Author: Bitter
The Usefulness of Gun Control
Anti-gun lawmakers from Philadelphia are speaking out on Pennsylvania’s new concealed carry reciprocity restrictions. What are they saying?
- “I don’t think it’s going to drastically affect violence in Philadelphia.” – Rep. Kevin Boyle (D-rated by NRA)
- “It’s not the people with legitimate guns, it’s the people with the street guns who are destroying the neighborhood.†– Rep. James Clay (refused to answer NRA member questions during his election)
- “We have to be realistic. This isn’t a panacea that’s going to solve all of our problems.†– Rep. Brendan Boyle (D+ rating from NRA)
In other words, this served absolutely no purpose even though many of the Philadelphia lawmakers previously claimed that “closing the Florida Loophole” would absolutely make a huge difference to solving Philadelphia’s crime rates. Now that they have it, these lawmakers are calling for more laws and restrictions.
New Local Anti-Gun Groups
Reasoned Discourse breaks out in just about every corner of anti-gun activism. The same is true for local groups that are popping up in Southeast Pennsylvania.
The first example, found via PAFOA, is Bucks County Against Gun Violence. What’s item one of tonight’s anti-gun agenda?
- Facebook – changes that have been made to safeguard the facebook page
Yes, shut down dissent! Based on what I see, they appear to report all pro-gun comments as spam on Facebook. This group is so extreme that they support an idea that would ban gun owners from purchasing and transporting firearms across city lines. Yes, city lines.
Then there’s Bucks Safe which is run by a public official, and his meeting announcement informs us that he’ll only allow you entrance if you agree to his mission statement. Since he’s holding his meeting on private property, he can have them turn away anyone he deems unsuitable or with opinions that don’t match his sufficiently. This is the same Pennsylvania lawmaker who called continued ownership of semi-automatic rifles a dangerous loophole that he plans to close by declaring possession illegal.
These folks don’t want a serious discussion about what measures might actually reduce gun violence. They just want to make the laws complicated enough that gun owners who think they have some kind of “right” to own firearms are put in jail or disarmed. They don’t want to hear debate, nor will they tolerate the presence of gun owners who might have different ideas in their midst.
A Report from New Jersey
After the pre-planned rally in Trenton managed to turn out about 1,000 people even with an impending blizzard hitting New Jersey, lawmakers decided to suddenly scheduled hearings on 24 gun control bills the following week (today) so that gun owners would be less likely to attend given the time they took off of work the week before.
One report I saw pop up on Facebook appears to show that they aren’t keeping gun owners from speaking out against more gun control:
So many Pro-2A people showed up to testify against new gun control in NJ, that they can not all fit in the building. An emergency demonstration permit has been issued to allow them to gather outside the Capitol.
Bing Measures the SOTU Gun Control Debate
Much of the State of the Union was going up and down in the Bing audience live ratings that allowed viewers to vote every five seconds during the speech. But I noticed a very interesting trend among all parties and both genders when President Obama started talking about gun control.
The average rating during his gun control rant was -75, and I never saw it drop lower at any other time during the speech.
UPDATE: Commenter Tim adds important context to the dramatic drop in support from viewers:
Fox News just stated that the largest spike in votes for the “Bing Pulse Tracker†occurred when the President began talking about gun control (+ 1 million). To see the highest spike in votes turn into highest dislike rate during the entire address is very telling of how Americans really feel.
Suzanna Gratia Hupp’s Testimony in Dick Durbin’s Anti-Gun Hearing
I didn’t watch today’s dog and pony show run by Illinois Senator Dick Durbin today because, as a subcommittee hearing, it’s just not quite as big of a dog and pony show. However, I did sit down to read the submitted testimony from Suzanna Gratia Hupp, one of the scheduled witnesses. I thought it was worth sharing some highlights.
On the issue of gun free zones:
Since that time, we have seen dozens of these mass shootings. Isn’t it interesting that nearly all have occurred in places where guns were not allowed. If guns are the problem, then someone explain to me why we haven’t seen these mass shooting at skeet and trap shoots, or NRA conventions, or the dreaded gun show. We will never know if lives could have been saved at Sandy Hook if a teacher or two been armed. …Rid the country of gun free zones. Don’t get me wrong, you won’t be able to stop someone from going into a workplace and shooting his estranged wife and the person sitting next to her. But you will prevent the high body bag counts we are seeing now.
On misinformation from lawmakers about guns they want to ban:
Look, guns are just a tool. They are tools that can be used to kill a family, or tools that can be used to protect a family. It merely depends on whose hands that tool is in. You may wonder why I take issue with an assault weapons ban. That is simple. It is because there’s no logic involved with the proposed ban. I believe that the public and much of the media have been misled to believe that assault weapons are rapidfire, automatic, machinegun-like weapons. I know this from the many interviews I have done on television, radio and newspaper.
On the argument of a bill of needs:
I have heard many pundits and legislators say, “Why would anyone need this type of gun or a magazine that carries this many bullets?†Well, in this Land where Freedom hangs by a thread, I hate to think we are going to begin having government committees determining what each citizen needs. They may decide you don’t need to drive a particular car, or need send your child to private school.
And in this Land of Liberty, it is not only our right to keep and bear arms, I would go so far as to say it is our duty.
She also has a suggestion for lawmakers that includes not actually making a law, which I’m pretty sure has to cause smoke to come out of the ears of some legislators who just don’t comprehend the concept that not everything has to be about controlling behavior:
Encourage, not legislate, but encourage the media to quit using the murderers’ names in all of their follow-up reporting. I would love to see them never show the creep’s picture after the first day. If the killer is still alive and going to trial, wouldn’t it be great if they fuzzed out their names and faces as if it were obscene? We all know they have to report the news. But they could be part of the solution and help take the glory out of their horrendous acts.
There is one reference Hupp makes in comparing a mass killer to a rabid dog, and I’m not sure it’s such a good analogy.
Now it may sound odd to you, but I wasn’t angry at the guy that did it. That’s like being mad at a rabid dog: you don’t be mad at it. You might take it behind the barn and kill it, but don’t be mad it. I told the newspapers the next day that I was mad as hell at my legislators because they had legislated me out of the right to protect myself and my family. The only thing the gun laws did that day was prevent good people from protecting themselves.
The reason I take issue with this analogy is because I’m not sure how many people would really get it. I think many urban and suburban dwellers understand that a rabid dog is a bad thing, but I’m not sure how many consider it a) a real threat, or b) something that needs to be shot. I know this sounds crazy, but it’s amazing how many people don’t understand the natural threats around them anymore. I had an encounter in college where I had to talk back some friends – educated women – who thought an animal that showed possible signs of being rabid was just so cute and nearly tried to pet it. I mentioned Old Yeller, and they just blinked. To make the argument to them that rabid animals should be shot would horrify them. If they ever had a rabid pet, their solution would be to take it to a vet. If the vet says put it down, they wouldn’t make the connection that it’s the same as shooting it. To them, the idea that the individual could diagnose the problem and provide the same final solution for the animal is just beyond them. That’s what we have vets for – official people with titles and government sanction, at least according to them.
That said, I don’t think that the analogy makes or breaks the testimony. I think it’s overall good written testimony.
Making the Gun Confiscators Upset
Rep. Steve Santarsiero believes that federal gun ban proposals that allow grandfathering of currently owned lawful firearms are “limited bill[s]” that he believes “leave a considerable loophole” of continued ownership and possession that “we here in Pennsylvania should and, indeed, must close.” That’s part of his pledge to justify legislation that will “outlaw both the purchase and possession” of modern semi-automatic sporting rifles.
So, as you can see, Rep. Santarsiero has pretty much deemed himself among the most extreme gun control advocates in the state of Pennsylvania. The fact that the government hasn’t just come for your guns yet is a dangerous loophole to him. Yet, it turns out that he is worried about the support that another bill in Pennsylvania is getting at the moment. He posted this call for action for gun control supporters on his Facebook page and that of his new anti-gun group, Bucks Safe:
One of my colleagues in the PA House, Daryl Metcalfe (R-12), has proposed a bill, House Bill 357 (a number that he chose intentionally) that would prohibit Pennsylvania from enforcing any new federal measures aimed at curbing gun violence. Please write to Representative Metcalfe (Hon. Daryl D. Metcalfe, 144 Main Capitol Building, PO Box 202012, Harrisburg, PA 17120-2012, (717) 783-1707, Fax: (717) 787-4771), and let him know that his proposal is both bad policy and unconstitutional.
I admit that I haven’t focused on this bill much because it’s really only relevant to any discussion at all if we’ve lost the fight politically at the federal level. I’d rather focus people’s efforts on not losing in the first place. However, given Santarsiero’s reaction to the bill, I think it’s worth highlighting. If you have the political enthusiasm for one more letter, go ahead and write to your Pennsylvania state representative and encourage them to sign on to the bill. Let’s see if we can’t increase the sponsor count so that Rep. Santarsiero feels a little more defeated in his quest to confiscate firearms from Pennsylvania gun owners.
Joe Biden Preaches Gun Control in Philly
While joking about how he’s not running to become Pope, Joe Biden decided to lecture tv viewers and newspaper readers about how banning commonly owned firearms isn’t a violation of the Second Amendment. I say he’s lecturing at media consumers rather than speaking to the public because Joe Biden wouldn’t release details of the event location or time to the public, nor were mere citizens allowed to attend the so-called roundtable on gun control.
One tactic the Vice President is using is to redefine the understanding of the Second Amendment. See, there’s his “legitimate right to bear arms” which doesn’t include semi-automatic rifles or common handguns with 15 or 17 round magazines. Then there’s the “illegitimate right to bear arms” that isn’t worth mentioning because, well, those people who oppose the White House are simply illegitimate.
But Biden isn’t the only one speaking out. Likely gubernatorial candidate Rep. Allyson Schwartz is in attendance and joining the push for a gun ban. Rep. Bob Brady, head of the Philadelphia Democratic Party, highlighted how proud he is of his F rating from NRA. Rep. Chaka Fattah says we can’t allow people to own semi-automatic rifles at all.
I find it telling that while Joe Biden banned citizens from attending or asking questions, the White House reached out to an anti-gun advocate to attend so she could play social hour with political reporters.
Anti-Gun Teachable Moments
This weekend, a reader sent us a link to a forum posting about a Pennsylvania DJ who was supposedly fired for being anti-gun. Before having all the facts, the original forum poster made a declaration that he was opposed to the firing over personal political views, and the reader indicated similar concerns based on the “facts” of the forum post. I didn’t post it because, to be honest, I don’t trust random forum posts that aren’t backed up by actual news sources.
When I finally found a real news source on the issue, it turns out that not only is the forum post completely wrong on the facts, any employment concerns on the part of the dj have little to do with political views.
To sum the situation up, a morning show dj, Tim Benz, is extremely anti-gun and used his show and the associated social media accounts as a way of promoting his personal politics. Apparently, he has been having fights with listeners in the Pittsburgh area about this issue recently. On Friday, he decided that he was sick of hearing from all these annoying pro-Second Amendment people and walked off of his job while on the air.
In other words, if he is actually fired, the dj will not be fired because of his personal views. If the station does let him go, he will be fired because he is incapable of behaving in a professional manner when people disagree with him – something Benz freely admits to in subsequent interviews. Now, obviously, Benz wants to keep his job. He claims that he did not officially resign, and he’s happy to serve out his contract in whatever manner the station chooses, even if it’s off of the air. However, given that the morning show slots are typically some of the most competitive times for listeners, it would seem unlikely that the station would have much interest in keeping a dj who acknowledges that he brings his personal politics to air and cannot accept disagreement in a rational manner.
I’ll be frank and say I don’t have much pity for the guy. He knew what kind of divisive topic he was bringing to his employer, and he couldn’t handle the notion that the listeners had different ideas that they care enough about to call in and/or comment about it online. He is the one who made the decision to walk off of the air rather than handling the debate in a more reasonable manner. Basically, he made a decision to screw his employer, so I think his employer is more than justified in releasing him from his contract.
That said, I think there are a few lessons here. One, if you’re a radio show host who cannot handle debate about core personal political views, it’s best to leave them out of your show. Two, if you’re a radio show host who cannot handle people who disagree with you, then perhaps you should steer clear of major political debates in general. Three, an employment agreement is not a matter of the First Amendment; you don’t get protection from saying things or behaving in a manner that reflects negatively on your employer, so don’t fall back on that defense. Four, this is somewhat related to a question that Uncle asks often in his posts: Why are anti-gun activists so violent? In this case, it’s not violence, but it is still an inability to control one’s temper to the point where it interferes with his ability to hold down his job.
Ending Reciprocity
Just as promised on the campaign trail, Pennsylvania’s Attorney General is now “modifying” reciprocity agreements to restrict carry in the Keystone State.
Pennsylvania residents who have Florida permits can keep them, but they will no longer be valid in Pennsylvania. More importantly, non-Florida non-residents with Florida licenses can no longer carry in Pennsylvania. If you are a Delaware resident who carries in Pennsylvania on the Florida permit, you’re no longer legal to carry here.
In fact, if I’m reading the press release and agreement correctly, there’s a good chance that Florida non-residents who may have been carrying on a Florida license in the last week have actually been carrying illegally. The new agreement went into effect last Friday, but the Attorney General did not post it or announce it until today.
It would be great if a lawmaker would float Constitutional carry while another at least floats a bill to get reciprocity out of the hands of the Attorney General. If she plans to abuse her authority, then take the authority away from her.
UPDATE: Interestingly, Philadelphia politicians from the AG’s party are trying to claim that reciprocity agreements are being completely dissolved:
Her decision to dissolve Pennsylvania’s reciprocal conceal carry license agreement gives law enforcement and prosecutors a powerful tool that will keep Pennsylvanians safe.
Does this mean that the modification is just a first step and that other agreements will actually be dissolved?