search
top
Currently Browsing: Anti-Gun Folks

Brady Campaign Backs Down from Promises to Anti-Gun Pols

It would seem that the Brady Campaign staffers were making funding promises to Pennsylvania officials that they may have had no intention of keeping.

Back when Pennsylvania municipalities were regularly passing gun control ordinances, several cities only went through with the measures that violated state preemption laws because the Brady Campaign/Center promised, via MAIG and CeasefirePA representatives, to pay for the defense of those ordinances if the cities were sued.

Well, now the threat of lawsuits is looming and the Brady Campaign is telling the media that they never made such promises by claiming that the person who made the promises wasn’t really speaking for them.

While the local Fox affiliate dug up city records from Lancaster and Erie that showed they made those promises, we recalled another instance in Radnor. Except, Radnor lawmakers demanded the promise in writing. From Sebastian’s 2010 report on that meeting:

Commissioners seemed skeptical when CeaseFirePA mentioned that the Brady Campaign would pick up the tab for any lawsuits against the ordinance, and indicated they’d want it in writing. It’s my opinion the Bradys will be very reluctant to put anything into writing, so I think that’s a strategy to use going forward. Get your local politicians to demand that. If the Bradys don’t deliver, that’s another point, and it may start the politicians wondering whether the promise is worth anything.

It seems that now we have the proof that the Brady promises on this issue really were worthless.

In Lancaster, the pledge came from Max Nacheman who represented MAIG and Brady at the time and would later represent CeasefirePA. In Radnor, it appears that Commissioner Elaine Schaefer called the Brady Campaign herself and got the pledge that the group would defend the town. So the Brady Campaign is now trying to claim that the exact same promise made in at least 3 different cities via at least 2 different people, was really just some random miscommunication?

Yeah, that’s totally believable.

It would seem that town officials are now learning what we’ve been trying to tell them for years – you can’t believe the false promises the anti-gunners tell you when they are trying to get their agenda passed. They need something to call a “win,” and if your budgets take a beating due to legal expenses because they told you to do something illegal, they don’t care. It’s still a “win” for their agenda even as taxpayers lose.

Gun Control Proponents Telling Half Truths, Says Politifact

More half-truths being peddled by the antis are being exposed by fact checkers. This time it’s Lori Haas of the Coalition to Stop Gun Ownership. The claimed that in states with bans on private transfers, 49% fewer women are shot and killed. The actual number is 38% fewer, but the experts that Politifact spoke with cautioned against cause and effect. For instance, Gary Kleck pointed out:

“States do not randomly pass gun laws — those that pass gun laws are different in many ways from those that do not,” Kleck, who has studied the impact of background checks on homicide rates, said in an email. “For obvious political reasons, it’s easier to enact stricter gun laws in states with fewer gun-owning voters. Thus, states that extended background checks to private gun transfers had lower gun ownership rates even before those laws were passed. Likewise, states with stricter gun laws are more urban, less likely to be Southern or Western (and thus culturally different), more politically liberal etc. You can’t isolate the effect of a gun law without controlling for other violence-related factors.”

I would think the proper study to do is an interrupted time-series analysis, where you measure the rate before and after the law was passed. Now we have new laws in Delaware, Washington, and Colorado. I’d bet good money that it will have almost no effect on the crime rates in those states, outside of broader trends. Criminals either buy guns on the streets, or they use straw buyers. Banning private sales won’t affect either.

Why Are Anti-Gun People …

… such vandals? Didn’t take long for Conoy Township’s new signs to get vandalized. I have to admit that it does appear that for some people who hate guns, it’s total projection. They have a temper and poor impulse control, and so they assume everyone else must be that way.

Personally, if I were a taxpayer in Conoy Township, I’d be a little miffed my tax dollars were being spent on a political statement. Not that I disapprove of the message, mind you, but it’s money probably better spent on something the township really needs.

It’s Still Funded By Taxpayers

It looks like the media is trying to give the City of Lancaster some cover for the fact that they are spending a lot of tax dollars to defend keeping laws on the books that have been illegal for the past forty years. The argument presented is that the city’s insurance is covering the legal costs, though taxpayers are still on the hook for the $25,000 deductible. But who pays the insurance premiums? And who will pay when the insurance premium goes up because the underwriter decides that a city passing illegal laws is a greater risk, and therefore needing to pay a higher premium?

The fact that they are running articles like this is indicative that they may be taking heat for wasting taxpayer money on these suits to defend laws that were never legal in the first place. If that’s true, we need to turn the heat up.

New Brady Study on Gun Suicide

To be honest, with crime dropping as precipitously as it has been, suicide is about the only argument they have left, so I can’t blame them for using it. Suicide is also a pretty big pool of grief from which a gun control group can mine funds from. Suicides affect families more broadly across the income spectrum, so not everyone affected by it has a thin wallet. This may seem cynical, but regardless of how much our opponents might really believe they are trying to usher in a better world, at the end of the day if you run any non-profit organization, bills must be paid, and paychecks written, and that means thinking about where to get money.

I have little doubt that people who commit suicide by firearm tend to be more successful than those who, say, swallow a handful of sleeping pills. But the fad among kids in my area these days seems to be throwing themselves in front of an Acela, which is probably even more sure than a gun. Indeed, that is a popular means of suicide in Japan, which has a far higher suicide rate than the United States, despite largely prohibiting firearms.

More Racist Rhetoric From the Anti-Gun Movement

Michael BloombergLate yesterday, we learned that gun control was for the benefit of rich white people, which makes one ponder what exactly makes rich white people so anxious? Well, Mike Bloomberg provides us with the answer:

Bloomberg claimed that 95 percent of murders fall into a specific category: male, minority and between the ages of 15 and 25. Cities need to get guns out of this group’s hands and keep them alive, he said.

So no Second Amendment rights if you’re young black man, Mr. Bloomberg? A picture is emerging here; gun control proponents believe that we need to disarm young minority men for the benefit of rich white people. And they have the audacity to call us the racists?

Gun Control is for “Wealthy, White Individuals”

Wow. Just wow. One of the former city officials who backed the Bloomberg/CeasefirePA effort to enact local gun control laws said that his city needs to fight on behalf of gun control because he wants to keep the city safe for “white, wealthy individuals.”

Michael Donovan, a former member of city council who supported the lost and stolen gun law, said Allentown should be joining other prominent Pennsylvania cities in their fight against the state law.

“Allentown is the third largest city in the state,” he said. “It is claiming a renaissance for wealthy, white individuals who wish to be safe. I believe the mayor has a responsibility to join the fight against this law.”

No, I’m not kidding. The gun control ally really did say that out loud to a reporter. But, it got buried at the bottom of the story. Do you think if he was a Republican that this would be at the very bottom of the story?

MDA Shot Down Again

Bearing Arms breaks the story that Raising Cain’s Chicken Fingers has told Mom’s Demand Action to take a hike. I attribute this to two factors. First, Kroger has shown that it’s possible for a mass market brand to stand up to Mom’s Demand Action without suffering any real consequences. Second, as Bearing Arms mentions, Open Carry Texas has realized the problems with that kind of protesting and effectively stopped doing it. MDA has been forced to go through years old pictures on the Internet in order to find some pretext for putting pressure on a new chain, and it hasn’t been working. I think it’s safe to say, if this car MDA is driving hasn’t run completely out of gas yet, the engine is definitely starting to sputter. I think MDA is find out how hopeless they really are if they don’t have help from our side.

Everytown Falsified Claims, May Be Sued

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.

Look Who’s Suddenly a Top Donor in Nevada Politics

From The Cason City Tribune, coming in at number three, coming right behind MGM Resorts:

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?

 

« Previous Entries

top