This would be like if a group of shooters, and I don’t mean a front group like AHSA, but actual shooters, got together and worked with the Brady Campaign to try to ban handguns.
Hunting has been on the decline for a while, and while many of the factors involved are fundamental, one big reason is the attitude of hunters themselves, and I can think of no better example than this.
UPDATE: I wonder if the Mule Deer Foundation will get behind the effort like they did last time. I sometimes have to wonder if Wayne Pacelle sometimes looks in bewildered amazement at the readiness that hunters stick their necks out in order that he may take the blade to their sport in order to slaughter it. If groups like the mule deer foundation don’t think HSUS will push a mule deer ban once they’ve picked off all the unpopular groups, they are naive beyond belief.
Brought to you by the same people who want to control your health care, the end result of Cash for Clunkers. You see them replace the oil with a 40% solution of sodium silicate, which turns into a glass like compound once all the water is driven off.
This is essentially what I was attempting to hit on with my post about effectively changing minds. Mike V. raises a good argument in the comments, “Explain to me what civil rights movement does not proceed by ‘seeking attention’. Please.” It’s a serious question and it deserves a serious answer, so I will try to clarify what I mean by attention seeking.
Mike is correct that all civil rights movements have to draw attention to the plight, as a first step. I don’t deny that. But we intuitively know there are effective and ineffective ways of doing that. I don’t think anyone would seriously suggest that had Rosa Parks instead pulled a roscoe out of her purse, pointed it at the head of the bus driver, and said “If you make me move to the back of the bus, I’m moving your brains to the front of the bus,” that would have been as effective as what she actually did. Both would have raised awareness of the issue, but by refusing to move and suffering arrest, the people who carefully orchestrated Parks’ civil disobedience put it in context other people could relate to, and begin to understand. It also conveyed how seriously the black community was, by showing they were willing to be subject to arrest. So intuitively there’s a difference between positive attention, which raises awareness, and negative or neutral attention, which could be considered attention for attention’s sake.
I can’t really figure out what purpose the rifle served other than bringing in the cameras. Sure, they talked a bit about the guns, because the press was asking about it, but they were also bringing up the laundry list of paleolibertarian complaints about the government. If the idea was to raise awareness of the issue, I think it got lost in the fact they were carrying a rifle. It might have brought the cameras, but it confused the message.
Had they arranged something like, carrying a pistol openly in DC, and suffered arrest, that would have been a different thing. I don’t think anyone would argue the dedication to the cause would have been admirable, and at the very least would have been directly related to the suppression of Second Amendment rights.
A guy at the club was selling an M1903-A3 for a really good price, so despite the fact that I really shouldn’t be spending the money right now, I picked it up. It’s in really good condition. A beautiful rifle. Serial number indicates date of manucature is 1942:
Now I just need to find a vintage rifle match, though I can shoot it in our club’s CMP matches.
Michael Bane talks about a new ad campaign from Advanced Armament Corp. As much as this will probably make some gun control advocates wet themselves, I think it’s something we ought to start pushing. This is one of those areas where the anti-gun community is will have to rely on lies and deception, since the truth is that any round that moves faster than sound, which is most of them, will still make noise. That’s why it’s a suppressor. Silencers are what you see in movies. I think we probably ought to ditch the term. How about slogans that show the reality of it:
“Muffle your car or get a fine. Muffle your pistol and get a felony.”
“The most effective hearing protection is stopping the noise to begin with.”
You can see why I’m not in marketing. Anyone else think up anything?
Arther Frommer thinks Arizona’s gun laws are horriffic. Unfortunately for him they are very similar to the laws in the rest of the country, including his home state of Missouri. If Art Frommer doesn’t want to be around people with guns on the streets, he better never leave New York City or New Jersey. And even there, the criminals still carry guns anyway. How can you write good travel guides if you know so little about the culture in the rest of the country?
Bucks Right is wondering where Patrick Murphy has been in this whole health care debate. Murphy sold himself to Bucks County residents as a moderate “blue dog” Democrat, but he is no such thing. He votes with the far left nearly every time, and instead of talking with constituents about health care reform, he’s gallivanting around the country speaking out against the military’s “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” policy. A policy I have mixed feelings on myself, but I think there are more important issues Murphy needs to be addressing with his constituents.
What’s upsetting to me is that the GOP has decided it has priorities in other districts, namely District 6, which is being vacated by Jim Gerlach who is making a run for the GOP nod for Governor, and District 7, which is being vacated by Joe Sestak who is challenging Snarlen. The GOP feels it has a better chance at getting these seats than it does taking on Murphy, who is sitting on a large war chest, and won by a 50,000 vote margin in the last election. But in 2010, he won’t have Obama’s coattails to coast on. I really hope the GOP at least gets a decent candidate up, or I fear we’ll be stuck with this leftist prick for a long time.
Judging from the public commentary about these stories, most Americans regard this behavior as bizarre, intimidating and dangerous, with frightening implications for the President’s safety in particular. But it is important not to treat these incidents of public gun-carrying as merely the misguided behavior of a few individuals. It is more than that. What we are seeing is the acting out of two central tenets of the extremist “gun rights” ideology long espoused by the National Rifle Association and other radical Second Amendment absolutists.
So you see, this is all part of an elaborate NRA fueled conspiracy against all that is good and decent in America. Even though NRA has said not a word about these protesters, and not said anything to encourage them. This despite the fact that they can see that this behavior is clearly controversial even within the community.
Oh well, at least he didn’t use the word “shock troops“
But Paul Helmke, president of the gun control group Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said Pratt has the wrong linkage between gun rights and healthcare.
“One of the burdens on our healthcare system are the 70,000 to 80,000 people that suffer gunshot wounds every year and survive, ending up in wheelchairs, or showing up in emergency rooms without insurance after being shot. There is a connection [between healthcare and gun rights] but it’s not the connection that Larry Pratt is talking about. We as a society are paying a large portion of the cost for this gun violence.â€
Yes, the connection is we’ll end up with gun restrictions because politicians become desparate to control costs, and are willing to listen to anyone with an idea. I find that to be much more plausible, and could justify wider restrictions on guns. I guess Larry wasn’t thinking big enough, eh Paul?
What’s the lesson supposed to be here anyway? That’s it’s better to be a victim? None of the people interviewed here have anything to feel guilty about. They did not create the circumstance that lead to the loss of life. I’m sure in the same situation, I would have a difficult time dealing with it as well, but there’s one thing that’s certain — in order to feel anguish, you have to be alive — and that is the goal of exercising your right of self-defense. I think it’s pretty unconscionable for the New York Times to dig up the pasts of these people, and make them relive a horrible moment.
