2011 – Page 83 – Shall Not Be Questioned

On the Debt Ceiling

Uncle thinks it’s going to get raised. I agree. I have one more prediction for the next several years as well: we’re going to raise taxes. The fundamental problem is that the baby boomer generation didn’t have enough kids and didn’t save enough of their income for retirement, yet they expect the same cushy retirement their parents had (who did often save, and had plenty of kids). Given that the politics of this country has typically tracked the boomer generation, there’s no way we’re getting over this hump without more taxes to cover social security and medicare obligations. This problem is only going to get worse as more boomers retire and end up on the dole.

The only way this is not going to happen is if we have substantial entitlement reform now, which isn’t likely, and whichever party tries that will likely get eviscerated at the polls. Unless Gen Xers and Gen Yers can basically become a unified political movement, and essentially gang up on the boomers and say no to taxes and yes to entitlement reform, we will have more taxes to finance baby boomer retirements.

I don’t believe financial sense will come to the government until both sides come to an understanding that the current path is unsustainable, and the Democrats agree they’ve run out of other people’s money, and stop with the stimulus, bailouts, high speed rail, green jobs, and all the other bullshit they like to waste money on. Republicans need to focus on balanced budgets, and sometimes that’s going to mean you need to get voters to face the true costs of the programs they are demanding from government.

We not only need to reduce the deficit, I think we need to pay down debt. The current world financial system is precarious. Europe is on the verge of plunging off a cliff. I think China is a giant bubble waiting to burst. The Islamic world is brewing, and God knows what is going to come out of there, and God help us if it has nuclear weapons, and the means to deliver, on top of that. Historically, all this would mean there’s a large, bloody war coming. What money will we use to finance that if we’ve maxed out the credit card?

I’ve joked with my father that we’ll have to draft baby boomers to fight the next war, so we fix the social security and medicare liability problem at the same time. That generation has already fought a war, but this one we’ll let them win. They can drive the tanks, man the ships, and ferry supplies. We’ll let the kids who are good with video games control the UAVs, the high-powered space lasers, and giant killer robots.

Jesus Saves at Walmart

Apparently Jesus has appeared to a South Carolina couple’s receipt from Walmart. What I want to know is how they know it’s Jesus, and not Grigori Rasputin?

The Veneer Gets Thinner

I think our opponents are going to have a more and more difficult time making excuses for federal law enforcement when it comes to the handling of Fast and Furious:

In the controversial Fast & Furious program, the FBI trafficked assault weapons across the Mexican border in order to try to locate criminals. But many of the guns have since shown up at crime scenes in the US, and one theory investigators are exploring is that the ATF agents were unknowingly selling weapons to straw purchasers created by the FBI using informants and maybe even taxpayer money.

So it would seem to me the proper response to this whole Mexican canard is for the US government to stop aiding and abetting the smuggling of weapons into Mexico. No law new law is going to be as effective as this eminently reasonable measure.

Sunday Hunting in PA

Apparently farmers are the main people opposing this:

Apart from the religious justification for the ban, Farm Bureau members also claim they want one day free of hunters traipsing across their property.

Hikers and bird-watchers join the farmers, saying they want one day a week of bullet-free passage through Pennâ€™s Woods. And some sportsmen also support the ban, saying the wild critters they stalk need a day of rest as well.

Do the wild critters get a day of rest from bears, bobcats, or cougars? Sunday hunting, I think, is an important move to help reverse a declining sport, or at least to slow the decline. It’s amazing to me what a tough debate this has been. I can’t think of any state that’s passed Sunday hunting where it wasn’t a fight, and not with HSUS, but other hunters and people from rural areas where hunting is generally well supported.

Chiappa Review

I’ve been intrigued by the Chiappa revolver design for a while, even though the name almost sounds like you’d expect it to arrive with a kit where you rub dirt all over the barrel and sprinkle little seeds on top. Could be a revolutionary new finish, though I’m sure Bloomberg would find time to complain about it. The “green” marketing practically writes itself though. It could be a gun for hippies.

But speaking seriously of the Chiappa, Shelley, over at gun nuts, does reviews on guns they put out for rental at the shop she works at. This strikes me as a good way to find out whether a pistol holds up to abuse or not. Unfortunately, her review of the Chiappa Rhino isn’t as good as I had hoped, though it’s possible she just got a lemon. Every company will put out a bad gun every once in a while. Have you had experience with the Chiappa revolver? If so, what’s your experience?

Land of the Used to be Free

A DC Circuit court has upheld the TSA nude-o-scope and government mandating groping as in compliance with the Fourth Amendment. If something like this isn’t what the founders had in mind when they wrote the damned thing, I don’t know what is. I’m really tired of the high degree of deference the courts give the other branches of Government, particularly in Fourth Amendment law. Tam has yet another example of federal overreach on the part of the FDA, and what has to be a quote of the day:

At this rate, everybody’s going to be so busy stockpiling 100-watt bulbs and glucosamine tablets that they won’t have any room for ammunition… Which might be the plan, actually.

The big problem with our political system is that it’s designed to only really handle big issues. Petty bureaucrats and politicians are pretty much free to chip away at the edges with little fear of consequences. How many women are willing to put up with elected officials who want to grope their children provided they still stand for letting her cut a fetus out of her body? How many of us are OK with someone a politician who votes to ban lightbulbs if he votes the right way on guns? The government is free to chip away at the periphery as long as the population is focused on only a handful of big issues at a time. Does it matter so much that the government is groping our children at airports, which probably happens to your average family once every few years, when it’s quite busy spending all our children’s future earnings?

It doesn’t really work for keeping liberty, but I’m not sure how to change it. I’ve often believed the right would do better to apply the NRA model to a lot of these smaller issues. Would I join a lobby to save the 100 Watt lightbulb? Hell yes. Would I join a lobby that took on FDA overreach? Hell yes. But I’m probably only 2% of the population who even really understands the issue, let along is outraged by it. The NRA model can work because there’s enough people who care about this big issue to support something like the NRA, and a lot of other groups in addition. I would think if there was viability in some of these smaller issues, someone would be capitalizing on it by now.

The Helmke Tenure Review, Part I

Paul Helmke has been chatting it up with the Indianapolis Star about his time with the Brady Campaign, and I find think we can find big clues about his departure in his answers.

Accountability on Meeting Goals
In answering a question about his biggest accomplishment, Helmke responded:

I think we elevated the attention that the issue has been getting. My view was it was tough getting through to elected officials on Capitol Hill, so I wanted to get in the media as much as I could.

The first thing I hear in that statement is “I think.” What does he mean that he “thinks” he accomplished his goal of getting his position into the media? As the former president, that is something Helmke should know. He should have a recent board report – or at least a general idea of the numbers from it on whether he actually accomplished the goal of increasing the number of media hits, the diversity of media hits, the number of target audience hits, and the advertising value of those total hits for his tenure. Either he is saying “think” in order to distract from the fact that he did not reach his goal, or he is saying “think” because he legitimately doesn’t know which means he wasn’t holding himself accountable to meeting said goals. Neither of those circumstances is good for continued employment.

Connecting with Lawmakers
Going back to his answer on his greatest accomplishment, Helmke says that it was hard to get through to lawmakers. One reason may tie into just who Helmke was compared to who those lawmakers who push gun control are:

When I got hired, one of the reasons they said they wanted me is because they were tired of being seen as a Democratic, liberal, East Coast organization.

So here I was: a Republican, Midwestern, former mayor. Part of what I’ve tried to do at the job over the last five years is to say that gun control shouldn’t be a wedge issue, that it shouldn’t be a Republican versus Democrat issue.

He was someone who could not pledge party loyalty and he was someone who could not identify with the highly urban and mostly East & West Coast districts. If he was truly trying to keep it from being a wedge issue, that won’t work to unify many of the leaders of the gun control caucus on the Hill. Look at what one of their favorites Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee can do – trying to make race a wedge issue on the debt ceiling debates. His side loves a wedge issue. Other than Mike Castle, they didn’t exactly have Republicans lining up to sponsor their bills. By the end of his first three years, Helmke should have recognized that his strategy of bringing Republicans to the table wasn’t really working. Clearly, he wasn’t willing to change his approach in a way that made any serious advances with lawmakers of any stripe.

Connecting with True Believers
In addition to media, Helmke said grassroots were his next big concern.

My plan from the start had been to be start organizing at the grass-roots level more. We do have chapters around the country, and they do make a difference. But most of them are in places where we’re doing well already — in California and New York and New Jersey.

What I wish I had done more of early was organize grassroots chapters in places where we haven’t done so well, through the Midwest and the Plains states.

So once again we’re looking at an early goal not realized. And, just so we’re clear, it’s good to know that Paul thinks Joan’s efforts weren’t worth much up in Minnesota.

But, in all seriousness, this answer tells me that he doesn’t know how to connect with the people who would be his grassroots on gun control. The people of New Jersey, California, and New York would say they have a ways to go before things are good in those states. It’s not about being moderate to them, it’s about making gun ownership the biggest hassle while technically not overturning the Second Amendment (at least until they can help Barack see one of the Heller Five off the bench.) To those folks, they aren’t just waiting for other states to catch up, they want people in those other states to have just as much passion as they do to make gun ownership as big a hassle as possible.

People don’t get excited for a “moderate” message – even if that’s what they actually believe. Those who are closer to the margins are the ones who are passionate. They are the ones who are more informed about what needs to be done and political opportunities to advance the cause. Talking to the middle doesn’t actually work very well. If the Brady board continued to order Paul to do that, then his lack of success is as much on them as it is on him.

Not the Idea Guy
One of the final reasons I don’t think Helmke worked out for them struck me in that last featured response – he’s a former mayor. Yet, it’s Mike Bloomberg who is the personality behind Mayors Against Illegal Guns. Granted, I’ll give it to Paul that the coalition was formed the same year he took over for Brady, but I think it highlights that he didn’t exactly bring his “local” way of thinking to the issue in a way that developed grassroots for them or otherwise put political pressure on federal lawmakers.

There weren’t any new or memorable initiatives by the Brady Campaign during his term as President. There is something to be said for coming back to the table and being persistent on the specific legislative issues you’re most passionate about, but you have to come up with fresh ideas to see what balls you can move down the court in any given year. If it’s the same mode of attack year and year out without progress, it’s time to move on to someone with new ideas.

Text of Trafficking Law

It’s hard to see any gotcha’s with the text of this proposed anti-trafficking law, in terms of ensnaring otherwise law-abiding individuals, but as the commenter who posted it noted, it’s also hard to see what this criminalizes that’s not already criminalized. Disposing of one firearm, let alone two firearms, to someone the person knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is prohibited from possessing the firearm, is a felony punishable by ten years. The proposed crime reaches the organizer of such sales, but it’s hard to see how conspiracy wouldn’t reach those individuals under current laws.

The only place I can see this coming into play, where current laws don’t necessarily apply, is if you’re transferring the firearm to someone who you know will use or dispose of it unlawfully, but is not otherwise prohibited from purchasing a firearm. But again, it’s hard to see how this could not be reached by conspiracy.Â If you know, or have reasonable cause to believe, that your act is going to aid in the furtherance a crime, you’re reachable under conspiracy.

So this statute is, to be blunt, a joke. I can’t see this has any purpose short of trying to divert attention away from the Fast and Furious scandal, and to try deflect blame for the DOJ’s criminal mishandling of the program, and their abysmal record of prosecuting traffickers under existing law. This is a dog and pony show put on by the Democrats to try to blame Fast and Furious on the gun laws, and it’s blatantly transparent.

Interesting Observations About Our Opponents

From commenter terraformer:

Some people (not saying you are one of them) think that the drafters of this legislation just want to convict innocent people, etc and although I fully accept there are some warped individuals on the brady side with this goal, the overbroad and abuse friendly legislation comes from elsewhere.

It comes from the fact that these people so thoroughly trust the DAs and the cops to not screw up (forget about intentional corruption for a sec) that they see no problem with the broad discretionary/interpretive powers handed to authorities.

A guy got his guns stolen up here a few years back. He suspected a neighborhood kid. The cops dragged the kid (pre-teen) in and got a confession out of him and made sure it implied that the guns were not properly stored and allowed easy access to the kid. The cops charged the gun owner with improper storage and didn’t charge the kid for stealing them because of his age (and it turns out in order to get the “confession”). The guns turned up across town and the guy had them was linked to the robbery. The confession was a result of browbeating a pre-teen into regurgitating leading questions.

But we should trust authority, right???

Having observed folks on the other side for quite some time, I think this is correct. There are some petty and vindictive folks on the other side, but a naive faith in government, and an unshakable belief that government officials will do the right thing, are at the root of laws that grant broad authority to officials, essentially putting us in their hands. I quite often think many of our opponents would be fine with a law that says guns are illegal for anyone to possess that the Attorney General believes would be a danger to society. It’s common sense, after all. Who wants someone to have a gun that’s dangerous to society? These are not people who read Orwell, or study history in any serious way.

Another excellent observation comes from commenter jdege over at our favorite Brady Board member’s blog, where she suggested the problem with people murdering each other is a culture that is accepting of gun ownership and gun possession:

The problem isn’t “the culture”, it’s the individual who decided to pull the trigger.

You’re continued attempts to confuse, deflect, and share responsibility only makes things worse.

There’s one finger on the trigger, and one person who decided to pull it. No one else is responsible, and the decisions and behaviors of no one else is relevant.

Second Amendment advocates often hurl the word “collectivists” at our opponents. After a long time reading what they have to say, I can’t find any evidence this isn’t a completely accurate description of a large number of them. One of the things that caused me, as a gun owner and avid shooter, to get more involved with the issue is being greatly incensed at the constant attempts to make me responsible for the negligent, criminal or suicidal behavior of others. There’s something about that attitude that does not sit well with me, and I suspect the same is true for many of you.

This brings to mind the legal term corruption of blood, a concept wisely eschewed by the founders in the United States Constitution. Our opponents are strong believers in a variant of this concept of guilt. Collective guilt, collective responsibility, collective sacrifice. Surrender your rights and privileges because of the abuses of the few. Think about where that idea leads, and it doesn’t go pretty places. There might be room in this country for some gun regulations, but at long as these people are the ones driving the idea, it’s going to be opposed by people like us. There isn’t trust. There can’t be trust. Our opponents philosophical roots are vastly different than ours.

Recent Research on Suicide and Guns

It’s difficult to say exactly when this was first published, but it just hit Health Policy this past month. The conclusion is interesting:

Our empirical analysis suggest that firearms regulations which function to reduce overall gun availability have a significant deterrent effect on male suicide, while regulations that seek to prohibit high risk individuals from owning firearms have a lesser effect.

In other words, keeping “dangerous weapons out of the hands of dangerous people,” as Brady of fond of promoting doesn’t work. The only thing that does? Regulations that make it harder for you and me, who are not dangerous, and will likely never be suicidal, from exercising our rights under the constitution.