Snowflakes in Hell

I was going to respond to a comment on Ahab’s site, but haloscan seems want to keep reloading, failing, and then clobbering my post. I’ll just do it here:

I know you already realize all of this. Where the problem comes in, I think, is that you guys are targeting different groups for different reasons. David et al are working against the abuses of the “ruling class” and unifying gun owners for a giant political battle - one that the Bill of Rights, not just the 2A, hinges on.

You, and I think most gun bloggers, are more focused on a more grass-roots “get Suzy Soccermom to see guns aren’t scary” strategy, and as you state, you want to instill a culture of self-defense.

And both methodologies need the other to succeed.

Read the whole thing, it’s a very insightful comment. I agree with Jay’s point here that we’re all in this together, and each have our place.

What I would point out, though, is that Suzy Soccer Mom is an intrinsic part of the political struggle. Pro-gun activists, and people who care about the issue, just don’t have enough votes on our own to be able to dictate terms to the politicians. We outnumber the anti-gun activists, but we don’t outnumber other voters. Politicians are not courageous people; they worry about appearing extreme. Scare Suzy Soccer Mom and her demographic too much, and we lose.

Base rallying is an important part of any political movement, and moderate rhetoric won’t typically accomplish that as effectively as more radical rhetoric. But in politics, it’s always a fine line. Every political movement has this problem; you have to keep your activists, volunteers, and donors excited about what you are doing, and involved in the issue. But you also need to avoid firing them up so much that you scare other people out of the movement, or scare voters who are non-ideological.

I don’t disagree that we need each other, and there are certainly people out there who feel very disillusioned about the state of our rights, and would drop out of the issue entirely if they didn’t feel they had a voice out there. I am not the voice for folks of that persuasion. I think we’re winning, both the political battle, and hearts and minds. There’s still a lot of road ahead, but I think we can make it.  There are still dangers: a uniformly hostile media, among other things, and we’re succeeding despite that.

I would just encourage everyone to remember there’s a fine tightrope that must be walked between base rallying, and going so far that we scare ordinary voters away from supporting, or at least not opposing us.

SayUncle posted yesterday that ammo makers are preparing for the inevitable downturn.  It’s a good read, but the main thing that caught my eye is this:

In 1978, there were 318 plants in the United States involved in ammunition production. By 1995, six years after the Berlin Wall fell, there were fewer than 100, according to Loren Thompson, a defense analyst with the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Va.

U.S. spending for ammunition dropped 78 percent.

“Anytime the industry shrinks, you lose expertise and skill,” said Thompson, who more than a dozen years ago co-authored a study of the ammunition industry.

That’s absolutely true.  The United States currently doesn’t actually need more nuclear submarines, but we’re still building them in large part because once you stop, we lose the expertise that goes into that.  Those people find employment in other sectors, and suddenly, as a nation you no longer know how to make submarines.  Anti-gun folks, who claim to support the military and police being well armed, don’t appreciate the roll that civilian shooters have in keeping these industries alive in times when the military isn’t spending so much.

Alliant also can sell its bullets to the law enforcement and sporting communities, an option not available for companies manufacturing tank rounds and artillery shells.

I can guarantee that the civilian shooter market is much bitter than the law enforcement market.   The value the “unorganized militia” provides in not only keeping people well trained in marksmanship, but in keeping the domestic firearms and ammunition markets afloat and innovating, even during peace, shouldn’t be readily discounted by people who claim to be in favor of military and police having arms, and no one else.

I’m a lurker there. I don’t have time to comment, but I think for the most part folks are doing OK keeping up the pro-gun sides of the argument. This latest caught my eye, from Macaca, one of the few anti-gun commenters on their site:

what’s happening now is the shame of this cournty. so let’s TRY something new even if it means that every gun purchaser has to go through a background check. the people of Philly and every other city that has gun violence deserve it.

Yeah, OK. Except that every firearms purchaser in Pennsylvania already has to go through a background check, and for handguns, ANY transfer has to go through a dealer or sheriff. There is no so-called “gun show loophole” in Pennsylvania. We closed it. And guess what? 234 and counting. Macaca later shares with us:

Finally done he stood up and said there is only one thing he didn’t like about England and that was their gun laws. I quickly handed him my business card and told him who we were and what we were all about and my friend told him that England was safe BECAUSE of it’s gun laws.He quickly left. His wife on the other hand stayed. She said she had been trying to tell him the same thing about England for years but he wouldn’t listen. She said, now that he’s made such a fool of himself maybe he’ll have to rethink his position. And with that she stood up, gave us a $100 bill as a donation and left.

Gee, I wonder what business card that could have been? Good to see those grass roots at work!

UPDATE: Macaca Macca responds in the comments. Odd choice of nickname. I’m going to guess not a big George Allen fan. I can understand that, because Allen was a dummy. I have to wonder how the Brady folks in Virginia feel about their current gun nut Senator.  Seems I’m a dummy too.  DMeadows reminds me that I need to read more carefully.

Delaware is looking for a novel legal theory to fleece beverage retailers of unclaimed 5 cent deposits for bottles.   I guess this isn’t surprising from a state that keeps sending Joe Biden back to The Senate.

The Democrats are back on the issue, and they say they are serious this time.

“We are committed to making property tax reform the pre-eminent issue come this fall,” Mr. McCall said in an interview last week. “We want to show the Senate we are serious about this issue.”

Glad to see they are “serious” about the issue.  But read on, and it seems they are serious about another tax shift scheme:

They said a wide range of possible property tax relief options will be considered. One is Mr. DeWeese’s idea for a 0.5 percent increase in the state sales tax. That would generate about $700 million, with all of it going to lower property taxes. Gov. Ed Rendell has talked about going Mr. DeWeese one better — raising the sales tax a full percentage point, with all $1.4 billion going to lower property taxes.

I have to admit, I like this better than the last scheme.  But what happened to all that property tax relief I was supposed to get from the casinos?   Either way, there is a better idea:

Then there is Rep. Samuel Rohrer’s idea. Mr. Rohrer, R-Berks, and some other conservative Republicans have pushed for four years to reduce the sales tax to 5 percent statewide but greatly broaden the base by taxing food and clothing, which are now exempt.

Now there’s an idea I can get behind.  Tax restructuring rather than tax raising.   Ed Rendell has never met a tax he wouldn’t like to raise.  It’s good to see there are politicians out there trying to think outside the box.

The Pittsburgh Tribune has a good editorial on Rendell’s budget tactics:

Yes. I remember a news conference where he told us the work force wouldn’t really be disrupted until July 17. Later, he said that was a mistake and things would be affected sooner — by July 9 — if no budget were in place. Curiously, July 17 later became a very critical date.

A state Treasury Department official would later say that if no budget were in place by last Monday, July 16, about 40,000 workers would see their state paychecks delayed.

Treasury officials later backed off that and said they could no longer have confidence of meeting the July 20 payroll by noon, Monday, July 16. Later, they said they could meet the payroll if the budget was approved by the end of that day.

July 17 likely was the real drop-dead date.

So the real budget crisis wouldn’t have come until July 17th?  But Rendell cut them loose early in order to use them as pawns in his political battle against Republicans over his new energy tax.  Why did we re-elect him again?

Apparently, the state workers are going to be reimbursed for the day off.  I actually have no problem with this.  State workers shouldn’t have to pay because their boss is a bozo.  All in all the reimbursement will cost taxpayers 3.5 million dollars.   Thanks a lot Ed!

It seems a common answer to what makes people who call their guns “babies” and gear heads who call their cars the same thing comes down to guns being designed to kill people.  But are they?  What about a chef who takes a great deal of pride in his collection of fine knives?  A knife is certainly a weapon.  Designed to kill or designed to cut?  Depends on the intent of the person wielding it.

Many people are into fencing.   Defined by Wikipedia:

In the broadest possible sense, fencing is the art of armed combat involving cutting, stabbing, or bludgeoning weapons directly manipulated by hand, rather than shot or thrown. Example weapons include swords, knives, pikes, bayonets, batons, clubs, and similar. In contemporary common usage, ‘fencing’ tends to refer specifically to European schools of swordsmanship and to the modern Olympic sport that has evolved out of them.

Most fencing weapons are dulled to prevent injuries, but classic fencing enthusiasts still used traditional swords, only with devices put on the tips to blunt them.  I’ve known people who enjoy swords as much as I enjoy firearms.

I don’t think we should kid ourselves.   Shooting is a martial art as much as it is a sport.  But I don’t see why it deserves a worse reputation than fencing, jujitsu, tai kwan do, or any other martial art.  Or why shooters who are proud of their instruments ought to be derided by people like Joe Biden, and any of the people who laughed upon the insertion of his foot into his mouth.

This is a great article about young people leaving certain states. In short, big losers: Northeast, rural midwest. Big winners: The South and The West. They mention Pennsylvania specifically:

Pennsylvania attracts some of the highest numbers of out-of-state students to its colleges, but four years later, most of them take their degrees and run. Three years ago, the state set up Keystone Innovation Zones (KIZ) to give grants to partnerships between universities and their surrounding communities, including businesses and private foundations. The zones were designed to create new businesses and jobs. There are now 26 zones, with 647 Pennsylvania graduates and interns working at companies inside the zones.

This is a typical big government solution to a problem that’s a result of big government. Young people are leaving Pennsylvania for several reasons: high cost of living, high taxes, and lack of opportunity. Pennsylvania is one of the most unfriendly states in the country in which to start a business. We have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the nation. Ed Rendell was elected on a promise of trying to keep young people in the state after they graduated from our universities. Keystone Innovation Zones are a buearaucrat’s solution. Ed Rendell has been the governor for big government. Until our political leadership in Pennsylvania becomes truly committed to making Pennsylvania a business destination, we’ll continue to have a hard time retaining young talent. What Pennsylvania needs is less government. Get out of the way, and let the people perform their magic.

I want to clear up some things I said yesterday, and talk about a few issues. I definitely don’t want anyone to think I’m implying that other gun bloggers are extremists, or that more radical bloggers need to pipe down and be quiet. We’re all extremists compared to views of much of the general public, and I think it’s important to be cognizant of that. I also definitely don’t want to imply anything negative toward Ryan Horsley and how he’s handling his situation. Government agents are trying to close Red Trading Post, his family’s business. I don’t blame him at all for fighting back, or the way he’s been fighting back, and I hope he sticks it to them in the end and keeps his FFL.

My post from yesterday can best be summed up as “We have to be careful what we tell people, because there are boneheads out there.” If people show up to take a peek at what inspectors are doing, I really want them to be reasonable, because this kind of thing could get ugly fast if they are not.

David suggested that he’s not critical of the moderates, but that a more radical approach has it’s place, and I think he makes a good point with this. I read David’s blog because he picks up a lot of important stuff other people don’t, and the way he approaches our issue has a lot to do with the difference in content and style. I can’t, and wouldn’t deny him his place.

My objection to the radical approach has less to do with a disagreement with the radicals on many goals, than the fact that I think it’s not politically effective. Politics in a republic is really a debate between factions, and the voters are the ones who get to judge which side has the better arguments. American voters tend to be pragmatic, and not terribly ideological. In many ways this frustrates me, but in societies where that isn’t the case, they resort to violence more often to settle political questions. In the American political climate, you have to appeal to the voter’s sense of pragmatism, which means you need to use arguments they can relate to.

In talking to people about shooting, carrying, and the right to bear arms in general, I’ve had some that look at me like I had just eaten a kitten. Had even more who’s eyes gloss over, or who get that “oh god, I wish this guy would shut up” look. Our ideas and beliefs are pretty radical when presented to your average voter. This is a sad sad state of affairs, but it’s the reality that’s been made for us by a century of progressivism, urbanization, and a uniformly hostile media environment. It will take a long time to undo.

I consider people adhering to a more radical approach to be allies in this fight, but I won’t hide that I think a more incremental and moderate approach is more effective, and I will advocate for that.

UPDATE: Oops… I didn’t intent to close comments.

And hopefully someone who will want to take part in our E-postal matches, coordinated by Mr. Completely.  Advanced beginner, or capable of killing a squirrel with a head shot behind the ear at 300 yards, no matter.  It’s all fun.

… these guys are professional idiots.   But I do have to say, friggin cool!