Snowflakes in Hell

My mother always told me that.  The folks at CeaseFire Pennsylvania apparently never were.

Michael Bane says:

The modern antigun movement has been amazingly consistent since Pete Shield outlined the goals of confiscation back in the 1960s — get what it can get and ask for more. Every so-called “compromise” has resulted in us giving ground while the antigun movement asked for more more more. To the best of my knowledge, there has NEVER been a “compromise” as described by Professor Kingsfield…instead, we give ground and the antigunners ask for, or take, more.

Read the whole thing.  I actually think HR2640 was the first compromise the anti-gun movement has been willing to make since they started going on the offensive in the late 60s, and I think it was a compromise that benefited our cause more than theirs.

I suggest that the only sane path in that situation is for Side A to also refuse to compromise. Unilateral actions, like those suggested by Feldman and the “third way” crowd (which is indeed a very small crowd, consisting apparently of Feldman and his right hand), simply lead to Side B asking for more.

I think a distinction needs to be made here.  A compromise that involves us giving up something that’s of little importance to get something of great importance in return is probably one that should be made.   What we disparately want to avoid is appeasement, which is what Feldman advocated.  The difference between compromise and appeasement, is compromise can still allow you to achieve many of your goals.  It may often by the only away to achieve some of your goals.  Appeasement, or giving the anti-gunners something they want in hopes they’ll go away happy, is a recipe for losing.

From Bryan Miller:

Yes, one crazed killer with one assault pistol overwhelmed four trained and armed peace officers. Hmmm. Doesn’t seem to fit the pro-gunners theory at all. No surprise here, as it’s the height of ignorance and irresponsibility to claim that arming more people will somehow make us all safer. If that were true, the US, with more guns in more hands than any other industrialized country, would be the safest from gun violence among our fellows. Instead, we suffer from the highest gun homicide rate, by far, in the industrialized world. Seems there is a relationship between the presence of guns and the prevalence of gun violence. Imagine that.

No one here, or really anywhere else on the blogosphere would reasonably argue that firearms guarantee that the “good guys” always win.  They don’t.  They aren’t magic.  They are a tool.  No amount of training can prepare you for someone shooting at you.  It helps to have it, and any person who carries a firearm ought to have it, but it’s not a guarantee of outcome.

It’s also a bit disingenuous to paint our position as one of wanting to arm everyone in order to make them safer.  I don’t argue, actually, that arming everyone would make us safer.  What I do argue is that the laws Bryan advocates don’t disarm the bad guys.  The cretin who murdered his brother, and then killed himself, did it in a jurisdiction where firearms are totally illegal.  You won’t stop criminals from getting guns, especially the kind of hard core guys that are going to shoot up police stations.  You’ll have about as much luck with that as we do keeping heroin out of the hands of junkies.  I don’t argue that arming everyone makes us safer, I argue that disarming good, honest people, which is what Bryan advocates, definitely won’t make society safer, and it will definitely make those of us who choose to do so less safe.

I see Rustmeister has beat me to blogging about it. I’ll have more to add later.

UPDATE: Looks like he’s calling out Zendo Deb for this post.  Of course, you’d think in a post where he’s pointing out the testosterone charged nature of concealed carry holders, he’d pick someone who’s body actually produces a fair quantity of the substance.

It’s called “Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Reform and Firearms Modernization Act of 2007”.  Take a look at the alerts if you want to read everything it does.

There will need to be a lot of letter writing to politicians to get any action on this thing.

This takes the cake for form letters from Senators.   I guess this is why the federal government was supposed to be limited.  When you have 30 million constituents, how are you supposed to address all their individual grievances with government?   That’s why senators have staff to articulate their positions to constituents, and make sure the right information gets bubbled up to the decision makers.  Pretty clearly this got dropped into a bin for a form letter response, which is unacceptable.   If you get something like this, don’t be afraid to write your senators back and tell them you’re not happy with the response.

[ Bitter and I were talking about this last night, and I decided she had a lot more to rant about than I did, so I asked her to put it all down, and I'm thus posting it here.  - Sebastian]

Facts, timeliness, context, facts - those are things best left to others when sending out ALERTS!

Oregon Firearms Federation posted this alert yesterday about an endorsement announcement that’s weeks old. David Keene endorsed Mitt Romney. Woo-freakin-hoo. Who is David Keene, you ask? According to OFF, the major news about Keene is:

That’s bad enough, but now a prominent NRA board member has endorsed an openly anti-gun candidate for president. NRA Board member and second vice president David Keene has endorsed Mitt Romney in spite of Romney’s repeated attacks on gun owners and his promise to do so again if elected.

As Governor of Massachusetts Romney supported and signed a ban on semi-auto firearms. …

David Keene, according to NewsMax, will automatically become president of the NRA in three and a half years.

So, before I dig into every bit of news that’s wrong in this alert, how about we look at who Keene really is in the context of Republican politics:

David A. Keene Has Been The Chairman Of The American Conservative Union Since December 1984. Keene, a major national conservative spokesman since the seventies, has worked in the White House and the Senate, writes a weekly opinion column for The Hill and his articles have appeared in National Review, Human Events and the American Spectator. He has held senior positions in the past presidential campaigns of Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and former Kansas Senator Bob Dole.

Context of Keene’s background and his role in a Republican primary paints a different picture, now doesn’t it?

Now, factual problems. As you all know from my blog, I hate Mitt. I am the last person who will get up and say something nice about Romney because I actually lived under his rule in Massachusetts and wouldn’t wish it upon anyone in this country - not even the Massachusetts residents I was so happy to leave behind. However, as I’ve beat my head against the wall trying to tell you people for years, Mitt did not sign any assault weapons ban or even a provision to make it permanent. If anyone was in Massachusetts at the time analyzing the current (at the time) law and the bill (as it passed the House and Senate), they would clearly see that the state law had no sunset clause to begin with. (NOTE: His statements at the presser/signing ceremony should still damn him when it comes to gun owners, but the bill he signed should not.)

Perhaps the most important problem that I have with groups like this that look for any reason at all to attack NRA is that they don’t actually know jack about NRA. For example, no one automatically becomes president of NRA. There’s this pesky little thing called an election. The Board of Directors votes for the officers. Tradition dictates that they serve two years in each position and move up. So by traditional standards, Keene will become president. However, tradition has been bucked before and it easily could in the future.

Maybe OFF leaders have an unusually short memory, but there was that whole Charlton Heston dude. You know, the one who did the dead hands thing? Or maybe you remember him as freakin’ Moses? Yeah, he served for an unprecedented number of terms. He even “jumped” in line, so to speak. And there’s always the possibility that the board members decide that Ron Schmeits shouldn’t be trusted in their minds after running to the WaPo with stories about how other forces can further divide the gun movement on outdoor issues to vote Keene straight to the top after Sigler’s reign. (NOTE: I’m not saying this would happen, just throwing out hypothetical based on any number of reasons - real or imagined.) Point being, it’s patently lying to say that the direction of NRA’s leadership is 100% secure. What it all comes down to are who the members vote on to the Board of Directors. As members, people can change the direction and make up of the Board.

However, the root of the problem with this alert that really gets things wrong is that Keene’s personal endorsement means a damn thing regarding current legislation and/or the presidential primary vote for NRA members. NRA volunteer leaders who in no way represent the organization’s stated positions are allowed to make their own endorsements. There are former staffers working for McCain. There are folks volunteering for Giuliani. There are people volunteering for Fred. Sometimes they make these endorsements based on the gun issue, but more often than not, they are already politically active on other issues and sometimes it’s the entire package they look at to select their candidate.

The best part is that if NRA didn’t allow their volunteers this freedom to support whoever they wish based on any number of personal issues important to them, then groups like OFF would continue to bitch. Really, it just goes to show that ALERTS like these are nothing more than mud slinging for the sake of getting dirty.

To close this already insane long post, anyone who is concerned about how Keene’s personal endorsement might be misconstrued by the campaign or mainstream media to constitute an NRA endorsement should note the campaign release. I noticed something immediately. Go take a look. I’ll wait…

Done reading? Good. Did you see what I didn’t? That’s right, Keene did not allow Mitt to even mention his background with the NRA. David Keene is a smart man, and he knows conservative politics. He knows what even a mention of NRA next to Mitt’s name would cause, and that’s why he isn’t letting them talk about it or talking about it himself. For that, I applaud him. And Keene has my endorsement the next time he’s up for the Board.

Jim Geraghty sums up my feelings about politics lately when Cam Edwards asks the question “What’s This Year’s Boldest Political Tactic”:

This hasn’t been the boldest or most inspiring of years in politics. I largely agree with Marshall’s expression of ennui and lack of enthusiasm here. We have a thoroughly lame-duck president, a Democratic leadership that acts like they’re trying to get me to hate them, Republican leaders who belong under a “HAVE YOU SEEN ME?” poster on a milk carton, and a crop of presidential candidates who range from the “wish he didn’t have that massive flaw” to the repulsive. There are a lot of political tactics going on, but not many that inspire.

Based on the President and Congress’ approval ratings, I would say Jim isn’t the only one out there who feels that way.

This blogger took some exception to my post condemning Congress and the President for making light bulbs illegal.

We’ve been blogging about SWAT teams getting the wrong house a bit here lately.  In that case I was glad no one ended up dead.  I noticed a story today about a Philadelphia cop who got the wrong house, but he wasn’t serving a warrant, in fact, he was driving the get away car for a bunch of thugs looking to settle a score.  It would have been justice if these guys ended up taking a dirt nap.

Wyatt beat me to blogging about it.