NRA has more to say about it here. And what is the purpose of this? Do we have an epidemic of octogenarians committing mass murder? Holding up banks? Hitting the streets and robbing people so they can get the money for their next hit of Geritol? There’s no public safety issue at work here. This is just meant to screw people for embarrassing the Administration on guns.
The thing I really hate about the Obama Administration is that it has no issue with being unjust or unfair; if you oppose its policies, you can expect it to try to stick it to you. Not stick it to Congress, or stick it to political rivals in DC, you will be made to pay. The Obama Administration has no issue taking out their anger on ordinary Americans. Bill Clinton’s Administration dealt us a number of defeats in the 1990s, and you did have the HUD deals, and other executive shenanigans, but even then I don’t remember Clinton sticking it directly to the rank and file like Obama does.
So what’s going to happen here? My guess is NRA can probably get another of the many budget riders it’s gotten out of Congress to defund any attempt by the Administration to implement this plan. I can’t imagine preventing 4 million SSA recipients from suddenly, overnight, becoming prohibited persons is going to be much of an ask to Congress.
Looks like someone else armed a drone. Per FAA regulations, this isn’t legal, but not like that’s going to stop anyone intent on causing harm, or anyone just looking to have some fun.
Nonetheless, I’m sure there are politicians out there who are, as we speak, trying to figure out how to make this more illegal. Because if weapons control doesn’t work, you just need to double down on it, only this time with vigor!
His biggest fans disappoint in other ways as well. I marvel at how they can simultaneously despise Obama’s arrogance but revel in Trump’s. (I chuckle at all of the people who tell me he’s a heroic truth-teller for “telling it like it is” and “calling it as he sees it” but who at the same time fume at me when I tell it like it is about Trump and call it as I see it.)
I’ve learned over the years that you get in trouble for actually calling things as you see them. Where you are on safe ground is being in the business of telling people what they want to hear and emotionally validating them. That’s the business Trump is engaged in. Jonah then lays out the case for Trump being a fraud. I’ve said before, he’s a stalking horse for Hillary.
Look, these are rough times for conservatives, for reasons too lengthy, and all too familiar, to go into here. But none of our problems — demographic, political, cultural — can be solved unless conservatives take the cause of persuasion to heart. All of our problems can be fixed by convincing people to join our cause. That is what politics is about — persuading people that their interests and concerns are better addressed by coming to our side. And, given the degraded nature of our culture, I won’t deny that having a celebrity on our side has its utility. But it’s only helpful if that celebrity convinces people to switch sides. As a purely mathematical proposition, it is insane to believe that Donald Trump will convert more voters than he will repel.
Rhetoric matters. It takes more than emotional validation to win elections. The candidate I’m looking for in 2016 will be the one who can manage things well behind the scenes to destroy the bureaucratic monstrosity the left has built, and restore constitutional government, while publicly smiling to the camera, charming reporters, and convincing the country what a swell guy (or gal) he or she is. It’s a rare talent, especially among Republicans, but it’s what I’m looking for.
I have four different devices I use for trolling for news and keeping track of what I want to post about. I hate it when I find a tab with something I meant to post about, but overlooked until the news was stale. Ordinarily, I usually just write that story up as a loss, but I’d feel bad if I did that in this case.
I tend to feel that there’s an obligation to engage in cross promotion, so I didn’t just want to let this go. It takes a lot of work to do vlogging and podcasting, and I dropped the ball here. If you ever looked at my desk, yeah, the computer side of things isn’t much more organized.
Apparently during the elections in Georgia last October, an NRA instructor was asked to remove his “NRA Instructor” hat at a polling station. Georgia’s law is not uncommon, in that it does not allow campaigning or election materials at or near polling stations. Bundy Cobb was made to take off his hat, but later decided to fight. It appears that he won.
I often wear some kind of NRA hat or shirt so the local politicians can see that we show up and vote. I’ve never had a problem with it, but this isn’t the first story I’ve heard of people being asked to take off NRA paraphernalia. On the other side of the issue, I’ve been scolded before as a poll stander for helping an elderly NRA member who was legally blind find his way into the polling place, and I forgot I had put campaign materials (for a candidate) on my hat. That was my fault, and I apologized to the poll watcher, but once they realized the voter was blind, the presumably Dem watcher didn’t seem to mind so much.
UPDATE: The title originally said lawsuit, but he did not sue. He appealed to the State Department and County Election Board.
Tam recounts a story from the TODAY show, where a grown man admitted on television, in front of the nation (or well, at least about 1.6% of the nation) that he was afraid of using a fire extinguisher. Not in the panic of a house fire, mind you, but in a controlled environment, meant to teach people how to use fire extinguishers. If I had done that, my father (a volunteer firefighter for 45 years and counting) would have disowned me. I’ve had a few pan fires, and never really thought much about dumping baking soda or going to the fire extinguisher. Putting the lid on the pan does the trick. Oven fires will generally go out on their own if you turn off the oven and just leave the door closed.
If Jeff Rossen and Savannah Guthrie are intimidated by an ordinary household fire extinguisher, I wonder what they would think of mine?
Sometimes I don’t think it’ll be that long before we’re all buying Brawndo.
I’m sorry to tell you that it’s been a pretty slow week for gun news. I didn’t post anything on Monday, not because I was pressed for time, but because I just didn’t find anything interesting to write about. It’s that slow. But I’ll give a gun news post a try and see how it goes. Hopefully this won’t leave me dry tomorrow:
Dave Hardy is celebrating diversity. 14% of Illinois carry permits are issued to women, and in many minority neighborhoods. Imagine what it would look like if costs weren’t driven up beyond what many poor folks can afford? This was a big enough issue, Bloomberg’s mouthpieces felt the need to pooh pooh the article.
Now that Bloomberg has put some real money back into anti-gun research, the studies appear to be flowing. Bloomberg’s mouthpieces, Evan DeFillippis and Devin Hughes (yes, those guys, who I now speculate were paid shills all along) point to a new study out that shows you’re really just better off running away. Notice how all their studies are published behind paywalls, while our researchers upload their studies to SSRN where anyone can read and dissect them?
Anecdotally, I only know two people who have ever had to use a gun in self-defense. In one case, the friend was in an attempted robbery. Attempted because he drew a gun on the robbers, and they retreated posthaste. The incident was reported to 911, but the dispatcher asked if the friend really wanted a car sent out to take a report, and he answered no. The second was in a rural home, before the days of 911, and was just never reported to police. Both of these were absolutely and unambiguously self-defense.
I’m not surprised they are picking these studies apart, because just about every study has shown a fairly significant amount of defensive gun use. I would expect more studies on how ineffective firearms are at protecting people. But here’s a question for Mr. DeFillippis and Mr. Hughes: if firearms are so ineffective at self-protection, when will Mr. Bloomberg, your patron, voluntarily disarm his security detail? Or are guns only effective when they are protecting rich billionaires?
Newsmax has published it’s list of 100 most influential people in the pro-gun movement. Newsmax is normally on the list of sites I won’t link, because they are the National Enquirer of the conservative news sites. But this was a stupid enough list I had to comment. It strikes me more as “Let’s list out 100 people we can think of or Google who are in the pro-gun movement and list them, and we can do it in the order we find them.” It would hardly be wrong to say that, Dudley Brown, for instance, is not influential, but when he actively sabotages progress on our issue, I don’t think it’s wrong to question his priorities. It also seems that all you have to do to get on their list is be a minor celebrity, well-known and own guns, or have once said a kind word.
The list is insulting to the real people who have dedicated their lives to this fight, often out of the limelight and not in the expectation of getting any thanks for what they were doing. So here’s who ought to have made this list, in no particular order:
And that’s just ten legal scholars I can think of off the top of my head, who have all done tremendous things for the issue. I could probably list ten more, all of whom belong on that list more than twenty others who have no place on it.
What about Alan Gura and Alan Gottlieb? I mean, I know Alan Gura argued only argued two landmark Second Amendment cases and all, but hey, Bruce Willis once said something pro-gun! Alan Gottlieb, whatever his faults, has still done a hell of a lot more on the issue than Whoopi Goldberg.
Or what about Chris Cox and his whole lobbying team? Everyone thought we were going to get it good and hard in Congress during the 2013 fights, and our opponents walked away empty handed. Not even worth an honorable mention?
This list was written by people with no understanding or appreciation of the issue. It’s one reason I will continue to not link to Newsmax, or take them seriously.