Looks like Pittsburgh is the latest city to jump on the “Lost and Stolen” bandwagon. And all this with zero proof it does anything to limit the supply of guns to the black market.
Month: October 2008
Funny of the Day
When Dave Hardy used to work as an attorney for the Department of Interior, apparently they had a tribe of Native Ameircans who, as a publicity stunt, filed for status as an endangered species. The response he drafted is absolutely hilarious. Make sure to check all the footnotes too.
It’s Just A “Petty Offense”
Newsweek apparently thinks that when we say “Obama voted to criminalize self-defense with a gun in the home.” that it’s not true because what Obama voted for was merely a “Petty Offense” with a small $750 dollar fine:
The ad fails to mention that the issue was a local handgun ban that made the homeowner’s gun illegal to keep in the house.
What Obama voted for was not any general repeal of the right of self-defense, but to uphold enforcement of the local gun ban, a “petty offense” that carried a maximum penalty of a $750 fine.
Oh yeah, that makes it better. Thanks Newsweek, for making our jobs easier! They go on to detail that the commercial NRA is running as being false, and then talk about the real Hale DeMar story. Perfect!
Seriously, the media is so out of touch they don’t realize just how offensive the true “true story” of what Obama really voted for is to a very large number of Americans. If you can’t use a firearm to defend yourself in your home, without risking a government fine, then self-defense with a gun in the home is a crime. Period. That’s what Obama voted for.
The Scarlet Letter
Apparently armed robbers are in the tank for Obama too:
Pittsburgh police spokeswoman Diane Richard tells Channel 4 Action News that the victim was robbed at knifepoint on Wednesday night outside of a Citizens Bank near Liberty Avenue and Pearl Street just before 9 p.m.
Richard said the robber took $60 from the woman, then became angry when he saw a McCain bumper sticker on the victim’s car. The attacker then punched and kicked the victim, before using the knife to scratch the letter “B” into her face, Richard said.
I guess this guy misheard the campaign’s slogan as “Gimma all the change you’ve got so I can believe in it!” My car sticker says “Sportsmen for McCain” on it, which hopefully would be enough to allow Mr. Scarlet Letter give to realize that his intended victim will respond with 9mm “O”s to any attempt to carve a “B”.
UPDATE: Upon further questioning, it appears there’s a lot to be skeptical of here.
UPDATE: Yep, it’s a hoax. Man, what an attention whoring tool this chick is. She’s facing charges. Good.
Pragmatics vs. Principle
There’s an interesting discussion going on the comments at The Liberty Zone over the conference call with Governor Matt Blunt yesterday. This argument has played out many a times on the blogosphere and elsewhere. Nikki says:
My view is that if we continue to cast our votes AGAINST a contender, instead of FOR whom we want to see in the White House, we make easier for the major parties to continue their “business as usual” policies without giving them incentive for actual change.
The last time I was for a candidate was in the primaries when I supported Fred Thompson (who was out by the time the PA primaries came around). The time to get the person you want is in the party primaries. Everything after that is going to be a compromise if your preferred candidate doesn’t win. If libertarians (small l) eschew party politics, they are guaranteeing political irrelevance. One of the reasons the candidates pay so much attention to the religious vote is because they come out in hordes in the primary elections. Look what they did for Mike Huckabee last year. No one expected Governor Huckabee to do as well as he did, but he had the religious vote behind him.
Bryan Pick mentioned in one of his comments:
Like I wrote earlier, if you vote third party, you send a signal to the major parties about your preferences, about where they have to go to get your vote — assuming they believe your vote is gettable.
Who exactly are you sending a signal to? Primary voters aren’t going into the voting booth and thinking about keeping the coalition together, they are going in to vote for the candidate that most fits their individual principles. At best, by voting third party, you can influence candidates to run who think they have the right mix of ideas and principles to prevail in the primary. But once they’re thinking about that, you’re already dealing with compromises.
The only way to get a candidate that is aligned 100% with your views it to run yourself. Short of that, participating in politics at the local level, and promoting candidates who share your views the most is really the only way to change things on a macroscopic scale in the long run.
No single special interest has enough clout on their own to win an election. In our republican system, we form coalitions of interests into political parties, presumably comprised of people who hate each other less than they hate that coalition of other people. All politics involves compromise. It’s the nature of the beast. At what point that compromise becomes too much to bear is a different topic, and really boils down to inidividual choice.
But I do believe that libertarians have been too demanding of a place in politics, Republican, Libertarian or otherwise, that are far beyond their contributions to it. Perhaps there just aren’t enough libertarians out there to really have much of a place, but I don’t really believe that. In my view, the persistent problem libertarians have had getting any traction, has to do with their unwillingness to make any compromises or do any work within the party system.
This is a long battle we wage. It’s been raging for generations, and it’s not going to stop any time soon. Sometimes you get dealt a not so great hand. Sure, you can leave the game, or you can try your best to minimize your losses, and get yourself into a position to have a better hand next time. The left has put a lot of chips down on the O-man, and I’m a lot more interested in getting him to bust out, so we can stay in the game and avoid bleeding chips. In poker there’s a lot of luck in the draw, in politics getting a better hand involves working hard to make sure there are good cards in the deck. I’m working for McCain this election not so much because I like him, but because if he wins we can stay in the game. I work for the local endorsed candidates so that politicians who support gun rights have an incentive to run — they know I can help them get votes and support. That’s making sure the deck is stacked in our favor for when we draw future hands. It’s not fun work. It often involves holding your nose. Sometimes you have to put some deeply held reservations about some candidates aside in order to stay in the game. But if you don’t get in and do the dirty work, someone else will, and they will be the ones who decide the cards the rest of us get to play with. Personally, I’d rather help stack the deck in our favor.
Blogger Gets Pro-Gun Column
David Codrea (who’s name I now know how to pronounce properly since hearing him say it on the Gov. Blunt call yesterday) who runs the blog War on Guns, has a new column in the Examiner.com for the Cleveland area.
Why Some Candidates Don’t Get Endorsements
I was talking to a friend who was lamenting the Senate race in Massachusetts, where the guy running against Kerry just didn’t seem all that impressive. It’s a real problem in states that have one party rule, since that tends to destroy both parties. It destroys the party in power, because they no longer feel the need to please their constituents. It destroys the opposition party, because no one worth their salt wants to run a campaign that’s guaranteed to lose.
Looking at the Massachusetts race from a gun point of view, John Kerry retains his F rating and Jeff Beatty carries an A grade, but no endorsement. At the ANJRPC annual meeting a few weekends ago, we were addressed by a Republican candidate for Congress in New Jersey, Roland Straten. When I say addressed, I actually mean yelled at. This guy got up, and told us how mad he was at NRA and ANJRPC for not grading or endorsing him. I don’t mean calmly and rationally either, you could actually tell he was visibly angry. Well, it turns out that he has a grade from NRA. I would suggest that if the best the New Jersey GOP can offer is someone who tries to get your support by yelling at you, that probably says a lot about why he’s not endorsed.
But NRA typically will not endorse a candidate unless their endorsement will actually help the candidate win. There’s no way Massachusetts is electing a Republican to the Senate this year. It’s just not going to happen, no matter who endorses him. Roland Straten is also a sacrificial lamb. Looking at his district, it’s most decidedly an uphill battle for any Republican, even ones who don’t have anger management issues. But NRA doesn’t endorse in these races because the endorsement won’t help, and because it would reduce their endorsement win percentage.
All political organizations that issue endorsements are concerned about keeping the value of their endorsements high. If you consistently endorse candidates who are lost causes, the number of elections you successfully swings drops, and along with that so does the value of your endorsement. NRA’s endorsement win percentage is high for an issue organization. In the 2004 election, it was 96%. The 2006 election was rough, which dropped it to 86%. Studies have shown that NRA’s endorsement is worth anywhere from 3 to 6 percentage points in an election, depending on the number of NRA members residing in the district. There’s not much to be gained, either by the candidate, or by NRA, in endorsing a challenger who’s not even close.
I Need One
An alarm clock you have to shoot with a laser gun in order to deactivate. Seems like it would be good for making sure you’re awake, and also learning to get your sight picture and aim after being suddenly woken up.
Of course, you’re going to want to make sure you’re picking up the laser gun to turn off the Gun O’Clock alarm clock. Rumor has it other guns will silence the alarm too, but run the risk of substantial collateral damage.
You Will Be Dependent!
House Democrats are eyeing eliminating 401K contributions, and mandating that 5% of our pay go into a retirement account run by the Social Security Administration.
They’ve got to be kidding me! Is this change I can believe in? The Republicans might suck, but the Democrats are seriously out to make everyone a ward of the state. Dr. Helen’s John Galt scenario is looking better all the time.
They can have my 401K when they pry it from my cold, dead account statement.
The Latest Palin Manufactured Controversy
She likes to travel with her kids to state functions! Burn her at the stake!