February 2013 – Page 11 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Not a Winning Issue for the Prez

Gallup polls shows most Americans do not approve of Obama’s gun policies. Is everyone stocked up enough on booze for the State of the Union tonight? You’re bound to hear more of it. I used to have to drink through Bush’s SOTU speeches too, because he was bloody awful at public speaking. Barry is at least good off a teleprompter, but the booze will help fight the urge to defenestrate my monitors* as I’m told I have to give up my rights for the President’s notion of the greater, collective good.

* Well, at least as long as my temporary office is up here three stories. When I move my office back to the basement, throwing electronics out the basement window wouldn’t be very satisfying, would it?

h/t Instapundit.

Letters Submitted to the Durbin Hearing

Bitter alluded to the Durbin hearings earlier today. We aren’t watching this particular dog and pony show live, because it’s a side-show of a dog and pony show. But Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) has been quite effective at organizing a counterweight to Durbin’s push for draconian gun control. We’ve had several of our pro-gun scholars contribute, and I think their articles are all worth highlighting.

Many thanks to all three for publishing the contents of their letters.

UPDATE:

Randy Barnett

Olympic to New York Authorities

No guns for thee, at least that which you do not allow for civilians. Actually, I would be fairly pleased with the constitutional standard being anything that’s in common police use is protected. That would certainly include pistols that hold more than ten rounds, as well as the AR-15. It would also make the increasing militarization of the police have consequences. The feds might think twice about surplusing so many M4s and M16s to police departments if the consequence of that is that we have a right to them too.

Martin O’Malley’s Divide and Conquer

From Emily Miller:

Maryland Gov. Martin Oâ€™Malley appears to have used his executive power to get the personal emails of citizens with hunting licenses in order to push gun control. The second-term Democrat is using the information in an attempt to divide gun owners to build support for his extremist legislation to abridge Second Amendment rights.

Let us hope this backfires in a big, big way. I think this really shows how poorly they understand the community. Sure, there are hunters that might tell a pollster that they support certain gun control measures, but it’s not an issue they are going to go to bat over. But many hunters hate gun control, and it’s quite likely here all Governor O’Malley is doing is helping get the word out to our people. The hunter license list, I’m sure, is reaching a lot of people NRA and the rest of the gun rights movement has difficulty reaching. This likely will mobilize more people against gun control than mobilize them for. I think this was a gross miscalculation on the part of the Governor.

Suzanna Gratia Hupp’s Testimony in Dick Durbin’s Anti-Gun Hearing

I didn’t watch today’s dog and pony show run by Illinois Senator Dick Durbin today because, as a subcommittee hearing, it’s just not quite as big of a dog and pony show. However, I did sit down to read the submitted testimony from Suzanna Gratia Hupp, one of the scheduled witnesses. I thought it was worth sharing some highlights.

On the issue of gun free zones:

Since that time, we have seen dozens of these mass shootings. Isn’t it interesting that nearly all have occurred in places where guns were not allowed. If guns are the problem, then someone explain to me why we haven’t seen these mass shooting at skeet and trap shoots, or NRA conventions, or the dreaded gun show. We will never know if lives could have been saved at Sandy Hook if a teacher or two been armed. …Rid the country of gun free zones. Don’t get me wrong, you won’t be able to stop someone from going into a workplace and shooting his estranged wife and the person sitting next to her. But you will prevent the high body bag counts we are seeing now.

On misinformation from lawmakers about guns they want to ban:

Look, guns are just a tool. They are tools that can be used to kill a family, or tools that can be used to protect a family. It merely depends on whose hands that tool is in. You may wonder why I take issue with an assault weapons ban. That is simple. It is because there’s no logic involved with the proposed ban. I believe that the public and much of the media have been misled to believe that assault weapons are rapidfire, automatic, machinegun-like weapons. I know this from the many interviews I have done on television, radio and newspaper.

On the argument of a bill of needs:

I have heard many pundits and legislators say, â€œWhy would anyone need this type of gun or a magazine that carries this many bullets?â€ Well, in this Land where Freedom hangs by a thread, I hate to think we are going to begin having government committees determining what each citizen needs. They may decide you donâ€™t need to drive a particular car, or need send your child to private school.

And in this Land of Liberty, it is not only our right to keep and bear arms, I would go so far as to say it is our duty.

She also has a suggestion for lawmakers that includes not actually making a law, which I’m pretty sure has to cause smoke to come out of the ears of some legislators who just don’t comprehend the concept that not everything has to be about controlling behavior:

Encourage, not legislate, but encourage the media to quit using the murderersâ€™ names in all of their follow-up reporting. I would love to see them never show the creepâ€™s picture after the first day. If the killer is still alive and going to trial, wouldnâ€™t it be great if they fuzzed out their names and faces as if it were obscene? We all know they have to report the news. But they could be part of the solution and help take the glory out of their horrendous acts.

There is one reference Hupp makes in comparing a mass killer to a rabid dog, and I’m not sure it’s such a good analogy.

Now it may sound odd to you, but I wasn’t angry at the guy that did it. That’s like being mad at a rabid dog: you don’t be mad at it. You might take it behind the barn and kill it, but don’t be mad it. I told the newspapers the next day that I was mad as hell at my legislators because they had legislated me out of the right to protect myself and my family. The only thing the gun laws did that day was prevent good people from protecting themselves.

The reason I take issue with this analogy is because I’m not sure how many people would really get it. I think many urban and suburban dwellers understand that a rabid dog is a bad thing, but I’m not sure how many consider it a) a real threat, or b) something that needs to be shot. I know this sounds crazy, but it’s amazing how many people don’t understand the natural threats around them anymore. I had an encounter in college where I had to talk back some friends – educated women – who thought an animal that showed possible signs of being rabid was just so cute and nearly tried to pet it. I mentioned Old Yeller, and they just blinked. To make the argument to them that rabid animals should be shot would horrify them. If they ever had a rabid pet, their solution would be to take it to a vet. If the vet says put it down, they wouldn’t make the connection that it’s the same as shooting it. To them, the idea that the individual could diagnose the problem and provide the same final solution for the animal is just beyond them. That’s what we have vets for – official people with titles and government sanction, at least according to them.

That said, I don’t think that the analogy makes or breaks the testimony. I think it’s overall good written testimony.

Aimless Politicians

Jacob notes that Andrew Cuomo is considered “adrift” in his second term. Yet another example of the fact that gun control is a refuge for scoundrels. It is a way to look like you’re doing “something” without actually having to do anything. It pleases those rationally ignorant who demand that something be done, and the rabid dogs who demand gun owners be punished for their backward ways. But there’s one thing they don’t count on, as Jacob notes:

A lot of people still do not understand what was passed into law and when they find out they getÂ veryÂ angry. Â It is going to bite Cuomo and the GOP in the ass eventually.

Our people are at their most powerful when they are scared and/or pissed off. Even I’m sometimes surprised by the scale of the reaction. I’ve often told our opponents that you can’t weigh polls too much, because many of our own people are also quite rationally ignorant of the ins and outs of gun policy. When they come to understand the actual consequences, unintended or otherwise, they are often quote opposed to the very thing they may have said they supported out of ignorance.

The Manchin Waffle

First he supported an assault weapons ban, then he kind of backed down, then he supported one again, and now he’s backed down… again. This is why the experienced politicians have all remained non-commital, and waited for the political dynamic to play out a bit before taking any firm position. I’m really not sure what Manchin thought he’d gain here. It’s not like he’s going to suddenly become a darling of the progressive left, and even if he does, West Virginia is full of working-class Democrats who don’t go for that.

Don’t Shoot!

I’d say that’s really funny, but it’s kind of funny in a sad kind of way. That it has come to this. Did you ever get that feeling that you were living with a government that was totally and completely out of control, and you can’t do a damned thing about it, because no one seems to give a shit?

I really want an answer to this question form urban voters, before I agree to be ruled by the likes of them: why do you keep voting for this shit? What are you going to do to punish the people who have created a culture where citizens have to go about in public begging their police department not to shoot them? Don’t you see something very very wrong with this?

And Republicans, what does it say about you, that as a party that purportedly stands for Traditional American Values^TM, that you’ve been utterly unable to capitalize on moments like this, and perhaps compel urban voters to re-evaluate their political alliances?

Making the Gun Confiscators Upset

Rep. Steve Santarsiero believes that federal gun ban proposals that allow grandfathering of currently owned lawful firearms are “limited bill[s]” that he believes “leave a considerable loophole” of continued ownership and possession that “we here in Pennsylvania should and, indeed, must close.” That’s part of his pledge to justify legislation that will “outlaw both the purchase and possession” of modern semi-automatic sporting rifles.

So, as you can see, Rep. Santarsiero has pretty much deemed himself among the most extreme gun control advocates in the state of Pennsylvania. The fact that the government hasn’t just come for your guns yet is a dangerous loophole to him. Yet, it turns out that he is worried about the support that another bill in Pennsylvania is getting at the moment. He posted this call for action for gun control supporters on his Facebook page and that of his new anti-gun group, Bucks Safe:

One of my colleagues in the PA House, Daryl Metcalfe (R-12), has proposed a bill, House Bill 357 (a number that he chose intentionally) that would prohibit Pennsylvania from enforcing any new federal measures aimed at curbing gun violence. Please write to Representative Metcalfe (Hon. Daryl D. Metcalfe, 144 Main Capitol Building, PO Box 202012, Harrisburg, PA 17120-2012, (717) 783-1707, Fax: (717) 787-4771), and let him know that his proposal is both bad policy and unconstitutional.

I admit that I haven’t focused on this bill much because it’s really only relevant to any discussion at all if we’ve lost the fight politically at the federal level. I’d rather focus people’s efforts on not losing in the first place. However, given Santarsiero’s reaction to the bill, I think it’s worth highlighting. If you have the political enthusiasm for one more letter, go ahead and write to your Pennsylvania state representative and encourage them to sign on to the bill. Let’s see if we can’t increase the sponsor count so that Rep. Santarsiero feels a little more defeated in his quest to confiscate firearms from Pennsylvania gun owners.

More on the Democrat Shift on Guns

An interesting Salon piece speaks of the dynamic that’s making the Democrats think gun control is a new winner:

The question is what message about guns Democrats â€“ and Republicans, for that matter â€“ decide to take out of next yearâ€™s midterms. If action is taken this year and a bunch of incumbent Democratic senators from pro-gun states lose their seats next year, the party will likely conclude that the renewed gun control push was the reason; a new round of post-â€™14 reforms would be unlikely. But what if new laws are passed this year and most or all of those Democratic incumbents survive? And if the same thing happens at the House level? Or if some anti-gun control Republicans from swing districts are voted out? Under that scenario, Democrats might emerge from the â€™14 midterms emboldened to press for more new laws, and Republicans from competitive districts might believe thereâ€™s no choice but to go along.

There’s a lot of bluffing that goes on in politics. What Biden, Obama and the far-left that now controls the Democratic Party is counting on is that NRA has been bluffing for years, and doesn’t really hold any cards. They are calling what they think is a bluff. It is way too early at this point to know what the 2014 election is going to look like for us, but if two years from now, friendly lawmakers have held the line, we need to work like hell, to do some positive reinforcement, for a change, to keep those lawmakers in office who helped hold that line, and be seen as a vital constituency in their coalition.