Bloomberg’s Bucks Continue Flowing

Bloomberg wants the best gun control money can buy. Now he’s crapping all over Oregon trying to keep a bill banning private transfers in the Beaver State alive and well. Bloomberg is also dumping another $400,000 bucks against Kelly Ayotte in New Hampshire, and funding a 100-day bus tour for MAIG. He continues to pour money into running campaign ads for Mark Pryor in Arkansas by letting everyone know he’s a pro-gun Democrat.

But all kidding aside, Bloomberg’s money can do serious harm. Politicians will fear what Bloomberg’s money can buy. Money in politics is so important, it’s going to take millions of us just to counter what Bloomberg can put into a race. Traditionally gun owners are much better at negative reinforcement than positive reinforcement, in other words, we’re better at voting those who cross us out of office than working to help keep people who vote with us in office. If people want to understand why we can’t, for instance, get the Hughes Amendment repealed, this is why. If you’re only good on defense, you convince people to play defense for you, but convincing them to go on the offense gets harder. Also, if you can’t defend the people who vote with you, you’ll run out of friends in a legislature quickly.

In 2014, destroying Bloomberg has to be a top priority, and that means every race he dumps money into, he loses. That means politicians like Ayotte are going to need our boots on the ground to counter his money. If Bloomberg can show his money can buy elections, the pendulum on this issue is going to swing, and swing hard. Our biggest asset is that everyone generally thinks Bloomberg is a rich asshole, but rich assholes can buy elections. But money isn’t any substitute for the hard mechanics of coalition building, community organizing, and getting people out to the polls on election day. If that weren’t the case, Mitt Romney would be President right now.

When Would You Walk Away?

Sean decided to take down his post on his shooting class, but Tam brings up the interesting topic of walking away. Just when would you do it? I tend to think I wouldn’t walk away from a class I drove a long way for, and paid for, unless the violations were pretty blatantly unsafe, more important, jeopardized my safety. I’d probably be more tolerant of minor stupidity that jeopardized the instructor. I’d be tempted to stick around just to see how much other blog fodder I can get out of the class. But to everything there are limits. I definitely wouldn’t agree to draw a gun, even one I had verified is unloaded, with someone downrange. But a gun with the slide locked back and no magazine in it? I definitely wouldn’t appreciate an instructor who was waving it around like a squirt gun, but I probably wouldn’t have it in me to have a cow over it. I was also surprised that people believed blue guns should be treated like regular guns. I thought the purpose of a blue gun was so you could do things with it you wouldn’t want to do with real firearms? When would you leave a class over safety concerns? Do you have to follow the 4 rules with blue guns? What’s your opinion.

Anti-Gun PA Activists Demand Gun Control

Anti-gun folks gathered at the Pennsylvania Capitol in Harrisburg to demand gun control, in what looks to be a Bloomberg branded event.

Those at the gun violence prevention rally – including representatives from Mayors Against Illegal Guns, CeaseFirePA, Mothers in Charge and others – are supporting three bills in particular:

  •  House Bill 1010: Introduced by Santarsiero in March, this bill would amend the state’s current background checks policy to include long guns like assault rifles and shotguns.
  •  House Bill 1479: Introduced by State Rep. Kevin Boyle, D-Philadelphia, on Monday, this bill would prohibit large capacity magazines.
  •  House Bill 1515: Introduced Wednesday by State Rep. Madeleine Dean, D-Montgomery, this bill would require individuals report when their firearms are lost or stolen.

Boyle’s limit on high-capacity magazines bill, perhaps the boldest of the three measures, is about “protecting human life,” he said.

These are likely going to be the first bills we’re going to be facing if the power structure in the PA legislature switches from R to D. It doesn’t look like much of a crowd, to be honest, when you compare it to the crowd the pro-2A community turned out in April without our state being under any serious threat.

Off Google Reader

Last night I finally made the transition away from Google Reader, given that I don’t have much more time before it disappears entirely. I decided to set up my own instance of Tiny Tiny RSS to act as a substitute, and so far it seems to work pretty well. I also took the chance to remove some old blogs that had been long abandoned, and added a few new ones. We’ll see how well things go with this. Given Google’s penchant for killing products, I may try to make myself entirely Google free.

Obama’s Gun Numbers

They continue to decline. A Rasmussen poll released yesterday shows that only 37% of voters give him positive reviews, while 46% give him a poor rating. Also, the poll shows Republicans have the edge over Democrats when it comes to trust on the gun issue. But I thought gun control was popular?

Jumping the Shark

I think the Simpsons jumped the shark a while ago, and I haven’t watched it for a long time. Now here’s another reason not to consume their product. I can have a sense of humor when our side gets satirized well, but most of the time the cultural elite try to satirize gun owners, it ends up not being funny at all. I’ve had a phrase going through my head lately “Let their hate unite us.”

Madigan Files Motion to Extend Stay on Court Ruling

Madigan says the Governor needs more time:

The Illinois Constitution affords the Governor sixty days to review the Act and sign it into law. See Ill. Const. (1970) art. IV, § 9(b). Recognizing that this Court has already stayed its mandate sua sponte for 180 days, however, state defendants seek only an additional thirty days to provide the Governor reasonable time to review the Act. Accordingly, state defendants ask this Court to stay its mandate from June 9, 2013, to and including July 9, 2013. This additional time will avoid a circumstance in which there is no state law in place governing the carrying of firearms in public places, a circumstance that this Court’s original, 180-day stay anticipated and set out to avoid.

Well, maybe they should have thought about that instead of taking this whole sorry show to the wire. The attorneys for both Mary Shephard and Michael Moore have filed in opposition to Madigan’s motion. I think this bit from the Moore opposition pretty effectively sums it up:

Considering that the state’s remedial legislation passed with overwhelming veto-proof majorities in both houses, as well as the Governor’s deep and protracted involvement in this issue, the time for delay is over. This Court has spoken. The People of Illinois, through their representatives, have spoken. There must be some finality to this process. The motion should be denied.

Yes, we definitely need some finality to this issue. I hope the Court agrees and we can put and end to this sorry charade.

UPDATE: The stay has been granted. The charade continues.

How’s That SAFE Act Working Out?

It always blows my mind when our opponents point to the horrors of violent crime in cities with very restrictive gun laws. What more could we do gun law wise than is currently being done in New York City? Isn’t this basically an admission that gun control doesn’t work? Is the SAFE act really making anyone safer? Sometimes I don’t think they honestly believe their own BS, but crime seems like a good argument for turning a fear and loathing of firearms into policy.

The Californication of Nevada Continues

The legislature has passed a bill to end private transfers in Nevada. They are already attacking the Governor on the issue. It is essentially backdoor registration. If you live in Nevada, call the Governor and demand he veto the bill.

I Grow Tired of These Arguments

John Slezosky is a teacher, and being a teacher he should realize that the collective rights interpretation of the Second Amendment has been so thoroughly discredited that not even a single justice signed onto the idea. I’ve gotten to the point with a lot of these people that I just want to say, “Go out and read the scholarship in this area, and then we can have the basis for an intelligent conversation.” I’m not even sure what point the author is trying to make here.