2014 – Page 30 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Pennsylvania Official Firearm

The process of getting an official state firearm designated is moving along after a PA House vote this week. The bill now heads to the Senate for votes, though I didn’t see anything about it on their calendar.

While it’s not exactly priority legislation for gun owners, it is at least of interest to gun owners in the Keystone State for reasons beyond the fact that CeaseFirePA is opposed to it and complaining in the media about it.

The reasons for choosing the Pennsylvania Long Rifle as the state firearm are outlined in the bill:

Pennsylvania’s gunmaking tradition has played an important role in the development of the United States of America. During Pennsylvania’s early history, settlers placed chief reliance on their rifles for sustenance, security and survival. The Pennsylvania Long Rifle, a unique firearm that was different in principle and outline from any other weapon in the world, was developed by skilled gunsmiths in the Moravian communities of Christian’s Spring, Northampton County, as well as by artistic riflemaker Martin Meylin, in Willow Street, Lancaster County.

The Pennsylvania Long Rifle was the first truly American firearm and, due to its exceptional accuracy and range, was considered the greatest achievement in the development of firearms during the 18th century. Playing an important role in the early years of the Industrial Revolution in Pennsylvania and New England, the Pennsylvania Long Rifle was also instrumental in the American fur trade and was carried west and south by frontiersmen as they set out to expand the boundaries of the nation.

The Pennsylvania Long Rifle has been lauded for its beauty and craftsmanship, as well as the ingenuity of the skilled gunsmiths who crafted it. The color combinations, carvings, engravings and graceful slenderness of the Pennsylvania Long Rifle cause it to stand alone and remain unchallenged as a primary example of early American art.

Future generations deserve the right to appreciate the heritage of this long-barreled rifle, born to artistic gunsmiths in the communities of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Perhaps the only interesting “analysis” out of this is that we can compare the votes of 16 lawmakers who were opposed to recognizing a freakin’ muzzleloader that carries the state’s name as the state firearm, but who would get on board with naming a state airplane – the Piper J-3 Cub. These are 16 lawmakers who weren’t opposing wasting time on frivolous votes designating silly “official” recognitions; these were 16 lawmakers so opposed to the idea of a simple muzzleloader being recognized that they voted against it. And yet they wonder why we don’t trust that they’ll stop at seizing our semi-auto rifles?

70th Anniversary of D-Day

There are quite a few neat things that have popped up to honor the 70th anniversary of the D-Day invasion. One that stuck out to Sebastian was this collection of “then and now” photos from the Normandy beaches.

On Twitter, Charles C. W. Cooke has been sharing a fantastic collection of historic photos from the invasion. This is one that stuck out to me.

A plasma transfusion. pic.twitter.com/E1tFIjhM5f

— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) June 6, 2014

From NRA, Life of Duty has a piece where 94-year-old paratrooper John Perozzi visit the invasion site. He was shot during the invasion and still carries that bullet in him today, yet he recovered and went on to fight again, including at the Battle of the Bulge.

I have been interested in the BBC’s posting of current British celebrities reading BBC News scripts from June 6, 7, & 8th.

I know there are many other tributes online today, and I’d love to see any favorites from readers today in the comments.

Are Companies Really Changing their Policies?

A reader e-mailed yesterday about something very interesting:

I saw you post about you eating at Chili’s and I was concerned that Brinker the parent of Chili’s would apply their policy change to Maggiano’s Little Italy which they also own. So I called their corporate office today, and the woman I spoke to in customer service said that they did not change their policy and if I am in compliance with the laws of where the Chili’s or Maggiano’s is than I am good to go. Seems like this is a lie being pushed my MDA. I asked about franchise locations of Chili’s and she told me they need to follow corporate policies.

So as many had suspected, there has been no actual policy change. I suspect what Watts has been doing is shaking these companies down for a press release, and then using that to declare victory to her supporters and to the media.

But before people start arguing then this is all much ado about nothing, it’s still:

A huge cultural loss, because companies are more than willing to hand Watts talking points to make the rifle OC issues go away.
Still being used by Watts to energize and grow her organization and reputation.
Being used by the media to bring shame down upon all gun owners because of the actions of a small handful of attention grabbers.

Watts would also love, I’m sure, to get an actual policy change. She would no doubt also love to convince one of these companies to post. Even if we’re not talking disaster of epic proportions yet, if the nonsense continues, that will be the result at some point. We already have the wrong kind of media becoming enamored with Watt’s organization, to the point of writing glowing puff pieces about it.

A lot of the currency of our movement is the demoralization of theirs. There are plenty of people in this country that wouldn’t let you even own a rifle for hunting. What’s kept the gun control movement down since the 1990s is most of those people thought it was a lost cause, because everyone was telling them it was. Even the Clinton’s acknowledged what the NRA cost Democrats in the 1990s.

With every victory they attain, they are convincing a lot of those people that gun control is possible. It doesn’t matter if it’s a fabrication. It doesn’t matter if policy is not actually being changed. Perception is everything, and Watts is very good at managing perceptions. There will always be an enthusiasm gap between our side and theirs, but they have immediate and friendly access to the media, the entertainment industry, and academia. Our sideÂ starts off out of the gate at a disadvantage, because we don’t have any of that. All we have is each other.

Making an AR-15 Bolt in 9 Minutes

With a Swistek AB42 CNC Mill. It’s edited down to three minutes, but pretty cool nonetheless. This is definitely more sophisticated the Taig mill Jason used to make his CNC’d firearms:

How are the Anti Gun Groups Really Doing?

Despite concerns I have about the anti-gun groups looking like they may actually be building momentum, Stephen E. Wright writing at “The Bluff” has taken a detailed analysis of the statistics, which show that the anti-gun groups actually aren’t doing as well as you might think:

1. Anti 2nd amendment FB groups are much smaller than pro 2nd amendment groups (like 10x)
2. Anti 2nd amdment FB groups are growing much slower than pro 2nd amendment groups (like 4x)
3. Anti 2nd amendment FB groups have an older following than pro 2nd amendment groups (like 25-44 for the NRA and 55+ for Bloombergâ€™s Everytown)

Go read the whole thing. Of course, it’s depressing that NAGR has so many Facebook followers, given my very low opinion of that group and its proprietor. But as Bitter mentioned, Brown is very good at creating the kinds of graphics that people share and that go viral. Either way, it does show that as much as they might be gaining media juice, we are too, and faster than they are. And with the more favorable demographics.

Gun Safety Issues with OCT Events

Noticing a picture displayed by OCT at Smashburger, Lagniappe’s Lair notes:

Now aside from the fact that about half of those unattended long guns appear to be “leaning with intent to fall”, A zoom on the AR to the far left, closest to the bald bozo in the Cabela’s shirt, reveals that the safety selector is vertical to the rifle, meaning that it’s set to FIRE. Two of the other ARs have their safeties obstructed by slings or camera angle, but I’m willing to bet that at least one of them has it’s safety disengaged, too; that’s just the sort of half-assed idiots that these half-assed idiots are.

Go have a look for the close up shot. A reader mentioned today that if OCT didn’t exist, Bloomberg would have to invent them. This is truth, so God help us. I can’t imagine what an ND would do to the movement if it happened in one of these “educational” events. These folks have demonstrated they are fundamentally without good judgement. My concern is that poor judgement will be exercised in more areas than just public relations. Just look at the photo from Lagniappe’s Lair; if you were intent on making off with a gun, how much would you bet you’d be out the door with one of those ARs before the people not paying attention to what’s going on behind them even notices?

Bob Ownes of Bearing Arms also looks at the safety violations committed by this group. HeÂ correctly notes that muzzle down on a concrete floor is NOT a safe direction. If a firearm discharges, the bullet will likely ricochet off the floor, while also simultaneously sending fragments of concrete out in random directions with enough force to seriously injure people nearby. The safe direction is up in this circumstance.

All this has me thinking I need to start a new category “Clown Show.” I hate putting this stuff in Gun Rights, or even Gun Rights Organizations. That gives them too much credit. Even “How not to Win” is generous.

Quote of the Day: Second Amendment Addition

This comes to us via NRA’s Civil Rights Defense Fund:

Believing that the [second] amendment does not authorize an individual’s right to keep and bear arms is wrong. The right to bear arms is an individual right. The military connotation of bearing arms does not necessarily determine the meaning of a right to bear arms. If all it meant was the right to be a soldier or serve in the military, whether in the militia or the army, it would hardly be a cherished right and would never have reached constitutional status in the Bill of Rights. The “right” to be a soldier does not make much sense. Life in the military is dangerous and lonely, and a constitutionally protected claim or entitlement to serve in uniform does not have to exist in order for individuals to enlist if they so choose. Moreover, the right to bear arms does not necessarily have a military connotation, because Pennsylvania, whose constitution of 1776 first used the phrase “the right to bear arms,” did not even have a state militia. In Pennsylvania, therefore, the right to bear arms was devoid of military significance. Moreover, such significance need not necessarily be inferred even with respect to states that had militias. Bearing arms could mean having arms. Indeed, Blackstone’s Commentaries spoke expressly of the “right to have arms.” An individual could bear arms without being a soldier or militiaman.

Leonard W. Levy, ORIGINS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS 134-35 (Yale Univ. Press 1999).

California Democrats Like Leeland Yee

Charles C. W. Cooke and others note that being indicted for multiple felonies that include accusations of arming mafia members and arms smuggling doesn’t turn off about 10% of California’s Democratic voter base, at least based on the results of yesterday’s election. Nearly 290,000 primary voters thought these accusations made Leeland Yee a great candidate for Secretary of State worthy of their support.

Perhaps what’s more interesting is that Yee was only polling at 8% before he was arrested, so he actually performed better with California Democrats after the charges came to light. In fact, the same polling firm found that even after he was arrested and the charges against him were disclosed, 15% of voters maintained a favorable view of Yee.

NRA Distances Itself from OC Statement

Chris Cox appeared on NRA News yesterday to clarify NRA’s earlier statement. He suggested it was unwise to characterize the behavior as “weird,” “foolish,” and “scary.” Personally, I don’t think they ought to feel the need to apologize for being right. Nonetheless, the media was having a field day with the statement, and started characterizing the statement to include all forms of carrying a firearm, and not just restricted to long gun OC under these specific circumstances.

That’s why I was a bit surprised they’d make a statement in the first place. It’s almost a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation, and you can fully expect the media and our opponents to distort it. Nonetheless, I think making the statement was the right thing to do, and I think they should have just stuck with the original statement.

Apparently I’m not the only one who thinks that. Over at National Review’s “The Corner,” Charles C.W. Cooke essentially says the same thing.

UPDATE: Bob Owens: “As a general rule of thumb, when you see a groupâ€”public, private, or governmentâ€”issue a statement and then walk it back days later instead of immediately, it strongly suggests that the original comment is precisely what the group does think internally, but that they have found that position to be politically inconvenient. Iâ€™m not saying with any degree of certainty that this is what happened here, but I have my suspicions.”

Bear With Me

We’re having some issues with the firewall this morning. It shouldn’t affect the blog. It’s more a problem with my link to work, but the blog might go out for a minute or so at a time while I reboot and reload things. Blogging will continue once I have this sorted out.