The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State …
Jim Geraghty thinks it’s genius. Tam likes it too, and adds:
I was mildly disappointed that a flaming midget clown on a tricycle never pedaled furiously through the meadow yelling “Verboten!”. Other than that, it was very nearly perfect.
The Hill reports that Demonsheep now even has his own Twitter feed. Thanks Carly. I’m not sure this helps you win, but it’s at least injected some fun into the race.
Interesting article from Real Clear Politics, about how passing Obamacare won’t save Democrats, but it does have this tidbit:
There were two controversial pieces of legislation that defined the Clinton Administration for Republican-leaning voters: the assault weapons ban and the first Clinton budget (a.k.a. the tax hike). If we look at the fifteen Democrats who voted against both pieces of legislation, only one lost (she represented a district that gave Bush a 15-point win in 1992). In fact, about half of them saw their share of the vote increase or stay roughly the same from 1992!
Let’s move on to Democratic incumbents who represented Republican-leaning districts who voted for only one of these two pieces of legislation. There were thirty-seven such Democrats. The casualty rate here is a little higher; thirteen of them, or thirty-five percent of them, lost. And of the twenty-two Democrats from Republican-leaning districts who voted for both pieces of controversial legislation, ten of them (45%) lost.
In other words, the problem for Democrats in 1994 was not that they didn’t support Clinton’s agenda enough. It was that they got too far out in front of their conservative-leaning districts and supported the President too much.
We can use a more quantitative approach. I constructed a simple regression model to try to measure what factors played a role in Democrats’ downfall in 1994. If you want the nitty gritty of the model, you can click this footnote [2]. But the bottom line is that, holding all other things equal, a Democrat in a Republican district who voted for the assault weapons ban lost 4.2 percentage points off of his 1992 numbers. If the same Democrat voted for the Clinton budget, she lost 3.7 points. In other words, these two votes alone could take a Democrat who won a comfortable election with 56 percent of the vote in 1992, and turn her into a loser in 1994.
No doubt our opponents will argue this is just another flak perpetuating the myth that the NRA has any political power, and there’s nothing to lose by voting for gun control. We’re hearing that swan song once again, with the Luntz poll pushed by Mayors Against Illegal Guns. It would behoove politicians to remember that public polling in the mid 90s showed the same numbers that their agenda shows today. People had no idea what an assault weapon was. When they found out, they were pissed.
I think some politicians really do believe they have inherent qualities, and can compel people to do evil.
They tried in Washington State, and met stiff opposition. Now it looks like they aim to try again in Maryland. This is nothing new: they’ve tried to pass an AWB in Old Line State for years, and we’ve managed to bottle it up every time. But we have to fight nonetheless. The other side is desperate for a victory.
You can find more discussion here, but this would actually be the most draconian bans out of any of the states, as it would ban just about all semi-automatic rifles currently on the market, and many competition semi-auto pistols that had their magazine attached somewhere outside the grip. It would ban the Ruger Charger through an over-broad and vague definition of “barrel shroud” (that shoulder thing that goes up, apparently the MD Senate doesn’t know what it is either). It bans any semi-automatic, centerfire rifle with a thumbhole stock.
The bill grandfathers existing firearms, but requires you to register them. In addition, transportation into the state will be unlawful, for those of you who need to travel through or to Maryland to take part in shooting competitions.
So far, things are looking really good for Republicans in 2010. Political watchers even think things look rosy here in our Congressional district where they have moved Patrick Murphy’s seat from Solid Dem to Likely Dem to only Lean Dem. I assume that’s because they believe a former Congressman who Murphy narrowly beat will put up a good campaign. At this point, one could only wish.
I’ve had my concerns about Mike Fitzpatrick ever since I heard he was entering the race. Bucks Right hits the nail on the head with what’s bothering me at the moment:
Mike Fitzpatrick, presumptive Republican nominee in his own mind for the US House Seat representing Pennsylvania’s 8th district, appears to be employing the little seen “gimmick a day†political strategy in his run to regain the seat he lost nearly 4 years ago to Patlosi Murphy.
…
Sweet Jesus. To anyone remotely associated with the campaign who may read this: While you weren’t paying attention, Patlosi turned himself into kind of a big deal to the far-left wing of his party. If you think running a rinky-dink, misspelled, incoherent, gimmicky campaign against the well-oiled Rahm Emanuel digital age machine is going to take Murphy out, you’re wrong. You’re killing me here. Do you need a consultant? How about a proofreader?
Amen.
The fact is that Fitzpatrick already lost when Murphy was a no-name upstart. While I’m open to the idea he may be the best candidate to take on Murphy, that doesn’t mean he’s a good one. The weird gimmicks he’s been touting only go to confirm that.
As Bucks Right points out, Fitzpatrick asked for a spending freeze of $1 million in the campaign.
Fitzpatrick’s “spending freeze” gimmick will only hurt Fitzpatrick. Did no one think that one through? Or are they just hoping that Murphy doesn’t take them up on the offer?
The latest gimmick was the announcement that he’ll honor term limits by not serving more than three additional terms. Great. That means even if Fitzpatrick does win, we will have to go back and fight another uphill battle in six years. If he’s not even going to stick around even if we can manage to elect him, then why should I invest my votes, dollars, and time with Fitzpatrick? At that point, I suspect that my resources are better spent on a candidate like Jeff McGeary or Ira Hoffman. I don’t quite think they are to the point of being able to take on Murphy, but if this gets them started on a path toward name recognition that could serve them well in another run for another office, my investment would still pay off.
Fitzpatrick made the case to PA2010.com that he would be the best candidate because of a serious lead on a campaign infrastructure and experience. If this is the kind of goofy & sloppy campaign we can expect with all of that experience on board, then Fitzpatrick has moved this race closer to the Solid Dem category.
I think Carly Fiorina might be channeling Satan. It’s morning in America, morning with really scary glowing red eyed sheep monster!
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo7HiQRM7BA[/youtube]
I don’t know if her ad people are strung out on some of that California legal medical marijuana, or what. But WTF?
As I have observed elsewhere, talking about guns as a “cultural” issue is a way of framing the issue that is highly beneficial to the NRA. The core of the gun lobby’s strategy is to use fear tactics to keep gun owners in a constant state of agitation so that they can be activated to oppose even modest gun law reforms. The NRA needs gun owners to believe that the debate is not “really about” such reforms as background checks at gun shows, but rather is about a sustained attack on a personal possession that has great practical and symbolic significance for millions of Americans and is, ultimately, about the values of those gun-owning Americans.
In short, the NRA needs the debate to be about banning the guns used by Americans for hunting and self-defense. If, on the other hand, the debate focuses on the pros and cons of specific reforms to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, the NRA is on shaky ground because its own members actually support many of those reforms on the merits. That, of course, is why the NRA is so threatened by the Luntz survey.
What Dennis doesn’t want you to know is they use the same tactics NRA does to raise money. Why? Because it works. If we operate off of fear, they also operate off fear. It may be the opposite face, but it’s still the same coin. But to suggest it’s fear that motivates your average gun owner is disingenuous and insulting. Many join NRA because they are concerned about their Second Amendment rights. They may or may not have a deep understanding of all the intricacies of the issue, or really understand the consequences of certain policies. They are rationally ignorant of much of this, and are fine with joining groups that represent their interests, and not paying close attention to what “gun show loophole” means or what a “terrorist watch list” really is. Explain those things to them, you’ll probably find they don’t support the Brady agenda, and will be angry once they realize someone was trying to pull the wool over their eyes.
Though I still find it interesting that the Brady position continues to, essentially boiled down to “You all are a bunch of paranoids because you won Heller, Obama won’t do anything for us, and you’re kicking our asses in every legislative body in this country. So just shut up and accept gun control already!”
I was not selected for a trial, and they dismissed the remaining jurors this afternoon. I am now $15.80 richer, thanks to the state feeling like they have to pay me, so this doesn’t get misconstrued as slavery, or something like that. The good thing is, it wasn’t a lost day, since they had WiFi in the jury lounge and I was able to VPN into work while I waited for them to tell me they didn’t need me.
I think I can now safely say I have a good luck streak going with jury duty. First time I got called I was in college, and it was the feds calling. They kept deferring me until they finally got me after I graduated. It was two days or one trial. Narrowly missed being selected for one panel the judge said would probably take four days or more. Didn’t get selected in another, and was sent home after just one day. Second time I was called it was Delaware County, and I had just moved to Chester County two weeks ago. Easy out. This time I don’t even end up getting considered, and am sent home after a few hours.
I figure next time my luck will run out, and I’ll get stuck on some complex civil trial for weeks. But for at least the next three years, I don’t have to worry about the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania bothering me again.
UPDATE: For those wondering, I did not check a firearm with the Sheriff. By law all courthouses in PA are required to have checking facilities for people who carry firearms. Court houses are one of the few places off limits in PA. Some Courts have a reputation of not dealing with this well, and it would have been a good activist of me to go and check a firearm just so they have to run through the process every once in a while, and remain used to the idea. But I had to be in Doylestown at 8:30, which means I needed to leave at 7:30, there was snow on the ground, and I just didn’t want to deal with getting delayed if they Sheriff wasn’t used to handling it.
From the Caesar Rodney Institute:
A section in the handbook requiring that tenants must “not possess explosives, firearms or flammable material on NHA’s property,†will be removed, Detwiler told the Caesar Rodney Institute Wednesday morning.
Detwiler, who is nearing the end of his six-year term as commissioner, said NHA executive director Marene Jordan is “looking to change the pamphlet a soon as possible.â€
Meanwhile, Detwiler said, NHA residents may possess firearms, “as long as they’re legal.â€
“It should be an absolute moot issue in the near future,†Detwiler said. “The handbook was misleading. I think the previous executive director made up that policy. I do believe it is my constitutional right [to own firearms]. I support my Constitution.â€
Jordan did not immediately return calls seeking comment
Gun bans at the Newark Housing Authority, along with the Delaware State Housing Authority and those in Wilmington and Dover are the subject of an ongoing series by the Caesar Rodney Institute.
After the series was published, the National Rifle Association informed the housing authorities they would take legal action if the unconstitutional gun bans were not immediately withdrawn.
I will continue to laugh at those who say Heller was a loss or didn’t mean anything. Now all it takes to get an unconstitutional gun ban out the door is a sharply worded letter. That wouldn’t have been possible without the Supreme Court ruling.