Category: Anti-Gun Folks

The Chicago Tribune columnist Brady Campaign Board member Tom Vanden Berk has an editorial defending Garry McCarthy’s racially charged statement, noting:

We all fail to acknowledge that children — and, yes, mostly African-American children — are dying disproportionately because of our failure to take action.

As the father of a biracial son, Tommy, who was tragically killed in the crossfire of a gang shootout 19 years ago, I know the complicated intersection of race and guns.

He then goes on to describe the shooting, which I’m hard pressed to identify race as a factor in. Gang membership? Sure. But he also notes:

As I desperately looked for Tommy, I learned that a group of teenage gang members found a flier about the party, showed up at the house and started shooting at each other with guns they obtained on the illegal market.

An illegal market in Chicago? How could that happen? Chicago’s laws are a great example of not-racist gun laws, if you ask ol’ Garry. Of course, federal laws also apply to making that market illegal too. You know, those racist federal laws that make it illegal for criminals to purchase, possess, and use guns unlawfully?

No one seems to have heard past McCarthy’s use of the word “racism.” I believe his point was that weak federal gun laws facilitate a form of institutionalized racism, the unregulated flow of guns into the hands of young, black teenagers, and that we have a moral responsibility to strengthen these laws.

How do you regulate a black market? It’s already illegal for teenagers of any race to buy handguns. It’s illegal just about everywhere, and federally, for teenagers to possess handguns unsupervised. It’s definitely illegal in Chicago. What more do you want?

This is a tough thing for these folks to hear, and it’s going to make me seem cold, but so be it: i’m really tired of these people making their tragedy my problem. It’s not. I had nothing to do with it. I’m not about to share responsibility for your poor parenting choices, and surrender my freedom. Did you talk to the parents who were supervising the party, or just the kids? I didn’t seem to catch that part. I can promise you my parents would have, if I was going to be permitted to stay. This is harsh to say to someone who lost a kid, but if you’re going to blame me, and make no mistake, when you advocate my freedom be more limited, you’re doing exactly that, I’m going to throw it back in your face that your kid died because you were a shitty parent. Go deal with your grief, man up to your choices in life, and leave me, and every other American out of it.

Follow to Left Jab Radio to view segments here and here. It is good strategy to be up on what the opposition is saying, and how they are framing the issue. I am relatively happy Colin brings with himself all the baggage of the Brady Campaign’s past issues, because his rhetoric on the private sale issue is pretty much spot on, in my opinion. If I were arguing that position, he’s making all the same points and concessions I would be making. He gets considerably weaker when he has to pick up the Brady baggage and try to carry it.

I am also amused that even on a lefty radio show, you get a pro-gun caller when they start taking calls. The pro-gun caller was making the point that he shouldn’t have to go through a background check to get his own gun back when he turns it over to an FFL pawnbroker as collateral on a loan, mentioning that he was in favor of the background check system when it passed, marketed to the public as a way to screen felons, but that they were never honest with him, that it would make him have to undergo a background check to get back his own gun.

Our opponents like to tell us that gun owners support their agenda. I can promise you they don’t once they start to understand the details, and this is a prime example. Denying terrorists from getting guns sounds great, until they find out a buddy can no longer buy guns because his name is identical to that of someone on the list. Universal background checks sound great, until he realizes it will turn him into a felon by selling a gun to a long time friend without paying 30-50 bucks to do it through a dealer. The devil is in the details, as they say, and quite a number of gun owners are ignorant of the details, until they are forced to live with them. Why do our opponents think they have had no traction since the 90s? This is why.

Paul Helmke has been chatting it up with the Indianapolis Star about his time with the Brady Campaign, and I find think we can find big clues about his departure in his answers.

Accountability on Meeting Goals
In answering a question about his biggest accomplishment, Helmke responded:

I think we elevated the attention that the issue has been getting. My view was it was tough getting through to elected officials on Capitol Hill, so I wanted to get in the media as much as I could. 

The first thing I hear in that statement is “I think.” What does he mean that he “thinks” he accomplished his goal of getting his position into the media? As the former president, that is something Helmke should know. He should have a recent board report – or at least a general idea of the numbers from it on whether he actually accomplished the goal of increasing the number of media hits, the diversity of media hits, the number of target audience hits, and the advertising value of those total hits for his tenure. Either he is saying “think” in order to distract from the fact that he did not reach his goal, or he is saying “think” because he legitimately doesn’t know which means he wasn’t holding himself accountable to meeting said goals. Neither of those circumstances is good for continued employment.

Connecting with Lawmakers
Going back to his answer on his greatest accomplishment, Helmke says that it was hard to get through to lawmakers. One reason may tie into just who Helmke was compared to who those lawmakers who push gun control are:

When I got hired, one of the reasons they said they wanted me is because they were tired of being seen as a Democratic, liberal, East Coast organization. 

So here I was: a Republican, Midwestern, former mayor. Part of what I’ve tried to do at the job over the last five years is to say that gun control shouldn’t be a wedge issue, that it shouldn’t be a Republican versus Democrat issue.

He was someone who could not pledge party loyalty and he was someone who could not identify with the highly urban and mostly East & West Coast districts. If he was truly trying to keep it from being a wedge issue, that won’t work to unify many of the leaders of the gun control caucus on the Hill. Look at what one of their favorites Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee can do – trying to make race a wedge issue on the debt ceiling debates. His side loves a wedge issue. Other than Mike Castle, they didn’t exactly have Republicans lining up to sponsor their bills. By the end of his first three years, Helmke should have recognized that his strategy of bringing Republicans to the table wasn’t really working. Clearly, he wasn’t willing to change his approach in a way that made any serious advances with lawmakers of any stripe.

Connecting with True Believers
In addition to media, Helmke said grassroots were his next big concern.

My plan from the start had been to be start organizing at the grass-roots level more. We do have chapters around the country, and they do make a difference. But most of them are in places where we’re doing well already — in California and New York and New Jersey. 

What I wish I had done more of early was organize grassroots chapters in places where we haven’t done so well, through the Midwest and the Plains states.

So once again we’re looking at an early goal not realized. And, just so we’re clear, it’s good to know that Paul thinks Joan’s efforts weren’t worth much up in Minnesota.

But, in all seriousness, this answer tells me that he doesn’t know how to connect with the people who would be his grassroots on gun control. The people of New Jersey, California, and New York would say they have a ways to go before things are good in those states. It’s not about being moderate to them, it’s about making gun ownership the biggest hassle while technically not overturning the Second Amendment (at least until they can help Barack see one of the Heller Five off the bench.) To those folks, they aren’t just waiting for other states to catch up, they want people in those other states to have just as much passion as they do to make gun ownership as big a hassle as possible.

People don’t get excited for a “moderate” message – even if that’s what they actually believe. Those who are closer to the margins are the ones who are passionate. They are the ones who are more informed about what needs to be done and political opportunities to advance the cause. Talking to the middle doesn’t actually work very well. If the Brady board continued to order Paul to do that, then his lack of success is as much on them as it is on him.

Not the Idea Guy
One of the final reasons I don’t think Helmke worked out for them struck me in that last featured response – he’s a former mayor. Yet, it’s Mike Bloomberg who is the personality behind Mayors Against Illegal Guns. Granted, I’ll give it to Paul that the coalition was formed the same year he took over for Brady, but I think it highlights that he didn’t exactly bring his “local” way of thinking to the issue in a way that developed grassroots for them or otherwise put political pressure on federal lawmakers.

There weren’t any new or memorable initiatives by the Brady Campaign during his term as President. There is something to be said for coming back to the table and being persistent on the specific legislative issues you’re most passionate about, but you have to come up with fresh ideas to see what balls you can move down the court in any given year. If it’s the same mode of attack year and year out without progress, it’s time to move on to someone with new ideas.

From commenter terraformer:

Some people (not saying you are one of them) think that the drafters of this legislation just want to convict innocent people, etc and although I fully accept there are some warped individuals on the brady side with this goal, the overbroad and abuse friendly legislation comes from elsewhere.

It comes from the fact that these people so thoroughly trust the DAs and the cops to not screw up (forget about intentional corruption for a sec) that they see no problem with the broad discretionary/interpretive powers handed to authorities.

A guy got his guns stolen up here a few years back. He suspected a neighborhood kid. The cops dragged the kid (pre-teen) in and got a confession out of him and made sure it implied that the guns were not properly stored and allowed easy access to the kid. The cops charged the gun owner with improper storage and didn’t charge the kid for stealing them because of his age (and it turns out in order to get the “confession”). The guns turned up across town and the guy had them was linked to the robbery. The confession was a result of browbeating a pre-teen into regurgitating leading questions.

But we should trust authority, right???

Having observed folks on the other side for quite some time, I think this is correct. There are some petty and vindictive folks on the other side, but a naive faith in government, and an unshakable belief that government officials will do the right thing, are at the root of laws that grant broad authority to officials, essentially putting us in their hands. I quite often think many of our opponents would be fine with a law that says guns are illegal for anyone to possess that the Attorney General believes would be a danger to society. It’s common sense, after all. Who wants someone to have a gun that’s dangerous to society? These are not people who read Orwell, or study history in any serious way.

Another excellent observation comes from commenter jdege over at our favorite Brady Board member’s blog, where she suggested the problem with people murdering each other is a culture that is accepting of gun ownership and gun possession:

The problem isn’t “the culture”, it’s the individual who decided to pull the trigger.

You’re continued attempts to confuse, deflect, and share responsibility only makes things worse.

There’s one finger on the trigger, and one person who decided to pull it. No one else is responsible, and the decisions and behaviors of no one else is relevant.

Second Amendment advocates often hurl the word “collectivists” at our opponents. After a long time reading what they have to say, I can’t find any evidence this isn’t a completely accurate description of a large number of them. One of the things that caused me, as a gun owner and avid shooter, to get more involved with the issue is being greatly incensed at the constant attempts to make me responsible for the negligent, criminal or suicidal behavior of others. There’s something about that attitude that does not sit well with me, and I suspect the same is true for many of you.

This brings to mind the legal term corruption of blood, a concept wisely eschewed by the founders in the United States Constitution. Our opponents are strong believers in a variant of this concept of guilt. Collective guilt, collective responsibility, collective sacrifice. Surrender your rights and privileges because of the abuses of the few. Think about where that idea leads, and it doesn’t go pretty places. There might be room in this country for some gun regulations, but at long as these people are the ones driving the idea, it’s going to be opposed by people like us. There isn’t trust. There can’t be trust. Our opponents philosophical roots are vastly different than ours.

Mayor Bloomberg’s coalition just keeps showing itself to be considerably less law abiding than your average concealed carry license holder. Now the Carbon County District Attorney is charging Mayor Richard Corkery, of Coaldale, of 28 counts of possession of child pornography:

Nesquehoning police began investigating Corkery in April and say they found several pornographic images of underage boys when they searched the mayor’s computer at WLSH-AM radio.

Ah, liking the little boys I see. And, of course, Bloomberg lists him as one of his own:

When are we going to close this dangerous illegal mayor loophole? Shouldn’t Bloomberg be doing background checks on all his members? I think we need a law!

Miguel does the math. I hate to always pick on CSGV, but, unfortunately for them, they are the group that really fails to heed at all the advice of one of our great Presidents.

The form 990s for Coalition to Stop Gun Violence are now available for the year 2009, so that presents some opportunity to do some comparisons. For those of you following along at home, here are the relevant IRS documents:

• Form 990 for 2008 for Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
• Form 990 for 2008 for Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence
• Form 990 for 2009 for Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
• Form 990 for 2009 for Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence

The good news is that the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence is continuing to hemorrhage money. The bad news is that CSGV has shifted almost all of their operations into their 501(c)(3), the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence. This trend is following all gun control organizations that we’ve been tracking. I say bad news only because I’d prefer all of them having to file for unemployment, but when it comes to political reality, it’s good news. So what are the trends?

CSGV continues to lose money. In 2008, they took in $224,887, and in 2009, they took in $207,066. At the same time, CSGV increased their program expenses from $94,426 in 2008, to $110,061 in 2010. As a result of that, CSGV’s net assets dropped from $21,706 in 2008 to $14,335.  No one has technically been on payroll at CSGV since 2007, and that was when they were paying Michael Beard $35,306 to act as Secretary of the organization. In fact, even going back to 2004, Beard has essentially been the only person making any money off CSGV.

But the story of CSGV is not the entire story of this anti-constitutional rats nest. You also have to consider the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence, which is the 501(c)(3) organization of the same bunch of rats. If you look at EFSGV, it paints a different picture. EFSGV has actually managed to boost revenue, to $372,600 in 2009, from $346,139 in 2008. Despite this boost in revenue, they have cut program expenses from $413,381 in 2008, to $319,321 in 2009. This had the effect of taking their 2008 net assets of $33,128 in 2008 to $86,407 in 2009. In my analysis, this was out of utter necessity. Despite the increase in revenue, they needed to squirrel away money to avoid complete ruin.

CSGV’s public support percentage dropped from 90.6% in 2008 to 87.2% in 2009. Why? Because 2009 was the year the Joyce gravy train started to deliver. In 2009, the Joyce grant was $85,274.00.  You can see that the Joyce grant more than made up for EFSGV’s shortfall. Had it not been for that money, they would have reduced their revenue an additional $26,461 that same year. In 2010, and 2011, Joyce upped their grant to $125,000. I suspect this grant is largely what is going to keep EFSGV afloat at all since then. In short, the Joyce Foundation has the gun control movement on life support.

So what can we use as a proxy to figure out how the size, in terms of number of employees, of the organization is faring? Leasing expenses are a good proxy for that. So how is what’s left of the National Coalition to Ban Handguns doing in that arena? In 2009, CSGV reduced its leasing expense to $9,465 from $20,149 the previous year. Looking at EFSGV, it’s leasing expense in 2004 was $63,141. In 2008, leasing expense was $45,783. In 2009, it was $43,267. This is an organization that has been shrinking, not growing, since I doubt it’s getting a break on D.C. office space leasing rates.

The picture painted is an organization shifting a great deal of its expenses over to its 501(c)(3). Think of the 501(c)(3), in this case, as a leaking lifeboat, that’s only staying above the waves because someone is expending effort to continuously bail water. At some point, the Joyce people might just get tired of bailing, and decide it was a good effort, but that it’s time to go down with the ship. We’ll continue to track their finances, and report how they are doing, along with all the other gun control organizations.

Miguel has another example. Gun violence prevention advocates my ass. Any gun accident is a tragedy and should be taken seriously right? And self-inflicted gunshot wounds are a tragedy as well, right? RIGHT?!?!?