Dueling Ad Campaigns

NSSF released three commercials they produced with Colt, Stag Arms, & Mossberg that focus on the jobs angle of the gun debate. They are nearly identical, but here’s the Colt version which I liked best for the blue dome visual:


I’m almost ashamed to admit that as often as I drove by that blue dome when I was just getting involved with Second Amendment activism, I had no idea it was associated with Colt.

While gun control group leaders who react very emotionally to the debate may find this angle absurd, it’s really not. When MAIG polled Pennsylvania districts with Republicans they plan to attack (Reps. Fitzpatrick, Meehan, and Gerlach), they didn’t jump right into the gun issue. Instead, they asked “Which of the following issues will be most important to your vote for Congress inthe next election [first and second choice selected]?” Given the option to list two answers, not just one, the top issue was by far the economy. Nearly 70% of respondents (69% to be precise) said it was the big issue heading into 2014’s races. Where did gun control fall? It depends. When they worded it as “fixing gun laws,” it was at the very bottom with 3% – a particularly notable number since that’s a solid 2 percentage points below the poll’s margin of error. When they worded gun control as “gun violence prevention,” the number of people who say they’ll consider it in 2014 skyrocket to a whooping 8%, just two spots higher than “not sure” of any issue they’ll care about in the election. In other words, people care about jobs, they don’t care about gun control.

On the other side, Bloomberg is putting up money to run another ad with six Pennsylvania mayors, among others, to push for more gun control.


They are encouraging people to call Congress, so feel free to call…

Bloomberg is going to spend far more money than the gun industry and the pro-Second Amendment grassroots could ever spend, so it’s important we out-organize them. But still, it’s nice to see attempts to get more ads out there on our side that address serious issues voters care about.

Division of Government

One key theme of Sen. Rand Paul’s filibuster speeches was that the filibuster was about reinforcing the advise and consent function of the Senate against the Executive. There was quite a bit of discussion going on in my social media corners about how Congress should stand up to the President more – regardless of who is in power. In general, it got people talking about the limitations of government and how government should be effectively run. It was all rather refreshing to watch.

But that got me thinking about another nomination process issue that has been overlooked. The last couple of weeks, folks have been talking about the fact that unlocking your cell phone is now a felony with a penalty of up to 5 years in jail. Yes, 5 years in jail for wanting switch cell phone carriers. Who the hell made that decision? Well, the Librarian of Congress, James Hadley Billington, is ultimately charged with the task.

That got me looking up just who the hell the Librarian of Congress thinks he is if he is ultimately tasked with making regulatory decisions that make people who want to switch cell phone companies into felons. He was nominated in 1987, more than 10 years before the DMCA would even become law and leave such decisions up to the Library of Congress. He was approved on a voice vote, and the issue of his nomination has never been revisited again as far as I can tell in a few searches of Thomas. I would argue that once a man is given such power, it would probably be wise to haul him in for questions about how he plans to do with his new authority to make Americans using common technology into felons, and maybe revisit who should have this role.

Of course, some might argue that because I was using a pretty handy tool of the Library of Congress to do some digging on the Librarian of Congress, maybe the Library just stepped out of bounds on this one issue. Well, as Reason highlighted this week, a retired guy with just a high school diploma and some computers has created a database of historic newspapers with 22 million newspaper pages with just the expense of some equipment he bought himself and an internet connection. Meanwhile, the project to do the very same thing that Billington has created costs taxpayers $3 a page and only managed to archive 5 million newspaper pages. Even with the credibility of the Library of Congress behind it, Billington’s historic newspaper project sees less than half of the traffic of the archive of an amateur.

I guess with all of the enthusiasm that accompanied Rand Paul’s reminder of Senate checks and balances, I wonder if questioning past appointments who haven’t faced nomination scrutiny in more than a quarter of a century will ever be on the table. In the case of the Library of Congress, there are clearly questions about their copyright policies if Americans can become felons for wanting to unlock the cell phones they legally purchased and there are also clearly some questions about smart spending of resources. Maybe it’s time to again question the authority of someone who has been in power with little oversight for 26 years.

Turn Down the Damn Music

Is there anything Mayor Mike doesn’t want to regulate? He’s like the most obnoxious version of Gladys Kravitz with the power to annoy the hell out of you no matter where you are in his city. His new target is on personal music players with headphones. Because, let’s face it, you can’t be trusted to make your own decisions on how loud you prefer your music that isn’t even disrupting anyone else.

Sebastian better watch his back for an assault on one of his other favorite hobbies – listening to music too loud. I’m always complaining about his music volume. However, unlike Mike Bloomberg, I have no desire whatsoever to have someone regulate or spend someone else’s money to nag him about how loud he plays it. I believe that Sebastian can make his own decisions about it, and I’ll get up and leave if I don’t like it.

Looking Down on the Little People

It looks like New York has their own Babette Josephs in their Assembly, but his name is Al Stirpe. It’s not just that Stirpe is anti-gun and voted for the SAFE Act, he also gets pissed off when constituents don’t think the same way he does. When they dare think they can petition his government on issues he doesn’t like, well, Stirpe loses all sense of self-control and lets out an F-bomb-laden tirade.

Several people apparently left once he started cursing out his constituents, but the paper interviews people who report hearing the F-bomb dropped between 1-5 times. It was bad enough that one of the local gun groups mailed him a package with a toothbrush and a bar soap to clean out his mouth. While the lawmaker asserts that his constituents were disrespectful to him by not letting him finish answers, I would argue that it’s just part of the job of being a public official to try and politely work around those situations without calling voters in your district various insults.

But Stirpe admits there are problems with the SAFE Act – namely that it didn’t go far enough to disarm his “f—ing” constituents. He said he wanted to see it with a buy-back program for targeted guns so that they could be destroyed because citizens shouldn’t be allowed to possess them at all. He also opposed exemptions that would allow Remington to stay in business because no New York gun maker should be able to make guns that he doesn’t approve of, even if they will be sold in other states.

Joe Biden Says We Can’t Have Tanks, WSJ Proves Him Wrong

In the same interview where he advised people to randomly shoot guns in the air and violate discharge ordinances, Joe Biden told everyone that citizens aren’t allowed have tanks under the law. We already know that’s not accurate, but the Wall Street Journal decided to have some fun with this topic and actually profile tank owners.

Tank brokers—yes, there is such a thing—estimate there are several hundred to 1,000 private tank owners in the U.S.

Not only is it legal to own tanks, there’s an entire market for them with brokers. Awesome. Why would anyone want a tank?

When their insurance agent inquired about their plans for the tank, the Neal brothers emailed back, “We are going to use it to take over the world.”

Says Ken Neal, 45: “A tank is cool.”

For anyone who think these two tank owners are an insurrectionist threat, their efforts toward world domination have only managed to extend to driving their 1966 British Chieftain over a rusty car in the desert. Another tank owner talks about the lifestyle challenges:

He says he has put about $280,000 into his Sherman so far and expects to spend as much as $75,000 more. “You get a tank, you end up with an ex-wife,” warns Mr. Miller, who has one of each.

If Sebastian bought a tank, I would never, ever leave him. I’d probably jump up and down and hug him at the news. The WSJ also highlights their value as investment pieces:

In 1993, a top-notch Sherman went for $75,000, according to the Illustrated Tank & AFV [Armored Fighting Vehicle] Buyer’s Guide. Now Dave Uhrig, a Chillicothe, Ohio, tank broker, is offering one for $387,000.

The good news is that they report that prices have recently dropped or flattened. So if you can’t find an AR at your local gun shop, you may be able to find a slightly discounted tank. They note that while tanks aren’t street legal, owners often get flexibility from authorities to take it to the gas station or drive it in parades.

I think the best part of the story is at the end. One of the tank owners reported that he took it out for a drive in his warehouse parking lot to play with a special propane setup he has to generate just the noise and muzzle flash for the machine gun on top. Needless to say, someone called the cops. The first officer asked if the owner knew why they were there. The second – well:

The second policeman, Jeremy Marshall, got out of his car and eyeballed Mr. Bauer’s tank. “Awesome,” he said.

And this is why we win. Because it is awesome. Go read the entire article because I didn’t cover nearly all of the good stuff. Plus, there’s a slideshow and video.

What the Media Really Thinks of Gun Owners

Locally, there’s a new group that has popped up to defend gun rights. The media is aghast, and they resent being reminded that 1 in 17 of voting age adults in the county have concealed carry permits – a number from before the rush on permits post-Aurora and Newtown.

“Registration? Does it include the criminals?” [a local pro-gun State Rep.] asked, repeating a very tired argument. He went on, concluding: “Firearms protect children, wives and husbands.”

What about the dog? Should we shoot people who threaten the family pet?

Yes, the paper just called the argument that we should punish criminals “tiring” before comparing the value of the lives of your spouse and children to that of a dog. Let that sink in. They think the concept of defending the lives of your children is as worthless as defending a house cat. Why? Because you own guns.

But, the unsigned editorial doesn’t stop there. No, they have to make gun owners out to be dangerous creatures.

Said one of the “concerned gun owners” of possible government intervention, “They have a hunger to control us — unless we stop them.”

God help us.

Clearly, divine intervention is needed. Because gun owners couldn’t possibly be talking about stopping power-hungry politicians through civic engagement, public education efforts, citizen lobbying, and election volunteer activities.

This doesn’t even get into their policy discussion. They promote Obama’s gun ban agenda as “modest,” and then they try to claim that full gun registration isn’t really controversial at all. They think that a ban on firearms commonly owned and used by thousands of gun owners in the region is just not big deal and shouldn’t be challenged. They do make clear that we’re “entitled” to have opinions, but they are outraged that gun owners dare organize to express them.

Bloomberg’s Next Target

Over at VSSA, there’s speculation that Bloomberg’s next spending target may be Virginia. It is noted that the off-year gubernatorial election in a purple state would certainly make a nice pick-up for Bloomberg’s anti-gun crusade. With the the Democrat calling for handgun rationing and semi-auto bans, it be quite the trophy.

His two big federal wins haven’t been real “wins” in many ways. His win in Pennsylvania for the Attorney General is the closest thing he has to making a real impact, and even that race was still largely about a scandal involving child rape.

VSSA asks a good question about the dedication of gun owners in these target areas:

There has been a reawakinging of the grassroots. The question is, will it last long enough to put Bloomberg in his place. Virginia in 2013 could be the first test.

Bloomberg Mayor in Hot Water Over Personal Security Spending

The Pittsburgh mayor who has signed letters to Congress opposing concealed carry for mere citizens has been spending big taxpayer bucks to pay police officers to escort him everywhere – including nightclubs where he’s busy making out with young women.

A local report shows that Luke Ravenstahl has been spending an average of more than $110k a year in tax dollars for the last three years to pay just the overtime costs of multiple police officers to escort him and keep him safe from whatever threats a mayor faces. The video shows a photo taken of the mayor and his taxpayer-funded security hanging out at a bar with a young chick on his lap wrapped around him while he was still legally married. (According to reports, he was separated from his wife at the time, but had told the press that he had no intention of actually divorcing her. Publicly screwing around her, apparently, but not divorcing her. She filed sometime after the photo was taken.)

As this news comes to light, political reporters note that this MAIG mayor is no longer attending political events and is expected to announce that he will either end his re-election campaign or possibly even resign over this and other police-related scandals that have involved his administration.

I would say that this sounds like a big improvement for the people of Pittsburgh. It’s bad enough to have a mayor who uses your public resources to go party and screw around on his wife. But to have that mayor saying you need to fund his personal security to those parties while you shouldn’t have the right to carry and defend yourself, well, that’s just insult to injury.

More Time to Mobilize

The Senate Judiciary Committee was set to possibly start moving gun control today, but they’ve decided to put it off for at least a week. They are waiting on a Tom Coburn/Chuck Schumer deal before they act. However, Sen. Grassley is saying that he thinks the universal background check bill could be passed without a deal. (Iowa, it sounds like you need to be making more phone calls…)

I’m happy with the delay since now it means I know I can go to the gun show this weekend and get lots of people signing postcards to Senators Bob Casey and Pat Toomey asking them to oppose gun control legislation. We’ll use the extra time to mobilize more people.

Getting It Right

I opted not to live blog the Dianne Feinstein hearing on her gun ban today. There just wasn’t enough coffee in the world to tackle that this morning.

However, NRA did have someone watching and live tweeting responses to the various claims by anti-gun advocates both at the witness table and behind the Senate microphones. The immediate responses – and the sheer quality of them – was fantastic. Honestly, they didn’t just “do” social media today, they really got it right.

For example, when Philly Mayor Michael Nutter claimed that it was “absurd” that anyone could ever use an AR-15 for self-defense, he added that so-called “assault rifles” are only used to go on the offense against victims. Quickly, this was the NRA’s tweet:

As anti-gunners consistently tried to claim that these semi-automatic firearms aren’t in common use:

When Sen. Feinstein tried to act like the last gun ban was no big deal, and that her new proposal is just a continuation of it:

When Feinstein complained that manufacturers were trying to skirt her ban back during the 90s, NRA pointed out that she now considers a loophole an action that was simply complying with the law:

There were so many more highlights, but you can just check out the Twitter feed to see it. They really did a great job today.