Category: Guns

The Brady’s have to go digging over a decade ago to find reasons to praise Bart Stupak. I’m not sure why the Brady folks are airing out Stupak’s dirty laundry now that he’s announced he’s retiring, but I have my suspicions.

The history of Congressman Stupak for the last decade, at least on the Second Amendment, is one of working his way back to an A, and an NRA endorsement last election, from a C back in the days the Brady Campaign is speaking of. A Tiger can’t change his stripes, but politicians sure can, and often do. It’s worth noting that, despite what Congressman Stupak’s prior position was, he’s not listed as a co-sponsor on the current “gun show loophole” bill in Congress.

Perhaps the Brady Campaign believe that Stupak’s position on the gun show bill is a careful political calculation, and are hoping to influence him on his way to retirement to “do the right thing,” and join them in helping get a bill passed, or at least advanced. I think the odds of Congress wanting to pick up a major piece of gun control legislation before the 2010 midterms are low, but retiring legislators are more amenable to changing their positions than most, so it was probably worth floating a press release just to see if anyone in Stupak’s office bites.

The Daily Show did a piece on the open carry movement last night. I have to admit I think their coverage is pretty funny, but I’m not sure, overall, it’s good for the right to bear arms.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Open Carrier Discrimination
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

What made the Open Carry guys think talking to the Daily Show was a good idea? That show lampoons everyone. That they were going to be the butt of a joke was entirely predictable. I think we ought to be able to laugh at ourselves, but do we want the rest of America laughing at us too?

UPDATE: John Pierce, the subject of the Daily Show interview, responds in the comments as to what motivated them to do TDS interview. Of all the points the first one is probably the most compelling, that if they hadn’t done the interview, someone else would have. I should clarify I don’t think TDS interview is in any way a disaster, since I think it’s funny, and doesn’t stoop to the kind of fear mongering you’d get from our opponents. But I have to wonder if we really want our issue’s first introduction to a younger, more urban generation to be a lampooning by the Daily Show.

I think there are plenty of good libertarian arguments for why the “Parking Lot” bills pushed by the National Rifle Association elevate one freedom over the expense of others, but I’m not sure these arguments here are among them. The author also seems to make a bizarre case against the Katrina language in the bill:

The National Rifle Association claims that the new law will ” … prevent state or local government authorities from confiscating lawfully owned firearms during declared states of emergency, such as occurred in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina.”

Really? By what authority did government ever confiscate guns? Do new laws protect constitutions? From who?

They had no lawful authority, but don’t you think it makes sense to have a legal recourse available for addressing such illegal action that doesn’t involve expensive and lengthy federal civil rights lawsuits? It’s a nice idea that the constitution is self-enforcing, but sorry, I don’t want to live in a world where all I have is a promise from public officials.

Read our state and federal constitutions and you’ll find that not even courts were given any power over constitutions. Both are clear and regarding an individual’s right to bear arms.

Ah, now we’re told to read the constitution, which the author has read and clearly understood, unlike the rest of us rubes. One wonders what he thinks “judicial Power of the United States” over “all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States,” means if Marbury v. Madison was wrong? I’m completely open to libertarian arguments against the “parking lot” language in the bill, but simplistic arguments that the constitution is somehow self-enforcing is weak, at best.

Andrew Horning, an adjunct scholar of the Indiana Policy Review Foundation, was the Libertarian candidate for governor in 2008.

I guess I should have skipped ahead to the end. This explains everything.

Canada is considering getting rid of its long gun registry because it turned out to be a costly fiasco. That’s not stopping California, who is broke already, from thinking that trying the same thing would be swell.

It seems the common tactic once a municipality goes down the whole Lost and Stolen road, realizes they’ve made a wrong turn, but think it’s too late to go all the way back, is to pass a resolution urging the General Assembly in Harrisburg to do something about the issue. That would appear to be the path Radnor Township is prepared to go down.

I’m not really any more enthusiastic about the resolutions than I am the ordinances, but at least the resolutions don’t have legal problems. This is a state, rather than a local issue, and I think local residents still need to demand their local governments don’t waste time and money with a crock like Lost and Stolen.

Joe has some good advice:

Some of the other commenter’s reminded me of a Libertarian essay or pamphlet I read 10 or 15 years ago. The author pointed out that hard-core Libertarians sometimes have the nasty habit of pushing until they find a point they on which they disagree with someone they are proselyting to. For example, they might find someone agrees that the war on some drugs cannot be won and is more harmful to society than the drugs themselves would be if legalized and taxed like other recreational drugs such as cigarettes and alcohol. The hard-core Libertarian would not try and “cement” that agreement but would go on to some other issue such as elimination of government schools or something. And then “hammer” on the potential new recruit if they disagreed.

This is not the way you recruit people to your cause. When someone sees a glimmer of the light you have been trying to demonstrate you should encourage them. You don’t tell them they are a blind idiot because they can’t see the entire spectrum of ultra-violet, infra-red, and X-ray, beauty to find in so many ways that you know and love. If you are right your viewpoint will grow better through careful nurturing than through pushing more and more new material down their throat until they start gagging.

It can be a long process. Good dialog usually is.