Snowflakes in Hell

It’s always hard when you’re part of a group that large segments of society look down upon, to know when jettisoning your wackos (and every group has them) is the preferable thing to keeping them. On the one hand, the wackos hurt the image of your group with the public at large. On the other hand, they often times make significant contributions to your group’s activism, and ostracizing them will actually hurt more than it will help. I say this in answer to a question in one of Clayton’s posts:

If it is a tiny minority, why do supposedly respectable gay rights groups like Lambda Legal and the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force feel the need to defend it or provide legal advice about how to deal with the legal consequences? This would be equivalent to Focus on the Family providing instructions for Christians about how to get away with assaulting homosexuals–confirming a false and nasty stereotype.

Gays are at a point now where they ought to think about shedding their wackos, and distancing themselves from gays who choose to have sex in public places. But as the article that Clayton updates with points out, a lot of these guys are living normal, respectable lives, outside of their bathroom habits.

I’m not sure why it’s so hard to believe that these guys aren’t necessarily gay.  If you’re a mainstream, out of the closet gay guy, you don’t need to resort to public restrooms to get your cheap thrills, you can go to a gay bar and pick someone up.

But if you’re in a marriage, and have absolutely no dignity, or care little for your commitment for your spouse, a cheap thrill at an airport bathroom while on a business trip might seem a convenience with little chance of the wife finding out. Affairs and prostitutes cost money, and time. Hotels show up on credit cards.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not defending sex in public, but I’m also not sure I’d dismiss the notion that this might not be a problem that’s limited to the gay community.

I guess Ryan doesn’t feel like he’s quite ready to take on the debauchery of the senate just yet, and is looking for a house seat.  I can think people that might not be too happy with that, but I’m all for it.

Larry Craig really should have watched this before visiting Minneapolis.   Funniest thing I’ve seen all day.

Republicans seem to be rather eager to throw Larry Craig under the bus for trying to get a hummer in a public restroom, which is only entirely appropriate.   But they haven’t been so eager to distance themselves from Senator David Vitter, who seemed to enjoy soliciting prostitutes.

Surely some will claim it’s because Craig is gay.  That might have something to do with it; I mean, we’re used to politicians and prostitutes, gay sex in public restrooms not so much.   But I think it probably has more to do with the fact that Idaho has a Republican Governor, and Louisiana has a Democrat Governor.  It’s funny how that works, isn’t it?   I think if Idaho were run by a Democrat, Republicans would quickly become OK with whatever Senator Craig wants to insert into his mouth.

Kevin points out that Tom Gresham wants to find a different name for the AR-15.   Well, there’s a class of high-power competition where the AR-15 belongs, which is called service rifle competition.  Why not call it that?  I also agree with Kevin on “semi-automatic rifle” but I’ll one up him and say “self-loading rifle” since a lot of folks have no idea what semi-automatic means.

Ah.  I thought I was having deja vu writing this.

Via John Lott, we have a copy of Larry Craig’s transcript with the undercover officer. What continues to baffle me is why Craig didn’t fight it. I’m glad, however, that Craig got to feel, as a person who makes the laws, what it feels like to be subject to them. Personally, if this were me, and I was just being nervous fidgety in the stall, and was innocent, I would shut the hell up and tell the cop I’m not saying a damned thing to him until I have an attorney present, and I would fight the charge, and I would win.

Let me be clear here, my personal opinion is that Craig was probably trying to solicit sex in a public restroom. That’s what I believe as a citizen. What I’d believe as a juror or a judge is that there’s no way the state can meet it’s burden based on the evidence that’s being presented here, and my vote would be for not guilty.

But this undercover officer played Craig like a fiddle, and he plead guilty. Too bad for him. It happens to people all the time. Know your rights, and stand up for them. I’d say I feel sorry for Larry Craig, but I don’t. Once the “I’m a Senator!” card failed to work, he found himself an ordinary citizen, unprepared for dealing with a slick talking undercover officer. Am I the only one who thinks it’s poetic justice? Maybe I loathe politicians a little too much.

I’ve noticed that it looking like Tom King is censoring some posts by anti-gun folks over on his blog. I should note that I have no problem with bloggers deleting posts that are threatening or just plain trolling, and banning commenters on that basis, but the prejudice against doing that should be very high. I am worried specifically about this:

For the record, Tom King censored a link to VPC which discussed FOPA and how the NRA was trying to reinstitute its provisions.

Tom King thinks the link is suspect even though the NRA fully admits to sponsoring FOPA or the McClure/Volkmer bill.

Tom then posts again clarifying:

I intend to run this as an open forum with all views allowed as long as they are coherent, tasteful and based in fact. If you post a statement or statistic that is suspect, I’ll ask for verification before posting it. I will not deal in innuendo, hysterics or cliche. Those are the rules on this blog follow them or leave.

Emphasis mine. Now, I will say that it’s Tom’s sandbox, and he can definitely set any rules he wants for his blog. But we don’t do things like this in the gun blogosphere. Let them post their hysterics, cliches, and faulty data, an let our people tear it apart. That’s how it works. If Tom wants to be taken seriously as a gun blogger, you have two choices really; allow a free comment section with a very very strong prejudice against censorship, or close comments. I would recommend against the latter.

I’m afraid of Tom keeps censoring anti-gun views, even if, in his view, their facts are wrong (I would hardly disagree), I’m going to have to suggest to all my readers and fellow bloggers that we ignore him.

We’ve spent a lot of time, here in the pro-gun blogosphere, trying to build a reputation of being willing to debate the anti-gun people on the merits of their arguments, and they’ve lost every time. By censoring links because you don’t like the data, you undermine what the rest of us are trying to accomplish, and lower us to the level of the anti-gunners, and I simply can’t abide by that.

UPDATE: Tom King responds to our posts. Like I said, your blog, you’re rules. I don’t argue with that. But I still think letting them be boneheads, out in public for all to see, is the best policy.

UPDATE: Left rudder thinks it’s proof that we’re not interesting in Reasoned Discourse^TM. If that’s the case, why am I, and one of the top gun blogs, criticizing Tom for it then?

Shocking news.   The Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board has discovered that operating more like a business than a government agency leads to more profits and increased sales!  Who knew?   I also like this development:

The PLCB is also pushing to allow convenience stores to be licensed to sell takeout beer.

Last week, the state Supreme Court announced it would consider whether a Sheetz convenience store in Altoona may sell beer to go without also allowing its customers to drink on premises, as was required by an earlier Commonwealth Court opinion.

The case is considered a test as to whether convenience stores statewide will be able to begin selling beer to go.

It would be nice to be able to buy beer in convenience stores, or license beer takeout places.   Our laws in this regard have been antiquated and need to change.  But look who’s protesting?

Such a move would give the agency more license revenue, but it is being opposed by beer industry representatives, who say it would be unfair competition to beer distributors.

So to the beer industry in Pennsylvania, any competition is “unfair”.  What a crock.  These guys make me happy I brew my own beer.

Countertop caught the WaPo in a pretty big doozey.

According to SAF:

Under the old interpretation, the USFS, particularly in Colorado’s Boulder Ranger District, had been preventing the public from recreational shooting within 150 yards of any road on the presumption that a road is an “occupied area” under the language of Federal Regulation 36 CFR 261.10. But the memorandum, issued by Joel Holtrop, deputy chief of the National Forest System, clarifies the regulation.

“Roads are not inherently considered occupied areas under 261.10(d)(1),” the memorandum notes. However, there remains a prohibition against shooting across or along a forest road, or any body of water adjacent to a road. The Aug. 29 memorandum was sent to all regional foresters, station directors, and other personnel including USFS law enforcement supervisors.

This is good news for people who shoot in National Forests.

I’m intrigued by this post from Second City Cop, that talks about leaders of a community that are demanding police do something about violence, while having previously crapped all over them for…. doing something about violence.  I thought this quote from an otherwise good editorial Chicago-Sun times was also interesting, but a little off in terms of semantics:

During that same period, 1,253 persons were shot by random civilian gunfire. Of that number, 410 victims were 19 years old and under. The total number of fatal shootings in this age group was 44. Also, four teenagers were bludgeoned, four were stabbed, one was burned to death and four others were killed by an unknown weapon.

Is this gunfire really that random?  Or does it involve disputes among criminals?  The term civilian does, actually, have the term “civil” in it, and I’m relatively hesitant to apply the term “civilian” to thugs shooting it out with each other on the streets.  I’m generally not one to pick over semantics, especially when I agree with the points made in the editorial, but I think the more we write like this, the more we lose.

It’s great to see the media beginning to understand the problem; that neighborhoods need to stand up and cooperate with police to fight crime, but I will still encourage the media to carefully pick terms that do a better job of characterizing criminals, who are willful, and generally not all that random, in the type of crime they ply in their neighborhoods.

Ryan doesn’t think so.   I don’t think so either.  I also think Bush needs to replace Gonzalez with someone who will be a friend of the second amendment.

SayUncle says he’ll join the NRA.   I hope he’ll join us in Louisville next year.   I had a great time last year, and it was a lot of fun to get to meet other bloggers like Sam and Denise, Dave Hardy, Dave Kopel, Michael Bane, and Cam Edwards, in addition to some other great minds of the gun rights movement like Steve Halbrook and Robert Cottrol.    Plus it’s one of the only places you’ll get to do things like talk with exhibition shooter Tom Knapp about the crappy weather as you’re heading from the hotel to the exhibition floor.

It’s a good time.  If you’re an NRA member, you should try to make it to at least one convention sometime.

To SayUncle.  Five years is a long time.

It’s not a sea change, but it’s certainly a welcome development.   Bitter talks more about how the media isn’t quite as hostile as it used to be toward the pro-gun side of the argument.

I hate being a cheerleader for the NRA. I would love to be able to sit down with pro-gun people, and have a reasonable discussion about things that I think the NRA could be doing better, things I wish they wouldn’t do, and things I wish they’d pay more attention to.

But all too often I get the sense that a lot of people are more interested in flinging poo at the NRA than they are at fighting gun control. There’s even an active contingent of pro-gun people out there who believe that flinging poo at the NRA amounts to fighting gun control!

To me the NRA is like an annoying little brother; he sure does annoy you sometimes, and you wish he wouldn’t go off and get himself into trouble that you felt compelled to get him out of. But when the chips are down, family is family, and you do what you have to do.

To the extent that the pro-gun movement is a bickering family, we’re healthy, and I don’t worry. But as soon as it turns into the Hatfields vs. McCoys, we’re in serious trouble. Too many people want to make this a feud, and it gets tiring. I can think of no better way to enable a resurgent anti-gun movement than to spend energy fighting each other.

Thirdpower reminds us that ACT isn’t the first anti-gun organization to run afoul of the SEC.

If there’s one thing you never want to find yourself saying late at night, when your girlfriend calls you on the phone, it’s get a round into the chamber!

This prompted me to think that I should give Bitter my current shotgun, and she should file the NFA paperwork to saw it off. But then I remembered her complex recently changed owners, and adopted a new, more upscale name. So I’m thinking she needs something more upscale, like maybe sawed off Holland and Holland, rather than my cheap Mossberg.

But seriously folks, when it comes to defense of dwelling in an apartment, the shotgun is, without a doubt, not to be beat. It has been said:

The shotgun is the ne plus ultra of manstoppers. No other weapon will put a man down as reliably as a shotgun, and no other weapon is as likely to hit your opponent as a shotgun filled with buckshot. No doubt you have heard a lot of nonsense about the lethality of “assault rifles” and “Uzi sub-machine guns” and the like. The fact is that the shotgun is by far the deadliest and most effective firearm for short-range personal defense. For example: an Uzi or Heckler & Koch sub-machine gun has about 340 ft-lbs. of impact energy – a 12 gauge shotgun has 2500 to 3100 ft-lbs. of impact energy, and it is a heck of a lot easier to hit your target with a shotgun than a sub-machine gun.

Plus, there’s no better sound in the world than operating the slide on a pump-action shotgun. I think it’s important for women living alone to think about home defense. Bitter certainly has done her fair share of that, and I’m happy that now she lives in a state that is more respecting of her right to defend herself, without having to worry about ending up being treated like a criminal.

Kenn Blanchard has a must read about the RealCo protests.

Keyboard and a .45 has a post about one of the protesters in Dallas yesterday:

Lamont Levels may have changed his ways. Lamont Levels may be actually helping kids stay out of the gangs and stay in school. For that he should be applauded. But for the Brady Bunch to parade him out in front of the cameras, with an unnecessary and poorly applied eye patch, wailing about evil guns, is a bunch of crap. Lamont knows that gang bangers do not obey the law. Lamont knows that the guns in the hands of the gangs were not legally purchased through an ffl, but either stolen or purchased on the black market. Lamont knows that no amount of gun control laws will control the criminals who use guns. And you know what? The Brady’s do to.

I agree.  It’s a good message to get kids to turn away from violence.  That Lamont has reformed himself and taken it upon himself to try to keep kids out of gangs is commendable, but I don’t get being big on toughening the laws that he wasn’t concerned about obeying at the time he was shot.

Tom King of the NYSRPA has a new blog over at Albany Times-Union, where Robyn Ringler also blogs.   This follows up on Scott Bach of ANJRPC getting a blog along aside Bryan Miller.  It’s good to see the leadership in two states that aren’t friendly to gun owners taking up the banner and keeping the gun control folks on their toes.

Great find on the part of Thirdpower, who comments that Tom will probably allow free comments, unlike Robyn.

Yvette Alexander, who’s had some discussion with Pro-Gun Progressive, apparently has a forum.  Countertop has been having some fun with it.

John Lott has an editorial over at Fox News, talking about how some universities not only want their students disarms, but their police as well:

But citizens and police who pack heat do help, because they can stop a shooting while it is happening. Amazingly, opposition to guns on campuses is so extreme that some even oppose police being able to carry guns.

When, in the wake of the Virginia Tech shooting, campus police at Brandeis University asked that they be armed to prevent similar tragedies, the president of the Brandeis Student Union even argued that, “the sense of community and the sense of safety would be disturbed very much by having guns on campus.”

The administration is now considering arming its officers but has not taken action. By Sept. 10, the University of Iowa, Iowa State University and the University of Northern Iowa will also decide whether to end an almost 30-year ban and allow campus police to again carry handguns.

They really do live in another world.  I happens that I went to a school that did not have an armed police force.  I was once a witness to an incident on campus that required immediate attention, where a group of men were threatening another man who was waving the group off with a tire iron (it was a union dispute).  I watched several campus security people sit there, watching, talking in their radios, not getting involved.  It wasn’t until the Philadelphia Police showed up and injected themselves quite forcefully into the situation, that the incident was quelled.  Campus security was about as effective as anybody with a cell phone when the shit hit the fan.

You can’t ask people to enforce the law without being able to protect themselves, and I’d rather have campus police that can do something about a situation rather than sit there and watch.  College administrators can pretend that deranged killers are going to check the student handbook, and reconsider going on a spree, but forcing everyone else, campus police and CCL holders alike, to protect your fragile and false reality with their lives is unconscionable.

I’ve said before that corporate HR departments are more concerned about deflecting blame and not allowing the company to be sued than they are about doing the right thing.

Here’s a case of a Home Depot employee losing his job for doing exactly that:

Last week, the 24-year-old department manager confronted a man who was standing by a soda machine in front of the Murfreesboro store off Old Fort Parkway holding a crowbar and a wad of cash. When the suspect started running, Chester said his instincts took over.

He was fired Monday for violations of company policy in the incident.”When he ran, I ran after him,” he said. Chester caught the thief and restrained him in the parking lot until police arrived.

Chester was shocked to find out that for managers and most employees, catching and detaining thieves is against company policy.

Yep.  It’s against company policy, because the thief might get hurt and sue home depot.  The employee might get hurt, and sue home depot.  It could be a massive orgy of everyone suing everyone else!

Such things are nightmares to HR executives in large companies, and a few lost dollars is better than a lawsuit or bad publicity.

But even if he had known how the company wanted him to act, it wouldn’t have made a difference.

“He had a crowbar, and what if he had come inside and gone after customers or the employees working at the registers?” Chester asked. “I’d rather have him coming at me than going after any of the customers.”

Sounds like a good guy to me.  A pity he has to become another victim of corporate cowardice.  Making a “citizens arrest” is a minefield that people should be very wary of, and unlike a police officer, we don’t have qualified immunity.   But I hate to see someone who does it right, and helps get a loser off the streets, punished for his good deed.  As a society, we need to encourage bold behavior like this, not punish it.

In my opinion, one of the best things you can do for our cause.  Kudos to Robb for a great August 28th contribution.