Calling all Internet Wayback Gun Rights History Nerds:
In the spring of 2000, Million Mom March (an extension of Brady Gun Control & Co.) published a media kit on their website, MillionMomMarch.org.
The kit contained talking points for even organizers, fact sheets (wrong, of course), and other guidelines. Most notable was a clear warning to never debate pro-gun opponents.
The Million Mom March took place on May 14, 2000. Unsurprisingly, a million people did not showup. Not even close.
I used to have a copy of their 2000 media kit (maybe it was called an “organizer kit” or something like that) on my computer waaayback, but that’s long gone. Can someone out there dredge up their media packet from ages ago? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? Heston? Bueller?
It’s about the gun lobbies, the people who — you know, it’s all about money in people’s pockets — the people who argue this and say, “We want our rights to guns.” Nobody is trying to take away your guns. If you want to go shoot, you know, whatever, in the woods, that’s fine, but it’s a hobby. If your hobby is [affecting] innocent people being killed all the time, children included, don’t you think you should reconsider the lack of restrictions placed on your hobby?
“It’s a hobby”. No. It’s a natural right which is specific enumerated for protection against government infringement.
“Don’t you think you should reconsider the lack of restrictions placed on your hobby?” No. Don’t you think you should reconsider your speaking in public when you are so profoundly stupid and/or ignorant?—Joe]
Update: I’d like to add that it’s called The Bill of Rights. Not The Bill of Hobbies.
Hypothesis are easy to generate for almost any topic. And in a surprising number of cases people are so confident in them they think testing them is pointless.
“If people carry guns there will be blood in the streets!” Nope, not really.
“A ban on ‘assault weapons’ will make people safer!” The data indicates otherwise, “the ban might reduce gunshot victimizations. This effect is likely to be small at best and possibly too small for reliable measurement.”
“The more education about sex and birth control the lower the teen pregnancy rate.” Surprise! Maybe not:
The reigning orthodoxy among public health officials is that the more government spends on sex education the fewer teen pregnancies there will be. Now, however, British researchers have found empirical evidence that appears to demonstrate the exact opposite.
In findings published in the Journal of Health Economics, Nottingham University Business School Professor David Paton and Liam Wright, a research assistant at the University of Sheffield, found budget cuts to sex education classes may have contributed to lower rates of teenage pregnancy in England.
Paton’s study compared changes in the rate of teen pregnancy with the change in the annual funding of teenage pregnancy services for 149 English local authorities between 2008 and 2014.
To their surprise, the researchers found that after sex education budgets were slashed, teen pregnancy rates fell by 42.6 percent.
Of course if you read that closely you should notice the data it is not about “more education” but “more government spending on sex education”.
I’m reminded that for many decades the USSR attempted to increase farm production and failed. While, during the same time period, the US government attempted to decrease farm production and failed.
I am of the opinion all laws intended to modify human behavior should be tested to make sure they achieve the stated benefits with minimal undesired side effects and are an effective use of resources. If they don’t, then the law should be repealed. But, as we know, politicians are more interested in increasing power and virtue signaling than in using government to improve the lives of citizens.
The VCDL Board of Directors, after careful consideration, has decided that the recent ruling dismissing the VCDL case against Katie Couric, et al, CANNOT STAND!
The lawsuit has far reaching implications for all Americans. If the media can be allowed to change a person’s words to suit the media’s own needs or beliefs, then a grievous blow will have been struck against the very core of the freedom that the United States stands for!
NO! We are going to fight this because too much is at stake.
Today, I have directed VCDL’s attorneys to move forward with the appeal to the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, where it will be heard by a three-judge panel “de novo” (which means the merits of the case will be heard anew with no consideration of the judge’s ruling that recently dismissed the case).
…
If you wish to contribute to help covering VCDL’s legal fees, click here:
I’m not a lawyer but it would appear to me that it’s going to be a tough case to win. Apparently the bar they have to get over is:
Despite Couric’s admission, Judge Gibney dismissed the defamation suit against her last week. He ruled that the depiction of VCDL members did not meet the threshold of making them appear “unfit as a gun rights advocacy organization.”
I’m all for making anti-gun people pay a price for their lies and deception and I don’t know of any better hills to take a stand on, but it would be best if you had a good chance of winning the battle.
It’s never a “used car’’ but rather a “pre-owned vehicle.’’ Instead of “torture,’’ it’s “enhanced interrogation methods.’’ There are some things you just don’t say — and Rep. Elizabeth Esty is here to tell you why, at least in terms of the gun debate.
Esty told audience members at a Pride Fund event Wednesday to always sub in “gun safety’’ for “gun control,’’ lest you lose the support of 15 percent of men.
By framing the issue as “safety” they avoid the negative connotations of “control”. Nevermind that it is extremely rare any of them have ever taken a gun safety class, let alone advocate that people take such a class.
What we’re seeing is a long term trend as Americans rediscover their love of guns and shooting. This is catastrophic for the antigun movement.
David Hardy June 5, 2017 Additional confirmation of a theory [At the USPSA range officer class last weekend a data point was mentioned that supports this view. The observation was made that local USPSA matches have a lot of people in them. The last match I was at (May 21st USPSA match at the Marysville Rifle Club) had 108 shooters.—Joe]
If there’s one thing gun owners in America don’t need, it’s the star of “Keeping Up with the Kardashians” telling them whether or not they can own and operate firearms.
Zachary Leeman Just What We Need: Kim K Calls for Gun Control
[I think what is happening is a perverted form of “argument by authority”. If someone has a high status/visibility they are viewed, by some, as being an authority regardless of the subject matter. I suspect it is “hardwired” into our brains and served a valuable evolutionary purpose. Just because someone is well known, that, obviously, does not make them a subject matter expert. But at some level it satisfies a need for an authority opinion on the subject.
When, in high school, I first noticed this sort of thing I thought it was one of the most bizarre things I had ever heard of. Decades later during the I-676 campaign our anti-gun opponents used the approach and I was confused. Who, I wondered, would care whether some well known, but ignorant and/or stupid, person supported a law. Our side ended up doing the same thing and I still thought it was weird and felt rather “soiled” to be associated with that. But now, decades later, I realize that advertising uses celebrity endorsements all the time and they wouldn’t do that if wasn’t effective. If it works, it’s not stupid.
I still think it’s weird but I now think of it as a quirk of our brain evolution. Most people do not have a process by which they can accurately determine if something is true or false. Having such a process is an, in evolutionary timescales, extremely recent development. A quick and dirty test to determine truth of falsity that improved the odds of a correct determination by 20% is a huge evolutionary advantage over a ecological niche competitor. And quick and dirty test can even beat out competitors which use a more rigorous test that takes much longer. Hence even when more rigorous tests are available something as stupid as getting your firearms law recommendations from Kim Kardashian will feel entirely appropriate to people who appear to function normally. This is because it works often enough that they don’t remove themselves from gene pool.—Joe]
Centuries upon centuries of Islamist aggression and murder, and it’s the internet’s fault. Your freedom, and mine, is to blame.
One report claimed some fifty shots were fired by police to stop three Muslims armed with knives. I could understand that number of shots if they’d been taking return fire, but against knife wielding punks it seems like an awful lot of shooting.
At least one person was wounded by police gunfire. When that happens (and it sometimes will) and it’s a police bullet, it is a footnote. If a regular concealed carry holder in America were to do the exact same thing, never mind that lives were saved; the howls of accusation would last for weeks.
Practice on moving targets. Aerial clay targets are good, if you can find a place to do it safely;
With only a knife, it is relatively easy to murder innocent, unsuspecting people, in a country that talks about freedom and rights but has forcibly disarmed its citizens and practically turned self defense into a crime.
The Brits have invited this upon themselves with their idiotic policies and their embrace of Progressivism, and we in America are not far behind. They’ll ramp up their police state, clamp down on the internet (control of which has been coveted by authoritarians since its inception) spend more of their tax payers’ wealth, and accomplish next to nothing.
Once again, as always it seems, at least one of the perpetrators was known to the British security network. The result of that knowledge was that they were able to say, after the fact, that they’d been watching that person.
The only way jihad will ever stop is if they’re all convinced that it is utterly hopeless, or foolish, or morally wrong, to continue. There are several ways to accomplish that end, only one of which involves a commitment to total extermination. Theresa May eluded to one of them, but I don’t believe that there is currently a government on this planet that is either principled enough or committed enough, or politically capable of any of those ways.
Maybe it’s not really a government’s problem to solve. What was that saying? Something about a people, or ideology, or process, which created a problem will never be the one to solve it.
I’M NOT AGAINST GUNS AND I’M NOT AGAINST PEOPLE OWNING GUNS. AFTER WHAT HAPPENED TO ME IN PARIS, I KNOW HOW IMPORTANT IT IS TO BE SAFE AND TO HAVE ARMED SECURITY. ALL OF MY SECURITY TEAM IS ARMED, BUT THEY ALSO SUPPORT STRICTER GUN CONTROL LAWS AND BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD RESTRICT ACCESS TO FIREARMS FOR PEOPLE WITH MENTAL ILLNESS, ANYONE PREVIOUSLY CONVICTED OF A MISDEMEANOR, THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND THOSE AT A HIGHER RISK OF COMMITTING GUN VIOLENCE.
I HOPE THAT WE WON’T BECOME NUMBED BY THE INCREASING NUMBER OF GUN-RELATED TRAGEDIES WE SEE ON THE NEWS. WE ALL HAVE A VOICE AND A RIGHT TO FEEL SAFE, TO BE PROTECTED FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE A THREAT, PARTICULARLY WHEN HANDED A DEADLY WEAPON. I WANT TO HELP BUILD A SAFER FUTURE FOR MY CHILDREN AND I BELIEVE TOGETHER WE CAN FIND WAYS TO DO THAT, WHILE STILL PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
I recognize the difficulty the anti-gun people have in getting knowledgeable people to support their side, but they really should keep highly visible dimwits on a shorter leash. This dimwit is advocating for the denying someone convicted of shoplifting a jar of baby food 30 years ago their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. On top of that she believes she has a right to feel safe and to be protected.
However, the topper is that one paragraph after advocating for the explicit infringement upon the rights of people she claims, “we can find ways to do that, while still protecting the rights of the American people”. You can’t find ways to infringe upon the rights of people while protecting their rights.
This conclusively demonstrates she has crap for brains.—Joe]
Convicted criminal and anti-gun Rep. Chaka Fattah (D–PA) is the just the latest in the parade of disgraced anti-gun legislators who’ve been evicted out of office for getting caught acting as if the laws don’t apply to them. Fattah was found guilty on all of the 23 charges the feds laid against him, including racketeering, money laundering, and fraud. The Pennsylvania lawmaker has had a rich and thorough history of attacking the Second Amendment. Fattah was named by Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D–CA) as vice-chair of a gun violence task force due to his record as a supporter of the “assault weapons” ban and “high-capacity” magazine ban. Fattah has also called for expanding background checks on all gun sales. This record has earned him F’s from numerous gun rights organizations. Now, he’s been sentenced to 10 years in prison. Fattah will begin his prison term Jan. 25, 2017.
Former Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca, once a towering, respected figure in policing, was sentenced Friday to three years in federal prison for his role in a scheme to obstruct an FBI investigation of abuses in county jails, marking an end to a corruption scandal that has roiled the Sheriff’s Department for several years. The anti-gun former sheriff is now #WearingOrange!
The availability of specific classes of firearms where the evidence clearly demonstrates that such weapons present an unreasonable risk of death and injury should be severely restricted.
Weapons regulated under the National Firearms Act–including silencers, “destructive devices” such as missiles used in grenade and rocket launchers and land mines–should be banned from future sale.
Weapons that fall within the definition of assault weapons should be banned in the same manner as were machine guns in 1986, and no new versions of assault weapons should be made.
Handguns should be banned from future sale except for military and law- enforcement personnel.
Scott Meyer appeared before the state Senate’s judiciary committee during a public hearing on a Republican bill that would allow people to carry concealed weapons without permits or training. The NRA supports the measure.
Meyer told the committee that the cost of training can prevent minorities from obtaining concealed carry licenses, adding that guns were one of the great equalizers for “the blacks” after emancipation.
Sen. Lena Taylor, a Milwaukee Democrat who is black, chastised Meyer. She told him calling African-Americans “the blacks” doesn’t help cultural diversity.
What matters to Democrats is whatever the politically correct rule of the day is rather than the substance of what someone has to say or is doing.
I have a message for Sen. Lena Taylor. It doesn’t help you or the people you care about when you attack people trying to make your life better. These types of attacks are big part of the reason the Democrats have been losing elections and we have President Trump. He was, and is, willing to stand up to your B.S. and call you out it.
The silencers are an accessory to make up for the loss of guns sales since President Obama left office.
They’ve sold the Barbies, and now they need to sell the Barbie Dreamhouse, and the Barbie shoes, and the Barbie car. That is essentially what suppressors are.
Shannon Watts
Founder of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America
May 29, 2017 Gun lobby seeks to calm fears about silencers
[Watts and her left wing ilk apparently believe that money is the motivation for everything and/or that motivation by money it is an evil impulse. Hence by lying about the NRA being primarily monetarily rewarded for firearm related sales Watts thinks it will generate more support for her position. All it really does is demonstrate she is clueless and/or has evil intent.—Joe
Update: It occurs to me that this is also about insulting gun owners. She is dismissing our exercise of a specific enumerated right as the equivalent of “playing with dolls”. ]
Republican Rep. Matt Rinaldi came over and said: “This is BS. That’s why I called ICE.”
…
In a subsequent Facebook statement, Rinaldi admitted saying he had called federal authorities and threatened to shoot Nevárez — but said his life was in danger, not the other way around.
“Nevárez threatened my life on the House floor after I called ICE on several illegal immigrants who held signs in the gallery which said ‘I am illegal and here to stay,’ ” Rinaldi wrote. He said Democrats were encouraging protesters to ignore police instructions and, “When I told the Democrats I called ICE, Representative Ramon Romero physically assaulted me, and other Democrats were held back by colleagues.”
Rinaldi said Nevárez later “told me that he would ‘get me on the way to my car.’ ” Rinaldi said he responded by making it clear “I would shoot him in self-defense,” adding that he is currently under Texas Department of Public Safety protection.
And what does the media say about this? As you might guess the media is against the person, Republican, saying they will defend themselves:
Protest sparks Texas lawmaker threats of gun violence
As usual, there is no distinction between protective violence and criminal violence. That means they have crap of brains and/or they are evil.
The passage of this bill conveys a special message. It tells me that these Democrat politicians are more concerned with the lives of convicted felons who used a gun in the commission of their crime than they are about law abiding gun owners who are guilty of nothing more than the unspeakable act of merely owning a gun. There really is no other way to logically interpret this. To them, law abiding gun owners are bad, but using a gun in the commission of a felony is acceptable.
The insanity in this state has reached previously unfathomable levels, and it shows no signs of reversing course.
Don’t you ever give up your guns. If people lose that right, forget about it. Politicians — they will take everything away from you. And then what are you going to do, protest with a rock? Because that’s what they do in Europe.
De-escalation begins with a change in mentality. And that change in mentality starts with the symbolic yielding of certain types of weapons. The real steps, like the banning of handguns, will never occur unless this one is taken first, and even then not for decades.
What needs to happen before this change in mentality can occur? What must occur first – and this is where liberals are fighting the gun control issue from the wrong end – is a decrease in crime. So long as crime is ubiquitous, so long as Americans cannot entrust their personal safety to the authorities, they will never agree to disarm. There will be no gun control before there is real crime control.
Charles Krauthammer April 5, 1996 Disarm the Citizenry. But not yet Originally in The Washington Post on April 5. The above link is in the Seattle Times from April 8, 1996. [See also the QOTD’s here, here and here.
While Krauthammer is thinking things through better than most anti-gun people he isn’t thinking far enough ahead. If crime is very low then anti-gun people will have no justification for infringing upon the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. You see a hint of that awareness already with anti-gun people attempting to use suicides as justification to infringe upon our rights.—Joe]
Calling all Internet Wayback Gun Rights History Nerds: