And these same people vote too. How do you think they’d respond to a multi-million dollar ad campaign telling them Bloomberg’s ballot measure was good and wholesome?
Years ago, when I had more time and money to spend a lot of time in DC, I was involved in a range day at Quantico Shooting Club for a major “conservative” (i.e. really libertarian) charitable foundation, and all but a few who attended were completely new to firearms. There were a lot of smiling faces by the end of the day. I am convinced of the value of this kind of thing, even when we would ordinarily think we’re preaching to the choir.
But I do have to say, I’m amused that NRA has who appears to be Lars Dalseide of NRA Blog fame wear a suit even on the range.
Come into he 21st century guys! Kakis and a button up or polo has been the business fashion since at least the 90s. Click on the photo to see the rest of the photos.
See this local news story about a robbery that happened in North Philadelphia today:
There’s some speculation in the comments that it’s a replica, because the carry handle looks off. I agree it looks larger and differently shaped than any real AR-15 carry handle I’ve seen, so I’m open to the idea that it’s a replica. But that could also be a lensing effect on the camera making it look bigger than it really is. Other than that, it looks like the real deal to me, but I agree that carry handle and sight is off. What do you think?
Though, I do have to say, with that one handed grip, I don’t know how he thinks he could fight off a grab. That’s practically begging for a bolder store clerk to rip that AR right out of his hands. I don’t know if I’d have the guts to do it, but it’s certainly doable.
Suddenly there aren’t the votes for it in the Texas Legislature, according to the Lt. Governor. Remember, before their little stunt, this was supposedly a done deal. Are Second Amendment supporters going to get anything out of Austin this session? Remember, the Texas Legislature only meets on odd numbered years for a 140 day session, so anything we don’t get this session will have to wait until 2017. I do hope there are at least the votes to remove the prohibition on carry on college campuses this session.
So far all all the OC Tarrant County folks have accomplished this session is getting the legislature to install panic buttons, and scuttling a bill that looked like it had the legs to pass. What else will they manage to accomplish in this legislative session?
According to the ACLU, the DEA and ATF were conspiring to use license plate readers at gun shows. Presumably all this was because, war on drugs, and because, terrorism or something like that. You have to wonder with as pervasive as the surveillance state is becoming, with technology enabling it to ever greater heights, how long we have until there’s de facto registration even without the government even needing to resort to 4473s. Just watch a gun range for a while via drone or satellite, and just start compiling a list. Soon you won’t even need people to do this. You won’t even need to specifically focus the camera on the gun range. It’ll all be done algorithmically by computers, compiling tons and tons of data to be called up and analyzed any time the powers that be want to scrutinize someone.
The scary part is, I don’t know if there’s a good way to stop it. The chest pounders among us would perhaps suggest such a state deserves “Second Amendment remedies,” and it’s hard to argue that such a persuasive surveillance state has any legitimacy. But the technology will be there. Would you trust anyone with it?
“We’ve had 69 applications, of which 3 were canceled at the request of the applicant,” Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) spokeswoman Gwendolyn Crump said. “So far eight licenses have been approved and issued.”
Completely unacceptable. They ought to be charged with contempt. But nonetheless, there are eight people in DC who have, albeit limited, carry permits. These eight are pioneers, who would never have had them without court intervention. Let’s hope these pioneers are followed by many, many others.
The Libertarian Party couldn’t organize a gangbang in a whorehouse; they’d all rather sit around and argue the ethics of making people wear a rubber.
I’ve never understood the purpose of the Libertarian Party, because it never seemed to me to be all that interested in the political process. Other than running someone for President (which is kind of doing step 100 when you’re not even making it to step 5), it’s always seemed to me to be more of a philosophical society, spending most of its time and energy arguing over what libertarianism is and isn’t.
Probably the reason I’ve always preferred the term “classical liberal.” I definitely don’t fit the LP definition of libertarian, but nor am I really comfortable with the label conservative.