The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State …
All I can say is this is going to make the Vice Presidential debates a thing to watch. Paul Ryan v. Joe Biden? That’s almost worth getting cable again for. But here I am, I once again, as I have for every race since 1996, wishing the ticket were reversed. GOP candidates seem to do a better job picking leaders than GOP primary voters.
UPDATE: Ryan on guns.
Lots of people are commenting on Elliot Spitzer’s plan for gun control, which makes about as much economic sense as being a john worried about the catching the clap, and trying to tell a high priced hooker that you won’t pay her for sex anymore unless she agrees to sleep with no other clients. Think she’s going to agree to that? Maybe that can put this into economic terms the former Governor can understand.
Congrats to All Nine Yards. Sean Caranna really seems to be upsetting the right people. The funny thing is the counterstrategy to their strategy of putting these folks on the public payroll should have been obvious to them. If I had been in their shoes, given that many of these positions are partially grant funded, I would have just kept them on the payroll of MAIG or their foundation. By putting them on the public payroll, their activities become public information under various state Freedom of Information laws. I’m wondering whether they just didn’t think about that, or didn’t think we’d realize a counterstrategy. A bigger question is whether MAIG is now adjusting its tactics to make use of private e-mails that can’t be reached by FOIA-like requests. I don’t know enough about various state laws on this matter to know whether this would amount to any kind of official misconduct or not, but it’s something to consider.
David Berkowitz, the Son of Sam killer says “Young people have no business carrying a gun,” and endorses more gun control. Berkowitz was also known as the .44 caliber killer. So there you have it. The CSGV and Brady agenda endorsed by a serial killer.
Frank Luntz, who specializes in “testing language and finding words that will help his clients sell their product or turn public opinion on an issue or a candidate,” speaks frankly about his association with Mayors Against Illegal Guns. Gun control advocates have used these polling tactics time and time again, trying to convince politicians there will be no price to pay for voting their agenda, and time and time again, we’ve proved them wrong. Why? Because most of these people don’t really get the consequences of many of these policies until they are enacted, and when they find out, they get angry, and if there’s one thing we’re good at, it’s channeling that anger towards politicians on election day.
Those of you on Twitter have probably seen some nasty invectives from this guy. Someone took a look at his PR Firm’s web site, and it looks like he’s on the anti-gun payroll. Clients include the Joyce Foundation and MAIG. Paid shills are not a substitute for real grass roots, and I’d say if they are paying that guy, they are flushing money down the toilet.
Looks like there’s been a jump in permit applications for the county (my the county), and for neighboring Montgomery County. From the Bucks County Courier Times:
Days after the Colorado shooting, applications for concealed weapons permits in Bucks County jumped 20 percent compared to the previous week …
… A total of 28,057 concealed weapon permits were active in Bucks as of July 1, an increase of 2,706 from a year earlier. That number represents about one permit for every 22 residents.
Now if every one of those individual who had a permit did something to help their gun rights, we’d be cruising smooth. But most of them don’t. How do we reach these folks? Clubs have traditionally been a big part of the pro-gun ecosystem, but as I mentioned in a previous post, the shooting culture at clubs isn’t keeping up with the overall gun culture, and young people aren’t joiners. So how does it work moving forward?
If you think that Supreme Court nominations shouldn’t be a factor in this year’s elections, here’s an interesting way to look at the future of any issue you care about that could face serious court challenges:
…the fact is that Supreme Court nominations matter more than ever, for several reasons.
First is the soaring value of lifetime tenure. When our republic was created, the average age of Supreme Court nominees was older than average life expectancy. That has changed dramatically with increased human longevity. And presidents are catching on, naming ever-younger Justices.
The result is that the average term of a Supreme Court Justice today is nearly twenty-five years – spanning more than six presidential terms. Ronald Reagan last appeared on the ballot seven elections ago, yet two of his appointees (Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia) still serve on the Court. If Clarence Thomas remains on the Court until the retirement age of his predecessor, he will have served for forty years. If Elena Kagan remains on the Court until her current life expectancy, she will serve until the year 2045. …
We have not had a significant change in the Court’s philosophical balance since Thomas replaced Marshall more than two decades ago. In the six subsequent appointments, liberals replaced liberals or conservatives replaced conservatives. But in the next administration, the president may well have the opportunity either to shift the Court’s majority from conservative to liberal or to reinforce the conservative majority. And given the number of years most Justices now serve, the majority created or reinforced in the next administration may endure for a generation.
That’s freakin’ scary to think about what a long-term difference each of the candidates can make. I mean I emphasize to people that state elections matter more during census years because of redistricting that impacts politics for a decade.
Go read the entire article at by Clint Bolick. It’s quite an interesting look at the lasting impacts of modern court appointments.
A majority of Wisconsinites either want weaker gun laws or want them to stay the same. The same is true of voters in Colorado. This doesn’t look like a groundswell of support for our opponents, nor does it represent a major shift in public opinion. One also has to wonder if folks answering that it’s OK to ban high-capacity magazines realize it’s the magazine in their Glock that’s being banned.
There was a lot of this in the past. Thirdpower is talking a bit about manipulating polling. Our opponents have long pointed to polling numbers to try to convince politicians that the American people were with them, only to get their asses handed to them at election time. The difference is there’s a substantial motivation gap when it comes to voting on the issue between our side and theirs, and the politicians know that.
… can go pound sand, as far as I’m concerned. I’ve never understood the left’s concern with Europeans frowning on the state of our domestic affairs.