We’re The Ones with the Conspiracy Theories…

I always love it when gun control advocates try to argue that even the most sensible pro-gun argument is rooted in conspiracy theories. I love it because it makes me laugh when I see these kinds of tweets from their backers:


Yup, every single member of the National Rifle Association is clearly working with the Republican Party and the Koch brothers to wage war on the middle and lower classes. Because there are no poor gun owners. There are no middle class Republicans. There are no NRA card-toting Democrats. You know, such a black-and-white view of the world has to make for a very boring world.

Earlier in the day, the tweeter also ranted about how waiting periods of three months aren’t stopping the war against the “have nots.”


Anyone know where there’s a three month waiting period in place? I realize this is clearly a person who believes they are entitled to their own set of facts, but I’m trying to figure out if the tweeter is also exercising a right to his/her own reality.

I just had to respond and asked the tweeter just what evidence existed that NRA members were waging war on the “have nots” and how he/she explained the fact that NRA routinely supports Democrats in Congress if this conspiracy is actually being masterminded by the GOP. I did hear back, but it devolved into me being called “terrible” for acknowledging that minorities do, in fact, attend the NRA meetings and followed by claims that the NRA does want gun control if members are threatened by guns. Yeah, it didn’t make much sense to me, either.

What If There’s a Tie?

I know that the readership of this blog isn’t likely to need an explanation of what happens if the Electoral College ties. We know that it goes to the House of Representatives. But what about the actual votes from the House; how many folks have sat around discussing that aspect? I’ll be honest and say I haven’t really thought about it. The default thinking is that if the House is controlled by the GOP, they will vote for Romney. Of course, it’s not quite that simple

Nonetheless, the fact remains that there are so many different ways to reach a tie that it behooves both sides to start dossiers on every House member to figure if any of them might be moved, under certain circumstances, to vote against their party, or to abstain. In the House, the vote is done not by individual member, but by state delegation. A state like Minnesota, with four Republicans and four Democrats, would presumably vote “present” unless a member didn’t vote for his/her own party’s nominee. By my armchair projections, Romney would probably win the support of about 28 delegations (26 are needed to win) — but several of those delegations would be by one-vote margins, meaning that if my projection is slightly off, or if a Member could be convinced to switch parties or to abstain, the margin would be even smaller.

How could this happen? Well, imagine a 269-269 Electoral College tie, but with Obama building up such large margins in populous states like New York and California that he wins a clear popular-vote margin. Cue the Occupy movement to protest in favor of the House voting to ratify the popular vote rather than by party. Cue the media to overwhelmingly push that same notion. Now look at a few GOP House members who won by only narrow margins, but in districts carried by Obama, where the media message would be that they have a duty to vote with the majority of their constituents. Obviously, all of this could get very dicey indeed.

Looking at your state, how do you think they could vote if it did result in a House vote?

For Pennsylvania, we’ll have 18 Congressmen. Five of those will absolutely be Democrats. One more will very likely be a Democrat. Six are safe for the Republicans, with five likely to lean that way. One is a GOP seat right now, but a true toss-up. I would say that Romney will have a solid lead in enough of the GOP districts that he’ll come out okay even with the Philly media going nuts over how it’s just not fair that we have to follow that stupid Constitution and the stupid election laws that allow those stupid Republicans to even have a vote.

UPDATE: And Dave Adams of VSSA has posted about how Virginia’s delegation could possibly vote if the presidential race went to the House. He outlines legitimate ways in which it could be 6-5 in either direction.

Laws Are For Little People

Pennsylvanians who don’t live in Scranton dodged a political bullet in 2010 when the city’s mayor lost two Democratic primary races for higher office. The MAIG mayor first tried running for governor, but dropped out when it was clear he was losing the primary race. Then he tried running for a state senate seat in his area, but he lost that race to a pro-gun Democrat.

At the time he was running, Doherty announced he wanted the state to enact a one-gun-a-month law and wanted to end preemption. It turns out that it’s a good thing his career has kept him at the local level since he has now decided that laws don’t apply to him.

Scranton Mayor Chris Doherty cut everyone’s pay — including his own — on Friday, saying the state’s sixth-largest city is broke because the City Council blocked his proposed tax increase. Doherty, a Democrat, warned nearly 400 police officers, firefighters and public works employees about his doomsday plan, prompting a Lackawanna County judge to order the city to pay full wages to all employees, citing that it is a violation of their contracts. Hours later, the payday envelopes went out, and, despite the judge’s order, they were light.

What does a judge’s order really mean? It’s not anything Doherty believes should carry the force of law or be used to hold him accountable. Clearly, he can use city dollars however he chooses without the interference of that pesky judicial oversight or even input from his fellow elected officials who actually vote on the budget. If this is how he views division of government for his city, can you imagine what he would have done on gun laws if elected governor with a legislature that wasn’t willing to pass anything?

Holding Them Accountable

I’ve decided that I’d like to engage with more anti-gun people online. However, I’m not going to try and argue with them on the issue of actual gun ownership. That’s largely a lost cause with someone who is passionate enough about it to get into debates online. What I’ve decided to target is anti-gunners who are so extreme in their hatred of civilian gun ownership that they want to silence all who oppose them. In other words, I’m making an effort to hold them accountable for the things they are actually demanding.

My response? “I respect your dedication to free political speech by calling for people to get rid of political opposition.” Seriously, he doesn’t want to win the debate. He doesn’t want to win an election. He wants to “get rid” of NRA members. There are more than 4 million of us, so what are his exact methods for “get[ting] rid” of us? It’s a fair question to ask him since he’s making such an extreme statement about his political opponents.

You can also look to this tweet from a Labour MP who seems distressed about a feature of the UN Arms Trade Treaty discussions:

I responded: “Is that a bad thing? Free speech should be welcome from all sides, at least I would hope it is welcome.” Is this a member of British government who is willing to say that those he disagrees with shouldn’t be recognized in a political debate? It seems like an awfully silly thing to get upset over even if he’s not an NRA supporter. He’s not challenging the arguments presented by NRA, but seemingly their mere existence as a recognized organization with a voice to represent their members.

Finally, there’s this example:

If you click through to the article, it states that NRA said they will tell voters in the respective Congressional districts how their elected officials voted. It would seem that ‏@thinkincolornow finds this to be something we should ban from politics, so I asked her for a little clarification. I posed a couple of questions: “What exactly should not be in politics? The right to petition government or right to speak to members of a political org?” She hasn’t been willing to respond at this point.

On the positive side of tracking the NRA hashtag, I did find this awesome post:

I sent my congratulations to my fellow NRA member. We are winning. And we’re doing it without actually trying to restrict the free speech rights of our opponents.

They Have Criminals, We Have…

In light of the Brady Campaign highlighting the tragic plight of wealthy gun criminals, I figured I would point out that we have Alton Brown who deserves much more credit for contributions to helping the world better understand the food they eat than athletes who promote excess and misbehavior without consequences.

The Problem of Bias Ruining Your Story

When most gun owners think of bias in the press, they think of the mainstream media reporters who only sometimes bother to grudgingly show up to their assignments covering pro-gun rallies or events. There’s even a joke that’s pretty common in serious gun circles that if you go to a pro-Second Amendment event and wear a suit or otherwise look normal, there’s no way a reporter will talk to you. However, if you deck yourself out in camo and carry crazy-sounding signs, they’ll line up and then claim you’re a spokesman for the entire movement of gun owners.

But bias happens on our side, too. Case in point, last month’s “Letter from the Editor” in America’s First Freedom by Mark Chesnut assumes that nearly everyone with a press identification badge covering the NRA Annual Meeting and all of the activities associated with it are looking to demonize NRA members or miss out on what he considers the real story of the yearly NRA event.

While taking a break in the pressroom during the recent NRA Annual Meetings & Exhibits in St. Louis, I overheard some members of the press lamenting the fact that they couldn’t find a good protest to cover.

One mentioned he had walked several blocks attempting to find a planned protest, but never found it. Another mentioned that she, too, had walked all the way around outside the convention center in hopes of running across protesters, but she, too, had come up empty-handed.

They looked demoralized. Their quest for the Holy Grail of the NRA meeting–rabid anti-gunners vehemently protesting the hated “gun lobby”–had ended in failure.

There’s just one problem with his premise about these people looking to promote the anti-gun agenda while ignoring the rest of the story of NRA’s weekend events. The woman he mentions? That was me, a life member of NRA and volunteer with both ILA and the Foundation. The guy? Thirdpower, an NRA endowment member and volunteer for the Illinois State Rifle Association, the NRA state association in his home state. In fact, with a quick peek at our press badges or, even better, a quick question as a reporter, he would have found out that his assumptions about what he overheard were actually the complete opposite of what the conversation was actually about.

How can we be sure that Mr. Chesnut was listening to us? Well, his description fits perfectly if you take out his misinterpretation of the full conversation. Also, the descriptions fit since both Thirdpower and I did retreat to the press office to sit down for a bit with some hot coffee (for me) to warm up after running around in the rain. We also know for a fact that the only mainstream media photographers assigned to cover the story of the protests left the premises after the anti-gun groups failed to show. We know this because we talked to them and even worked together for a time to try and find the protest.

So why would Mr. Chesnut assume we “looked demoralized” if we weren’t actually looking to promote anti-gun causes? I’d say it probably had something to do with the fact that running about a quarter mile around the outside of the convention center in the rain may have left us looking a little less than perky.

If he detected any disappointment, it was largely in jest. Though I’ve been covering protests at NRA conventions since Pittsburgh in 2004, so I do have an appreciation of the entertainment value of protests. Not to mention, it’s a little frustrating when anti-gun groups spend weeks promoting an event and then fail to show up due to a little rain when more than 70,000 NRA members managed to handle the drizzle. We wanted to get the real story to share with readers, that’s why we tried to find the protesters. When no anti-gun people showed up, we were happy to share it with readers. We did provide the real story when mainstream media relied on press releases and spokesmen.

So while Mr. Chesnut may have been trying to make a point about bias in mainstream coverage of the NRA event, his targets and facts were misplaced because of his own assumptions and biases. He only chose to hear half the story instead of stopping to talk to actual NRA members and supporters who were taking the time to report the full picture. A lesson in media coverage indeed.

Thirdpower’s story about his longer walk down to the Arch and back is here.

A Partisan Shift

A little commentary by Jeff Bishop of damnum absque injuria about a decision that came down today:

Falwell v. Hustler Magazine, the case widely misrepresented as “People vs. Larry Flynt,” was decided 8-0 on First Amendment grounds in favor of a corporation. Citizens United and today’s American Traditions Partnership decision were both decided 5-4, with all four liberals arguing in dissent that legal persons (corporations, LLCs, etc.) aren’t really “people” and therefore, any natural person with the audacity to form one should check his own First Amendment rights at at the door.

So for all four liberals on the Supreme Court, along with an overwhelming majority of self-described liberals outside it, corporations are “people” with First Amendment rights when they peddle porno and smear public figures, but cease to be “people” as soon as they contribute anything of value to national political discourse.

What Isn’t News Today

So no healthcare decision today. According to SCOTUS Blog, they weren’t too far from having 100,000 people on their live coverage site today. They have planned for Thursday and realize that they could reach 250,000.

While we wait, I thought there were parts of this NYT article that gave a preview of how little thought many in Congress and the White House gave to the idea of any kind of legal challenge:

In passing the law two years ago, Democrats entertained little doubt that it was constitutional. The White House held a conference call to tell reporters that any legal challenge, as one Obama aide put it, “will eventually fail and shouldn’t be given too much credence in the press.”

Congress held no hearing on the plan’s constitutionality until nearly a year after it was signed into law. Representative Nancy Pelosi, then the House speaker, scoffed when a reporter asked what part of the Constitution empowered Congress to force Americans to buy health insurance. “Are you serious?” she asked with disdain. “Are you serious?”

The first lawsuits were filed the day Mr. Obama signed the plan in March 2010. By the end of January 2011, judges in Florida and Virginia had ruled it unconstitutional. Only then did the Senate and the House hold hearings on its constitutionality, and the administration grew worried.

Why We Win

If the Brady Campaign wants to know why we’re winning, I have a great example. An acquaintance from high school posted the other day an example of the trouble she faces as a young, cute realtor. Her face and phone number are plastered all over her city, so sometimes she gets highly personal obscene calls at any time of day or night. These callers aren’t what most people might experience with a heavy breather who might describe a few abstract things. They can call her by her name and describe what they would like to do to her face in detail.

On top of this issue, she has to worry if these people will try to take the harassment to the next level. If one of them calls to set an appointment to see an empty house, she could end up completely alone with a criminal and never know it.

Being from Oklahoma, she knows how to use a gun. She has a firearm she keeps at home because her husband is out of town for work. She was looking to sign up for a concealed carry class, and I heard she managed to get into one. But, it appears that the Oklahoma training requirement mandates range time. As this acquaintance is quite pregnant right now, she was understandably concerned about the impact the noise will have on her baby.

The anti-gun groups see nothing wrong in forcing her to potentially wait months until she can get a concealed carry license even though she received multiple phone calls in one night. They see no reason she shouldn’t have to take a class at her expense and delaying the process of getting a license even though she already knows how to shoot a gun. According to them, there’s no threat to her safety that’s bigger than the lawful ownership of a safely stored and handled firearm.

The reason we’re winning is because not only did she get into a class, but her post on that news had multiple people “like” it on Facebook – all women.

UPDATED: So another person has chimed in to discuss the process his wife had to go through since she also decided to get a carry license once she was pregnant. I do love Oklahoma sometimes.