A major tactic of our opponents is to dig through papers finding horror stories involving people misusing guns and pointing to the article, then pointing to us, and shaming us publicly, like we had something to do with it. “If only those crazy gun nut extremists would just support reasonable gun laws, like they have in Europe, these kinds of things wouldn’t happen,” they say. It’s a pretty good sign they are running out of arguments, and it looks like they’ve run out of that argument too.
Category: Guns
According to at least one law professor …
… we value free speech a bit much. Personally, this article greatly offends me. Perhaps if we showed our displeasure by rioting and violence, we’d have grounds to ban it by the Professor’s own standard? What good is free speech if you can ban any speech which might offend deeply enough to cause disorder? Under that standard, wouldn’t it have been in the interest of public order to silence Martin Luther King? Malcolm X?
Despite its 18th-century constitutional provenance, the First Amendment did not play a significant role in U.S. law until the second half of the 20th century. The First Amendment did not protect anarchists, socialists, Communists, pacifists, and various other dissenters when the U.S. government cracked down on them, as it regularly did during times of war and stress.
I do not care to repeat the mistakes of the 18th and 19th centuries. One problem I’ve always had with originalism is that perhaps free speech always meant what it’s come to mean in this century, but that the Courts just didn’t take it seriously enough before. There are a lot of things in that old document that judges have been saying “Surely they couldn’t have meant that,” to through the whole history of the republic.
Buying Camo is Child Abuse?
Paul Ryan took a little time out of campaigning in Ohio to pick up some hunting gear for his daughter who wants to get out to the field with him this fall, apparently. She already has her own rifle, so he has truly walked the walk when it comes to passing his shooting sports traditions. And, of course, when it came out that he was buying camo gear for his daughter, some came out screaming child abuse.
I appreciate that they highlighted there was no such “concern” from the these same folks when Obama announced that he was comforted by the fact that his daughters are protected by guns. Yet, apparently, teaching a girl to safely use one of her own is just horrible. Sexism much?
More on Gun Culture 2.0
From Misfires and Light Strikes:
The Gun Culture 1.0 broke down for a number of reasons, including the urbanization of the U.S. and single-parent families becoming the norm, and Gun Culture 2.0 reflects that fact, as well as the fact that in today’s media environment, the deer now have guns.
The deer in this case being us, and the hunters being the media. Bitter grew up in Gun Culture 1.0 in Oklahoma, where they didn’t teach the girls the ways of the gun culture. She was brought into GC 2.0 in Massachusetts by a friend from Colorado, who was also raised in GC 1.0, except she was taught to hunt, and is still primarily a hunter. I’m not entirely certain GC 1.0 vs. GC 2.0 really has to do with how you shoot, or what you shoot (be they pepper poppers or Bambi), so much as your attitudes, and how you understand it and relate to the gun culture. I’ve met people who primarily hunt that I would say are thoroughly GC 2.0, and people who primarily shoot who are thoroughly GC 1.0. I think we need to be very careful about taking attitudes like, “Oh, hunting.. that’s so Gun Culture 1.0” and “Bullseye shooting? That’s so 1970s man. Get with the times!” The biggest drivers of the change involve attitudes, not what you shoot, or what sports you participate in. Much of this cultural shift has come from the concealed carry revolution, which has necessarily come with a whole host of new attitudes, beliefs, and new shooting sports.
For instance, there are often different ideas about gun safety between GC 1.0 and 2.0. GC 1.0 folks are more inclined to believe drawing from holster or moving with a firearm is an activity that is inherently dangerous. This is particularly funny in Pennsylvania, where we’ve had concealed carry for a while, and you hear this attitude from GC 1.0 people who have LTCs and carry! Let me express my GC 2.0 attitude and exclaim, “Dear god, if you ever need your pistol, how the hell do you plan to employ it without blowing a hole in your ass?” Also, again expressing 2.0 sentiments, and having attended both 1.0 and 2.0 matches, I’ve been corrected for minor safety issues at 2.0 matches that no 1.0 match would ever bat an eye over. The 2.0 culture accommodates the fact that they do engage in riskier activities by having absolutely zero tolerance for unsafe gun handling.
There is also a difference in how the two cultures approach their right to keep and bear arms. In GC 1.0 people either gave it little or no thought, or more heavily emphasized resistance to tyrannical government as the primary purpose for keeping and bearing arms. I think they were right. It’s pretty clear from the early debates on the Second Amendment that keeping the people empowered to resist tyranny was its primary purpose. Gun Culture 2.0 tends to focus more on the self-defense aspects of the Second Amendment, or tends to view resistance to tyranny as a subset of the overriding self-defense purpose. While the resistance to tyranny aspect may have been more what was on the founder’s minds, the self-defense aspects resonates more broadly with a modern and more urbanized audience, and particularly resonates much more strongly with women.
But if there’s one trait I would hope for in Gun Culture 2.0 people, it’s tolerance. We define ourselves, I think, by tolerance to people who haven’t traditionally participated in the gun culture, namely women and minorities, but I would also hope for a different kind of tolerance, and that is for people who participate in GC 1.0, and who reciprocate that tolerance to us. Whether you’re 1.0 or 2.0, you’re doing the entire issue a grave disservice if you’re taking a divisive and intolerant attitude towards the people in the other camp. I’ve met plenty of GC 1.0 who think IDPA is recklessly dangerous, and plenty of GC 2.0 people who think hunting is for “Fudds”, and sports like Bullseye shooting is for grouchy old men clinging to the past. I think both 1.0 and 2.0, along with their favored sports and favored guns, can both survive and move forward together into the a new gun culture, let’s call it 3.0, who’s overriding value is tolerance for all things shooty, and that is intolerant only of intolerance.
The Struggle in California
The local San Francisco CBS affiliate has an article on the failure of the bill to greatly expand California’s Assault Weapons ban. Interesting that the Attorney General thinks the regulation that allows for “Bullet Buttons” is bad, but isn’t willing to take any action on the matter. Any change that makes the bullet button illegal is likely going to be challenged in court, and perhaps the AG just doesn’t feel the office has money to spend.
Back at Jacobsen’s factory, he said, “It’s creating a lot of back orders for us. It drives a lot of business our way.â€
We asked the Attorney General about that. Her response, “We would like to hope that these manufacturers would stop trying to get around the intention of the law. We would like to believe that people wouldn’t purchase products from manufacturers that are obviously trying to get around the intention of the law, unfortunately that is not happening.â€
There’s something to be said for pissing off the right people. I guess she really doesn’t like people, you know, complying with the law.
What a difference …
Like The Alcoholic Trying to Get on the Wagon …
… DC is trying to ease up a bit on its gun hating ways, but elements of their political culture just don’t want to see it happen. Phil Mendelson held a meeting to discuss making violating D.C.’s gun laws for non-residents a simple fine. But D.C. Attorney General will have none of it:
“We are opposed because we think it’s unwise to start down a slope where gun offenses and therefore perhaps others wind up on that sort of process,†says Andrew Fois, assistant D.C. attorney general.
Mr. Fois claims that prosecutors can exercise discretion. Does that practically happen? I guess maybe when your case attracts enough press attention. We should be honest about what’s motivating DC on this issue — fear of repercussions from Congress. Congress is already itching to preempt DC City Council on the subject of guns entirely, and the District is trying to avoid that prospect. Problem? We can’t get any such preemption bill through the Senate or White House. At least not easily.
Insurrectionist Quote of the Day
I’ve never really wrapped my head around why the Coalition to Stop Gun Ownership Violence feels the need to create a warped and ahistorical version of the Founding Fathers, and then try to pass themselves off as the true guardians of the Founders’ vision. The typical reaction from lefties is why we should pay any heed to what 18th century slaveholders had to say about anything, and is perhaps a more defensible position intellectually than making up your own history. I’ve always liked this quote from Thomas Jefferson, in a 1787 letter to James Madison:
Societies exist under three forms sufficiently distinguishable. 1. Without government, as among our Indians. 2. Under governments wherein the will of every one has a just influence, as is the case in England in a slight degree, and in our states in a great one. 3. Under governments of force: as is the case in all other monarchies and in most of the other republics. To have an idea of the curse of existence under these last, they must be seen. It is a government of wolves over sheep. It is a problem, not clear in my mind, that the 1st. condition is not the best. But I believe it to be inconsistent with any great degree of population. The second state has a great deal of good in it. The mass of mankind under that enjoys a precious degree of liberty and happiness. It has it’s evils too: the principal of which is the turbulence to which it is subject. But weigh this against the oppressions of monarchy, and it becomes nothing. Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem. Even this evil is productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government, and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs. I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.
Note the Latin phrase “Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.” which translates into “I’d rather have a perilous liberty, than a peaceful servitude.” Now, you’d think if CSGV’s vision of the Founders were correct, Madison would have scolded Jefferson’s insurrectionist ideas, but he never did. That’s the real intellectual problem with CSGV’s, quite frankly insane ramblings on history. You have all these founding fathers writing about ideas that were supposedly, in their world, an anathema, yet you never see them arguing with each about it. In CSGV’s world, our Founders overthrew the British crown, and then renounced insurrectionism. Unfortunately for them, the historical record just does not back up their assertions. I will do a series of these quotes, since gun news is slow, laying out the fact that our Founding Fathers were, in fact, most concerned with preserving the right of their people to free themselves from the yoke of tyrannical government.
CSGV often asserts that never in the Constitutional debates did the Founders mention individual self-defense as the core of the right. This is true. The core of the right, from their point of view, was that an armed population would act as a check on the power of the central government. If this version of the Second Amendment were adopted by the Courts, it would have implications that CSGV would no doubt be appalled by, such as protections for machine guns and man-portable weapons like rockets, and anti-tank missiles.
The Ignorance As Expressed by the Denver Post
I always love it when the media gets all high and mighty on subjects they know nothing about. Such is an example here in the Denver Post:
Oh, please. The president doesn’t enact anything. Congress does. And therewouldbe a political downside for members of Congress if they were to go too far on gun control — a huge downside, as it happens, given existing public opinion supporting the right to own guns.
The President is empowered by the Gun Control Act to do a lot of things, and in their ignorance, the Denver Post seriously underestimates what could be accomplished. For one, the legality of importation of firearms into this country is entirely dependent on it being suitable for “sporting purposes.” Currently, importation guidelines are a matter of ATF policy, and not even regulation (the not-so-well known point system). This could be changed on a whim, banning an extremely large array of popular firearms overnight.
Hell, the Post even ignores, or is ignorant of the fact that Bloomberg presented a gift wrapped blueprint for ways to screw gun owners. Some of these changes, if enacted, could turn many gun owners into instant felons overnight, without them being aware.
So I suggest to the Denver Post that they relieve their ignorance, or at least check with an expert, before laughing at the quaintness and ignorance of gun owners and the NRA. In this case we know exactly what we’re worried about, and it’s actually you who are the ignoramuses.
Shooters v. Shooters: Our Own Worst Enemies
Gun ownership has been expanding in Australia as well as here. Enough that there’s starting to be movement to loosen their gun laws. This has gun control groups in Australia concerned. But that’s not all who’s concerned. Michelle Sandstrom represents Pistol Shooting Queensland, which has Olympic shooters as members:
MICHELLE SANDSTROM, PISTOL SHOOTING QUEENSLAND: I was concerned when I saw the panel. We don’t really see that there’s a great need to make it easier to own a firearm in our discipline and in our sport category.
PETER McCUTCHEON: Michelle Sandstrom is the President of Pistol Shooting Queensland, a competition focussed sporting group which has Olympians as members. While some in the firearm community complain about undergoing a policeman checks before even joining a club like this, Michelle Sandstrom isn’t fussed.
(PETER McCUTCHEON SPEAKS WITH MICHELLE SANDSTROM)
PETER McCUTCHEON: So red tape isn’t always necessarily bad?
MICHELLE SANDSTROM: No it’s not always bad at all; it can actually work in your favour to be honest.
Just like it worked in favor of Olympic shooters in Britain, who now can’t legally train in their own country? Is Ms. Sandstrom sure she’s not another mass shooting away from having to train in New Zealand? This group sounds to me like it’s filled with people who want to feel like a privileged elite, and view the regulations as a means to keep undesirable riffraff out of their sport. You’ll find the same attitude here too, but in general, one of the keys to our success here in the US has come about by enforcing a strict orthodoxy on those who claim to be part of the community.
Most of these organizations are dependent on people joining and donating money to support them. If this had been USA Shooting, you’d see calls for boycotts. You’d see people refusing to give them money or support. They’d be ostracized from the greater shooting community. We’d also, no doubt, have many Olympic shooters condemning the organization for that position, and who would apply pressure within. In short, we’d circle the wagons and eradicate the cancer, not all the dissimilar to what we did with Smith & Wesson back when they cut a deal with the Clinton Administration, or more recently with Recoil Magazine. If Aussies really want this to keep going forward, the first thing you need to do is put pressure on organizations like Pistol Shooting Queensland to get in line.