September 2013 – Page 9 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Labor Day Weekend News

Well, we’ve had some fun with Joan Peterson, and it’s time to move on. A lot of people don’t know why I bother, but I’m really not trying to change her mind. Sometimes it’s just entertaining to shake the ant farm. I hope everyone has a happy Labor Day weekend. I will be smoking some beef and doing genealogical research.Â I had joked with John Richardson, whose ancestor was also at Antietam, fighting for the Confederacy, that his great grandparents were shooting at my great grandparents. Actually, based on some maps of the battle, and of their respective units, that very well may have been the case!

Given that my 3x great grandfather was wounded severely, but not killed, I think I have to be thankful that legendary southern marksmanship didn’t quite manage to find its mark in his case. We also discovered that my 4x great grandfather, who was a well known bottler in Philadelphia, was raising money for the recruitment effort for the war. So we know that his son likely didn’t join up to avoid being drafted — they were believers in the cause. But anyway, I’ve rambled on enough. Now for the news:

Prince Law offices has been doing quite a lot of posting on the new proposed regulations:

Pretty much everything you wanted to know.

SayUncle notes that NFATCA petitioned ATF for rule changes, ATF came up with a bunch of different rules, and then cited NFATCA. NFATCA wanted to get rid of the LEO sign-off requirement. They have a response here. Though, I have to say, if their petition for rule-making raised concerns about background checks and trust, that was a mistake.

ATF Form 4473 and the Prohibited Persons List. This article notes that there is serious difficulty implementing New Jersey’s law about the terror watch list. You see, it’s a secret list. As in, really secret. FFLs can’t run that check.

Ted Nugent’s wife gets arrested at DFW International Airport for forgetting a gun in her carry-on.

Dave Hardy: “The law has the concept of justified homicide. The average person has the concept of ‘good riddance.’”

Well, that didn’t work out the way they thought it would, did it?

California gun owners are about to get fracked.

Bloomberg: The Godfather of Gun Control. The resurgence in energy for gun control I think can be squarely credited to two people. The person who deserves the most credit is Barack Obama. The person who deserves the second most is Mike Bloomberg.

I hope this woman gets a really big judgement against the Pennsylvania State Police for this. I think the only way to stop raids like this from happening is to take away the toys.

Firearms Law & Second Amendment Symposium

NRA-ILA has announced their 2013 Firearms Law & Second Amendment Symposium registration, and I wanted to suggest it to those who are in the Denver area.

I’ve been to a few of these, and they are always very interesting. Last year’s event in Philadelphia got me ridiculously excited for Prof. Nicholas Johnson’s forthcoming book and tipped me off to a great resource for either research or general amusement in reading historic California papers.

The event is scheduled for Saturday, October 12, 2013 at the University of Denver from 9-4. Parking, food, beverages, and materials are all free. Yes, this entire event is free. And I promise that you’ll learn something of interest. Registration is required, so clear your calendar now.

And who knows, you might even be protested by people opposed to even allowing a conversation about firearms.

The Continuing Saga of “We Have to Talk”

Bryan Strawster, who stands on the other side of Joan in this debate in Minnesota, has had “more than one hundred and thirty comments that I have submitted to Joanâ€™s blog that have never been posted,”Â and indicates he’s willing to have a talk anytime in a fair an open forum. Weer’d Beard says much the same, and notes Joan’s response to my post:

Nope. There will be no discussion on that blog which regularly demeans me and calls me names. We will have the â€œdiscussionâ€ on my blog if you want.

So disagreeing with Joan is equivalent to “demeans me and calls me names?” I’m pretty sure most people who have read me for a while know I am accepting and even welcome dissenting opinion. I might turn on the snark sometimes, but I’d like to think were all adults here.

In fact, Joan seems to have done an entire post in response to my original piece, which confirms she’s more desiring to speak at us than speak with us:

But the “gun guys” missed my point, as is often the case. I am always amazed that these folks pick out several of the smaller details about which to quibble but ignore the main point- the victims of the shootings.

No, we didn’t miss your point. Your post’sÂ title said “We need to talk,” and implied that there wasn’t somehow a conversation already going on. So do you want to talk or don’t you?

So when the “gun guys” on my blog want me to come to their sites to have a “discussion” while calling me names and demeaning me on their sites, it’s really not too possible to have a “discussion” with them.

And we are supposed to ignore the regular demanding of us on her site? I could just as easily take offense to the things she says daily about the “law abiding gun owners,” and trying to paint us all as “fearful and paranoid” nut cases just a hair’s breath away from murdering loved ones or shooting up a coffee shop. But I understand spin, and the fact that both sides, in any public debate, engage in it.

When Joan says “I guess I struck a nerve,” that nerve is pretending to want a conversation when clearly she does not. What she wants is an echo chamber, and she’s welcome to it. She’s pretending to want a conversation but intent on allowing nothing of the sort. That is what some may classify as “disingenuous,” and perhaps even “hypocritical.” Maybe that’s the kind of “calling me names” or “demeaning me” Joan is speaking about here, but there’s an old saying that if the shoe fits ….