The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State …
Local pundits are suggesting that it’s this commercial:
Folks, if all a left-wing Democrat has to do to win is put his foo foo dog in a commercial blaming Bush for the country’s problems, we’re totally screwed. I’d like to encourage everyone to get out there and do something for Pat Toomey. We need to win this. If Dems get another state wide win with an openly anti-Second Amendment candidate, it’s not going to stop with Joe Sestak.
CNBC is busily promoting a show which will purportedly show the 700 is a dangerous firearm. Remington isn’t taking it lying down. Also see this interview with Cam Edwards on NRA News.
[Video Removed due to autoplay. Here’s a link. Remington, guys, use YouTube. This looks like the same abomination of an app that NRA uses. Bad move.]
It’s well understood when it comes to journalistic integrity, NBC has none. I believe nothing of what the media says anymore without some independent facts to back it up. They’ve been lying to the American public for years, it’s just now they are getting caught.
Hat tip to Firearms Blog.
[Full disclosure, Neither Remington nor its parent company advertises on this site. I just really hate CNBC.]
We’re very concerned about some recent polling that shows Joe Sestak either closing the lead on Toomey or ahead of him. Polling is obviously not the end all be all, but suffice it to say it has us concerned. Especially considering it was a last minute surge that put Sestak over the top.
If Joe Sestak is elected Senator, he will be the most anti-gun Senator this state has ever had. If we can’t beat Joe Sestak this year, Pennsylvania will not stay pro-gun for long. Every gun owner needs to get out and vote for Toomey. Sestak doesn’t even believe you have a right to have a gun in the home for self-defense. If that’s not too radical for Pennsylvania gun owners, we’re doomed.
Chris shares with us some of the Reasoned DiscourseTM, and notes:
As a side note, I’m not a huge fan of hand grenades, personally. I just don’t see an epidemic of hand grenade crime, they are already highly regulated, and I really doubt that you can just go to a gun show and buy one over the counter.
Not something I’m chomping at the bit to get my hands on either (unlike, say, something belt fed), but I think it’s interesting Ms. Japete believes we can just pick them up at any local gun show. Nothing could convince me more her entire field of knowledge about gun shows comes from scary crap she’s read from the Brady folks, and their like.
I’ve never been to a gun show that didn’t have law some law enforcement presence, with the exception of some smaller ones. Who would have guessed a place where people are buying and trading valuable items that criminals want to steal, the promoters might want a cop or two around.
So how, exactly, does Ms. Japete think that a highly contraband object is being sold at gun shows where there is likely to be law enforcement presence?
As long as I’m already picking on her, here’s another gem:
And finally, at least for now: This man was just plain lucky that his loaded gun being shown at a gun show didn’t shoot another person.
Let me fix that for you:
And finally, at least for now: This man was just plain lucky that someone didn’t pick up his loaded gun being shown at the gun show and carelessly shoot another person.
Be careful what your words convey about your attitude, lest we start wondering whether you can really grasp who the responsible parties would be in that scenario. This might be nitpicking on anyone else, but I really do believe our favorite Brady Board member believes that guns kill people.
I’m rather amused at the irony of a Brady Board member speaking about the problem of handling loaded guns in public when their side promotes it every time they advocate creating another “gun free” exception to the rule that LTC holders can carry loaded firearms in public. It may not be the intent, but the practical effect is people removing loaded firearms from themselves in public places, and leaving them in vehicles where they are more susceptible to theft. That a gun is best left in a holster in control of the person carrying it is my definition of “common sense.”
The shows I’ve been to vary on whether they let you carry loaded. Some do. Others suggest any gun coming through the door get flagged (usually with a tie through the action or barrel). It only takes one incident, like this idiot, for a show to get kicked out of a venue, and most promoters don’t want to take the risk. But again, I think there’s a greater risk of a round going off having dozens of people loading and unloading firearms than someone carrying doing something stupid with it. Few shows I’ve seen have adequate clearing barrels or backstops for people unloading carry pieces. You want to promote gun safety? How about taking that issue up with promoters?
I just can’t not look, even though I know I’d be better off just getting to my destination faster. Despite my best efforts to not pay any more attention, Cemetery’s title was pretty much my exact quote this morning when I saw this over at our favorite Brady Board member’s blog. I will reproduce the portion of the comment here in case it disappears into the pool of Reasoned Discourse:
So here are some examples of hand grenades, which are being smuggled into Mexico as we speak, according to Brady Campaign Board members:
They are even offering, the horror, a chance to win a pistol with it too I guess, and in the colors Bloomberg hates. Surely that will also end up fueling violence in Mexico. And we all know what every Mexican drug dealer wants under his tree at Christmas time…. just to make sure your kids know who’s boss, and stuff. I had no idea that Amazon was such a big time supplier! Wait, wait, how about this one, “Jose was such a great guy when we had parties down at the drug cartel office, until he bought one of these. It took the janitor three hours to clean up the mess!”
Surely Joan Peterson has at least enough ability to tell truth from falsity to know the difference between a real grenade and a lamp shaped like one? Or a cigarette lighter? Paperweight? Or an air device that just sprays plastic beads everywhere? I have to believe the answer is yes, because if the answer is no, this is more an issue in distinguishing reality from fantasy rather than truth from falsity. In this realm, I’m a real Airline Captain, because I’m going to go home tonight and hop on the the X-plane flight server and go somewhere in my very own Boeing 737. So just call me Captain Sebastian from now on. Do I get a barrel of rum? Who wants to go to Bermuda? Wait, Airline Captains can’t drink. Someone call the FAA and report me immediately.
Sorry folks, this just has me in stitches. I usually try to keep it classy, but sometimes you just have to laugh at your opponents. Before I believed there was value in maintaining a dialog with the other side. Now I am absolutely sure there is value in it!
UPDATE: Seems now she’s suggesting they ought to be illegal because you could take a deactivated grenade and make it live again. Does she also believe in prohibiting bottles because I could fill one with gasoline, stick a rag in it, and make a molotov cocktail? Does she favor banning iron pipes?
As soon as you’re dealing with explosives, you’re probably already breaking existing law. Definitely if you put it in something meant to fragment. Inert grenades are hunks of metal lady! That’s all they are. There’s no explosive, fuse or detonator in them.
And this is who we’re told should be making public policy? Please. I’m really curious to know what magical properties inert hunks of metal have in Joan Peterson’s mind.
I had one commenter, and Joe Huffman say they prefer the NRA’s rules more than Coopers. I have no beef with NRA’s rules. If you really try to pin me down, I’m really more in Tam’s “just don’t be stupid” camp. But given that people tend to communicate socially through the use of memes, both rule sets seem like they are well adapted to serve the purpose intended.
NRA’s rules have often been latched on to by our opponents, because they don’t consider a gun carried or kept nearby for self-defense to be “in use,” but I see that as a poor reason to reject them. I’m more interested in winning the mnemonic struggle for safety, so our opponents don’t get to use the stupid against us. I’m not really too concerned with what accomplishes that, as long as the right ideas get across.
NRA does not always get grades and endorsements correct. There are few state liaisons that don’t have more than one state, and the number of races to keep track of is in the hundreds. I’ve said before, there’s value in having a working relationship with the local people if it’s a topic you’re really concerned about — and the movement needs people who are concerned about it. That’s manifested itself this election more than others.
The late-in-the-season Castle Doctrine fight has complicated things. NRA has the problem of not only having a key vote that we’d like to consider heading into this November election, but the additional problem of magazines and endorsements needing to go out, and having all of its state legislative resources being focused on ensuring eventual victory on this issue.
That’s lead to me bringing into question some grades this particular election season. These are issues I am raising privately with them, and it’s probably best to do it that way, so I won’t go into details about particular races where I think they got it wrong. My greater point is, if you think they got it wrong, to raise the issue, and have some concrete things to point to as to why you might thing a grade is in error.
One race I can speak about, which illustrates the problem with late legislative fights, is that of endorsements. We just got our magazine, which has our local State Senator Robert “Tommy” Tomlinson listed as an A and endorsed. If you look on the web site, he’s listed as a B+, and carrying no NRA endorsement. The web site reflects the fact that Tomlinson voted to amend the Castle Doctrine bill with an amendment that would weaken LTC reciprocity by removing the ability of Pennsylvania residents to carry firearms on a permit recognized as valid by the commonwealth.
I’m glad NRA dinged Tomlinson for it. He’s been good on our issue in the past, but decided to drift on this matter. It’s a shame, however, that the magazine isn’t going to reflect that. I think that’s probably good, longer term, because it’ll give Senator Tomlinson a chance to talk to some of us about the issue, and hopefully make amends. It’s worth noting the Democrat running against Tomlinson is F rated, and no friend at all. I’m not willing write off Tomlinson yet, but in my role as volunteer coordinator, I’m going to be spending my resources on other races this election year.
UPDATE: I’m pleased to report that in regards to the local race in question, the error has acknowledged, and corrective action has been taken. Far too often people paint this stuff as some kind of conspiracy to sell out gun owners, when in reality sometimes it’s just an honest oversight. If you had hundreds of races to think about every two years, you’d probably misjudge a few of them too. That’s why NRA needs local people paying attention.
It’s a question I’ve wondered about for a while, but never really had a good answer for. A lot of people say they want smaller government, and more freedom, but that never seems to translate into the people in power making that happen. Why? I didn’t really understand it until I started involving myself in local politics through NRA’s electoral apparatus. I am definitely more of an observer more than a major player, in most things, and that’s true of my involvement in this endeavor as well. I am relatively uninterested in the elbow rubbing, social, or even civic aspects of political involvement, so much as figuring out the game and coming up with strategies to beat it. While I’ve learned a few things in this regard, the big thing I’ve learned is that the game is eminently beatable, and what prevents it from happening is a lack of players willing to participate in the game.
SayUncle linked yesterday to an article that sort of hints at what the problem is, though the author is a lot angrier than I am. The problem, essentially, is that there’s been no political constituency for liberty. Note that there’s a difference between a constituency, which is a lot of people saying they want more of it, and a political constituency, which are people saying they want liberty, and who are building a political structure to accomplish it. The Tea Party, right now, is mostly a constituency, but who is showing early signs of evolving into a political constituency.
I say evolving, because whether the Tea Party movement is for real, or a flash in the pan, depends entirely on what happens on November 2nd, and a lot more on what happens after. This is not because we’re about to elect the saviors of our Republic, and can happily go back to sleep, knowing the GOP will take care of the problem. That’s what happened in 1994, and the GOP took care of jack. But this year is somewhat different. 1994 did not have the levels of grassroots anger we’ve seen manifested through the Tea Party movement. This is something truly new. New and familiar or not, I’m not optimistic that a movement based purely on grassroots anger will stay angry long enough to seriously change the political dynamic. The question, after November 2nd, is whether or not the Tea Party movement will merely remain a vessel of grassroots anger, or will evolve into a political constituency.
What does a political constituency look like? Well, first and foremost, it creates a structure to enable the two fundamentals of electoral politics, money and votes. If you don’t wield either of those two things, you can’t change anything. The Tea Party movement has shown it can turn its anger into fundraising, and we’ll see how well it turns it into votes, but Tea Party victories are going to energize the left eventually, and a lot of newly elected politicians are going to disappoint us. What happens when the anger goes away? What happens when people who support smaller government decide things are getting better? To me that’s the real question. Can the Tea Party maintain positive momentum toward liberty even when times are better? If the answer is yes, this might be a game changer.
One thing that’s particularly bothered me about liberty loving people is how hard they think it is to change things — like a finger of lightning came down from the heavens and etched the New Deal, forever unalterable, in stone. Having participated in several elections now in the role of a volunteer coordinator, the one thing I’ve been struck with is how little it would take to fundamentally alter the political dynamic in this county. The number of people with serious influence over your local political apparatuses is actually quite small, and a lot of those individuals with influence honestly don’t bring much to the table (in either money, votes, or good ideas). If you had twenty motivated individuals rally around a liberty related issue, who were willing to give a little bit of time, or who could raise money, you would have a serious effects on the politics in your county. Whether it’s a Democratic or Republican district wouldn’t matter a whole hell of a lot, it would just be a matter of adjusting your tactics and expectations based on what you had to work with. All politics is local, when you get down to it. Multiply that across every county in the country, and suddenly things start to look a lot different nationwide.
So why hasn’t it happened for liberty issues? Because most people who have a strong understanding of what liberty is have better things to do. I don’t say that with any condescension. I can think, off the top of my head, about two dozen things I’d rather do than volunteer for an election, and at least as many things I’d rather spend my money on than political donations. I’d rather rub elbows with a dog than most politicians. It comes down to what you really value, and I’m not going to bemoan anyone’s choices there. But whether the truth hurts or not, people who love liberty haven’t put enough value on it to do what it takes to make a political constituency for it. That’s why Liberty loses.
Kind of like the guys fighting over the pretty chick at the prom. No doubt some folks in Fairfax are probably annoyed with this kind of stuff, but it’s a good situation to be in if you look at the bigger picture.