Here We Go

The hysterical media is always going to find the one jackass in the crowd to point out and smear all gun owners everywhere with his stupidity.  This is New Hampshire.  I can promise you that he’s not the only person in the crowd who is legally carrying a firearm.  But they found the one who had a vaguely threatning poster to point out.  I’ll be the first to agree that people like this aren’t helping anything, and I don’t agree with his message, but this is America folks.  It’s a free country.   I know some people hate that, but it is.

Armed Mobs Threatning Health Care?

That’s the message that Josh Horowitz is spinning:

The nation is transfixed this month on a series of tense, contentious town halls that are taking place in states across the country. Determined to derail President Obama’s health care reform plans, right wing activists have stormed these meetings en masse to shout down speakers (including Democratic members of Congress) and derail all attempts at meaningful dialogue. Reports indicate that “Tea Partiers” are also carrying concealed handguns into these events — yet few in the media have commented on the distorted view of the Second Amendment that is driving this call to arms.

What follows is absolute pant shitting hysterics over the fact that protesters are choosing to carry firearms for personal protection from union thugs who beat people.  Josh doesn’t seem to understand the difference between a person committing an act of political violence, and an American exercising the right to defend themselves from being beaten by a gang of union thugs.

Exhortations to the right wing base to take armed political action against the Obama administration are far from idle talk–but instead reflect a deeply developed ideology that has been actively promoted by the National Rifle Association and other gun lobby groups for the past 30 years.

This is just a lie.  No other way to spin it.  There’s no gun rights out there who promotes political violence.

A Gun Control Anniversary

It’s been ten years, according to this Brady press release, since the Million Mom March popped onto the scene, spured by a mass shooting at a Jewish community center in 1999.  That got me to thinking what some of the missteps the Brady organization had made, mostly under the leadership of former Maryland congressman Michael Barnes.

The first was the name change from Handgun Control Inc to the Brady Campaign. Changing the name from Handgun Control Inc was probably a necessary move for them, given the changing scope of their mission.  But I think it made about as much sense to change the name to the “Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence” as it would for NRA to change their name to the “Charlton Heston Campaign for the Second Amendment.”  Sure, we like Heston, and they like Jim and Sarah.  But no one under 30 remembers the Reagan assassination, and at 35 I barely remember it.  That’s not to say that Jim and Sarah Brady didn’t make major contributions to the gun control movement, they certainly did, considering that the Act of Congress that bears their name enacted a third generation of federal gun controls.  But if you name your organization after a person, your brand really only lasts as long as their celebrity.

That brings up the second mistake I think Barnes made, which was absorbing the failing Million Mom March, which I think succesfully feminized their movement, and lead to awkward emasculating moments like Ladd Everitt wearing a Million Mom’s t-shirt at a rally.  I’m sure Mr. Everitt would argue it was not an emasculating moment, but think about it: what about dads for gun control?  Regardless of how secure someone might be in their sexuality, the implication is that gun control is a woman’s issue.  Some of the great advances we’ve made in the past decade has been breaking out of the good old boy stereotype and getting women involved in the shooting sports.  It puzzles me why Barnes thought it was a good idea to take his movement and run in the opposite direction with it.

I’m always reluctant to publicly discuss the failures and missteps of our opponents, but I’m sure it’s something they’ve likely thought about, and even if they haven’t, there’s not a whole lot they can do to shed that baggage now anyway.  The more I think about it, the more I think Bloomberg is shaping up to be our cheif opponent in the coming decade.  He has an enormous amount of money, the New York City elite and political establishment behind him, and he’s managed to assemble an impressive array of allies, good enough to twist the arm of someone like Arlen Specter.  But I also think Bloomberg’s organization has some fundamental weaknesses too, which I will outline in a later post.

Changes Afoot for GBR Range?

This range is the one we shoot at for GBR.  It’s a great facility.  Shooting out to 1000 yards from a covered firing line.  It would be a shame if Washoe County made any major changes to it, because it’s the best public shooting range I’ve ever been to.

UPDATE: Gun Blogger Rendezvous information can be found here.

Lawyers, Guns and Money

Our token gun control blogger MikeB relays an interesting video here:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umK8U_FxPic[/youtube]

I think looking at the Second Amendment solely as a means to deter governmental malfeasance is a bit short sighted, and while many activists choose to focus on that aspect, I don’t.  What the Second Amendment really protects, at root, is the right to self-preservation, and I think that is an important right of free people who inhabit a liberal democracy.  In fact, it’s hard to think of any right which is more fundamental than that of self-preservation.  Preventing serious government malfeasance is merely a side-effect of preserving the means to exercise the right.

And understand, the kind of government abuses that the Second Amendment is meant to deter does not sink to the level of the PATRIOT Act.  While I have many problems with more than a few provisions of that act, it was still enacted by an elected legislature, signed by an elected President, and will be scrutinized by functioning courts, all using a Constitution and other bodies of law that we still largely follow.

I generally follow the philosophy of Judge Alex Kozinski, in his dissent in Silveira vs. Lockyer, when it comes to the Second Amendment and its purpose as a check on governmental power:

The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed — where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

It’s reasonable to say that Lawyers and Money are the most important, but if those don’t work, then what?  If the worst you can think up when it comes to government abuse is the PATRIOT Act, I would argue you’re a poor student of history.  We know just from the twentieth century that human beings are capable of far far worse.  Having a gun never means you’re always guaranteed to come out on top, but it expands your options and capabilities.   Let me ask MikeB, and others like him this: if you were a member of the Secret Police, would you prefer to have to go round up dissenters in Germany?   Or would you prefer to try doing it in Texas, where there will be a gun behind every door you kick in?

Assault Weapons Becoming Issue in Senate Race

PA2010.com is reporting that this issue is heating up.

Sestak joins several other Congressmen and high-profile Pennsylvania lawmakers who have called to reinstate the ban, including Gov. Ed Rendell and Congressman Patrick Murphy (D-8).

The push to ban assault weapons has elicited strong reactions from Pennsylvania’s pro-gunners, who believe that the ban is too expansive, containing too many guns to make it reasonable. Sestak’s ban calls to reassess the definition of “semi-automation weapon” to include conversion kits, which are used to convert firearms into semi-automatic weapons, as well as any semiautomatic rifle or pistol that can accept a detachable magazine clip.

It’s bewildering to me that in a county with as many gun clubs as ours has, and who has such a strong contingent of people in it who work in the trades, and other types of skilled blue collar work, typically the type of people who tend to support gun rights, that we’re represented by a leftist Nancy-boy like Murphy.  Let us not repeat the mistake, and impose someone like him on the rest of the state.

Taking the Fight to Bloomberg

In June, the Seventh Circuit’s decision against incorporation prompted me to step up and put my money where my mouth is via the Civil Rights Defense Fund.  With today’s news that Bloomberg wants to pick another fight against gun owners, I’m going to step up again.  Because Michael Bloomberg wants to wage a media campaign, this donation will be specifically flagged for media outreach.

The media outreach donation will fund NRA News, ad campaigns, and other media efforts.  It will also help support the Public Affairs efforts to pick up earned media in response to Bloomberg’s iniative.  If Bloomberg wants to fight in the media, then I want to make sure that NRA has the resources to do it.