Currently Browsing: Anti-Gun Folks
Nov 23, 2015
New South Wales has moved to ban the possession or sharing of information on 3D printed firearms.
Considering that plans have been available since 2013, this seems a bit like trying to put the genie back into a bottle. We know how well it works to tell people that they can’t have something anymore when it can be downloaded from the internet. It’s not like Australia doesn’t already have laws on the possession of actual guns, but I guess now they want to ban the knowledge of guns, too.
Nov 16, 2015
A few figures on the right politicized the terrorist attack in Paris pretty much while it was happening. I might agree with the sentiments expressed, that people are generally made safer by having a well-armed population who are well-trained (dare I say well-regulated?) in the use of those arms. But I agree that jumping right in with fodder intended for domestic political audiences is distasteful. But my question for the folks arguing this: is it wrong when Obama jumps in with political rhetoric immediately following mass shootings? Is it wrong when gun control advocates immediately start pushing their policies in the media immediately in the wake of mass shootings? If you say it’s wrong for Newt Gingrich to do it, but fine for Barack Obama, then you have a double standard, and pardon me if I don’t then start thinking your an unthinking partisan. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with having the policy discussion. That will inevitably come. But I do think it’s the decent thing to do to tame the rhetoric until people have had a chance to process what happened. At least give it a few days.
And notice, in the linked article, the Washington Post laments politicizing the attacks, and then turns around and belches out several anti-gun talking points, like they couldn’t help themselves, and like that itself is not controversial or political. So who’re really the assholes here? You’d almost think for as narcissistic as some in the media are, they might look in the mirror now and then.
Nov 11, 2015
They are called American Coalition for Responsible Gun Ownership, and you can find their press release here. Apparently they are quite proud of their “viral” video. I put viral in quotes, because the last time I checked a 122,000 views video does not constitute “going viral.” Notice the usual “reasoned discourse” in effect. One of the videos on the blog’s YouTube channel has 484,941 views. Another 247,619 views. Yet another 107,462 views. I don’t really work on my YouTube channel either. Where’s my invitation to the White House? If anyone believes this is a spontaneous grassroots movement, let us get together and discuss some opportunities I can offer you in Florida real-estate. Their Facebook page has about 6100 followers. There are blogs with stronger Facebook presence.
It’s an election year, and what would an election year be without a false flag group to try to offer vulnerable Dems some cover on the gun issue.
Nov 9, 2015
As you’ve all seen in recent months, Bloomberg has been moving in on the Brady Organization’s turf, in the form of celebrity recruitment. We know there has been some tension between Brady and Bloomberg in this regard from the Freedom of Information requests to the City of New York. That’s why I find this recent release from the Brady Campaign to be filled with hilarity:
We have exciting news! The mayors of America’s three largest cities — Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago — have joined the Brady Campaign in calling on Attorney General Loretta Lynch to take action against the five percent of ‘bad apple’ gun dealers who are responsible for ninety percent of the crime guns terrorizing our communities.
This letter calls for the investigation, reform and possible closure of ‘bad apple’ gun dealers, as well as the adoption of an enforceable code of conduct. Simply put, we know who the ‘bad apples’ are, and we want the Attorney General and the Justice Department to take action!
This is an important step in our Stop Bad Apple Gun Dealers campaign, and the voices of many are more impactful than the voices of a few.
That’s why we need your help in getting more mayors to sign on to this important letter!
We want to show Attorney General Lynch that stopping ‘bad apple’ gun dealers is a priority across the country and you can help make that possible!
Thank you for your continuing support and stay tuned for more exciting updates about our Bad Apple Gun Dealer campaign!
Senior National Policy Director
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
You move in on our turf, and we’ll move in on yours? You know, there was a reason that Everytown absorbed MAIG right? There was a reason Bloomberg deemphasized that effort. It’s because Mayors tend to be corrupt, narcissistic, borderline sociopaths who often find themselves in trouble with the law. Good luck with this new strategy, Brady folks. Good luck! Way to bring the fun back in this debate. I can’t wait to start pointing out how many Brady mayors are being incarcerated.
Nov 4, 2015
Now even the Democrats are asking the question:
“The gun thing, I would have done it differently,” Sen. Chap Petersen (D-Fairfax) said. “It’s speculation at this point, but I feel the Gecker seat was one we thought we were going to win. . . . [The gun issue] was one variable that was thrown in at the last minute.”
How long before the Democrats start telling Bloomberg, “Thanks, but no thanks.” I’m honestly not sure why the calculus changed for the Dems. Up until about 2010 gun control was considered political suicide even across the aisle, unless you were in a safely Democratic urban district. The Dems of a decade ago successfully used the blue dog strategy to get back to a majority in Congress. Then in 2010, they flushed the blue dog strategy down the toilet in order to get enough votes to pass Obamacare without a single Republican vote. Obama won re-election, but he spent most of his first term not really playing up the gun issue. After Sandy Hook, the Democrats convinced themselves everything had changed. But polling shows pretty clearly it hasn’t. So what makes them so sure it’s a winner now?
I believe the Democrats are pursuing gun control because it’s what the donor class wants, and when you dangle the fish in front of the seal, you can expect the seal to bark to get the fish. Bloomberg has a lot of fish, and Obama, who is now very enthusiastic about gun control, is going to command a lot of big donors for many years to come. That will go double if Hillary Clinton loses in 2016. The barking seals will follow the follow the people with the most fish.
Nov 4, 2015
Enjoy the schadenfreude while it lasts. I’m not sure who deserves credit for this, but whoever came up with this, bravo:
I first saw it on Miguel’s site. Of course, it’s pretty apparent Everytown and Bloomberg were gunning for the 10th district, but hedged their bets by doubling down on a safe race, so they could claim victory if they lost the important race. Hey, they spent more money in it anyway. Here’s how it went this morning:
Followed up quickly by NRA’s response:
That seat was held by the Democrats already, and the retiring incumbent was D rated by the NRA. If NRA had spent that kind of money to hold a safe seat in a single state senate race, I would have called them out for spending irresponsibility if it was not a key race, or they had some reason to fear. The fact is, when you look at that district, it should be a cakewalk for the Democrats.
Oct 30, 2015
I probably should not have jumped to conclusions so quickly in my last post about Senator Stanley getting threats from Andrew Parker. As if often the case, there was more to the story. Apparently this was among the rants:
“YOU’RE FINEST MOMENT, YOU SORRY LITTLE COWARD,” he posted. “YOU DIDN’T EVEN HAVE THE DECENCY TO REACH OUT AND OFFER A LAME CONDOLENCE AFTER MY DAUGHTER Alison Bailey WAS MURDERED IN YOUR DISTRICT. WHEN YOU SEE ME AGAIN, YOU BEST WALK THE OTHER WAY LEST I BEAT YOUR LITTLE ASS WITH MY BARE HANDS.”
I still hold that Everytown is probably going to be sorry they allied with Parker. Pretty clearly he’s unstable. Grief can be a funny thing though, but perhaps counseling is what Mr. Parker should be seeking right now, rather than vengeance based on some odd perceived wrong committed by Senator Stanley for not appropriately validating his grief.
Oct 29, 2015
I’d be tempted to link to this with “Why are gun control advocates so violent,” but I don’t really think it’s warranted in this case. Senator William Stanley suggests this message by Andrew Parker is a threat:
Late Tuesday, Parker sent this message to Sen. William M. Stanley Jr., R-Franklin County, via Facebook: “I’m going to be your worst nightmare you little bastard.”
Granted, I do think Parker is a strange duck; I don’t know of anyone whose first instinct after the loss of a loved one is to seek out any media publicity he can get before there’s even been a funeral. His statement certainly displays a lack of tact. But I think Stanley is playing this up a bit more than is honestly warranted.
“From the very beginning, he turned on me as if I had something to do with the horrible death of his daughter,” Stanley said. “It’s not rational, but nevertheless, when I was asked about it, I said, ‘Let him grieve. If I have to be the object as he works through this, fine.’ But this goes beyond the pale.”
Hey, welcome to collective guilt — it’s what these people peddle. You are responsible for their personal tragedies, even if you had nothing to do with them. Disagreement is enough to make you an accessory to murder.
“It is legitimate. I am going to be his worst nightmare,” Parker said. “He and Parrish are both little cowards. Anything I say to him and post on his website, I will take full credit for.”
Parker may not be violent, but he’s pretty clearly a loose cannon. He’ll probably end up being a liability to their movement if he keeps this up. Not that I’m one to complain. Every incarnation of the gun control movement has had to deal with freaks and weirdos. I’m not sure why Bloomberg should get a pass on that just because has enough of his own money to not deal with them.
Oct 28, 2015
A common theme I’ve been seeing floating around in the media is that gun control is back, baby! They’ve crossed “the threshold” and are on their way to victory. There’s a certain zeitgeist, and the pendulum is swinging back in their direction. Is it true? Even WaPo’s Dana Milbank thinks they are overstating their case, but agrees there’s some truth to it. How has the gun control movement revitalized itself? According to Milbank, gun control movement has seen revitalization by lowing their sights to win on more achievable issues like background checks.
But there is some truth to what he says. From the legislative debacle following Sandy Hook, the gun-control movement has retreated to a limited but pragmatic approach. Gone is the notion of “gun control,” replaced by “reducing gun deaths” or “gun violence prevention.” Gone, for now, are efforts to restrict any type of gun or ammunition. Instead, the movement has found a laser focus on background checks.
I can’t think of too many real movements that have revitalized themselves by thinking smaller, and thinking smaller is nothing new. None of the new terms Milbank points to are actually new. Gun control advocates have been trying to get away from the unpopular term “gun control” since at least the mid-1990s, and none of those efforts made any difference. Andrew McKelvey couldn’t sell “gun safety” any better than Sarah Brady could sell “handgun control.”
All of the articles I’ve seen have ignored the elephant in the room. I agree that the gun control movement is seeing some revitalization. I would agree they’ve recovered from their post-Heller blues. I do think that’s correct. But it’s almost entirely because Mike Bloomberg is willing to spend millions of dollars of his massive fortune to make that happen. Without Bloomberg’s money, the gun control movement would be going nowhere. All the victories the gun control movement has achieved have been bought and paid for by one multi-billionaire who thinks he can buy our Republic, and he may be right!
Oct 28, 2015
The Washington Post takes a deeper look into the huge sums of money Mike Bloomberg is dumping into the Virginia races, and finds that one of his big ad buys isn’t even about the gun issue. One is a race baiting ad that has nothing to do with guns at all, but rather a local school district issue. Moreover, the ad misleads the reader into believing Glen Sturtevant himself is being sued, when it is actually the school board being sued.
I think this is tacit admission on the part of Bloomberg that guns aren’t a huge motivator for people on the left side of the political spectrum, and so a hard-hitting ad was needed in order to boost black turnout at the polls; a necessary thing if the Democrats are going to take that seat and have a shot at taking the Virginia Senate.
Bloomberg is absolutely determined to buy this election for himself, and he doesn’t care if he has to use issues other than guns to do it. If he’s successful, he will still own Dan Gecker, and he can use it however he wants. No one will care how he bought it. Our people need to turn out in large numbers. Don’t believe for a minute that Bloomberg doesn’t have the money or the drive to buy your state government away from the people of Virginia and make you vassals of the New York elite.