Category: Gun Rights

To me, this is more proof our real enemy is Bloomberg and Obama, and whatever Brady and CSGV do is just a side show:

“The thing that really addresses gun violence is the thing that Brady was set up to do, and that is federal legislation,” said Michael Wolkowitz, a New York filmmaker who was on Brady’s board of directors for 10 years until he left last July. “Brady’s people knew policy like no one else.”

Yet so many years of congressional inaction led to a decline in the group’s ability to raise money, Wolkowitz said, which is why the board wanted a new, less policy-focused mission. “It’s borderline Kafka,” he said.

And now you realize what I mean when I said that offering victory, any victory, to our opponents screws us politically. It is part of why we can’t have any rational conversation on this issue, because even to give a little would enable our opponents to regroup, come back, and take more, and there can be no doubt what many want, at this point, because it’s confiscation. There is no possibility that anyone can credibly argue now that this is not the case.

Read the whole article, it goes into more detail about the Brady decline:

Brady’s 2011 tax documents show it raised $5.8 million, about half its haul a decade earlier. The staff on I Street had dwindled to 30 — though Wolkowitz estimates the roster is now in the teens. Debra DeShong Reed, a spokeswoman for Brady, declined to say how many people work there.

Of course, that also cuts both ways. Gun owners have been in a long slumber that Obama is waking our people out of, though NRA has always had a broader based of members from which to raise funds than the Brady folks could ever dream of.

 

Bill Clinton warns Democrats not to lightly dismiss gun owners and the people who represent them. I think it is sage advice, but for Clinton it is also self-serving. I imagine Bill and Hillary would still like to be the patriarchs of the Democratic Party, and Obama is a threat to that. If Obama gets his ass handed to him, he can smugly say “I told you.” Of course, he still has choice words for NRA:

Clinton also recalled threatening to veto a bill as Arkansas governor that would have prevented the city of Little Rock from instituting an assault weapons ban.

Clinton said that an National Rifle Association lobbyist threatened him over his veto in the state house, saying that the group would cause problems for his upcoming presidential campaign in rural states like Texas.

“Right there in the lobby,” Clinton said. “They thought they could talk to governors that way.”

“I knew I was getting older when I didn’t hit him,” Clinton said. Clinton recalls telling the NRA lobbyist, “If that’s the way you feel, you get your gun, I’ll get my gun and I’ll see you in Texas.”

Why are anti-gun people so violent? And why can’t we talk to governors that way? A governor is not a king. He serves the people.

Check out this local story that indicates Groupon is ending deals that involve gun safety training. I’ve used Groupon in the past, and will never again. Here’s their contact site. As an alternative, I’d suggest Living Social.

UPDATE: On second thought, it looks like Living Social may be no better.

So I’m afraid my initial skepticism of Gun Appreciation Day has unfortunately panned out. We went down to the local gun shop to see if there was anyone participating that maybe we could reach in terms of helping to write lawmakers. But as you can see, just a typical Saturday down at Classic Pistol. No lines out the door or obvious presence.

But Gun Appreciation Day being a success or not, today was no failure. We have an excellent example of Tea Party-style organic organization happening right under our noses, which us by surprise. If we had known about this we would have gone to Harrisburg instead of trying to implement our plan.

Harrisburg, PA:

Images courtesy of @lauraolson

Denver, CO:

Images courtesy of @TickdOffPatriot & @fffalcon

Albany, NY:

Image courtesy of @anna12061

St. Paul, MN:

Images courtesy of @S_Larson & @robdoar

Salem, OR:

Images courtesy of @Beeshabomb2011 & @RedOregonCTU2

Salt Lake City, UT:

Images courtesy of @streetbauble

Madison, WI:

Image courtesy of @chunnamark

Jefferson City, MO:

Image courtesy of @BadtotheBohn

If you have pics from a rally at your State Capitol, please share.

My head is spinning. I am so thoroughly confused by NSSF’s statement that actually calls on gun owners to stand up for the Eastern Sport & Outdoor Show and attend. Seriously?

I must fisk this just see if I understand this correctly because this honestly blows my mind.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation strongly disagrees with the decision of the Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show’s management to disallow the display and sale of Modern Sporting Rifles at its 2013 exhibition. In our discussions with Reed Exhibitions, we have made this very clear.

Okay, this sounds all good and well. So where the hell do we go from “strongly disagree” to “go and give them money” which is in the last paragraph?

While assuring us that all legally available firearms will be welcome at future Eastern Sports and Outdoor Shows,

I guess the ESOS that is planned for this upcoming February is somehow in the past. How can “all legally available firearms” be “welcome at future [shows]” when they are, in fact, banned at the upcoming show?

…it was explained that this unfortunate decision was made in response to the planned actions of a single retailer that would have drawn significant unwelcomed media coverage at a time when firearms ownership is being assailed in the media.

So let me get this straight. One exhibitor planned to behave in a manner to bring negative media to the Eastern Sport & Outdoor Show. In response to the bad behavior of one retailer, they decided to ban all modern sporting rifles. Funny, that’s exactly how gun control groups think. One person used a gun in an irresponsible or illegal manner, therefore all of us must have our guns banned. This just legitimizes the entire “logic” behind gun control efforts. The logical response for ESOS was to ban that retailer. Crazy concept there. You punish the people who are doing wrong, not the people who use and sell their firearms and accessories perfectly lawfully and responsibly.

I would also argue that if NSSF’s defense of ESOS (below) is based on the notion that banning an entire class of modern firearms is the best solution to bad press, then they have been willfully ignoring the headlines that have come out from ESOS’s actions. The papers all over the region have been promoting their decision to ban these “powerful” weapons from a show for average sportsmen. In fact, one paper actually quotes the Reed staff as saying that their concern over having these guns is with the consumers who might attend. It’s us that the company doesn’t trust, and that is the story playing out in the media.

It is important to note that this year’s show will continue to feature a wide variety of firearms.

It just won’t feature “all legally available firearms” that NSSF promised in the first part of the statement.

However, it would be unfair to penalize the 1,200 exhibitors or the some 200,000 sportsmen and women who will attend the show by discouraging participation at a time when the hunting and shooting sports community needs to be united in the face of political challenges.

Now, I really like the folks at NSSF on a personal level. They are good people. But, I would really, really appreciate an explanation on just how telling sportsmen about ESOS ban on firearms is a manner of “penaliz[ing]” people who planned to go. Do we consider informed consumer decisions to be punishment nowadays?

And don’t even get me started on the blatant hypocrisy of their advice here. NSSF is begging consumers not to punish the vendors who are showcasing their products at ESOS by a blanket boycott of the show. Yet, they want those consumers to hand their hard-earned money over to the management of ESOS ($14/person per day), a company that is enforcing a blanket ban on modern sporting rifles because of the actions of a single retailer. There’s so much logic fail there that I don’t know where to begin.

We urge industry exhibitors and attendees to participate in the Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show as planned and encourage attendees to visit the Reed Exhibitions booth at the show to share their concerns and to then enjoy the show.

I will say this for NRA’s statement on the situation. They told members who are concerned to contact Reed Exhibitions directly. That way, if a consumer decides to sit out of the show over this ban, they aren’t out a dime. However, NSSF asks you to pay $14 and then go complain to a company that is, so far, refusing to contact any customers whatsoever, including those who have requested refunds for pre-purchased tickets (and won’t even answer emails from vendors). Let’s just say that in the interest of your wallet, it’s better to follow NRA’s advice.

I totally get why NSSF would want to stick with the exhibition company because they have managed to successfully put on SHOT for years now. I understand what a nightmare position it puts them in. But to actually encourage gun owners to give more money to their consumer show that is actively banning the firearms we use recreationally and for defense?

It boggles the mind that they are asking people to financially support a company that believes in punishing ALL vendors for the misbehavior of one. They have the authority to ban a vendor from their show if one plans to misbehave. That is the appropriate response, not a ban on an entire class of firearms.

I like the guys at NSSF, but the last two paragraphs of this statement calling on gun owners to actively support the company banning modern sporting rifles are just absurd. If they wanted to get word out that ESOS’s parent company had a motivation of fear of bad press, then they could have published this entire statement without the plea for money at the end.

I pretty much agree with Tam’s take on this. Romney would be singing platitudes, and trying to avoid talking about the issue, but Barry would still be President right now. The only difference would be that I’d feel a bit better about the future. I say a bit, because I still wouldn’t trust Mitt. The other thing I’d suggest is that if Barry were on his way out, those executive orders would have been a lot worse. They would have been Barry’s dog shit in a paper bag left burning on the White House steps, daring Mitt to step on it.

I think we’d still be in trouble even if we had elected Mitt, but we’d probably need to be less concerned about long term trouble. Mitt would be looking to get re-elected, and throwing a key constituency under the bus early on wouldn’t be a great way to start a term. We also would likely be dealing with a demoralized and defeated left, rather than the energized and active left we’re facing now. So would it have mattered for now? Not much. But over the long term, I think we could count on a fierce fight over the next year, with Mitt disappointing us in some ways, but over the long haul, I think we’d be safer, and would have more options than we do looking forward now. I’d also feel a lot better if the GOP house had a President to protect, rather than to fight against. Mitt would likely, I think, take the Bush approach. He’d endorse legislation he knows Congress has no intention of ever putting on his desk.