Year: 2013

From Brady Board member Joan Peterson, in reference to this ad run by NRA:

Plus, the NRA has thought of a cynical new way to make angry white guys more afraid of Black people with guns by encouraging people of color to arm themselves.

I don’t understand why I’m supposed to be afraid of black people with guns. I’ve been around armed Black Americans at matches Joan, and never thought much of it. I’m afraid of criminals with guns, and I believe all Americans have a right to arm themselves for self-protection, as is guaranteed by our Constitution. So who’s the racist here, Joan? You’re the one that said I should be afraid, and you’re the one that thought such a thought, so who’s the racist in this debate?

The self-hating gun owner:

Other gun owners interviewed for this article expressed similar reservations, citing their enjoyment of hunting or of introducing family members to the sport while expressing support for stricter gun control legislation. Mr. Kundu, for instance, supports a ban on the kind of assault weapon that he owns, a rifle manufactured by Panther Arms.

Yes, AR-15 owners who think AR-15s ought to be banned. Does the New York Times really believe this is a deep well gun control folks can tap in order to get support? This times piece strains credulity.

Kundu claims to be a master marksman in Washington State. The governing body for that kind of shooting is the NRA or WSRPA. Most competitive shooters will have match results online somewhere, especially at that level. So I decided I would start digging. If he is truly ranked Master in high-power, someone should have heard of him, or shot with him, and there should be a record. When you do that kind of competition, and are ranked highly, you’ve shot with an awful lot of people in an awful lot of matches. I couldn’t find any match results indicating this guy is a serious competitor, but what I did find destroys the whole NYT narrative. Michael Kundu, who the New York Times claims is the new “middle ground” in the gun control debate, is neither an ordinary gun owner, or any kind of moderate voice.

This is not the first time Kundu has been in the media pitching himself as a self-hating, anti-hunting gun owner. CNN has taken the bait too. So who is Michael Kundu? Well, he was School Board President for Marysville School District who ended up in hot water in the past for writing a racist e-mail as a school board president. Also, as School Board President, he attempted to censor dissenting viewpoints on global warming from being discussed in schools.

Perhaps more telling, Kundu’s associated with Sea Shepherd, who were recently declared pirates by the 9th Circuit:

Johnston’s 1997 stock donation included shares of a company named Northern Development Associates, a for-profit business which is now 100-percent owned by Sea Shepherd.

Corporate records show that the company’s officers include Watson’s ex-wife Lisa DiStefano and longtime associate Michael Kundu.

Sea Shepherd’s own web site says he was Pacific Northwest coordinator for the group in 1997. You can see a profile of him here. Additionally, his activities have earned him the ire of native Americans.

How stupid does the New York Times think we all are? And are we to believe that no one at CNN, or the New York Times, are aware that the new, moderate voice of gun ownership is in fact a radical activist with a group that has been accused of engaging in piracy on the high seas? There is nothing ordinary or moderate about this guy.

Mark Kelly, who proudly brags of (usually) buying guns at Wal-Mart, may find that going on tv to call for the renewal of a ban on so-called “assault weapons” gets him unwanted attention when he walks into a traditional gun store, buys a 1911–and an AR-15. He was recognized by witnesses, photographed by another customer filling out his 4473, and then questioned about why he would buy something he says he doesn’t want other people to have.

As his new Democratic PAC, Americans for Responsible Solutions, was questioned by media, Kelly suddenly issued a statement saying that he doesn’t plan to shoot or even keep the firearm. Instead, he claims to have bought it just so he could waste his money and turn it in to the police. Sssuuurrreee, he did.

I think that Kelly is going to find that his very public campaign to restrict our rights isn’t going to bode well if he plans on shopping anywhere other than big box stores where gun owners are unlikely to gather.

UPDATE: This morning I just remembered that I thought Arizona had some kind of law requiring guns taken by or given to police actually have to be sold back on the open market. Here’s a January article on that very issue, so Mark Kelly may have just bought a gun that will end up right back in the gun shop.

I gauge how we’re doing by the Joan Peterson hysterics meter, and we’re doing a bit better. I actually don’t support ordinances requiring people to purchase guns, but if it drives the right people nuts, I’ll take that application of heat to our opponents at this critical time. I’m really not sure what the Brady folks expected, though. You’ve taken a large community, attacked it and insulted it, and now that its dander’s up, you’re surprised at what’s coming out. We’re actually making quite serious gains in the gun friendly states while they are busy trying to get anything through in the few states they have any real influence in.

Joan notes finally: “Let’s have some real discussion about whether guns in the home are a good idea or not. Let’s talk about whether using a gun for self defense actually is necessary or actually works.” How? This is laughable from a blog that repeatedly censors pro-gun viewpoints and makes discussion impossible. Whether everyone should have guns in their home is a discussion I’m willing to have. I believe in choice, and I actually don’t think gun ownership is for everyone. But that’s vastly different than suggesting the government needs to step in and make those choices.

According to a tweet from Dave Kopel, the anti-gun groups are paying for services to call any supporter they can find and connect those people to the Colorado Senate while debate is in progress on the anti-gun bills.

Antigun lobby is autodialing voters and offering to connect them to StateSen offices to voice support for antigun bills in #coleg

— Dave Kopel (@davekopel) March 8, 2013

Fortunately for us in the pro-rights movement, we have the networks that exist for us to make these request of other gun owners in person. The other side has to pay for it. Of course, by relying on those call center professionals instead of actual grassroots, they are able to more easily target and time their phone calls exactly when they need them.