I have been clear for weeks that a ban on the possession and sale of high capacity magazines is an important part of our effort to prevent gun violence – simply banning their sale moving forward would not be an effective solution.
But remember, we’re paranoid nuts for thinking they want to come and take them!
UPDATE: Looks like registration. Well, makes sense. First you have to know where they are. I wonder if anyone told the Democrats that magazines, because they are boxes with springs, don’t have serial numbers.
A Democratic PAC is pushing gun control in Pennsylvania with a $50,000 ad purchase. It won’t be a long-running campaign like Bloomberg’s, but it is still designed to put pressure on Republicans to cave.
This purchase also targets lawmakers in New Hampshire and North Dakota.
There were quite a number of media roaming around the rally, so this naturally made me wonder how fair the media coverage would be. Only two news outlets have covered it, or at least put their stories online. The first is the Intelligencer:
The pro-gun protesters tried to shout down speakers throughout the 45-minute rally, even as Moore sought a moment of silence for victims of gun violence and as Kessleman spoke of his dead son.
“I thought that was disrespectful,†Avino said. “It’s a poor reflection on them.â€
There weren’t any groups backing the protest, which was largely self-organized through informal communication networks, forums, Facebook, etc. Going in, it was hard to say what a smart tactic would be, because you don’t know what our opponents are going to focus on. If it’s a more vigil type rally, with speakers recounting lost loves ones, aggressive tactics would be boorish. But for an explicitly political rally, with calls to political action, chanting, etc, I don’t see why quiet opposition is necessarily the smart tactic.
This rally was not a vigil type rally, but it was explicitly political, with calls for action, including confiscation. More aggressive tactics were justified. When the line “for too many years Congress has done the bidding of the NRA,†our side cheered. When they called for bans on guns and magazine, our side booed. The speaker from New Jersey was heckled with calls to “Go back to Jersey!” When they tried to rally their crowd with “What do we want? Action!” and the pro-2A crowd drowned them out with “Freedom!” Cries of “leave us alone” were also often heard from the crowd when speakers called for action.
Where I think our side did cross the line was the few early hecklers during the moment of silence. Fortunately that quickly stopped, and our side did observe it, but those few early people own that quote above. Channel 10 News also covered the rally, I think a bit more fairly than the Intelligencer:
This was an unintentional laugh line during the Mayors Against Illegal Guns-sponsored rally in suburban Philadelphia today, but it reflected the non-sensical rambling of many of the speakers. Earlier this week, the local organizers of the MAIG rally told the media that they expected NRA would bus in people to oppose their gun control event. As is so common in the gun control movement, it was really a case of projection when the gun control crowd from OFA actually brought people in from DC.
The message of the MAIG-sponsored event was that we’re uncivilized if we don’t believe that more gun control is the answer and that 97% of American voters support Obama’s agenda of the background check bill and the modern sporting rifle ban. Not even Bloomberg himself makes such outlandish claims, but the speakers chosen to run his rallies argue that absurdity.
Interestingly, the rally featured a speaker who called gun confiscation plans “a political miracle,” and he made it clear that confiscation of at least some firearms was part of his larger agenda for the MAIG-sponsored rally. So the next time that Bloomberg says that he’s not trying to take guns from people, ask why his organization sponsored Rev. Robert Moore to talk about how wonderful confiscation was as a political goal. If Bloomberg wants MAIG to sponsor rallies, he can own the false statistics and the political agendas of his speakers.
When the anti-gun speaker says Congress has listened to NRA, cheers went up from pro-2A crowd.
The MAIG mayor who stepped up to the mic after the raving Reverend tried to claim that they were just pushing policies that respect people’s Second Amendment rights, but he did not denounce the previous claims that confiscation is a great political goal. Funny how they call us paranoid for pointing out when their own leaders are calling for taking guns.
They are importing mayors from cities with high crime rates telling us we should support their policies. Um, no thanks.
Pro-gun protesters were out in force. It was tough to gauge exactly how many were there compared to the anti-gun rally since gun owners were spread out down the sidewalks and actually at the back of the rally crowd. The rally crowd was crammed into a small space so that no matter how many turned up, it would look full. Overall, I’d say they were roughly equal crowds. If one side was larger than the other, it would be by no more than about 20%.
Neither side can claim a moral high ground on behavior. There were some pro-gun folks who crossed the line from respectful while agressive into flat out rude. However, the anti-gun crowd wasn’t exactly a model of good behavior with one little old woman going around trying to pick fights with “big bad gun owners” even after a cop stepped in and asked her to knock it off. Then a bunch of other older women walked back to the pro-rights crowd and spoke loudly about how the only reason we weren’t in support of more gun control is simply because we are not capable of any serious thought. The raving Reverend felt he needed to step up to the microphone in closing and remind his supporters that before they set out down the sidewalks and encounter the pro-gun crowds, they needed to remember that they are believers in non-violence, so they shouldn’t try to start fights.
There were many folks open carrying, but it really didn’t seem to make a difference with the crowd at the rally. Many were as visibly disgusted and annoyed by the people with peaceful signs and American flags as they were at the open carry crowd. They were simply that hostile to any kind of dissenting thought.
My protest sign for Bloomberg’s sponsored rally was somewhat subtle, but I feel like the branding of a nice “red state” company was like extra sugary frosting on top of the cake. (Sonic is based in Oklahoma, a state that is actively reaching out to gun companies being attacked in anti-gun states.)
It’s not hard to see why tin foil hats are becoming quite the fashion statement in today’s political climate. Whether they started out with a purpose of making as many gun owners as possible into felons, that’s what the current so-called “background check” proposals do.
Today, we have another example of a peculiar choice of words from Obama that makes it appear as though his intent is to effectively shut down gun shows instead of simply pushing a supposed “background check” for gun sales bill. As Great Satan, Inc. highlights, Obama’s speech today called for background checks before a person even enters a gun show. A policy like that would effectively close down some of our biggest gathering places.
Anti-gun advocates like to say that we’re paranoid to think that they are really trying to go after our entire gun culture, yet it seems to me that we’re just remarkably well-informed and that we pay very close attention to the publicly announce plans of our opponents.
I do love the new strategy of anti-gun advocates. If their anti-Second Amendment rallies end up being a bust, they already have their excuses lined up.
The primary excuse? They are too afraid of gun owners since anyone who supports the right to own as many firearms as they want is clearly unstable. And since gun owners might be present to peacefully oppose their rally, they must stay home for their own safety. Otherwise, she swears that there would be hundreds and hundreds of anti-gun advocates in attendance.
This excuse comes to us by a woman who says she must be “pressed” to go out in public spaces and worries that she now needs to “wear a flak jacket and helmet” when she is forced to go out. She also willingly accepts the blame that her promotion of anti-gun rallies will in fact alert the crazy gun owners to turn up. (Nevermind that gun owners already knew about the rallies and started talking about peaceful opposition days before her column ever ran. That little fact gets in the way of her “bold” stand for anti-gun policies.) She uses her column to ask those who are too afraid to leave their homes for fear of seeing a gun owner to write their Congressman instead. Perhaps she would do a greater service to suggest that they find a therapist who can help them through their extreme and irrational fears.
First he won’t be getting his AR-15, and then his daughter’s bulldog kills a seal in Laguna Beach, and the whole thing gets caught on someone’s cell phone camera. To be fair, Kelly dealt with the dog correctly. His daughter didn’t seem to have a clue what to do, and seemed pretty upset by the whole ordeal. I’m not sure whoever was playing tug of war with the seal against the dog was really helping things either.
We already know that Mike Bloomberg is spending millions to put his advertisements on tv in Pennsylvania with an actor telling gun owners that they have nothing to worry about in the bill that could make many of them felons.
Bloomberg’s coalition of anti-gun mayors are also hoping on board to promote a grassroots feel with anti-gun rallies in Eastern Pennsylvania.
MAIG is sponsoring a rally for gun control on Saturday just north of Philadelphia, alongside a local state representative’s new anti-gun advocacy group, Bucks Safe, that will coincide with the multi-million dollar television ad purchase. Locally, Concerned Gun Owners of Bucks County are letting gun owners know that they can go oppose it, but advise folks to take a very non-aggressive tone in any signs and to make it a fairly silent protest. (I think it’s great advice. It’s also another example of fantastic use of local organizing to stay on top of events that larger groups can’t really cover in the same way.) Farther north, MAIG’s representative in Easton, PA is partnering with Organizing for Action for an anti-gun rally tomorrow afternoon. Another MAIG mayor, this one from Chester in Delaware County, is advertising a press event for more gun control.
Speaking of OFA, they must have heard that Pennsylvania gun owners have been organizing massive postcard and letter campaigns to lawmakers as of late because now they are trying to do petitions for gun control in Democratic strongholds in and around Philadelphia like Media, Center City, New Hope, Ambler, and North Philadelphia.
On the rally front, OFA has recruited Montgomery County Commissioner Josh Shapiro to lead their gun control drive locally tomorrow. (Everyone in political circles says that Shapiro has eyes on statewide office – Governor or a Senate seat – so make sure to keep this in mind next time local gun owners see his name on a ballot.) In the Lehigh Valley area, OFA is doing a vigil tomorrow night to promote more gun control. (It’s probably wrong to admit this, but I would get a good chuckle out of anyone who brought one of the many fire extinguisher-themed pro-rights messages to stand across from a candlelight vigil.)
We already brought you the story about Mike Bloomberg’s gun control ally in Marcus Hook, PA who was under investigation for keeping a hostage in his home before firing a round into the floor of the house where his teen daughter also slept. Today, he was arrested and the actual charges released:
The mayor of Marcus Hook, Pa. has been arrested and charged with reckless endangerment and other offenses. …
Authorities say Schirilo faces charges including unlawful restraint, false imprisonment and recklessly endangering another person.
Interestingly, his local party leaders and other officials have called on the mayor to resign over the incident. However, he is digging in his heels and refusing to leave the office. He claims that it’s all the fault of the alcohol, so he shouldn’t be held responsible for the incident.
They asked her about the argument that current gun laws are not actually being enforced. She didn’t answer and said that the problem is that gun control didn’t go far enough. So they directed her back to the actual question and asked a second time.
I think it’s very telling that she flat out says that they have no interest in actually seeing the prohibited people prosecuted.
SIMON: But again, let me get you to address the reservation some people have, that we really have good common sense gun control laws on the books now and they’re only sporadically successfully enforced.
BRADY: Well, in the first place, I don’t think many people feel that way unless you’re talking about are people prosecuted. I have heard complaints from the gun lobby about that. Because if they’re trying to purchase a gun and they were not able to, what the law does now – as far as it enforces it – is to not allow them to get a gun. And our main concern is not to prosecute these people as much as it is to have their complete background checked, so that anybody cannot buy a gun if they’re not qualified. (emphasis added)
So that means that The Brady Campaign isn’t concerned that a felon who tries to buy a gun may go out and steal one. By the logic put forth by their Chair, they think that’s just cause for another law on the gun owner who may be victimized by the felon instead of actually putting the felon behind bars again so that he will not try to steal a gun in the first place.
