A few nuggets of insight before you head off for the weekend:
Posts Tagged ‘gun control’
LinkSwarm for March 30, 2012 (Including More ObamaCare Hearings Fallout)
Friday, March 30th, 2012LinkSwarm for February 3, 2012
Friday, February 3rd, 2012More on Lamar Smith Challenger Richard Mack
Thursday, February 2nd, 2012The website for former sheriff Richard Mack, the man who is challenging SOPA sponsor Lamar Smith in the Republican primary for the Texas 21st congressional district, is back up.
His issues page shows there’s much to like about Sheriff Mack. He’s for restraining spending, controlling the border, and against ObamaCare. Not only does he support the Second Amendment, he was a leading opponent of the Brady Bill, was the very first Sheriff (and very possibly the first person) to file suit to get it overturned, and was the second named plaintiff in Printz Vs. U.S., which overturned key provisions. In addition to SOPA, he also opposes the indefinite incarceration of citizens provision of the NDAA.
He also seems to be active in Tea Party circles, and was named one of the Top Ten Conservative Challengers (along with Ted Cruz) by the Conservative Texans Political Action Conference.
As for his opponent, Lamar Smith has long been considered a fairly conservative Republican with some justification, including a lifetime ACU rating of over 92%. But there’s a case to be made that Lamar Smith has not exactly been a tower of conservative virtue in recent years, even apart from his key role in sponsoring SOPA. For one thing, he voted for TARP. For another, he voted to increase the minimum wage. Smith is an example of someone who has simply been in government too long; he was first elected in 1986, and a quarter-century in the House simply too long to expect someone to oppose Leviathan rather than serving it. PACs love, love, love Lamar Smith, to the tune of $467,941 in PAC contributions this election cycle alone (including, ironically enough, SOPA opponents such as Google). (I cannot confirm reports that Rep. Smith spends more time at his house on Cape Cod, which he has owned since 1992, than he does in Texas.) Rep. Smith does not seem to have learned to his lesson about SOPA, as he’s still parroting the recording industry line, and is still working to pass the Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act of 2011 (HR 1981), which, while not as bad as SOPA, would still impose fairly onerous Internet data retention and tracking provisions for all American Internet providers.
Need a final reason to oppose Smith? He’s actually been endorsed by the Austin-American Statesman, in the same editorial they endorsed Lloyd Doggett, which should be the kiss of death for a Republican.
Rep. Smith’s problem is that of a boarding school boy being paddled for stealing cookies. It’s not that he was the first one to have his hand in the cookie jar (lots of Republicans have supported bad Internet bills in the past), nor will he be the last, but he’s the one with the misfortune to have his hand in the cookie jar at precisely the wrong time, when the headmaster (i.e., voters) were actually paying attention. He has to be punished as an example to the others.
Just as the tree of liberty must occasionally be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots, so too must the careers of 13-term incumbents be offered up in periodic sacrifice…
Documents Shows Fast and Furious WAS About Promoting Gun Control
Wednesday, December 7th, 2011Continuing her excellent reporting on the issue, Sharyl Attkisson drops another bombshell: Just like us “paranoid” right wingers thought all along, Fast and Furious was about promoting gun control:
Documents obtained by CBS News show that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) discussed using their covert operation “Fast and Furious” to argue for controversial new rules about gun sales.
[snip]
ATF officials didn’t intend to publicly disclose their own role in letting Mexican cartels obtain the weapons, but emails show they discussed using the sales, including sales encouraged by ATF, to justify a new gun regulation called “Demand Letter 3”. That would require some U.S. gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or “long guns.” Demand Letter 3 was so named because it would be the third ATF program demanding gun dealers report tracing information.
On July 14, 2010 after ATF headquarters in Washington D.C. received an update on Fast and Furious, ATF Field Ops Assistant Director Mark Chait emailed Bill Newell, ATF’s Phoenix Special Agent in Charge of Fast and Furious:
“Bill – can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same (licensed gun dealer) and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks.”
On Jan. 4, 2011, as ATF prepared a press conference to announce arrests in Fast and Furious, Newell saw it as “(A)nother time to address Multiple Sale on Long Guns issue.” And a day after the press conference, Chait emailed Newell: “Bill–well done yesterday… (I)n light of our request for Demand letter 3, this case could be a strong supporting factor if we can determine how many multiple sales of long guns occurred during the course of this case.”
Read the whole thing.
The best, most favorable explanation is that Fast and Furious was instituted for some still-undisclosed purpose, and that some ATF agents saw it as a ghoulish opportunity to promote gun control.
The worst: The Obama Administration designed and implemented Fast and Furious in a premeditated fashion, breaking the law and helping kill hundreds of Mexican citizens and U.S. border patrol agent Brian Terry, all for the sole, express purpose of promoting gun control.
They had to kill people with guns in order to save them from getting killed by guns.
It shows that just because your paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you.
Hat tip: Powerline, where John Hinderaker says: “If the Obama administration did arrange for the shipment of arms to Mexican drug gangs, not for any legitimate public purpose but in order to advance a left-wing political agenda, and those guns were used to murder hundreds of Mexicans and at least one American border agent–which they were–then we are looking at a scandal that dwarfs any in modern American history.”
Indeed.
Fast and Furious Update for November 10, 2011
Thursday, November 10th, 2011Been a while since I put one of these up, and since I start a new job today, I thought it high time to catch people at least semi-up-to-date on Fast and Furious developments:
Fast and Furious Update For October 10, 2011
Monday, October 10th, 2011You know, when I started doing Fast and Furious updates, I didn’t realize I’d have to update this daily. But events are moving at a pretty brisk pace:
Finally, not related at all (except also involving guns), but I wanted to point out that Adam Winkler, author of Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America, points out that yes, the roots of gun control in America are racist in nature.
Clayton E. Cramer on The Secret History of Guns
Friday, August 12th, 2011I recently linked to Adam Winkler’s Atlantic article “The Secret History of Guns,” which I found quite interesting, but noted that I was not well-versed enough in gun and gun control history to ascertain the piece’s accuracy.
So I went seeking the opinions of experts. I emailed several people instrumental in exposing the academic fraud behind Michael Bellesiles’ Arming America to ask for their assessments of the Winkler piece. I’m happy to say that Clayton E. Cramer, one of the first and most persistent critics of Bellesiles, has taken the time to respond to my query on the Winkler piece:
Here’s what I sent to Professor Winkler:
I guess the only substantial criticisms I would make of this article are:
“To the gun lobby, the Second Amendment is all rights and no regulation.”
I don’t think that’s a particularly accurate description of the position of “the gun lobby.” There are certainly extremists who believe that any regulation of any sort is unconstitutional and unacceptable, but I am not aware that NRA, for example, opposed bans on those convicted of violent felonies from having guns. Similarly, I am not aware that NRA has opposed bans on the mentally ill owning guns. There are differences of opinion about exactly where the lines separating crimes that should be firearm disqualifiers from those that should not. There are differences of opinion as to exactly what standard should be used for determining whether a mentally ill person should be disarmed. But that’s not the same as “all rights and no regulation.”
Similarly, much of the gun lobby’s opposition to particular regulations is pragmatic: it does not work for its intended purpose, but it does create a serious obstacle to law-abiding adults obtaining a gun. Again, that’s not the same as “all rights and no regulation.”
Your statement that NRA endorsed the National Firearms Act of 1934 is not a terribly accurate statement. The original law as introduced would have put handguns under the NFA requirements, and NRA was strongly opposed to that. It was because of NRA’s efforts that the focus of the law changed from concealable firearms and automatic weapons to automatic weapons and short-barreled long guns.
Also, while Frederick may not have considered the constitutional provisions when he testified, take a look at the Ways & Means Committee hearing transcripts; both the A-G and his assistant acknowledged that there was a legitimate Second Amendment question as to whether Congress could simply ban machine gun ownership–hence the elaborate tax stamp provision copied from the Harrison Narcotic Act of 1906.
I’d like to thank Mr. Cramer for taking the time to respond to my query and Mr. Winkler’s article. Mr. Cramer’s blog can be found here.
The Secret History of Guns
Thursday, August 11th, 2011Alphecca linked this interesting article on The Secret History of Guns. It talks about some of the ironies of gun control, such as the Black Panthers enthusiastically embracing the 2nd Amendment, while California Governor Ronald Reagan signed a law limiting the bearing of arms in government buildings.
I don’t necessarily agree with all of author Adam Winkler’s conclusions (such as they are), but he makes an interesting historical case, though I am not an expert. I would be interested to hear the take of some of the more prominent gun bloggers and historians on the piece.
A Disarmed Society is a Violent Society
Tuesday, August 9th, 2011It’s not yet sunset in the UK, so we don’t know if a fourth night of rioting will follow the first three. But the glee and impunity with which rioters torched and looted large sections of London are an indictment of two beloved projects of British and other European elites: a disarmed citizenry and an all-encompassing, cradle-to-grave welfare state.
It’s hard to imagine riots of these size going on for days on end in the American South or Midwest simply because so many armed, law-abiding citizens would stand ready to defend their lives, liberty and property. Once you’ve shot a few rioters dead, it does rather tend to put a damper on the festive mood of the others. An armed shop owner in Texas or Ohio wouldn’t have to stand idly by while his life work burned, waiting vainly for police that never come.
But London shopkeepers and home-owners never had that choice. As Instapundit noted, “Unlike L.A., there are no Korean shopkeepers with AR-15s to help contain the looting.” Since handguns were banned in the UK in 1997 (tightening already restrictive firearm laws), their per capita crime rate has skyrocketed compared to ours.
As Theodore Dalrymple and others have so depressingly documented, the welfare state has hollowed out the once redoubtable English character and replaced it with crime, inter-generational dole-dependency and general hopelessness. “These youths in hoodies and men in bandanas are not fighting for a principle, they’re trashing neighbourhoods for a plasma telly and a pair of new trainers. Masked gangs are looting department stores, not waving placards.”
Will this be a wake-up call for those pushing for an ever-larger welfare state? Of course not. My liberal British friends on Facebook are already trotting out the classic liberal phrases. “Underclass,” “powerless,” etc. Why “powerlessness” leads inevitably to someone looting a plasma TV is never adequately explained, nor how an ever-more-expansive welfare state would prevent this, unless they expect that taxpayers buying a plasma TV for every single person on the dole would remove the temptation.
Edited to Add: Greetings, Instapundit Readers! Take a look around and see if there’s anything else that might interest you, such as updates on the Texas Senate race or some tidbits on Rick Perry.
Ezell vs. Chicago: An Extremely Lazy Blogger’s Roundup
Wednesday, July 6th, 2011So Ezell vs. Chaicago has been decided, and the three-judge panel basically bitchslapped Chicago into the 21st Century. Basically, Chicago was saying 1.) You have to get firearms training at a licensed firing range to own a gun, and 2.) We don’t need no stinking firing ranges within the city limits, and the court tore them a new asshole for blatantly disregarding DC vs. Heller.
Even more dramatically, the ruling makes explicit parallels between first Amendment and Second Amendment restrictions, which the Brady Bunch and their liberal Democratic co-conspirators have been denying for years.
I think any decision where the gun-grabber ordinance in question is actually derided in the decision as “thumbing of the municipal nose at the Supreme Court” has to count as a pretty overwhelming victory for the Second Amendment.
If I were a hardcore gun blogger, I’d read the entire judgment, quote chunks from it and offer closely reasoned, pithy insights.
If I were a semi-hardcore gun blogger, I’d skim the decision and offer some quick insights.
However, because I’m feeling very lazy tonight, I’m merely going to link to the writeup over at Snowflakes in Hell, since Sebastian has provided a far better, and more insightful, post than I could on the subject.
As a bonus, in the post just below that, he tears into Rahm’s ridiculous shooting range ordinance, another blatant attempt to deprive Chicago residents of their Second Amendment via absurd regulations, such as:
Requires that range operators inspect every gun brought into the range for safety, and that the caliber is appropriate for an indoor range. You must have a range master for every three shooting patrons. That range master must be on duty at all times. [Even by the standards of Chicago union featherbedding this is outrageous.] Ranges may only sell ammo for use onsite, and must ensure no one leaves the range with unauthorized ammo.
Et Freaking cetera. “Rahm’s ordinance is basically a joke, and an insult. I can’t imagine anyone would even try to operate a range under these ridiculous standards, and I suspect that’s the whole idea.”
Read the whole thing, on both posts.