The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State …
While reading “Against All Odds,” I had to laugh about this:
Buckley’s rationale for [refusing compensation for confiscation] was simple: “We’ve got a right to get poison out of society.†He denounced the Springfield, Mass., handgun manufacturer Smith & Wesson as “merchants of death.â€
Anyone else suddenly inspired to watch a comedy tonight?
A commenter today noted that NRA doesn’t do very compelling writing in its publications, but I’ll note that this take down of the Brady State Rankings for 2012 is most definitely worthy of some of the better snark you’ll see on the Internet.
On a side note, we noticed that the Tides Foundation gave $125,424 to the Brady Campaign and its affiliate, the Brady Center, between 2004 and 2009. But with no contributions in 2010, we wonder whether someone at the Foundation’s grant office had a look at Brady’s previous scorecards and realized that even when you’re wasting someone else’s money, there has to be a limit.
I could paraphrase an old Beck’s Beer commercial here, “NRA doesn’t do comedy, they do fear,” in that most of their rhetoric is aimed at presenting gun owners with frightening worst case scenarios in an attempt to fire up their single-issue voter instincts. So really, when even the NRA has resorted to just pointing at you and giggling? How the mighty have indeed fallen.
You know we’re full of win when the anti-gun crowd is crowing that the media is bought and paid for, because, you know, they are reporting the truth about gun sales being up. Hey, what do you know, even the mainstream media figured out the gun control crowd were charlatans, and they aren’t buying it as hook, line and sinker as they used to. No wonder they are angry.
Mayor Mike doesn’t want us to have guns, because we might kill ourselves with it. Think about where this line of reasoning leads? It’s not to a free society, it’s to a society where you’re not allowed to have anything dangerous, because you might hurt yourself with it. This is a recipe for the few lording over the many. It does not describe the free republic of our founders.
It’s also interesting to note that Bloomberg is only offering an anecdote. That’s like saying none of your friends have guns, and none of them have killed themselves, so clearly not having guns prevents suicides. But the actual data shows otherwise.
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.
It’s pretty clear that MAIG has been on a campaign to get media outlets to write about the pending bill HR1523, since they have been parroting MAIG talking points.
According to tracetheguns.org, a project of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the missing gun reporting requirement and allowing local communities to enact gun laws are two of five laws Pennsylvania has not passed out of “10 key state laws that curb illegal gun trafficking.” Pennsylvania also does not require a purchase permit for all handgun sales, does not allow criminal penalties for buying a gun for someone who can’t, and does not permit inspections of gun dealers, the website says.
I think it’s become pretty clear by now that MAIG is a radical gun control group, and not just a coalition of mayors trying to battle illegal guns, which begs the question of how there are still hundreds of mayors who are members of MAIG in Pennsylvania. This is one area gun owners really need to step up and confront their local officials. MAIG is pushing for purchase permits for handguns? Arguing, falsely I might add, we have no penalty for straw buying? Arguing our state should waste law enforcement resources inspecting gun dealers when the feds already do it? If you’re mayor is a member, you should make them own up to what MAIG is doing in their name.
We have a few nearby boroughs that have MAIG mayors (we live in the township, which has no mayor), but I’ve never noticed that any gun owners in those boroughs bother to organize against their MAIG mayor. This is one area you really need borough or city residents to stand up.
Emotionally charged questions that leave out important context to a debate? Check.
Misrepresenting pro-gun groups? Check.
Lies? Check.
Radical policy statements that go ignored by reporters? Check.
Callers who are convinced it’s all a conspiracy? Check.
Why, I do believe we have all the mandatory requirements for an hour of conversation about Second Amendment rights on NPR.
It started this morning with alerts for multiple tweets from NPR’s Philly station WHYY claiming that representatives from @PAGunRights would be on their station debating anti-gun advocates. Well, this would be news to anyone who has ever contributed to the PAGunRights.com site since no current or former volunteer contributor that I know of was speaking to them.
Even though NPR was claiming that “individuals” (plural) from the pro-gun side would be on the show, they actually on had one speaker for the Second Amendment from NRA-ILA. Meanwhile, they hosted two anti-gun folks, one professional group leader and the other a member of Bloomberg’s group. Fair and balanced means two against one, apparently. Not to mention, the host was blatantly biased. Here as some examples of the absurdity pushed by the NPR host:
Back to the content of the guests and the callers, MAIG’s Pennsylvania representative on the show advocated for lost and stolen laws to be felonies as well, but also specified that he encouraged a patchwork of laws across Pennsylvania that will ensnare lawful gun owners. It looks like Bloomberg’s position on NYC laws are spreading.
The callers I heard were just absurd. I think it’s funny the rightwing talk radio has the reputation for attracting conspiracy callers because there was woman who was convinced that because one NRA employee could not recall an exact number for campaign contributions donated to all Pennsylvania politicians, it was clearly evidence that NRA was simply buying off lawmakers. Never mind that it was pointed out that it is all a matter of public record that she herself could look up. Never mind that NRA has hundreds of thousands of members in the state. It never even occurred to her that there was any reason a legislator would vote for the Second Amendment other than being bought.
A number of other callers were mysteriously disconnected before being allowed to speak, so the only voices I heard were anti-gun. I know what to expect out of NPR on the issue of Second Amendment rights, but this was over-the-top even by their standards.
Since Brady released its new scores, I’ve been meaning to go back and redo my spreadsheet to see if there’s still no correlation. Fortunately, Barron Barnett saved me the time. The answer is that, no, there is still no correlation between Brady scores and violent crime. What’s also good news is that Brady scores, in general, are declining. I still think Pennsylvania’s score of 26 out of 100 is embarrassingly high.
Miguel finds our opponents in a lie of omission this President’s Day. It is an unfortunate thing for our opponents that this supposed “insurrectionist meme” didn’t come to life with the NRA in the 1970s, but came to life at the founding of our nation, and has been part of the American landscape ever since. As much as they might enjoy sticking their head in the sand, this nation was forged through violent revolution, so it ought not be that remarkably surprising that revolutionist rhetoric has been part and parcel of our political culture.
Thirdpower highlights an Illinois lobbyist, Brady Campaign volunteer, National Gun Victims Action Council board member, and spokesman for gun control issues who convinces the press that he’s not a formal activist. And what is it about those traditional media outlets that claim the benefit from the presence of editors?