Oct 28, 2011
Posted by Sebastian in How Not to Win | 46 comments
I’m not a fan of this guy, and I wouldn’t blame the State of Texas for revoking his instructor certification:
“We will attempt to teach you all the necessary information you need to obtain your [Concealed Handgun License],” the ad says. Then towards the end, it adds: “If you are a socialist liberal and/or voted for the current campaigner in chief, please do not take this class. You have already proven that you cannot make a knowledgeable and prudent decision under the law.”
And then: “If you are a non-Christian Arab or Muslim, I will not teach you the class with no shame; I am Crockett Keller, thank you, and God bless America.”
I’m not of the opinion that Second Amendment rights are limited to Christians or Republicans, and if you’re licensed by the state to administer a concealed carry class, you should do it without regards to race, religion or national origin. I agree that this man has a right to be a bigot, but he doesn’t have a right to be a government certified bigot. To treat every non-Christian Arab or muslim as a potential cold blooded killer is exactly the same kind of bigotry that’s perpetrated against many law-abiding gun owners by the folks who hate gun ownership. It’s not going to help us, and it’s definitely an example of how not to win.
Join the Conversation (46 comments)
Oct 17, 2011
Posted by Bitter in How Not to Win | 4 comments
The Wall Street Journal has an interesting article on how vegan bakeries that hide their status see their business increase.
Some vegan bakeries don’t flaunt their identity for fear of scaring off customers. That stirs up proud vegans who believe every delicious pastry should help promote a world in which no animal is used for the sake of a snickerdoodle. …
Covertly vegan bakeries are “counterproductive,” Ms. Konya says. “If you’re not making people aware of food choices, you’re not going to change the world around you.”
Sarah Kramer, co-author of a cookbook called “How it All Vegan,” says bakeries that play down their veganism are a “bummer.” She, like some other passionate vegans, was frustrated last year when former president Bill Clinton gave interviews about eschewing meat, milk and eggs as part of his recovery from heart disease, but calling his “a plant-based diet.”
I think it’s interesting that members of the vegan community are so hostile to those who don’t shove it in people’s faces. That’s a big reason why many average Americans who do enjoy a well-rounded diet won’t venture into declared vegan territory. (Also worth noting in regards to the woman pissed about Bill Clinton – he’s not a vegan. His spokesman explained that he doesn’t make sure his meals he eats out are vegan and he does eat fish. So, even if he did use the term vegan, they would crucify him for not being strict enough.)
I find this interesting enough to share because it makes me think of gun shops and how we expect at least some level of political-related material around. Of course, while there might be some level of pressure to join NRA, the intent behind it is so that we’ll be left alone – not to force people into a way of life that makes them uncomfortable and possibly miserable. I think that key difference is why gun shops get away with the entry into the political sphere.
Unlike the vegan community illustrated here, we can still celebrate someone who takes a newbie shooting without getting all up in their face about the politics of the issue. While we would like that person to become an advocate for our cause, we don’t berate an instructor for simply teaching someone how to shoot safely and enjoy the shooting sports. We recognize that even that subtle exposure can lead to more favorable actions or even outright political support among those new shooters. With the critics in the article, nothing good is coming of a meat eater who manages to enjoy a vegan cupcake if it doesn’t come with a side of lectures on how much they suck for eating meat. They cannot even concede that even if it’s just one snack that’s “cruelty-free,” it’s one tiny victory for the animals.
Join the Conversation (4 comments)
Sep 21, 2011
Posted by Sebastian in How Not to Win | 17 comments
Our opponents are having a field day with some of the statement from our own side deriding NSSF’s term “Modern Sporting Rifle.” NSSF is defending their use of the term here, noting:
Whenever someone in the gun-owning community mistakenly calls an AR-platform rifle an assault rifle or an automatic rifle, they are assisting anti-gun organizations and lawmakers who are eager to introduce legislation to restrict ownership of these and potentially other semiautomatic firearms. (By the way, the AR stands for ArmaLite, the company that developed the rifle in the 1950s, and not assault rifle or automatic rifle. See other MSR facts.)
NSSF is absolutely correct about this. For gun bloggers who apparently don’t know better, “assault rifle” is a well defined term for a rifle capable of selective fire, which chambers an cartridge of intermediate, and has a detachable magazine. If any of these things aren’t true, it’s not an assault rifle by definition. The federal ban on “assault weapons” had nothing to do with “assault rifles,” which were banned in 1986. The term “assault weapon” is a legal fiction concocted by our opponents. It serves no purpose other than to scare people into thinking they are supporting banning something unusual and dangerous.
I’ve always been of the opinion that the term MSR is unnecessary. An AR-15 is just a rifle, and like most everything else, advances in technology have brought us advances in rifle design, just as it has with pistols and shotguns. But most of those advances have been ergonomic and cosmetic. The fundamental principle that drives the AR-15 or semi-automatic versions of the AK-47 isn’t really remarkably different than the Remington Model 8, which was designed in 1900. There were even variants of the Model 8 that were arguably early precursors to today’s so-called “assault weapons.” It’s even easy to note the resemblance between the safety on the Model 8 and the Safety/Selector on the AK-47. What makes the modern sporting rifle modern is the fact that the furniture is synthetic, and the rifle has more ergonomic features that make it easy and comfortable to shoot and operate. Other than that, there’s not much truly new that’s happened in firearms design in 100 years.
Join the Conversation (17 comments)
Sep 21, 2011
Posted by Sebastian in Gun Rights Organizations, How Not to Win | 23 comments
The National Association for Gun Rights are worried about federal intervention into the issue of concealed carry, going so far as to adopt the utterly ridiculous moniker for this bill, “National CCW Registration Act.” Understand that I don’t belittle anyone who has concerns about the feds getting involved in traditionally state issue of concealed carry. Those concerns are completely legitimate, and prior to McDonald and Heller I shared them. Nonetheless, many of NAGR’s points are ridiculous, and I’ll take on some them to explain my opinion on the matter.
While the idea that all states should recognize a concealed weapons permit is sound public policy, the use of the anti-gun federal bureaucracy to implement it is simply foolish.
Once the Federal Government is in the business of setting the standards for concealed carry permits, it’s only a matter of time before they start using that power to restrict our rights.
This won’t use a federal bureaucracy. There won’t be any Department of Reciprocity Enforcement. It’s just that the federal law offers a defense in court if a state chooses to arrest someone with a firearm, who is licensed by any state to carry it in a state other than their state of residence. NAGR’s concern seems to be that Congress will come along later and set federal standards.
But the devil is truly in the details… and the details are where H.R. 822 gets sticky.
This bill isn’t just about the right to carry for self defense — it’s a battle over the role of government and the ability to restrict our Second Amendment rights.
There are no details. The bill is remarkably simple. If you have a license from any state, you can carry in any other state that issues concealed carry licenses under the same standard for an unrestricted license in that state. The only exception is your state of residence, or states that prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons. For people who live in Vermont, they can go next door to NH and get a non-resident permit, which would allow them to carry in every state except Illinois (which prohibits concealed weapons entirely).
Even worse, once this bill starts moving, anyone can amend the bill with anything … and no legislation can bind a future Congress in any way. And that doesn’t count what Obamacrats in the Department of Justice might dream up as the “regulations” to carry out the legislative “intent.”
That’s an excuse for never passing any pro-gun law. Congress can always turn around and screw us. There’s never any time when that’s not the case. The “Obamacrats” in the Department of Justice don’t have any power to draw up “regulations” that Congress doesn’t give them. HR822 does not grant bureaucrats any rule making authority.
I believe I should be able to carry concealed — without a permit — in all 50 states. That’s what “bear arms” means. Believe me, that’s a long-term policy goal for the National Association for Gun Rights.
That’s wonderful. I agree. But the world we live in is one in which only four states allow carry without a permit. All but one still have a permit option. We might be able to grow that by a few states in a few years, but it’s not going away any time soon. In addition, I view that the courts are highly unlikely to invalidate the requirement of a concealed carry license, provided the licenses aren’t issued in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Because it doesn’t measure up to your ideal is not an excuse for not improving our current reality.
Once gun owners let the Obamacrats start mandating whether states recognize permit reciprocity, they will want to mandate what it takes to get and keep those permits.
No one is allowing “Obamacrats” to mandate anything. The only thing this bill mandates is reciprocity. It establishes no federal standard. Understand that the main source of Congressional power to pass this bill is the 14th Amendment. Court precedent does not allow Congress to take the legislation farther than the courts have been willing to go. The Courts were pretty clear there’s a right to carry, but have been vague about how the bounds of that right are defined. That’s the reason this bill does very little. Establishing federal standards for reciprocity would be a considerably more dubious exercise of the 14th Amendment power. So would creating federal standards by which states issue permits, which it seems NAGR is more concerned about. That would be gun control. Congress can always pass gun control. This bill is not anywhere close to gun control. It would also be a highly dubious exercise of federal power to impose licensing standards on states even under the commerce clause.
Not to mention this legislation would shred the Constitutional Carry provisions that are on the books in Arizona, Alaska, Vermont and Wyoming.
That is absolute nonsense. It’s just not true at all. This bill only covers reciprocity. Arizona, Alaska, and Wyoming still issue permits for reciprocity purposes, even if they do not require it to carry in that state. Vermont does not issue permits, but New Hampshire will issue to residents of Vermont on a shall-issue basis. A Vermonter with a NH permit can carry in every state someone with a Texas permit can under HR822.
It doesn’t stop with just concealed carry. They’ll co-opt the bill to expand the national Brady Registration Check system to block military veterans with PTSD or individuals with misdemeanor convictions from even OWNING firearms — much less use them for self defense.
They can always do this. This is like arguing that we shouldn’t build a missile defense system because the Russians might decide to nuke New York. Congress can always pass gun control. The reason they haven’t is because they fear us.
They will use this bill as the foundation to create a federal database of CCW permit holders. And then they can link it everywhere the Feds have database connections — state police, doctors and insurance companies under Obamacare, and Medicaid/Medicare.
The worst that could happen down the line is that an anti-gun Congress tinkers with the requirements for reciprocity to be enforced. You can bet that every gun rights group will oppose that. At worst, you fall back on state reciprocity, since the feds wouldn’t mandate reciprocal licensing for all but the most strict states. Everything else going through Dudley Brown’s active imagination would amount to a new gun control bill that does not involve the subject of reciprocity. Congress could pass a bill forbidding states from allowing concealed carry any time it wanted. That’s not an excuse for doing nothing.
That’s why you and I have to make noise, now!
Please call your Congressman at 202-224-3121 (send an email, too; you can get that link here) and relay the message that gun owners oppose H.R. 822, the Trojan Horse gun control bill. Make clear that you want to keep the Federal Government’s hands off the state-run CCW permit system.
<sarcasm>I think I can speak for gun owners everywhere in sincerely thanking Dudley Brown for giving some of our weak kneed critters the “pro-gun” cover they need to vote against a bill many of them would rather not vote for in the first place.</sarcasm> We are truly our own worst enemies. Who needs the Brady Campaign, VPC, and CSGV when you have NAGR?
Join the Conversation (23 comments)
Jan 18, 2011
Posted by Bitter in Anti-Gun Folks, How Not to Win | 6 comments
It’s just not right if I find myself agreeing with Mayor Mike. But I do so from a completely different position, so I guess that’s okay. Bloomberg is decidedly not getting on board with the NY Post in their call for the NYPD to boycott Glock in the wake of the Arizona shooting. To his credit, Bloomberg gives a good reason why that’s a bad idea if the paper actually wants to hurt the company:
“One of our newspapers has a campaign going to try to get the police department to ban the use of — one particular manufacturer’s guns,” Bloomberg said. “We think all that would do would be to get people to focus and buy more of that manufacturer’s guns.”
That’s already happening, but it is true that if a known gun control supporter starts using his office to institute some kind of boycott or ban, sales will continue to rise. At least Bloomberg paid attention to the Great Obama Gun Rush.
Join the Conversation (6 comments)
Nov 4, 2010
Posted by Bitter in 2010 Election, How Not to Win | 4 comments
99 votes needed to win, 99 votes needed, get off your butt & help us out, 98 votes needed to win.
98 votes needed to win, 98 votes needed, get off your butt & help us out, 97 votes needed to win.
97 votes needed to win, 97 votes needed, get off your butt & help us out, 96 votes needed to win.
96 votes needed to win, 96 votes needed, get off your butt & help us out, 95 votes needed to win.
95 votes needed to win, 95 votes needed, get off your butt & help us out, 94 votes needed to win.
Get the hint, folks?
It appears as though we have a CeaseFire/Brady/Bloomberg lovin’ candidate who kept his seat by just 99 votes. We didn’t know until today because of the process needed to count absentees. It may be close enough to trigger a recount, but both sides seem to believe it’s going to have the same final result.
For the gun owners in the district who got the personal emails asking them to give just a couple of hours of time, enjoy your anti-gun representative who doesn’t even believe you have the right to defend your life & family on your porch or outside of your home. For Adam Z., THANK YOU for driving out of your own home district to come help out.
94 votes needed to win, 94 votes needed, get off your butt & help us out, 93 votes needed to win.
93 votes needed to win, 93 votes needed, get off your butt & help us out, 92 votes needed to win.
92 votes needed to win, 92 votes needed, get off your butt & help us out, 91 votes needed to win.
91 votes needed to win, 91 votes needed, get off your butt & help us out, 90 votes needed to win.
Join the Conversation (4 comments)
Jun 2, 2010
Posted by Sebastian in How Not to Win | 11 comments
Looks like a few folks are getting bent out of shape because the NRA stands for the National Rifle Association and not the National Republican Association. Let me be blunt, if Harry Reid goes down, and we don’t flip the Senate (which isn’t really possible), we’re going to be very screwed. Do you know why we’ve been able to make progress on major issues such as National Park Carry? Harry Reid. Do you know why we got a vote and almost got national reciprocity? Harry Reid. Do you know who’s been keeping gun control off the Senate floor and off the agenda? Harry Reid. He’s been willing to do anything asked of him on behalf of the Second Amendment, and as Majority Leader of the senate, he’s the one who makes the calls on what gets to the floor. Behind Reid is Chuck Schumer or DickDurbin to be majority leader, both of which would legislate the Second Amendment into irrelevance given an opportunity.
That said, I am not happy with the man on other issues, but NRA does not and can not concern itself with those other issues. There aren’t many Democrats I’ll get behind in 2010, who also pushed through Obamacare. I’m making an exception for Harry Reid because he’s been such a strategic asset on this issue in the 111th Congress. I’d prefer to block the Obama/Pelosi agenda by other means, and keep Reid in the Senate as Majority Leader.
Join the Conversation (11 comments)
Jan 19, 2010
Posted by Bitter in How Not to Win | 1 comment
It’s been a while since we’ve had content for the How Not to Win category here, and yet it seems we could fill it every day by featuring Martha Coakley’s Gaffe-of-the-Day antics.
We warn all the time about the trouble in dealing with the media if you haven’t prepared for it. Martha Coakley’s volunteers should probably remember that next time they encounter a reporter with the video camera already turned on.
Things we can learn:
- Calling someone who is there to report on your candidate a Nazi is probably not going to gain you any favors.
- Calling them a Nazi with the camera turned on, well now you’re just trying to kill the campaign.
- Cursing at someone trying to report on the campaign is generally not a good idea.
- Do so while standing at the open door to the sidewalk with your candidate’s signs are on display means you start influencing potential voters to the other guy.
Join the Conversation (1 comment)
