Author: Sebastian

I can sympathize somewhat with Joan Peterson here, because I remember when I first decided I needed to implement some basic ground rules for comments. My one paragraph ground rule basically amounts to, “Don’t be a jackass,” and those of you who have been around for a while know I probably tolerate a good bit more jackassery than could be classified under my guidelines. I probably only remove or partially redact, at most, ten posts a year, and the majority of those are rambling nonsense from people who I think found me on Google and have mental health issues.

But Joan’s comment policy reads like a Hammurabi’s Code of blog commenting. What’s more, my, and most of our default is to allow comments generally, and only remove or redact ones that cross the line. It’s hard for me to understand how facts that are in dispute can be corrected if they aren’t published and discussed. There’s an old saying that you’re entitled to your own opinion, but you’re not entitled to your own facts. One thing I’ve learned from observing Ms. Japaete is that she often thinks she is, in fact, entitled to her own facts. Common Gun Sense has been much more open to dissenting ideas than many other blogs run by folks on the other side of this issue, and she deserved credit for that, but it seems as time has worn on, there’s been more and more Reasoned Discourse^TM going on. One of the other side’s greatest weaknesses has been not forming a credible response to our grassroots new media efforts, and their unwillingness to engage in open debate has been one of those.

Dave Hardy reports this interesting tidbit:

Even after deciding to leave his role as president, Helmke said he still wanted to stay with the Brady Campaign. He said that he and the organization could not agree on a suitable role, however, so the two sides mutually decided to part ways.

So basically, his previously agreed upon term was up, and they did not appear to want to renew. The question would be is Helmke’s expense a problem? It very well may be. Or is it possible they are unhappy with his leadership?

As an objective critique, I don’t think Helmke was a bad spokesman for the group, but I never got the impression he had a whole lot of passion for the cause. I would imagine, in looking for a replacement, the Brady Campaign is going to want someone with a bit of fire in the belly. Not the kind of fire that can get your Twitter account suspended, but someone who can fire up people like Joan Peterson and get them to open up their checkbooks.

They probably don’t have the money for someone like Daley or Rendell, as I’ve seen some speculating about. Even if they did, Daley and Rendell are both the kind of guys who revel in the spotlight. I can’t see them spending their time as just another small cog in the D.C. machine.

Remember that whoever replaces Helmke probably needs to be a particularly good fundraiser. Colin Goddard strikes me as someone who’s inexperienced, and not connected in that kind of way. If the speculation that he’d be next in line is correct, I’m going to suggest a Brady deathwatch, because that tells me they can’t afford or recruit anyone with experience in the areas they desperately need.

It’s generally well known that the the vast majority of gun control laws have a racist origins, so I was surprised to see the headline here. But this one can’t be filed under the category of winning:

“I want you to connect one more dot on that chain of African-American history in this country, and tell me if I’m crazy: Federal gun laws that facilitate the flow of illegal firearms into our urban centers, across this country, that are killing black and brown children,” he said according to an WMAQ-Channel 5 story that aired Thursday.

I hate to tell you, chief, but it’s not the guns, it is, unfortunately, mostly other black and brown children who are killing black and brown children. You don’t get to dodge that by blaming federal gun laws. He suggests “everybody is afraid of race. I’m not afraid of race.” No, I think you’re quite afraid of it, because you’re helping these communities find scapegoats for their problems, rather than helping them look within. Violence, with guns or otherwise, is symptom of a much larger and more difficult to solve problem. He ends with this bit of twisted logic:

In a statement Thursday, McCarthy said “strong gun laws against illegal firearms are critical in order to maintain public safety and private rights.”

If they are illegal firearms, wouldn’t that suggest there are already strong laws against them? I mean, the federal penalties are generally ten years for illegal trafficking, and handguns were illegal in Chicago for more almost 30 years. This guy would do well to remember the fence.

UPDATE: See Illinois State Rifle Association’s response here.