The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State …
Asked if he has publicly changed his mind like Sen. Bob Casey on the topic of banning semi-automatic firearms, Governor Tom Corbett spoke out and made clear that his position is that mental illness is the underlying common issue in many mass attacks.
He made clear that he does not support state action on banning semi-automatic rifles, but acknowledges that the main debate will be at the federal level. He says flat out that banning guns won’t make people safer.
Most people think increasing police presence in school and better mental health services would be the most effective. The spin from our opponents is going to be that 63% of those polled thought banning semi-automatic firearms would be effective, ignoring the fact that arming teachers and principals is a point ahead at 64% if they want to look at it that way. Banning semi-automatic firearms also has the second highest negative opinion, behind only news media refusing to print or read the names of the person responsible.
(If I owe someone a h/t for this, I’m sorry, I forgot to note my source on this.)
I’m going to be out of pocket soon, as we head into the holidays and I need to crunch work stuff. I’ll still be blogging, but for news I might be missing, SayUncle has been doing a pretty bang up job of covering these trials and tribulations as well. Signs are starting to indicate our efforts are working, but as I mentioned in Uncle’s comments:
I’ve been feeling better since Obama’s Presser, because I too thought it didn’t signal seriousness. But we still need to continue to mobilize. Obama is still throwing down, and we need to remind them that we can still mobilize a hoard if the people in DC signal they are thinking about f***ing with us.
This reminds me of a somewhat famous letter of Thomas Jefferson’s:
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?
Jefferson was speaking in the context of Shay’s Rebellion, but even for a political threat like the President has made, we still must show that we “preserve the spirit of resistance” to lawmakers.
Posting was light today because it’s an office day, and unlike the professionals in the gun control movement, I have to make a living. But there was also other business to attend to today. Earlier this week I received the OK from the Board of Trustees of my 1200 member club to speak on its behalf to lawmakers. And speak we have. I took any district where we had substantial members and wrote a letter. I’ve been working on this in the background since Monday.
Each one of those represents a fax transmission report for a letter to a single lawmaker, some state and some federal. The first letter is just really an introduction and an appeal to oppose all gun control measures proposed in either the House, Senate, State House or State Senate. When we’re facing threats from specific bills, I will follow up for those specific bills. But introducing us, I wanted just to be firm on no gun control. I will also follow up in my personal capacity, but I wanted to make sure our club was heard first.
Something like this maybe? This is traffic to my blog.
It has more than doubled since last Friday. I’ve seen people in the comments I haven’t seen in years coming back and commenting. Welcome back. After a good night’s sleep, I no longer feel so gloomy. Let share with you something I keep being reminded of:
As the Army moved into the field on its expedition, it was operating with incorrect assumptions as to the number of Indians it would encounter. The Army’s assumptions were based on inaccurate information provided by the Indian Agents that no more than 800 hostiles were in the area. The Indian Agents based the 800 number on the number of Lakota led by Sitting Bull and other leaders off the reservation in protest of US Government policies. This was a correct estimate until several weeks before the battle, when the “reservation Indians” joined Sitting Bull’s ranks for the summer buffalo hunt. As one historian wrote: “The (US) Army’s strength estimate didn’t change, because the civilian Indian agents on the reservations didn’t tell the Army that large numbers of Indians had left.” Nor did the agents take into account the many thousands of “reservation Indians” who had “unofficially” left the reservation to join their “uncooperative non-reservation cousins led by Sitting Bull”. The latter were those groups who had indicated that they were not going to cooperate with the US Government and live on reservation lands. Thus, Custer unknowingly faced thousands of Indians, in addition to the 800 non-reservation “hostiles”. All Army plans were based on the incorrect numbers. While after the battle, Custer was severely criticized for not having accepted reinforcements and for dividing his forces, it must be understood that he had accepted the same official Government estimates of hostiles in the area which Terry and Gibbon also accepted. Historian James Donovan, states that when Custer asked Gerard his estimate on the opposition, he estimated the force at between 1,500 to 2,500 warriors.
This is not our last stand, it is theirs. If we beat them back now, if we deny them their agenda and keep the lawmakers in line, we will sweep these people from the field. They will, like Custer, have underestimated our numbers and our ferocity. We will dog our lawmakers. They will be sick of hearing from us by the time this is over. Obama’s historical legacy will be a lousy economy, and an ineffective and bumbling second term. It is our time to show the weak and pitiful Republicans how this is done, and how you beat Obama.
This didn’t work. So why is passing a federal ban the answer?
It’s time to start talking politics because the politicians are talking about more specific bills, even ones that they acknowledge have nothing to do with the Newtown shooting, but they want to pass anyway.
In Pennsylvania, we’ve got the following reports from various politicians calling for more restrictions on law-abiding gun owners, both federal and local.
Federal Lawmakers
Sen. Bob Casey – As the media notes, now that Sen. Casey is no longer running for re-election, his office is actually going on the record that he’ll gladly ban guns.
When pressed to clarify Casey’s stance, an aide said everything is on the table, including an assault weapons ban, an about-face from a stance he took after the Aurora, Colo., movie theater massacre in July. At the time, his office said Casey, who was facing re-election, would not support legislation banning assault weapons.
From the same article, we see that Sen. Pat Toomey and Rep. Charlie Dent are focusing on the mental health concerns.
Rep. Chaka Fattah – Rep. Fattah is going straight for a gun ban federally, but the sources are light on details like whether he will introduce one to compete with the ban promised by Sen. Dianne Feinstein or will simply back her planned bill.
U.S. Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-Pa.) also got behind the calls to limit assault weapons and clip capacity.
Rep. Allyson Schwartz – As a frequently tossed around name for the Democratic nominee for Governor in just over a year, we find from the same article above that she’s refusing to answer any questions about specific bills she supports, simply summing things up as new gun laws. She also refused further interview on the subject. I would say that her response is pretty much the clear writing on the wall that she’s going to run statewide. Gun owners would be wise to remember that she’s F-rated for a reason.
Rep. Mike Doyle – Rep. Doyle has made clear that he not only supports a ban on semi-automatic rifles, but also seemingly wants to ban every semi-automatic firearm based on his comments bemoaning the lawfulness of handguns.
“I just don‘t understand the civilian use for semiautomatic weapons, or these clips that hold 30 rounds. That‘s not how you hunt deer,†said Mike Doyle, D-Forest Hills. Doyle said he supports reinstating a ban on military-style rifles that expired in 2004. … “If this young man went into his mother‘s house and all she had was a six-shooter and a hunting rifle, there would not have been this many dead,†Doyle said.
Rep. Bob Brady – From the same article above, we see that he wants to ban all private transactions of firearms, ban guns, and limit how many guns that law-abiding gun owners who pass all of his other new proposed restrictions can buy.
Rep. Bob Brady, D-Philadelphia, said Congress should go further by requiring more extensive background checks, closing the so-called gun show loophole — which allows people to buy guns at shows without a background check — and restricting gun purchases to one a month.
Guns such as the Bushmaster rifle don‘t “belong in anybody‘s hands unless they‘ve got a uniform on and they‘re fighting for the United States,†Brady said.
From his comments, it sounds like he also wants to ban police departments from using semi-automatic rifles.
State Lawmakers
Rep. Steve Santarsiero – Early out of the gate, Rep. Santarsiero came out calling for a gun ban in Pennsylvania that would ban not only sale, but possession. The proposal would make tens of thousands of law-abiding residents instant felons.
I will be sponsoring a bill in the new legislative session that would outlaw both the purchase and possession of assault weapons such as those used in Connecticut last Friday. I know that similar efforts will be made at the federal level –and I sincerely hope that they are successful — but that fact should not prevent us from moving forward with our own legislation here in Pennsylvania. Moreover, I understand that at least one of the bills being considered at the federal level would only prohibit the purchase of these weapons on a going forward basis. If such a limited bill were to become law, it would leave a considerable loophole that we here in Pennsylvania should and, indeed, must close.
To him, the current lawful possession of firearms is a “loophole” that must be closed.
Rep. Daylin Leach – After admitting that there’s not a cure-all solution to a crime where a madman was willing to kill his own mother in order to obtain guns to commit a greater tragedy, Sen. Leach doesn’t hold back on the two primary gun control bills he has backed for years that have nothing to do with the Connecticut situation.
But he says he thinks of two bills right away when it comes to gun safety – one would limit a person’s gun purchases to one a month… Another bill would require people to report lost or stolen guns to police within two days of finding the gun missing.
Again, the goal is to limit how many firearms a law-abiding gun owner who has already gone through state and national background checks is allowed to purchase. (Sen. Leach did question the right to own semi-automatic firearms to another media outlet, but made no mention of wanting to ban these common rifles.)
Rep. Ron Waters – In the same main article linked above, we find that the House will have another advocate for banning semi-automatic rifles.
Philadelphia’s Ron Waters says he’s proposed banning such guns four or five times, and he’ll introduce the measure again next year.
Did I sound a bit down in this post? I will admit to being a bit exhausted. I was up until past 3AM last night, because I spent all day following things that were coming in, talking to people on the phone, and getting my club into the fight, and various other things. That meant I had to make up time for work from after dinner into the wee hours. I was up early this morning just from poor sleep. Today will be a bit easier. Daily Pundit takes a look at the polling, and while it’s shifted a lot more than I’m comfortable with, it’s not time to preemptively give up… and I certainly wasn’t trying to say it was. At the same time I do try to be realistic about what we’re up against, though perhaps I should not do it out loud :)
Some folks have said it’s like 1994 all over again. I disagree. There are many factors that are different. Some play in our favor, and some don’t. But the ones that do:
Gun owners need to be quietly influencing things on social media. I generally don’t do politics on my FB page; it’s a way to keep in touch with friends, family, and coworkers. I am open about being a gun owner and a shooter. I have been making a personal appeals on this topic since yesterday, without making it overtly political. Are you going to be around family these holidays? Talk. Don’t shout about your rights, and get angry. Make personal appeals. We have to talk our way out of this, not shout our way out. Make your family, friends, co-workers, etc know how much some of these proposals would affect you. Most people don’t know what it’s like to be a gun owner and a shooter, if they aren’t one themselves. Frame it as being like someone demanding you turn over your car, without being compensated for it. Or suggest you can’t ever buy the car you like again, or sell or trade your car in, because some drunk plowed into a bus full of kids and killed them. Imagine if when you said that wasn’t fair, you were told the whole thing was your fault anyway for for being a driver and having a car fetish. Don’t let them get away with, “but cars aren’t meant to kill people,” dodge. Make them imagine that reality as a hypothetical. Make them think about how that would make them feel. When they reach that understanding, if they are capable, you follow up with
“That’s what it’s like being a gun owner. I had nothing to do with this, but I am told I am to be punished because of the actions of a psychopath. It is not conceivable that this could ever happen with cars, because everyone owns them and is familiar with them. But this happens all the time to gun owners.”
I think even the most hardened, but thoughtful person, could be made to understand that.
Clarke was an advocate of human rights. He was active in the abolition movement and and the education of women.
Today the basic human right of self-defense is under attack. We have strong conviction but in some people they have been trampled so hard and so deep for so long that they have not been expressed. Now it is essential to find your voice, find your convictions, and stand up against a great evil that is attempting to destroy our right to keep and bear arms.
Don’t let that happen. Don’t let the last decade of progress be swept away because of one mentally ill young man and a million mental midgets who think yet another restriction on guns would have made any difference in the Newton, Connecticut tragedy.
We are better than this.
Kudos for turning the Brady slogan back around on them. Joe doesn’t think a lot of us are being firm enough. I don’t think people are listening to reason right now. I don’t think they are in a mood for reason. As much as I appreciate someone suggesting I’m a Sam Adams figure, I do not have the temperament or style to be the kind of person who’s going to sound the charge and lead people into the fight, nor am I an effective agitator, like Adams or the late Andrew Brietbart. I got into activism because, frankly, I just wanted to be left along to pursue happiness in my own way. I’ve never considered myself particularly gifted at motivating people.
I should note that I do not believe we should preemptive surrender anything, but if I seem glum it’s because what I see coming in from the horizon looks dark and ugly. I don’t revel in the fight or conflict. Two weeks ago I was complaining to Bitter that it was difficult gun blogging these days because no one seems to give a shit about our issue anymore. Careful what you wish for, I guess.