Snowflakes in Hell

Again, I think they are misunderstanding what I’m saying. First, one must understand what a bigot is:

a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially :one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

This might typically have racial connotations, but it doesn’t have to. Bigot successfully describes anyone who is intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, toward any group, not just toward racial minorities or ethnic groups. But let’s go back to the Brady folks:

In fact, the notion of “bigotry” is perhaps the pillar upon which the National Rifle Association itself has built its whole bogus empire.  That is: “Aren’t you mad at those coastal elites who look down their noses at you and your ‘way of life’?  You should be mad as hell.  GET MAD AS HELL AT THOSE ELITES!  Donate to us today.”

I think the funny thing is, by most people’s definition I’m one of those “coastal elites” that NRA warned you about, but even I can understand why this this rallying cry works. Because it resonates with people. It’s something that most gun owners can relate to. Why? Because we’ve all experienced that attitude at one time or another. How many times have you told people you enjoy hunting or shooting and had someone look at you as if you just told them you enjoy molesting children? How many of you have had people express shock that you were a gun owner, because you don’t seem like “that kind of person?” NRA uses that rallying cry because it works, and shouldn’t that tend to lend some credence that maybe a lot of “costal elites” carry around with them a lot of, dare I say, bigotry and prejudices about what kind of people gun owners, hunters, and shooters are?

Some adherents of this mantra have taken it to bizarre extremes, in fact, likening their position to African-Americans in the Civil Rights movement.  No, not kidding.  Look at this latest stemwinder by Joe from Idaho.

Well, both dealt with restoring or guaranteeing fundamental constitutional rights to Americans. Both are inherently part of the continuing argument over the Fourteenth Amendment, and how we apply fundamental rights in our society. They might not be struggling against evils of equal magnitude, but it’s still a civil rights struggle. It’s worth noting that even the Chicago Tribune, in it’s excellent article about Otis McDonald reports on parallels between the two:

The strategy was partly inspired by the civil rights-era work of the NAACP and Thurgood Marshall, who challenged racial segregation in the 1940s and 1950s by searching for compelling plaintiffs and using the press to build public sympathy and support.

The NAACP’s approach became the template for other reform movements, such as women’s rights in the 1970s, and was taken up by a spectrum of activists, including conservative groups that have used it to challenge affirmative action, with moderate success.

In the Chicago case, constitutional law experts say McDonald likely was chosen for another important reason. Arguments in the case center on the 14th Amendment, which says that a state may not “abridge the privileges or immunities” of citizens.

The amendment was adopted after the Civil War to protect former slaves in states that were passing laws restricting their rights and prohibiting them from owning guns. In the Heller decision, Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, referred to that chapter in history, arguing that those who had opposed the disarmament of freedmen did so with the understanding that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to own a gun for self-defense.

That interpretation is central to the plaintiffs’ arguments in the Chicago case.

The Civil Rights movement of the 1960s wrote the book on how to do this, and we’re just following in their footsteps using the lessons they learned. Every gun owner should read “The NAACP’s Legal Strategy against Segregated Education, 1925-1950″ as it contains quite a lot of valuable lessons in the challenges of building a successful litigation strategy for civil rights. One can’t help but to realize how those lessons can be applied to our struggle. Is it fair to compare the magnitude of this country’s past racial sins with the fight on the part of some to eradicate the Second Amendment? I don’t think so. Racism has been far more damaging to this country and its institutions than gun control has ever been, and one could even argue that gun control has been a subset of that sin. Back to the Bradys:

Yet regardless of what NRA propaganda might have us believe, Americans are not born with guns in our hands, and the regulation of where guns can be carried; what kinds of guns should be out of civilian hands; how guns should be stored; and whether suspected terrorists, felons, fugitives, wife-beaters or the dangerously mentally ill should be screened out of the gun-buying process by the strongest possible background check, have absolutely nothing to do with “culture” or “bigotry.”

It doesn’t have to be “culture” or “bigotry,” but it often can be, and often is, and I think it would be wise for the Bradys to distance themselves from the folks, like Morford, who fit the definition to a T, just as I have, at great expense to some of my relationships in this community, spoken out against extreme and provocative positions of many of the stone throwers in the pro-gun movement. It’s one thing to argue in favor of your position. It’s quite another to strongly imply that you’re better and more enlightened than those who oppose your position. Maybe it doesn’t rise to the level of refusing to serve blacks at a coffee counter, but that doesn’t make it any more right, and it doesn’t make it any less bigoted, by the precise definition of the word.

Even the NRA is joining in the “Make fun of the Brady Campaign” fun.

The Brady Campaign’s resorting to this kind of silliness is understandable.  It was once the most influential anti-gun group in town, able to claim some of the “credit” for the temporary imposition of the federal handgun waiting period between 1994 and 1998 and the federal “assault weapon” ban between 1994 and 2004.

But in recent years it has experienced the longest losing streak in gun control history.  The waiting period has expired in favor of the instant check system.  The 1994 gun ban has expired.  The number of Right-to-Carry states has continued to rise.  The list goes on, at the federal, state and local level.  And the group’s core arguments about the Second Amendment were rejected entirely by the Supreme Court in the Heller case. President Obama even signed bills into law which included provisions allowing the carrying of firearms in national parks according to state law, and protecting the sale of surplus military ammunition components to the private sector.

I actually feel bad for them. Not so much because I’m sorry they are on their way toward political irrelevance — that’s been what this struggle has been about. It was going to be one side or the other, and obviously I’d rather it be them. But I can’t help but feel at least some empathy based on how I would feel if the roles were reversed, and it was us in their place.

I think the Brady Campaign are in a real pickle. It’s pretty obvious that the MAIG model, pushing gun control bills under the guise of anti-trafficking, and using novel methods to build political legitimacy and capital, is the likely future of gun control. The problem for the Bradys is they could never fundraise with the MAIG model, and if you can’t fundraise on it, you either need a wealthy patron (which Bloomberg and the City of New York are for MAIG), or a lot of foundation money, and foundation money for gun control is drying up.

I suspect what Dave Hardy said right after we won Heller is true; that it essentially removed from the table the primary reason Brady’s patrons supported gun control in the first place — the elimination of guns from society. Now that’s off the table. It was one thing to support an incrementalist approach when prohibition was still a possibility, it’s another thing when that’s no longer on the table.

That’s not to say gun control is going to go away as an issue, but the Brady model is fast receding into the sunset unless they come up with something new an innovative, and that allows them to raise money. What will that be? I don’t know. I’m not sure I want to find out either.

Joe Huffman notices the virtual snowball fight that I engaged with in the Bradys and brought up the issue of bigotry again. I think it’s pretty undeniable, and thinking about it, bigotry was exactly what angered me about Morford’s editorial. A commenter over at Joe’s seems surprised, and asks, “So are you saying that there is a prejudice against gun owners in the same way there was against Jews and Blacks?”

There is, and not really that specifically gun ownership, but in the culture that surrounds, or perhaps in the culture the bigot perceives surrounds it. It’s a form of cultural condescension — a belief that “we’re” better than “those people.” So in that sense it’s not all that different than prejudices against Jews of Blacks, at least in terms of the factors in human nature that drive the attitude. This is probably why I’m interested in this issue to such a degree, because I find that type of attitude revolting. In a free society, we’re all entitled to an opinion, but no one is entitled to look down on someone else because they think, look, or act differently. That’s the very definition of bigot.

I buy into Joe’s notion to a degree, because you can’t deny someone like Morford is a bigot — he is. The reluctance Joe might sense is real though. I don’t buy the comparisons to the KKK, because the KKK was about a lot more than looking down on black people, and using the political system to deny them their rights. When the anti-gun movement becomes a domestic terrorist operation — when I have anti-gun folks meddling in my personal life, trying to ostracize me from society, or trying to intimidate me into silence, I might change my mind on that. I can deal with the gun control folks looking down on me. Burning a cross on my lawn would be a considerably more serious matter, and they don’t advocate or promote anything of that evil a nature.

The other reluctance I have is that I’m not sure people can really wrap their head around around the concept, both from outside and inside the issue. Morford is an obvious bigot, but not everyone who opposes gun ownership, or favors more gun control, rises to that level or hold deep cultural prejudices. I’ve noticed more than a few times folks on our side labeling as bigots people who simply disagreed with them. I don’t think that adds to the discourse.

But fundamentally, I think Joe is right that many people, like Morford, who hold anti-gun views deeply hate gun owners and the culture that surrounds it. They are bigots by the proper definition of the word. They are better than you, you see. You will be reeducated and brought into their enlightenment. I might not agree that rises to the level of the KKK, but that’s not to say it’s not a dangerous way of thinking. Taken to an extreme, it can end up looking like this. It’s not an attitude I think should exist among reasonable people, which is why I was disappointed to see the Brady Campaign endorsing it, even if I wasn’t all that surprised.

The Brady Campaign openly endorses this intolerant piece by Mark Morford:

Oh, please do not misunderstand! We are all terribly impressed. It is so very patriotic of you to show off your little popper! Are you in a gang? Are you a drug dealer? Are you going to shoot some scary terrorists, Mr. pallid paranoid Constitution-misquoting videogame-addicted guy? Protect all of us here in the casual neighborhood coffee shop from those crazy liberals and their health care reform and organic pretzels? Thank you so much! But really, I think we’ll be OK without your little display. Enjoy your frappucino, won’t you?

Anyone who’s read this blog has known that I have not been all that supportive of open carry activism, but I find it amazing that a guy like Mark Morford who doesn’t like people shoving their Second Amendment rights in his face, but oh, he has no problems shoving this in the face of San Franciscans (NSFW, don’t say I didn’t warn you), as evidenced by this passage:

That’s right, it’s S&M for charity. It’s S&M for hope and health and progress. Keep your bake sale and your car wash and your telemarketing scams. You want to raise some cash for a cause? Bend over in your buttless leather chaps in a charity spanking booth and let a large hairy sweaty grinning man slap your ass with a leather paddle until it’s the color of a tomato in summer. And sing while he does it. And hand out flowers. And condoms. And smile at the over 300,000 passersby.

Mark Morford would like you to think he’s tolerant, but he’s a piece of intolerant garbage. He’s only tolerant of thinks he believes are enlightened, of things he believes should be tolerated. That’s not tolerance, that’s actually no better than the people he derides as “religious conservatives” trying to “force their morality on everyone else.” Maybe the reason Morford hates them so much is because he has seen the enemy, and it is him.

UPDATE: Apparently my point was lost on the Brady folks, who have updated their post to respond to mine. As someone who supports both gun rights and gay rights, I’m equally sympathetic to both the notion that perhaps we do not advance either respective agenda by shoving guns or assless chaps into anyone’s face who is perhaps less than comfortable wither either. What angers me about people like Morford is they deride and sneer at others for practices that they themselves promote in their own favored cause. Even most open carriers have the consistency to argue that the San Francisco gay rights activists’ flamboyant public displays are equally effective and acceptable. Can’t we expect the same courtesy from someone like Morford to perhaps accept that maybe some gun rights activists are as enthusiastic, and perhaps misguided, as those who would wear assess chaps  for a public flogging at a gay pride fair, believing that they are advancing their cause? If one is OK, so is the other. And one doesn’t have to believe in either banning homosexuality in public or banning guns in public to accept that some people will take it farther than is wise. Morford doesn’t offer us that courtesy, or even accept that we’re honest citizens with legitimate grievances and concerns. Does the Brady Campaign agree with that?

UPDATE2: I guess since we’re both snowed in, it’s a virtual snowball fight with the Brady folk.

Being concerned about lethal weaponry in the hands of people with no law enforcement training inside a coffee shop patronized by families with kids is simply not in the same universe as outlandish behavior at a “gay pride fair”. They aren’t even remotely comparable.

This is really the heart of the pro-carry/anti-carry debate, and where we’ll find no common ground. They defend Morford’s dichotomy by rejecting the comparison to gay rights altogether. I would not argue that the respective causes are precisely similar, but I think most ordinary folks with children would probably not agree that no one is harmed by seeing one man whip another man with assless chaps. Certainly there are many that would rather their child see an openly holstered firearm carried by someone who is not law enforcement. Which act would you rather explain to a young child?

But we’ll find no agreement, because they believe the mere act of carrying a firearm is dangerous, unless you have some magical “law enforcement training” which will naturally make the gun not dangerous. We do not believe the act of carrying a firearm to be inherently dangerous, because a holstered firearm (and unloaded in the case of these California activists) is not a dangerous item. Nearly all other potentially dangerous acts involving firearms in public are crimes which people can be punished for, save for self-defense, and if it comes to that in a public place like Starbucks, you’re probably going to be glad someone was there with a gun, whether they have magical “law enforcement training” or not.

The Brady Campaign is working on a petition to tell Starbucks to ban guns in their stores, and I have to give them an A for creativity with the icon for the campaign.

Do they really want to play the grassroots game with us? I appreciate them telling me that California Pizza Kitchen banned guns. I was not aware. Now I have one more reason not to eat their overpriced, shitty pizza. I’ve never even heard of Peet’s Coffee, is that anything like Tweek’s Coffee?

UPDATE: I notice this only refers to open-carried guns. Does this mean the Brady Campaign is OK with concealed carry now? Or are they trying to scare corporations with the idea if they don’t ban guns people will openly carry them into their establishments?

UPDATE: This campaign would appear to be the result of this article at ABC News, so it would appear indeed that the Brady Campaign is egging corporations to ban guns in their establishments by threatening with the prospect of open carry.

Corporations should understand this: there are a lot more of us than there are people who will sign that petition, and if you want to keep our business, you’ll respect our rights.

I think some politicians really do believe they have inherent qualities, and can compel people to do evil.

Dennis Henigan’s brings the unscientific and loaded Luntz poll up once again, and I think it reveals a lot about what they think about gun owners:

As I have observed elsewhere, talking about guns as a “cultural” issue is a way of framing the issue that is highly beneficial to the NRA. The core of the gun lobby’s strategy is to use fear tactics to keep gun owners in a constant state of agitation so that they can be activated to oppose even modest gun law reforms. The NRA needs gun owners to believe that the debate is not “really about” such reforms as background checks at gun shows, but rather is about a sustained attack on a personal possession that has great practical and symbolic significance for millions of Americans and is, ultimately, about the values of those gun-owning Americans.

In short, the NRA needs the debate to be about banning the guns used by Americans for hunting and self-defense. If, on the other hand, the debate focuses on the pros and cons of specific reforms to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, the NRA is on shaky ground because its own members actually support many of those reforms on the merits. That, of course, is why the NRA is so threatened by the Luntz survey.

What Dennis doesn’t want you to know is they use the same tactics NRA does to raise money. Why? Because it works. If we operate off of fear, they also operate off fear. It may be the opposite face, but it’s still the same coin. But to suggest it’s fear that motivates your average gun owner is disingenuous and insulting. Many join NRA because they are concerned about their Second Amendment rights. They may or may not have a deep understanding of all the intricacies of the issue, or really understand the consequences of certain policies. They are rationally ignorant of much of this, and are fine with joining groups that represent their interests, and not paying close attention to what “gun show loophole” means or what a “terrorist watch list” really is. Explain those things to them, you’ll probably find they don’t support the Brady agenda, and will be angry once they realize someone was trying to pull the wool over their eyes.

Though I still find it interesting that the Brady position continues to, essentially boiled down to “You all are a bunch of paranoids because you won Heller, Obama won’t do anything for us, and you’re kicking our asses in every legislative body in this country. So just shut up and accept gun control already!”

The New Jersey Coalition for Self-Defense begs to differ.

Boy, the tears must be flowing over at the Brady headquarters this week. First, they discover that rap and rock musicians sometimes embrace violence. After that, they learn that references to firearms are common in the vernacular. And now they find out that Obama has included the Tiahrt Amendment in his budget.

I’m wondering if the Brady folks are on some new campaign to try to court old people or something, first, channeling Tipper Gore, railing against the music industry, and now complaining about those damned commercials on Television. Perhaps Paul will start a lecture series on how you can make sure those damned kids stay off your lawn without chasing them off by menacing them with a gun (Preferred Brady alternative, a cane, a cane). It’s OK, Paul, we all get old sometime, and it does sure beat the alternative. For the record, here’s what has Bradys panties in a bunch:

The advertisement sort of references a gun chamber!

In the ad, LeBron James and Kobe Bryant give us their best “I’m tough” look and the ad reads “Prepare For Combat.” On Kobe Bryant’s side of the advertisement, Bryant says “I’ll do whatever it takes to win games, I don’t leave anything in the chamber.”

The “chamber” comment references the area of a gun where bullets are stored prior to release.

Next up on the Brady agenda… attacking firearms metaphors. Let’s think of a few that will clearly upset them:

• Hit the nail on the head.
• Go off half cocked.
• Like shooting fish in a barrel.
• He’s a real straight shooter.
• Shooting the breeze?
• Shooting the messenger!

Hot damn, the American vernacular is just full of shooting metaphors. Clearly the Brady Campaign has a lot of important work ahead of them on this matter.

Most voters don’t spend Friday night tuned into PCN – Pennsylvania’s version of C-SPAN – to watch coverage of small political events. Perhaps that’s what the Democratic gubernatorial candidates were counting on when they debated at the Pennsylvania Progressive Summit. Hoping gun owners, especially those registered as Democrats, wouldn’t find out, each of the candidates pledged to support more restrictions on your rights.

Allegheny County Executive Dan Onorato started the series of gun control promises by calling for a statewide so-called “lost and stolen” law. He apparently doesn’t mind that the legislation would change the justice system into one in which gun owners are guilty until proven innocent. Prosecutors could financially ruin gun owners as they try to prove themselves innocent. Onorato continued by pledging to support “child safety locks,” though he declined to explain whether his version of the legislation would mandate the sale of locks to increase gun prices or challenge the ruling of Heller by forcing gun owners to lock their guns at home. Finally, Onorato unveiled his most controversial plan for gun control – ending state preemption in Pennsylvania.

Under Onorato’s dismantling of state authority on gun laws, concealed carry permit holders could be arrested if they visit Philadelphia. Hunters heading to their favorite tree stand in the next county may find that their favorite hunting rifles are banned. Every time a gun owner crosses a city limit, he or she may be in violation of a local ordinance that could lead to arrest and cost them their rights.

Of course, Onorato told reporters at his campaign launch that any perception of a pro-rights record was a “mischaracterization.” I don’t think most gun owners would have realized how much of mischaracterization that really was!

Next, Auditor General Jack Wagner dodged most state policy issues on gun rights – save one. Unfortunately for gun owners, it was a very, very big issue. Wagner, while claiming to support the Second Amendment, stated his support for a ban on semi-automatic rifles. These are not machine guns, but average rifles that gun owners often take into the field for hunting or to the range for competition. He did not explain whether his support for such a ban would include confiscation for those already owned.

Third in line, Scranton Mayor Chris Doherty joined Onorato in his support of ending state preemption. In fact, this was actually the priority pledge in his debate response. Clearly, he hasn’t heard that a recent poll showed 56% of Pennsylvanians support preemption of gun laws. His other priority, should he take office, is to restrict sales of guns to only one per month. Collectors would no longer be allowed to by matching sets. The only way to track such sales would also mean the formal creation of a gun owner registry in Pennsylvania.

Finally, Joe Hoeffel, the candidate running farther left than most of the others kept his answer as essentially all of the above. Specifically, he named these priorities: gun sales limits (and presumably the registry needed to track such sales), lost and stolen legislation, mandatory locks (though again without clarification on whether this applies to sales or storage), and the end of state preemption. In addition to the previously discussed issues, Hoeffel also supports a ban on private sales of firearms in Pennsylvania. Selling the rifle that collects dust in the back of the safe to a trusted family member will become a criminal act in Pennsylvania if Joe Hoeffel has his way.

Gun owners, particularly those who are registered as Democrats, need to speak out to these candidates. The primary race is close, and there is no clear winner. Make sure these candidates know that their support of gun control will cost them votes at the ballot box.

Cross posted from PAGunRights.com.

I admit it, I love following the Brady Campaign on social media outlets. I don’t pick on every little thing they do, but every once in a while, they just beg for it. Today, Paul put up a post on the blog no one reads on the problems of musicians glorifying violence. The only reason I saw it was because it had a mildly witty title that tweeted out with it.

Now, if Paul was truly serious about violence promoted by musicians, his efforts are laughable. He doesn’t call for any action other than watching more Brady-produced propaganda. There’s no threat to raise hell about what this teaches kids. He just asks people to give him more YouTube views. Woo-freakin’-hoo. Way to stand up for the cause there, Paulie.

“Yo Paul, I’m gonna let you finish, but Heston had one of the best rap-violence condemnations of all time.”

So I ask: Who is more effective? Charlton Heston putting his career on the line to pressure Time Warner to drop Ice-T or Paul putting up a blog post that no one reads asking people to watch a video.

It just goes to show that if the Brady Campaign was truly serious about addressing the problem of violence – and how it is embraced so casually in the entertainment world – they would take a serious stand. But considering how Paul runs to Hollywood for his fundraising dollars, I doubt we’ll ever see such a condemnation.

I did a post a few days ago about the Facebook presences of a few anti-gun groups providing some good reasoned discourse opportunity. As of now Heeding God’s Call has a whopping 96 Facebook Fans, which is better than 62, which is the number for CeaseFire Pennsylvania.

My friend Dan, who runs PAFOA, decided to start a new media initiative in the middle of January, and made it a goal to get to 1000 fans for PAFOA by the end of the month. Currently that number stands at 1900. He’s since had to revise his goal to reach 2000 by the end of the month. Here’s the PAFOA Facebook page, so if you’re on Facebook, go become a fan and help embarrass the Pennsylvania gun control groups.

When an Oregon paper editorializes that Obama’s pro-gun moves have been sensible, it really has to chap hides over at the Brady Campaign. That’s partially because the paper otherwise supports the anti-gun agenda and is willing to give a pass on some issues, but also because even when they take our side, the facts are wrong. It’s rather funny, actually.

The anti-Second Amendment group last week criticized Obama for “continuing concessions to the ‘guns anywhere’ mentality of the gun lobby.”
…
The restriction in national parks was unenforceable, and lifting it has caused no harm as far as has been reported.

Likewise, the Amtrak ban on transporting guns in checked baggage was nonsensical on its face, considering that the only people it affected were legitimate hunters and competitive shooters traveling to marksmanship matches. It forced these people to transport their equipment on the highways instead of taking the train. Criminals, on the other hand, if any were taking Amtrak trains, could carry their handguns concealed as they got on the train.

By signing acts of Congress that got rid of these restrictions, Obama did the sensible thing.

So now they’ve been called out on their Chicken Little response to everything we support by a sympathetic group, and that can’t be fun. But the knife has got to hurt a little more since the support for the national park carry is justified by the fact that it hasn’t caused any notable problems. While I doubt it ever will cause problems when it actually takes effect, I’m sure that Peter Hamm is writing a swift response to claim the end of civilization in and around national parks won’t happen until next month. Just wait, that sky will fall soon!

Maybe now the Brady staffers will get a very small dose of what it’s like when the media grandstands on the issue without actually knowing what the hell they are talking about. We’ve been dealing with the problem for years.

The President’s State of the Union address would have been a prime opportunity for Obama to speak about gun control. The police officer who stopped the Fort Hood shooting was among the audience, but was never acknowledged (none of his guests were, actually, which is kind of shocking). You have all the props there to make a good argument for the Brady Position. Not a peep. Nothing. That has to hurt, especially after they tried to embarrass him by making a media sensation out of giving him a failing grade.

Josh Sugarmann notes that Pennsylvania is number one in Black Homicide victimization. His solution, naturally, is to “put a focus on reducing access to firearms.” I don’t see any reason to inject race into the equation, other than it makes his numbers work out for states that he wants to put pressure on. Any murder is a problem for society, and the solution to fixing the problem of murder is the same no matter what the race, color or creed of the murderer or victim — locking the criminals up, and making sure they serve real time. Studies have shown that among alleged murderers in Philadelphia, nine out of ten have had prior criminal records, with half being charged with either violent offenses or weapons offenses. Josh’s response is to turn society into a low level prison, where the innocent and guilty are likewise punished.

Looks like Heeding God’s Call is getting their new media game on with a shiny new Facebook page, where for now people can comment freely. If arguing the religious and philosophical basis for self-defense isn’t your thing, CeaseFire PA also has a Facebook group, and it’s all “Lost and Stolen” all the time over there. Well, assuming there was any discussion, which so far it doesn’t appear that there is.

I don’t expect these to be open discussion forums for long. Our experience with gun control new media projects is that when they are overwhelmed by pro-gun arguments, they quickly decide that stifling the opposition viewpoint is really the best means to their ends.

Looks like the media in Australia is noticing the success of the video, and most importantly, it’s pissing off the right people.

The President of Gun Control Australia, John Crook, said the song was irresponsible for portraying guns as fun and non-violent. “Guns are designed to kill. The gun control laws we have in Australia have only been obtained after thousands of people have been killed.”

I liked the song and video, but having Mr. Crook’s narrative challenged is the real music to my ears.

There’s been some coverage of the Brady Campaign turning on the Obama Administration. Namely from The Hill, Politico, and NPR, just to name some. The biggest MSM coverage that I’ve seen is this blurb in USA Today, where it’s mentioned among many other left-leaning groups that graded Obama. but my favorite one is probably this, from a small town Washington State news outlet:

Also clearly, the folks [at the Brady Center] aren’t showing much political savvy of the kind that allows a president to govern.

Case in point — the Massachusetts election Tuesday for the vacant U.S. Senate seat once held by Sen. Ted Kennedy.

The Brady Center’s Paul Helmke, in endorsing Democrat Martha Coakley, said: “This race is a clear choice between a tough, law-and-order leader who wants to fight gun violence in Massachusetts and a state legislator who has, either wittingly or unwittingly, become a poster child for the ‘guns everywhere’ gun lobby.”

The National Rifle Association was upfront about what it thought of her opponent, Republican Scott Brown.

“Scott Brown is ‘A’ rated by the NRA Political Victory Fund,” the NRA’s Political Victory Fund website says.

Massachusetts voters resoundingly chose Brown, a state senator.

I don’t know if I’d be that harsh. Progressive are abandoning Obama like rats from a sinking ship at this point, and the Bradys are no doubt wanting to join, in the hopes that Obama might decide he needs to win back a few friends, and they might be one of them. Plus, getting cozy with other disillusioned progressives might bring some money in, and that wouldn’t be unwelcome by the Bradys, who have to be getting desperate for money at this point.

It wouldn’t be an unreasonable strategy if Brady had something to offer Obama and the Democrats in return for support, but what do they have? Money? No. Their PAC spent nary a cent in the last election, only 55 thousand dollars, or thereabouts. For contrast, Brady spending in 2004 was three times as much. Spending in the 2000 election was more than thirty times. Votes? The lack of ability for anti-gun groups to deliver votes is fairly undisputed in political circles at this point. So what do they have to offer Obama? Of the holy trinity, only favorable or unfavorable media can really be truly delivered, which is what they decided to try here. But I have to admit, they will need more than a brief blurb in USA Today, and some of the online sources to return to the former glory days of Handgun Control Incorporated. So far I would say this gambit is falling flat.

Via Dave Hardy, we have this fun article from The Hill:

President Barack Obama received a failing grade this year from The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence on Monday .

The Brady Campaign blasted the president, whom the group endorsed in 2008, for not having taken significant steps to advance gun control laws.

“It’s been a very disappointing year for us, especially considering what he campaigned on,” the group’s president, Paul Helmke, said during an appearance on MSNBC. “This year they ran away from the issue, and actually signed two repeals of good gun legislation.”

I’ll be honest, I think they are being a bit hard on Barry. It’s not like we weren’t careful to ensure these provisions were attached to must-pass legislation he really couldn’t have vetoed. It’s also not like Congress is in the mood to take up gun control, even if Barry wanted to. If the Bradys want someone to be mad at it ought to be Rahm, who is the one who orchestrated the Democrats’ return to power using moderate Democrats who were more sensitive to the sensibilities and temperament of their local districts. They are the reason the President is painted into a corner on this issue.

But I can also see why they are disappointed. They probably thought they were backing another Clinton. Even better, a candidate who hated guns even more than Clinton. But when Bill wasn’t busy playing “hide the cigar” with his female interns, he was busy fighting culture wars. Obama doesn’t seem to have any interest in culture war issues, probably because he’s way too focused on making the entire economy a ward of the state. Culture wars are for later, you see. Clinton was just ahead of his time.

The Brady Campaign are engaged in a new media campaign to try to bring the number of sponsors of HR 2324, the bill that would severely reduce the number of gun shows in this country through onerous regulation, up to one hundred. The current number of Congressional Cosponsors is 82. That’s not a bill that’s going anywhere, really. One striking aspect of the sponsors and cosponsors is just how geographically concentrated they are. To show you, I made up a quick map:

View Sponsors and Cosponsors of HR2324 in a larger map
I took the sponsors and cosponsors of this bill, and dropped a pin on their district offices so you can get an idea of where they represent. You can see significant clustering. Fully 60% of the bill’s sponsors are located in just three states: California, New York and New Jersey. A full twenty nine US states do not have any members of their delegation sponsoring this bill. Of the twenty-one that do, eight of those states only have one rogue member of their delegation, and seven more only have two members of their delegation (Pennsylvania has two, Fattah (Philly) and Schwartz (Philly & Montco)). Illinois has five members, all in Chicago. Massachusetts has three, centered around Boston. Within California, support is concentrated around Los Angeles and San Francisco almost exclusively. Within New York, around New York City. Within New Jersey, it is almost exclusively confined to the populated areas near New York City and Central New Jersey.

This is not broad support. This is a few cities trying to impose their attitudes toward guns and gun ownership on the rest of the country. Eighty three sponsors and cosponsors are only nineteen percent of Congress, after all. So I agree with the Brady Campaign on this one. Call your Congress Critter. If he or she is on this list, tell he/she you want them off it, and if he/she is not on it, please ask them to oppose HR 2324.

Harold Ford, based on NRA grades, was never a gun owner’s best friend. But as a C rated candidate in Tennessee, that’s not nearly anti-gun enough for Manhattan. Via Dave Adams at @VSSA, we find out that Ford is now declaring that record to be not representative of his new views.

I remain committed to promoting gun safety and handgun control, and I look forward to working with Mayor Bloomberg and Newark Mayor Corey Booker and their coalition to reduce handgun violence in cities across America.

Days of our Trailers has done a good job of covering this last week, first with some of the local Illinois groups also merging, and consolidating under umbrella groups, like we saw with CeaseFire New Jersey merging under a peace group umbrella. Also, he’s found that Joyce is cutting VPC’s funding by a fairly significant amount.

It’s going to be painful days ahead for the gun control movement, as their funding dries up. This does not mean the gun control movement is going away, or that we can declare “Machine guns for everyone!” and wrap this whole thing up in a few years. The gun control movement is reinventing itself, as it has many times throughout its history. Expect more groups appearing under the MAIG model. Not necessarily with mayors, but in terms of rebranding their same gun control proposals as a crusade against “illegal guns” and “illegal gun trafficking.” Will it be any more successful than the current banner they march under? Who knows. We can’t take any chances, however. I will say this, MAIG has shown themselves to be smart enough that when the pendulum swings back, it’s going to swing hard. Our job is to make sure it never swings back.

Looks like CeaseFire New Jersey is defunct, and has been rolled into the Coalition for Peace Action.

Now that new media has freed MAIG’s Blueprint for Screwing Gun Owners, his eminence the Mayor has decided to grace the public with the document, according to the Brooklyn Eagle:

The report, entitled Blueprint for Federal Action on Illegal Guns, was sent to President Obama and key members of his administration last August and is being publicly released in the New Year.

How nice of him. I guess since we already made it public, he can pretend like transparency was his plan all along. It’s amazing how much these worms argue for things like openness and transparency out of one side of their mouths, then conspire in secret when it suits them. At least until someone flips on the light switch and the cockroaches scatter.