May 16, 2012
Posted by Bitter in Anti-Gun Folks | 2 comments
Bloomberg has put a target on the Buckeye State.
Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a bipartisan coalition of more than 650 American mayors, announced today that 103 Ohio mayors have joined the coalition to fight crime in their communities by reducing the spread of illegal guns and preventing gun violence. The coalition believes much more can be done to keep guns out of the wrong hands…
Pennsylvania still has far more mayors than any other state, unfortunately. I believe we still have a perfect record of keeping his MAIG mayors from reaching higher office here in the Commonwealth. (I actually need to double check that now that the primary is over.) Looks like Ohio gun owners need to watch out for the same thing.
Join the Conversation (2 comments)
May 16, 2012
Posted by Sebastian in 2012 Election, Gun Rights | 17 comments
A bit of propaganda from the Veterans Administration, encouraging family members to take guns away from veterans who have served our country. It’s worth noting that the Brady Campaign is fully on board with disarming our country’s veterans of their firearms, some of which would be bring backs that were paid for in their blood, and the blood of their fellow soldiers.
To me this is much like the issue of pediatricians and guns with children in the house. I don’t, as a matter of absolute principle, think it’s wrong to have the discussion. It’s the way the discussion is framed that is problematic. Certainly a family who has a loved one suffering from severe Dementia, or that has mental difficulties that make him a danger to themselves or others, would be doing the responsible thing by removing firearms (and other dangerous objects) from the home. I also don’t have an issue with the VA advising families of this, along with a discussion of other dangers someone with Dementia can face. But here’s what your tax dollars are paying for:
The presence of firearms in households has been linked to increased risk of injury or death for everyone in or around the home, usually as an impulsive act during some disagreement. This danger is increased when one of the persons in the household has dementia.
Let me translate this:
Propaganda put forward by the gun ban lobby suggests that your veteran family member, who served his country with distinction and to whom we owe our continued freedom, is likely to murder you in an argument if there’s a gun in the home. Just, if he has Dementia, he is much more likely to murder you with a gun in the home.
It continues:
Family members do not always take appropriate action to unload, secure, or remove firearms in the home. These actions should be taken regardless of the severity of dementia or whether your loved one is suffering from a behavioral problem or depression.
Translation:
You family member, who served his country and was trusted with automatic weapons, grenades, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, can’t be trusted with firearms, regardless of whether your loved one is having issues or not.
The Obama anti-gun propaganda continues to suggest that love ones may be reluctant, believing in this quaint notion of Second Amendment rights, and the perceived independence that goes along with gun ownership. But don’t let that dissuade you: the veteran loved one needs to be disarmed for his own good. It’s the right thing.
If folks were wondering what Obama meant by “under the radar” this is it. This is why he has to go in November. Your tax dollars paid for this offensive nonsense, which encourages families to infantilize and disarm our nation’s veterans, regardless of the troubles they are having. This is grossly offensive to the service they rendered our country, and the Obama Administration ought to be ashamed of themselves for ever allowing anyone to put this to print.
UPDATE: Looks like I’m two months late to this issue! Oh well, I can’t notice everything.
Join the Conversation (17 comments)
May 16, 2012
Posted by Sebastian in Guns | 7 comments
Guns made from Legos. Apparently this is a controversial issue:
This is all true, but U.K. father Jon Trew brings up another important point: Could these toy guns confuse children into thinking it’s OK to play with real guns? “Whatever side of the argument you are on, no one in their right mind would want encourage children to play with realistic models just in case they came across a real one and thought they could play with it in the same way,” Trew says.
With several centuries of young kids playing with toy guns, it’s amazing the human race has survived! Maybe it’s not so much the barbarians at the gates that make civilization’s fall, but the civilized people inside them. Kids that learn proper use and respect for firearms eventually become people who can man the gates when barbarians come knocking. It’s the people who wish to beat every martial instinct out of humankind are the ones who fell civilizations.
Join the Conversation (7 comments)
May 16, 2012
Posted by Sebastian in Anti-Gun Folks | 2 comments
I am reminded of my late interaction with our opponents, of a paper written a few years ago by Dave Kopel, who borrows the term “Pacifist-Agressive” from Eugene Volokh. The paper examines, in length and in detail, of the roots of the pacifist movement, and offers some great examples of pacifisms successes and its failures. Also discussed a length are the intellectual failings underlying much of modern pacifism, which, whether CSGV wants to admit or not, form the intellectual basis of the many of the religious-left organizations that make up CSGV. I highly encourage folks to take some time to read it. It directly speaks on the matter of pacifisms failings on the “What would you do about Hitler?” question.
Join the Conversation (2 comments)
May 16, 2012
Posted by Sebastian in Gun Rights | 1 comment
Still doesn’t exist. City Council has seen the writing on the wall, and are trying to improve matter in regards to gun rights in the District, and as Dave says, take them from insane, to merely being unreasonable and unconstitutional. But apparently Mayor Grey likes the crazy.
Join the Conversation (1 comment)
May 15, 2012
Posted by Sebastian in Gun Rights | 4 comments
I’ve been watching our opponents somewhat carefully, since they launched the Second Chance on Shoot First campaign. I thought it was curious to note that while Mayor Bloomberg put his weight behind this effort, it did not appear that MAIG was joining. But then I noticed one of MAIG’s campaigns released a mother day message from Sabryna Fulton, however, you will note that it mentions nothing about Stand Your Ground, nor will you find it linked anywhere on the Fix Gun Checks Campaign web site. Why would this be?
Probably because Bloomberg can read polling data as much well as anyone else (h/t Dave Hardy for the link). There is a gap in thinking between elites and ordinary Americans on matters of self-defense, and Bloomberg has made a concerted effort to keep MAIG’s message narrow, and focused on topics that poll well. While the other two gun control groups, CSGV and Brady, have become a P.T. Barnum quality freak show, MAIG is being very careful with its image and message. Bloomberg must be worried fighting Stand your Ground using his Mayors could backfire on him.
He’s right. MAIG already got a small taste of what a minor campaign by NRA against his mayors cost him in terms of membership. He would not want to do anything to wake up the grassroots to take the fight to his mayors on their own. I think we can expect MAIG to largely stay out of the fight on Stand Your Ground, while Bloomberg will run a parallel effort under his own name, rather than that of his Mayors organization.
Join the Conversation (4 comments)
May 15, 2012
Posted by Sebastian in Gun Rights | 2 comments
He’s helping with an Amicus brief challenging discretionary permit issuance, and he needs every “the blood will run in the streets” quote you all can find. Doesn’t have to literally be that, but any quite predicting murder, mayhem, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!
Join the Conversation (2 comments)
May 14, 2012
Posted by Sebastian in Anti-Gun Folks | 25 comments
Anytime a remark of mine spawns a post on CSGV’s “Things Pro-Gun Activists Say That We Take Out Of Context“ I feel I must be doing something right. I finally got tired of them spewing their peacenik nonsense, and tried to make them live up to the logical conclusion of their rhetoric, which would be that the violent, armed resistance that was necessary to eradicate Nazism in Europe was an immoral act. Apparently they didn’t appreciate that, and went off at length to mischaracterize my statement as suggesting that advocating non-intervention was the same as outright support.
But the fact is, anyone who advocated for waging peace against the Nazis, or sitting idly by while Hitler conquered Europe and wiped the Jewish people off the face of the planet, certainly fits in the category of those who “would have let Hitler finish his final solution.” Perhaps that is a logical conclusion of CSGV’s rhetoric for which they are deeply uncomfortable. But I suspect that is the case.
I would point out I never got a satisfactory answer to my question posed here, and ultimately CSGV had to cop out of that particular conversation, suggesting that questions about how to defeat Hitler by waging peace were above their pay grade, even though they themselves advocate this philosophy on a regular basis.
Join the Conversation (25 comments)
May 14, 2012
Posted by Sebastian in Anti-Gun Folks | 2 comments
Given that the Communication Director for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Ladd Everitt, is a contributor at this site, don’t expect him to be condemning this bit of insurrectionist thinking any time soon:
I think it’s no accident that the question of self-defense has been coming up in some circles in the Occupy movement at this time. Having the discussion reflects how many people are realizing that moving the 1 percent out of the driver’s seat is a revolutionary mission. The person who doesn’t feel fear at the prospect of revolution is out of touch with their feelings. It’s only natural at such a moment to wonder if there is some way to act boldly — and at the same time stay safe.
The author even notes the history of armed resistance to the Klan and other aspects of the civil rights movement that occurred; facts that make Ladd Everitt decidedly uncomfortable. To be clear I don’t view violence as a legitimate answer to the problem of the 1%, the 3% or whatever side it’s coming from, provided the mechanisms of our Republic still largely function. But the author is at least taking a serious look at a serious topic. When we do this, Ladd is all over us for our “insurrectionism” and violence rhetoric. It just goes to show his double standard, and the double standard of all our opponents.
Join the Conversation (2 comments)
May 14, 2012
Posted by Sebastian in Carrying / Self-Defense | 3 comments
Barron Barnett and Weer’d take a look at another example of our opponents mourning a criminal who was justifiably killed by the person he was attacking. This is an example of what Bitter and I have been calling the “every little snowflake is precious” syndrome. Barron comes up with several more examples of this philosophy.
We should always strive to avoid taking of human life if it can possibly be avoided, but sometimes an attacker leaves no other alternative. Sometimes not every snowflake is precious. Some little snowflakes turn into thugs and cold blooded killers. Sometimes that happens before they turn 18. If our opponents want to actually contribute something positive in this world, they would take a look at the underlying social conditions that make juveniles turn to armed robbery, rather than focusing on the tools of that profession, and the people who carry defensive arms to protect themselves against our opponents precious snowflakes.
Join the Conversation (3 comments)
