Category: Anti-Gun Folks

Joe Huffman has spoken at great lengths about our opponents inability to distinguish Truth from Falsity. To be fair, I don’t think that applies to all our opponents, but certainly many of them we’ve encountered in the wilds of the Internet. This has me wondering if they can even comprehend our arguments at all. I’m not sure how there can be a dialog when there’s not even a basic grasp of the subject matter at hand, or any real understanding of what we believe at all:

And so, dear readers, I have argued that someone with a loaded gun in a public place will not be able to save the day to protect themselves or others for some of the very reasons expressed in the comments above. I mean, the shooter might have an overwhelming arsenal making your pistol ineffective; people freeze up and can’t believe it’s happening; this is a perfectly normal human reaction; the police are actually trained to deal with situations like this and permit holders are not necessarily, etc. etc. It is amusing to watch these folks turn themselves into pretzels to argue with common sense and then saycommon sense things themselves.

The problem is, our dear Brady Board member has erected all manner of straw men in her head about what gun owners believe, and virtually none of it is fact. She believes in a caricature of gun owners, and desperately wants to cling to that caricature, no matter how often the fairly rich tapestry of our lot walks by her virtual playground on a regular basis. Understand that most of us are not trying to be mean, nor do we expect that she’ll come around to agree with us. I think the reason people waste their hours attempting to comment on Common Gunsense is that they want to be understood. They don’t expect agreement, or capitulation, rather they are looking for that point where each side understands the other, and there at least is agreement to disagree. The great frustration with so many of the folks on the other side of our issue is, there’s not really any hope of reaching that point.

I have come to the conclusion that trying to get to that point of understanding with her, and people like her, is a futile act. They are either incapable, or unwilling to come to that understanding.

Our opponents seem to be continuing the meme of “9/11 was really no big deal. Those icky guns have killed way more people than box cutters and well-fueled jets, so you should be paying attention to our issue,” even on the anniversary of 9/11 itself. What a winning PR message.

Kaveman notes they are looking for a few good (wo)men. Concentrating on building grassroots is the top priority of their next President. I hate to break to the Bradys but grassroots are generally a bottom up thing, not a top down thing. NRA exists from the bottom up. It did not create its grassroots, it’s grassroots created it (or took it over, more accurately). I don’t predict Brady will have much success in this, because they are going about it wrong. The big disadvantage they have over us is that anti-gun is not a hobby. Shooting is, and one that is practiced by millions of Americans. That gives a natural base of support on which you can build a grassroots-based movement.

What, strategically, are the Brady’s are facing? They need grassroots, but they are also desperate for funding. There are communities who would probably be natural sources of anti-gun activism and energy, but those are going to tend to dwell in inner cities and aren’t going to be worth much as sources of funding. The natural source of funding for anti-gun groups are going to be upper middle class to upper class urbanites and suburbanites, who honestly don’t have much in common with the folks who will end up being the organization’s public face when it comes time to put people on the ground. Brady’s natural funding reservoirs are more interested in gun control as a means of battling other elites, who’s political attitudes and lifestyles they find revolting, than they are interested in allying with inner city leaders to combat violence in those communities. To maintain themselves, the Brady Campaign will have to seek fewer donors with deeper pockets, probably drawing heavily from the issue friendly foundations, who would be happy to fund an inner city grassroots anti-gun/peace movement. There may even be a few wealthy individual donors out there who’d be willing to contribute money. But my feeling is the Brady Campaign is not going to be any more successful with this new strategy than they were under Paul Helmke. If anything, I think they will be less successful.

… to gun violence. Only to hysterical individuals like our opponents who lately seem to be following the old adage of “When in trouble or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.”

As quoted by the Associated Press he said the way the bullets come out of those AK47s is scary.

I don’t know about you, but if it’s aimed in my direction, the way bullets come out of any gun is scary.

That contention is that with everyone loaded for bear, we would stop a lot of these unwarranted attacks on civilization. Right! What the man who might have been a hero did is follow an instinct that nine out of ten other persons in his shoes would. When under assault by superior firepower, the best solution is to duck and run for the nearest cover and stay there.

He was not under assault. He was in his BBQ joint across the street. None of the people who were under assault were armed.

When he was through, he came outside and further demonstrated his prowess by spraying bullets through shopping center windows before killing himself as the police arrived. That brought the gun’s total for the day to four including the shooter. Not terribly impressive considering what those things can do.

That’s because all guns do is fire small bits of lead at extreme velocities. It’s the killer’s tactics that make the big difference, and if the killer has good tactics, he can easily accomplish his feat with matches and gasoline if that’s all that’s available. What keeps body counts down in this situation is a fast response by other armed individuals, such as the police, and the incompetence of the shooter at target selection.

How’s that for action Wayne La Pierre? For the un-anointed in the gun religion, he is the chief heat packer for the National Rifle Association and its followers. You know those who oppose any reasonable restraint on the dissemination of firearms here and across borders like Mexico unless they can find a way to use the issue to beat up on law enforcement.

The dismissal of the Fast and Furious scandal tells me that Dan K. Thomasson doesn’t give a whit about gun violence either. None of them do, and you’re a fool if you believe the facade. Guns are icky, and we have to get them out of society. That’s what they stand for. Nothing else.

You’d think the anniversary of 9/11 would be above political posturing, and should be about remembering the victims, rather than pushing a political agenda, but pretty clearly the Brady Campaign does not think so. Have they no shame? Pushing bills after a high profile tragedy is standard operating procedure for the Brady folks, but it’s hard fathom anyone could think attempting to usurp the tenth anniversary of 9/11 for political gain is anything other than disgusting.

And they wonder why they no longer have the pull with the main stream media they used to. I don’t think even the left-leaning media would want to touch a story that would appear to try to divert attention away from the tenth anniversary of a huge national tragedy to focus attention on a group’s public policy agenda that is not even remotely related to that tragedy. This is really shameful.

From our favorite Brady Board member:

What the heck does “Federal Farmer #18” have to do with modern day America? […] So, are we to believe that these letters are the foundation for our country? No. They are written by an anonymous person who did not like the provisions of the Constitution nor the idea of a strong federal government. They are not the law of the land. They are letters written more than 200 years ago by a private citizen. Do you actually believe this stuff?

They are extremely relevant to modern day America because we are still engaged in some of the very same debates, arguments between federal powers, state powers, and powers retained by the people. In fact, we’ve been arguing about that topic since the country was founded. So it’s difficult for me to see why someone would suggest they have no relevance in today’s world. I think the debates are still highly relevant, for instance, Federal Farmer 18 is fairly important for understanding the context of the militia in 18th century America. The Second Amendment begins with “A well-regulated militia,” so if you’re going to set out to interpret what could have been meant by that, Federal Farmer 18 is certainly among the sources:

A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in a great measure unnecessary. The powers to form and arm the militia, to appoint their officers, and to command their services, are very important; nor ought they in a confederated republic to be lodged, solely, in any one member of the government. First, the constitution ought to secure a genuine and guard against a select militia, by providing that the militia shall always be kept well organized, armed, and disciplined, and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms; and that all regulations tending to render this general militia useless and defenceless, by establishing select corps of militia, or distinct bodies of military men, not having permanent interests and attachments in the community to be avoided.

The debates surrounding the distribution of military power, that were hashed out in the Constitution, are not serious debates today. The federalists not only won on that count, but we’ve largely abandoned the militia system as the cornerstone of our national defense. Very few people seriously advocate replacing the US Army and Air Force with a citizen militia. Our military institutions are well-respected by most people on our side of the issue, and we do not fear them. But we are still having a debate on the meaning of the Second Amendment, and that’s where these documents are relevant.

The problem is, our opponents do not wish to debate the Second Amendment. They do not even wish to debate. While their lack of real grassroots is prime cause for the downfall of their movement, failing to build a serious, intellectual case for their cause within the contexts of American constitutional law and traditions, has also been a major factor.

It is certainly possible to make such arguments, but they would not be as emotionally satisfying to proponents. The modern gun control movement largely emerged from xenophobic and racial anxieties that arose as we moved from a more agrarian, rural economy, to a more urban and industrial economy, fueled heavily by immigrant labor, and from blacks migrating to the North from the South. The history on this is fairly unassailable, but our opponents have largely taken the ostrich approach to dealing with these facts, and learning and understanding the subtle nuances of folk and constitutional traditions surrounding gun ownership.

Make no mistake, I don’t believe modern gun control advocates are fueled by racists and xenophobic fears, I think they are largely afraid of anyone with a firearm, but they have continually denied history, and denied its relevance. This has been a great advantage to our side in this debate, as it allows us to have one. The reason our opponents don’t want to debate, is because they can’t. They can’t because they’ve had no serious intellectual challenge to the case we’ve built against them. They aren’t going to accomplish that with the leadership of any of the current gun control advocacy groups, save perhaps MAIG and Joyce. MAIG is probably too political an organization, and Joyce wastes and has wasted a great deal of money on people and organizations who are far too light weight to get the job done. While MAIG is close, I still don’t think we’ve seen what will replace the modern gun control movement once it sinks into oblivion. But something will replace it.

UPDATE: More from japete, in response to jdege:

Most people are just not interested in your version of history and gun use in days gone by.

Funny, our traffic numbers say otherwise, and that’s not even counting blogs that aren’t politically centered, like The Firearm Blog, which I’m pretty sure draws about 8x the traffic this one does. Plus, we don’t need most people to be interested. Most people aren’t interested in golf either, but that doesn’t matter. As long as there are more of us than there are of you, we’ll be the ones that have more political relevance.

This takes a pair:

His voice cracking with emotion, President Felipe Calderon said Friday that the United States bore some blame for “an act of terror” by gangsters who doused a casino with gasoline and set a blaze that killed at least 52 people.

Followed by:

But in unprecedented, direct criticism of the United States, Calderon said lax U.S. gun laws and high demand for drugs stoked his nation’s violence. He appealed to U.S. citizens “to reflect on the tragedy that we are living through in Mexico.”

So someone kills a bunch of people using matches and gasoline, a weapon we regularly refer to as an easy way to kill a lot of people when our opponents insist guns must be controlled, because they can kill a lot of people easily… and the conclusion is our gun laws are to blame? This guy puts some of our worst city politicians to shame with deflecting blame.

And I’ve reflected, Mr. President, on the “tragedy we are living through in Mexico,” and have come to the conclusion the problem is that your country sucks. That’s not my country’s fault. Remember, we’re not building fences to keep our people in. There’s a reason for that.