2012 – Page 105 – Shall Not Be Questioned

The Left’s Gotchas on Marissa Alexander

I keep seeing this kind of article pop up in my Google Alerts, wondering where NRA is on Marissa Alexander. First off, NRA did not comment on the Martin/Zimmerman case. You do not see NRA standing up for George Zimmerman personally, and nor should they be expected to stick up for Marissa Alexander, if she justifiably qualifies for immunity or for a defense of self-defense under Florida law. But as I pointed out in a previous post, when you cut through all the media and the left’s bullshit on this case, Marissa Alexander is not the innocent they are portraying her as. She stands convicted largely because she engaged in behavior that destroyed her credibility to a jury.

A big problem with these cases is that no one paid attention to self-defense law before this case. Now a lot of journalist, pundits and non-pundits are bringing a vast ignorance to the table when speaking about them, and understanding how the justice system works. Many people imagine things to be fairly black and white, but they are not. A self-defense defense is, with or without a “Stand Your Ground” law, quite subjective, and will generally be aimed at each side manipulating the jury into rendering the verdict that each side wants. In a lot of ways, the law is a game, much like politics. If you give a prosecutor a path to destroying your credibility, it doesn’t honestly matter how true or how wonderful your self-defense claim is, if the jury doesn’t buy it, because it doesn’t trust you — if the jury does not believe you are a reasonable person — you stand a much better chance of being convicted. Our legal system is not an arbiter of absolute truth, nor does it weed the good from the evil in all instances.

In the cases I’ve seen where media and pundits have tried to interview actual defense attorneys, most of them have really tried to explain these realities as best they could, but it just seems something the media and pundits are having difficulty wrapping their heads around. Perhaps because in TV law dramas, the bad guys have tended to get convicted and the good guys acquitted. The police are always competent, honest and do a thorough and professional investigation. But the real world isn’t TV. You’d think you wouldn’t have to explain that to folks.

Right-to-Carry in Illinois

This is quite encouraging:

They are very optimistic at this time that the bill can pass the House andÂ things appear to be shaping up in the Senate as well. If the bill get this through both houses in May, the right to carry lobby will be ready to go for the override of the governor’s promised veto in the fall veto session.

One of the core urban centers of anti-gun thought and culture is under siege by those who believe the Bill of Rights means something, regardless of whether you live in Chicago or Cheyenne. Eventually, the gates will fall. Bloomberg is next.

The Problem of Over-Legislating Everything

In any attempt to criminalize activity, you have a real problem with trying to define the behavior that is criminals, such as this texting while walking law in Fort Lee, New Jersey:

I’m dying to see how that law is worded. How is “walking” defined? Two consecutive steps? More than two? “X or more steps in X amount of time”? Does it have to be in a forward direction, or is this like ‘traveling’ in the NBA? Can you sidestep and text at the same time?

“Not guilty, your honor. My client was texting while Riverdancing, which is clearly not prohibited by the ordinance.”

And local yo-yos are usually a lot worse about definitions than the states and feds, which is why most states generally limit the legislative power of local governments to petty crimes. Maybe we need a crime for being stupid while occupying public office. Of course, then the anarchists would have their feast, wouldn’t they?

Honoring Brian Terry

Obama doesn’t.

Other Rights our Opponents Don’t Believe In

Add Amendment Six of the Bill of Rights to the list of rights that anti-gun groups happily disparage:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Miguel has the evidence. I’d note that even other lefties are asking them to get off the crazy train at this point. I think Miguel is correct that they will likely come to regret, over the long term, throwing in their lot with the charlatans who played the media and the American public about the true nature of this case. For people who became emotionally invested in the case, and the conclusions driven by the narrative, they will likely never accept the truth, no matter how hard it punches them in the face. But the majority of the American public, I believe, ultimately, views the Sixth Amendment guarantee as an important one.

Our opponents’ only hope, at this point, is to continue foaming at the mouth, and hope that other mouth foamers are willing to open their wallets. For the Brady Campaign, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, and Violence Policy Center, I think the focus for several years now has been saving their phony baloney jobs, rather than attempting to seriously engage at the level of public policy. That’s a good thing for us, but unfortunately for us, Bloomberg is a lot smarter and more strategically minded than I think these guys ever were.

Anti-Gun Myth vs. Reality

Our opponents view of things in the past month or so:

The reality of the last couple of months: 11 wins for gun ownersÂ federally, three in Florida, one in Georgia, two in Mississippi, andÂ three in Oklahoma including an omnibus bill that legalizes open carry, among other things. In addition, we are on our way to victories in Hawaii, Illinois, and we ousted a MAIG Mayor in Quantico. Meanwhile, back in the reality of anti-gun groups:

Sometimes, you see a wound that just begs to have salt poured on it.

Congratulations Ohio!

Bloomberg has put a target on the Buckeye State.

Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a bipartisan coalition of more than 650 American mayors, announced today that 103 Ohio mayors have joined the coalition to fight crime in their communities by reducing the spread of illegal guns and preventing gun violence. The coalition believes much more can be done to keep guns out of the wrong hands…

Pennsylvania still has far more mayors than any other state, unfortunately. I believe we still have a perfect record of keeping his MAIG mayors from reaching higher office here in the Commonwealth. (I actually need to double check that now that the primary is over.) Looks like Ohio gun owners need to watch out for the same thing.

Obama’s VA Attacking Second Amendment Rights of Veterans

A bit of propaganda from the Veterans Administration, encouraging family members to take guns away from veterans who have served our country. It’s worth noting that the Brady Campaign is fully on board with disarming our country’s veterans of their firearms, some of which would be bring backs that were paid for in their blood, and the blood of their fellow soldiers.

To me this is much like the issue of pediatricians and guns with children in the house. I don’t, as a matter of absolute principle, think it’s wrong to have the discussion. It’s the way the discussion is framed that is problematic. Certainly a family who has a loved one suffering from severe Dementia, or that has mental difficulties that make him a danger to themselves or others, would be doing the responsible thing by removing firearms (and other dangerous objects) from the home. I also don’t have an issue with the VA advising families of this, along with a discussion of other dangers someone with Dementia can face. But here’s what your tax dollars are paying for:

The presence of firearms inÂ households has been linked toÂ increased risk of injury or deathÂ for everyone in or around theÂ home, usually as an impulsiveÂ act during some disagreement.Â This danger is increased whenÂ one of the persons in theÂ household has dementia.

Let me translate this:

Propaganda put forward by the gun ban lobby suggests that your veteran family member, who served his country with distinction and to whom we owe our continued freedom, is likely to murder you in an argument if there’s a gun in the home. Just, if he has Dementia, he is much more likely to murder you with a gun in the home.

It continues:

Family members do not alwaysÂ take appropriate action toÂ unload, secure, or removeÂ firearms in the home. TheseÂ actions should be takenÂ regardless of the severity ofÂ dementia or whether your lovedÂ one is suffering from aÂ behavioral problem orÂ depression.

Translation:

You family member, who served his country and was trusted with automatic weapons, grenades, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, can’t be trusted with firearms, regardless of whether your loved one is having issues or not.

The Obama anti-gun propaganda continues to suggest that love ones may be reluctant, believing in this quaint notion of Second Amendment rights, and the perceived independence that goes along with gun ownership. But don’t let that dissuade you: the veteran loved one needs to be disarmed for his own good. It’s the right thing.

If folks were wondering what Obama meant by “under the radar” this is it. This is why he has to go in November. Your tax dollars paid for this offensive nonsense, which encourages families to infantilize and disarm our nation’s veterans, regardless of the troubles they are having. This is grossly offensive to the service they rendered our country, and the Obama Administration ought to be ashamed of themselves for ever allowing anyone to put this to print.

UPDATE: Looks like I’m two months late to this issue! Oh well, I can’t notice everything.

Only in San Francisco or the UK

Guns made from Legos. Apparently this is a controversial issue:

This is all true, but U.K. father Jon Trew brings up another important point: Could these toy guns confuse children into thinking itâ€™s OK to play with real guns? â€œWhatever side of the argument you are on, no one in their right mind would want encourage children to play with realistic models just in case they came across a real one and thought they could play with it in the same way,â€ Trew says.

With several centuries of young kids playing with toy guns, it’s amazing the human race has survived! Maybe it’s not so much the barbarians at the gates that make civilization’s fall, but the civilized people inside them. Kids that learn proper use and respect for firearms eventually become people who can man the gates when barbarians come knocking. It’s the people who wish to beat every martial instinct out of humankind are the ones who fell civilizations.

Pacifist-Agressives

I am reminded of my late interaction with our opponents, of a paper written a few years ago by Dave Kopel, who borrows the term “Pacifist-Agressive” from Eugene Volokh. The paper examines, in length and in detail, of the roots of the pacifist movement, and offers some great examples of pacifisms successes and its failures. Also discussed a length are the intellectual failings underlying much of modern pacifism, which, whether CSGV wants to admit or not, form the intellectual basis of the many of the religious-left organizations that make up CSGV. I highly encourage folks to take some time to read it. It directly speaks on the matter of pacifisms failings on the “What would you do about Hitler?” question.