2007 – Page 29 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Gun Control Internationally

Ahab talks about Canada’s attempt to get rid of their registry.Â I’m less optimistic than he is about Canada.Â Gun control is popular in Ontario and Quebec, which can outvote the western provinces.Â I think the passion about gun control laws in Canada stems from a desire to be seen as different from the United States.Â That’ll be a tough egg to crack for shooters in Canada.

Ace talks about Japan, which is tightening it’s laws.Â I’m not sure how much tighter you can get than pretty much illegal already.

Apparently Australia’s new Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, is a shooter.

“Likewise, the federal Labor Party under the leadership of Kevin Rudd has signalled a closer, more understanding relationship with shooters.

“Mr Rudd is no stranger to the shooting range and has not shied away from the media about his support for the shooting sport.”

Kevin a gun lover, maybe even a gun toter?

The Howard years were not good for Aussie shooters.Â Hopefully Rudd will be better to them.Â Kind of strange that in Australia it could end up being Labor that’s friendly toward gun owners.

Do You Yahoo?

Jewell Williams tried to apologize for his “the yahoos win again” comment, but I have to agree with this guy that the real yahoos are in Philadelphia.

Reality Setting In

Days of our Trailers got an interesting ~~Brady fundraising e-mail~~ editorial by a Brady Board member:

We also need to get the message out that sensible gun laws work for all citizens, including those who own guns for hunting or self-protection. These legal gun owners need to join us to insist that the right to own firearms must be countered by sensible ownership protections. Without their support, we will never adequately address this issue, and the killing of our children will continue.

We need to work together, it’s for the children, after all. To me, they are adjusting their messaging in preparation for a likely defeat at the Supreme Court. The post Heller Brady line, assuming we prevail, will be “Of course it’s a right, but that doesn’t mean we can’t have sensible gun regulations.” Sensible gun regulations, like a total ban on functional firearms in cities. So to paraphrase “It’s an individual right, but that doesn’t mean anything!” will be the new Brady line post Heller, and we’ll continue to not take their crap about wanting to work together seriously.

Don’t let the door …

… hit you in the ass on the way out, Senator.

Apparently he’s perusing “other opportunities”.Â Like getting a head start on a lobbying career, as the new rules that require waiting two years after leaving office don’t kick in until 2008.Â He claims that’s not the case, but I’m not buying it.

He’s the kind of establishment Republican I’ve had quite enough of.

The Modern Totem

People think we gun nuts are exaggerating when we say that many believe guns are magical devices, capable of rendering people good or evil. We’re not.

UPDATE: Follow Breda’s link to the original source, and you’ll see it resolves to a site called Wounded in America. I checked their domain registration, and it resolved to Chicago, which got me suspicious.

Follow through to their website, and look who they receive their funding from: Physicians for Social Responsibility, Pikes Peak Community Foundation, and The Medical College of Wisconsin. Physicians for Social Responsibility and Medical College of Wisconsin both get funding from…. wait for it… it’ll shock you… The Joyce Foundation.

As I mentioned in Breda’s comments:

They are an incestuous bunch aren’t they? Great grass roots they have going there. You know, we do our advocacy for free. I think we’re getting the short end of the stick!

Win Some, Lose Some

Or in Bryan Miller’s case, lose big, but say you won. He’s spinning the tabling of HB 29, the lost and stolen gun bill, as an example of progress for his agenda. It’s true that the bill was tabled, but not for the reason Bryan thinks. It was tabled to save the Governor embarrassment, and it was the anti-gun forces that were mostly in favor of tabling it. It was tabled to avoid having it defeated outright, along with the other two bills. Let’s take a look at the votes, shall we? These were the representatives who were willing to go on record with a vote on this bill:

Representative Deberah Kula, D-52
Representative Joseph A. Petrarca, D-55
Representative Ronald S. Marisco, R-105
Representative Thomas C. Creighton, R-37
Representative Craig A. Dally, R-138
Representative John R. Evans, R-5
Representative Glen R. Grell, R-87
Representative Beverly Mackereth, R-196
Representative Carl W. Mantz, R-187
Representative Tina Pickett, R-110
Representative Todd Rock, R-90
Representative Katie True, R-41

Gee, those are all pro-gun Republicans, save two Democrats from districts that don’t look too kindly upon the Governor, or gun control. The Democrats who voted to table this bill, but voted against one gun a month were Pallone, Ramaley, and Walko. Gabig is the only Republican not voting for the other bills who switched sides and voted to table HB 29. I don’t think, given the pro-gun forces wanted this bill voted on, it’s reasonable to conclude this is a sign of progress for Bryan Miller’s legislative agenda for Pennsylvania.

One has to wonder if Mr. Miller were a boxer, he’d declare victory because the other guy only managed to crack a few rips, break a wrist, but failed to break his nose.

UPDATE: Rustmeister has more

I think they need to conduct a poll …

… asking Pennsylvania residents whether they appreciate politicians using their tax money to conduct polls.Â To me, polling is a political tool, and should be paid for with campaign funds, not public money.Â We’re supposed to be a Republic, and our state legislators need to act like it.Â I don’t want my legislators leading by poll, which are easily manipulated, and I certainly don’t want my tax dollars paying for it.

Wedge Issue

Jeff doesn’t think that Republicans will have anything useful to differentiate themselves from the Democrats on the gun issue if they nominate Rudy or Mitt. I agree. With the Supreme Court taking the Heller case, there’s no way gun control isn’t an issue in this campaign, and the issues involving Heller will play much more strongly for the Republicans than the Democrats. What Democratic candidate will want to go on record as favoring a ban on all functional firearms in the home?

Whether it’s Hillary or Obama, they will be forced to take a position on that. If they run on a platform of supporting the DC gun ban, they put themselves outside the majority opinion. It could be a great issue for the Republican candidate, but not if it’s Mitt or Rudy.

UPDATE: Armed and Safe has more.

Maybe She Needs To Talk to Hil Again

I have to wonder if Elanor Roosevelt, in her speaking to Hillary Clinton, ever mentioned this whole thing. Of course, I’m not sure I’d say the Roosevelts were champions of gun rights. After all, it was FDR who put his signature on the National Firearms Act.

Doesn’t Jibe With the 911 Tape

Apparently the Pasadena man who shot two burglars who were stealing from his neighbor’s house is remorseful about the incident.

Lambright contended that Horn was startled to find the burglars just 15 feet from his front door when he stepped onto his porch. “He was petrified at that point,” the lawyer said. “You hear him say, ‘I’ll shoot. Stop!’ They jumped. Joe thought they were coming for him. It’s a self-defense issue.”

You can hear the complete 911 tape here. I didn’t hear “I’ll shoot. Stop!” I heard “Move, n’yer dead!” followed by shotgun blasts. Syd had a lot more on the event here. John Lott had this to say:

I am however bothered by the advice given by the 911 operator not to go outside to intervene. It appears as if the 911 operator is giving advice that would cover all such cases and I don’t see how that is at all responsible.

Given the circumstances, I’m not sure I disagree with what the dispatcher did. The dispatcher doesn’t know this guy from Adam, and for all you know he might end up causing more problems than he’s fixing, and the dispatcher had reason to believe that was the case.

But he’s a 911 dispatcher, not a family friend offering sage advice. His job is just to keep a lid on everything, and from his point of view, a fella wandering around the scene of a crime with a shotgun is trouble waiting to happen. From my point of view, a residential burglary is a job for the police, but if I’m reasonably confident my neighbors are home, or hear screams or other such, am I going to listen to the 911 guy saying not go outside? We all have to think about what’s right, and keep in mind that agents of the state will act as such, and are more concerned about a good outcome for them, rather than the people directly involved.

I don’t think this guy in Pasadena exercised judgment that was even in the same universe as good, and his lawyer will have quite a job cut out for him. Legally, I believe he’s quite likely a murderer. Whether or not a Texas grand jury will see things that way, we’ll see. I won’t suggest that if they fail to indict it’s a travesty of justice.