What if people had been talking about passing a law putting curfew on “people of color” being out in public at night? After all with the darker skin color it only makes sense that they could take advantage of that to commit crimes under the cover of darkness. That seems like a “reasonable restriction” that should prevent crime doesn’t it?

Furthermore when the bigoted politicians get voted (and shouted) down in public over it they decide to meet with the KKK and the Aryan Nations to plan their campaign for next time. Political leaders of the opposition, the ACLU, and the NAACP show up for the meeting and are barred at the door from attending the meeting. Then they hold a press conference and block any opposing people from attending.

What do you suppose the response in the mainstream media would be?

Now imagine it’s gun owner rights that are being plotted against and it’s the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, the NRA, and National Shooting Sports Foundation instead of the ACLU and NAACP being blocked at the door.

Now what do you suppose the response in the mainstream media would be?

You got it. You’ll only hear about it via new media:

• Tom King
• Jacob
• Sebastian

There are some people speculating that Seattle Mayor Nickels is going to quietly walk away from the gun ban on city property he has been talking about for the last year:

Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels might be having second thoughts about moving forward with his controversial “dangerous weapons” ban. The executive order would effectively prohibit the possession of firearms on most city-owned properties. The ban has naturally drawn the criticism of Second Amendment rights groups and also Attorney General Rob McKenna, who has stated that it violates state preemption statutes.

In March, we wrote that the Mayor’s office was still planning on following through with the ban, with it taking effect “sometime in May”.

…

“They have a dead-bang loser in court and they know we were going to sue,” Gottlieb challenged. “The Mayor talks a good game but he hasn’t put his cards on the table yet.”

Although puzzled by the inaction, Gottlieb theorized that the Mayor could be seeking a middle ground out of the situtation.

“I have a feeling we won’t see this executive order,” Gottlieb predicted.

Nickels is going to do some public speaking to a group that I am a part of in the near future. If I get the chance I’m going to ask him about it.

I decided to tell James Kelly what I really thought of him and his attitude toward gun ownership. My latest comment (which may or may not make it through moderation):

James, you need to look at the actual numbers of lives saved versus lives lost because of the “mass legal gun ownership”. You do a fine job of expressing your opinion but not backing them up with facts. Which is the entire point of Just One Question-which you still have not answered. You have come up with plausible hypotheses as to why it might be that firearms restrictions in the U.K. have not improved public safety but you have no numbers which show that it has improved public safety there or anywhere else.

Until you can give us numbers you have nothing but opinions. And until you have numbers to back them up you are no different than someone ranting about how terrible it is that Jews, blacks, or homosexuals are “spoiling the neighborhood”.

And not to worry, I would never knowing accept an invitation to a dinner party with someone that advocated the infringement of such a basic human right anymore than I would socialize with someone that owned slaves or supported laws that imprisoned homosexuals merely because of their sexual orientation.

Via an email from Mike B. I found out about this article in the NY Times. Once you get over the cringe factor of the improper grip of the gun that has me wanting to find a box of band-aids just from looking at the picture you find an anti-gun person proposing an interesting experiment:

I propose curbing gun violence not by further restricting the availability of guns but by expanding and reorienting it. Men would still be forbidden to walk the streets armed, in accordance with current laws, but women would be required to carry pistols in plain sight whenever they are out and about.

Never mind all the facts he gets wrong like “men would still be forbidden” (emphasis mine), his belief in the existence of “safe guns”, etc. I find it exceedingly interesting that an admitted anti-gun advocate is willing to consider experimental data in the formation of gun policy. And furthermore that he would suggest arming those that are more likely to be in need of arms. He seems to actually get the concept but just needs some more data to convince himself of the efficacy of the RKBA.

Of course such an experiment would be illegal in forbidding men to be armed and perhaps requiring women to be armed (they are required to wear clothes in public so how is it different to require they be armed?). But it does bring up delightful thoughts of proposing such experiments to other anti-gun people to see how they handle such a curve ball thrown at them.

Just a few months ago Fred LeBrun was saying things like this (see also my QOTD by him):

For the first time since 1935, with an all-Democratic national government, we are in a position to finally institute some meaningful and sensible gun control measures that will help mightily in regaining our cities from gun terror, street by street. Gun control doesn’t have to be a dirty word.

The centerpiece has to be a national identification system for handguns. A computerized system that would be accessible to all law enforcement agencies, and that would standardize the requirements for handgun ownership coast to coast. I am not suggesting anything radical in the slightest. In essence, it would be the system we have here in New York taken nationally, only with less waiting time for handgun permits.

Keep in mind that that “the system we have here in New York” is one of registration. And now he is saying:

The latest case in point is the absurd attempt by a few members of the Albany County Legislature to pass a local law requiring the registration of all ammunition sold in the county, and the recording of all the guns using the ammunition. Not just ammunition for handguns, which is already controlled by existing state law, but all ammunition for shotguns and rifles. This would be a radical departure for Albany County, and New York in general, which do not register or require a permit for these long guns.

Justifiably, this was seen as an awkward local attempt at backdoor gun registration, a hot button issue for gun rights advocates. They rallied fiercely against it, and vowed to work against the re-election of those who support it.

…

The proposed law itself was an ill-considered attempt that did more harm than good. It was deeply flawed from the onset and only managed to irritate a lot of people who would probably have gone along with public safety measures aimed at street crime.

Perhaps he is waking up to the reality of the RKBA as a specific enumerated right. The government can no more be trusted with a registration list of guns and/or gun owners than they can with a registration list of blacks, Jews, or homosexuals.

Most of the time I’m not particularly surprised when I hear about bigotry against gun-owners. It’s pervasive, common, and often inadvertent. It is so common that people engage in it without realizing it because it is sort of a “conventional wisdom”. But this surprised me:

CCAC also told Brashier that the college must pre-approve any distribution of literature to fellow students, and that pamphlets like hers would not be approved, even insisting that Brashier destroy all copies of her pamphlet.

Brashier reports that she was also interrogated about why she was distributing the pamphlets, whether she owned a licensed firearm and had ever brought it to campus (she has not), whether she carries a concealed firearm off campus, and whether she disagrees with the existing college policy banning concealed weapons on campus.

When Brashier stated that she wanted to be able to discuss this policy freely on campus, she was told to stop doing so without the permission of the CCAC administration. Dean Burns reportedly said, “You may want to discuss this topic but the college does not, and you cannot make us.” Brashier was then told to cease all activities related to her involvement with SCCC at CCAC and that such “academic misconduct” would not be tolerated.

I thought maybe the poor woman threatened with retaliation for attempting to exercise her first amendment rights had got a little carried away with the pamphlets the college demanded she destroy. But after reading one I was shocked. There is nothing in it that is even a little bit threatening or “over the top”.

H/T to Say Uncle and Sebastian.