search
top

Monday News Links

Time for some tab clearing. Sorry for the light posting. Things are getting busy, and my sinuses haven’t been managing this odd seasonal change, or not change, as the case may be, well at all.

No, The ‘March For Our Lives’ Isn’t Defining A Generation

Bloomberg’s money is making a big difference: “In the struggle over Virginia’s gun laws, gun control advocates are winning the money battle – big time” If the media were doing its job, they’d be harping on Everytown and Moms Demand about what percentage of their funding comes from Mike Bloomberg and other billionaires he’s friendly with at every opportunity. When they have been asked, they won’t answer, which should tell you something. As it is now, they are willing to play along with the narrative that these are grassroots driven groups.

You don’t say? “This seems to have had the opposite effect than what was intended. A major shift in the generic congressional ballot polls occurred this past month. In February, Democrats led by 16 points. By the end of March, that lead shrank to six. When Republicans hear the demagoguery and read op-eds like former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens’ call to repeal the Second Amendment, they are motivated to turn out and protect their rights.” Our greatest asset is that our people care, deeply. Six months from now they will still care. Six years from now, they will still care. We have something to lose.

The Portland Press Herald loves the ruling out of Massachusetts that says assault weapons have no constitutional protection. The judge in this case cherry picked some parts of Heller he liked, and ignored the parts of it that didn’t suit the result he wished to reach. He even invented parts of the Heller decision that are not there. The whole idea that militarily useful weapons are categorically unprotected is found exactly nowhere in the Heller decision. The fact that this guy is a Reagan appointee doesn’t give him automatic pro-gun bonafides like the Press Herald suggests. Silents have always been more supportive of gun control than other generations, so this does not surprise me.

I’ll have more to say on the Pennsylvania situation in a bit. There are some who would burn everything down and attack on all fronts. Quinn’s bill is an analogue of a federal law, and generally speaking we’ve not burned bridges over that. I’m much more concerned over Stephens’ bill, as it lacks sufficient due process. In Pennsylvania, an observational commitment is disabling, and all that takes is for someone to take you in for observation involuntarily. It’s not a high bar to reach, so I’m not sure why Stephens thinks this kind of thing is necessary. But hey, “Something must be done!,” right?

Despite what your lefty friends scoff at, this is true: “Armed civilians have the power to resist a bad government, and the collective force of millions of armed Americans absolutely acts as a deterrent to increased authoritarianism from its own leaders.” Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn’t understand how humans exercise power over other humans. Planes, tanks, bombs and nuclear weapons are useful for destroying armies in the field, but to subjugate a population, you need to send people out to use force and intimidation against the people you wish to subjugate. That becomes a lot harder when that population has the ability and will to turn the tables on the subjugators. At that level, the kinds of tools you use to defeat armies are a lot less useful.

I’ve seen a lot of this: “Will the NRA go the way of the tobacco lobby?” It was actually Ed Rendell who came up with the idea of trying to do to the gun issue what governments did to the tobacco issue. This isn’t a new idea. It’s just that Bloomberg’s money is a really useful mechanism for trying to put something like that in place. Personally, I think people like “Mark Pertschuk, former president of Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights and former legislative director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence” are querulous busybodies who need to learn to mind their own business.

Also along the lines of the tobacco companies, The Brookings institution has another ridiculous idea. We’re very well served to keep the gun industry largely a cottage industry. Bloomberg could not ever hope to do as much damage to the gun making business as Cerberus Capital did.

Business these days seem to want to be involved in politics. So give it to them good and hard. Hopefully that convinces the other big banks to stay out of the debate. Apple and the other streaming companies seem to be holding. I think they realize if they start censoring politically controversial speech at the behest of activists, there will be no logical limit.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: This is not a left-right issue. This is an issue of the upper classes, who can afford to pay security and pay to live in very safe neighborhoods, versus working class Americans. For the most part, it is a class issue. While you’ll find people in all classes on both sides, for the most part, we’re up against wealthier elites.

Joe Huffman: “Talk is cheap. Thankfully so is ammunition and gas. Talk less about how bad genocide is and invite your friends and family to Boomershoot instead.

Glad to hear that, but the lower courts are being permitted to do an awful lot of damage to it: “Parkland student says Clarence Thomas assured him 2nd Amendment ‘won’t be touched’” I think what you’re dealing with is a Court in stalemate on the issue. Without a change, there isn’t going to be another decisive ruling on the matter.

This is what happens when you give in to the kind of people who demand gun control.

Well, that doesn’t fit the narrative: “Florida’s state lawmakers haven’t gotten a dime from the NRA since 2005” Well, the Republicans haven’t done much for us in Florida since then, and have, in fact, actively screwed us.

When it comes to banning guns, the South Florida Sun Sentinel doesn’t think we ought to let pesky things like definitions bother us at all. What a bunch of clueless dolts. You can define assault weapons. That was never the argument. Our argument is that the definition is absurd. It’s a war on cosmetics and ergonomics. Guns must be uncomfortable to use, and look the same as they did 150 years ago!

The gun control people acted like this was the end of the world, and the Congressman should be charged for brandishing. But it’s really not cool to whip it out in public if you’re not planning on using it. It’s not a prop.

They can’t help themselves:

Get used to it kid: “It’s not just because I’m rolling my eyes at ignorant ‘full semi-automatic’ or ‘weapons of war’ comments coming from the anti-rights crowd, but because I’m ashamed of what the people on my own side are saying.” That’s why you never read the comments. Except here. You should read the comments here.

8 Responses to “Monday News Links”

  1. AnOregonian says:

    On guns being useful against government abuse, my go to for the TLDR crowd is:
    In short, it comes down to collecting taxes and enforcing laws, and the government can’t use nukes, aircraft carriers, etc… to do either of those things.

  2. HappyWarrior6 says:

    The Stephens bill has a mag capacity ban in it – 10 rounds. That’s all you need unless you are a mental case I guess. Not going to pass (unless that piece is stripped via amendment or the bill is re-filed).

  3. National Observer says:

    “Despite what your lefty friends scoff at. . .”

    It’s time for a little adjustment of semantics, because if you go far enough left, you’ll find most of them ironically to be “to the right” of most NRA members on the gun issue. They have less tolerance for “liberals” than most of the self-defined conservatives at The Federalist, and they’re not pacifists.

    I think it’s fair to say most examples of movements standing up to authoritarian governments in the 20th century were leftist; usually “rightist” movements are fronts for established foreign states like France, England, or the United States. (Though of course on its side, the Soviet Union did its share, too.)

    “I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: This is not a left-right issue. This is an issue of the upper classes…”

    Why, that sounds downright leftist! ;-)

  4. Richard says:

    “This is not a left-right issue.”

    Au contraire. Everything is a left-right issue now. You give ground to the left on any issue, they use it as a bridgehead to go on to the next issue.

  5. The_Jack says:

    Well isn’t /this/ a shock.

    Actually, I’m kind of surprised they didn’t roll out this bit of synergy earlier.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/383606-parkland-survivor-calls-for-boycott-of-top-investment-firms-over

    Course “twitter followers” may not be the same people who partake in those two company’s wares, but really it seems that the way these boycotts work is that buzz is generated for X and then people in the company who want X now have coverage to do X.

    One aside… it’s kinda creepy that a news aggregator about this story shows that a large swath of various media outlets all use images of Hogg in various “indignant” poses but all wearing the same grey suit with black or blue shirt.

top