Dave Hardy has a post confirming what I thought to be true: even as far back as 1978, the vast and overwhelming majority of people believed that the Second Amendment gives you a right to keep and bear arms.
The problem with this is that it doesn’t ask the right question. The phrase isn’t specific enough. When MAIG can say they “support the second amendment” something is broken. It’s lost all its meaning.
A more interesting survey would break it out. For example:
- “Do you believe that the Second Amendment gives you a right own a gun?
- “…any gun?”
- “…as many as you like?”
- “…in your home?”
- “…to carry in public?”
- “…with/without a government permit?”
It would be interesting to see where the broader public draws the lines.
Joe Huffman has nominated Sunday, February 21st as Starbucks appreciation day.
If you don’t know why we need to appreciate Starbucks, more info is here. Thumbnail sketch: The Bradies wrote a letter to Starbucks asking them to prohibit open carry in their stores. Starbucks told them to pound sand.
The Shorty and I will be enjoying lattes and what she calls “coffee-store cake” (marble poundcake) that day.
I’ve been seeing a pattern recently:
- Someone on the internet spouts off about how we need more gun control.
- Folks from the gun rights community show up in comments and point out that the argument is ill conceived.
- A bunch of statistics, generally provided by the Brady Bunch, are quoted in defense of gun control.
- The gun rights community refutes the assertions, points out how the statistics are doctored.
- The original poster tries to argue from authority to shut down the comments, as in “I’m a lawyer, so I know better than you.” Alternatively, they may appeal to emotion and try to
- The original poster descends into name calling.
- The original poster goes sad panda, reasoned discourse breaks out, and the poster turns off comments, usually with a parting shot.
First, understand that we have already looked at the data you are planning to cite. No, not the press release from the Bradys, or the Google search…we’ve read the studies. We’ve examined the methodologies used. We’ve studied the CDC data, and the FBI data. We know it pretty well. When you pull out a stat, we probably know what study it came from. If you are planning to cite statistics, it would be a wise thing to read not just the Brady press release, but to look at the underlying data.
Second (and this is the uncomfortable part) is that the data simply doesn’t support any of your assertions. Gun owners are law abiding, and guns are used safely and responsibly. As Tam points out, children are generally not at terrible risk from gun accidents. As I point out, more children die from rare diseases than from gun accidents. You would save many more lives by banning swimming pools and automobiles than firearms. We aren’t going to let you carry on under false assumptions. We will try to educate you.
Third, understand that we are passionate about keeping our civil rights. We are no more ready to give up our right to own firearms than you are ready to give up your right to vote. A lie left unchallenged becomes the truth…so expect a lot of challenges.
Fourth, I don’t care if you are a lawyer. You should have learned about logical fallacies in law school. Attacking the people arguing against you personally rather than refuting their arguments makes you look like an ass. Defending yourself by saying “Well, that’s my opinion” makes you look like an ignorant ass.
Finally, taking your ball and going home is just sad. You are arguing that you know better than I do… and that you want to take away my civil rights. That’s a pretty serious thing. If you can’t stand the criticism from the people you want to disarm, than perhaps you should’t threaten them in the first place.
Looks like San Francisco is dropping their ban on firearms in public housing. Great job by NRA and CPRA
Cue Brady wailing in three….two….
Dod at American Manifesto has a great post up on a study that the National Academy of Sciences has put out. In a nutshell, the NAS has concluded that solar storms of a sufficient intensity will do really, really bad things to our infrastructure and that the resulting chaos would be…bad.
I’d add that the probabilty of even a short term disruption having serious consequences is a very real. Modern IT systems and logistics management methods have shortened the amount of time material sits in inventory. Walmart, for example, literally cross loads trucks directly from suppliers to stores with no wait time in a warehouse. That’s great…it means that everything we buy is a little bit cheaper because there is less inventory overhead. It also means that when the suppliers trucks stop coming, there is very little play in the system to absorb the loss. When we had our mini gas crisis here in Charlotte a few months back, we saw gas stations selling out their entire inventory in a day. There just wasn’t enough capacity in the “pipeline” to absorb even a few days disruption.
It’s important, therefore, that you make sure that there is enough material (food, water, gas, etc) in YOUR inventory to be able to tolerate disruptions in supply. And that you have the means to protect those supplies shoud it become necessary.
Dod at American Manifesto had a letter published in the Philly Inquirer refuting the old militia argument. Again.
After a hard day with the kid yesterday, I had a sad realization. Arguing with the antis is a lot like arguing with a four year old. The arguments don’t make any sense. They change on a dime. They will change facts to suit their argument. No matter how many times you make your point, they still won’t listen. And, once you have proven your point, all you will end up with is crying and a temper tantrum.
Too bad we can’t send Helmke to his room for a nap.
Alphecca has a link to a quote from Mayor Mike, calling for Plaxico Burress’ head for carrying his gun without the required New York state pistol permit. He goes on to comment:
While I agree that sports stars, Hollywood stars, politicians, et al, shouldn’t be above the law and should suffer the same penalties as the peasants, I also feel that the fact that NYC makes it darn near impossible for the average law abiding citizen to obtain a CCW permit should be a mitigating factor. The biggest crime Burress is guilty of is stupidity by ignoring proper gun safety.
As a refugee from New York, I know the New York permit system very well. Permits are issued by judges in each county, and the issuing judge has the legal ability to limit your permit as he or she sees fit. A judge could literally write a permit for “range only, alternate Tuesday’s.” Therefore, they type of permit that you get…full carry or “home only” is entirely up to the whim of the issuing judge. No permit is good for New York City, except those issued in New York City. Even a permit for a gun in your home takes about a year to get (never mind that the statue specifies a maximum 6 month wait) and costs several hundred dollars. If you are rich, famous, or both, of course, the process is much easier.
I agree with Alphecca that Mr. Burress’ crime doesn’t warrant the 3.5 years in jail that Bloomie is calling for. However, when celebraties and people with “pull” start feeling the sting of the opressive laws that the rest of us face….those laws will change. The only reason a permit system like the one in New York can continue is those with pull can get through the system with a wink and a nod. Get rid of the loopholes, and things may start to ease for the rest of us.
Sebastian takes to task a collaborator who doesn’t see the point of black rifles. Sebastian makes a great point:
When these people come for your sport, if they already have my AR-15, I’m out of the fight. I do not hunt — I’m a competitive target shooter, and I carry a pistol for self-defense. My interest in preserving hunting is in preserving an important part of the shooting sports. If you, and those who think like you, cause me losing my sport, what interest do I have to fight for yours? When you understand that you are under just as much threat as we are, you’ll give your arrogance and understand we’re on this boat together, so you better pick up a bucket and start bailing, or we’re going to sink.
Sebastian is very active in the RKBA movement. He is, in my opinion, helping to lead the “new media” fight, and showing others (including yours truly) how it is done. He’s right. We are all in this together. No one gets thrown off the bus.
I’m back from my conference. It was a great few days. Final tally:
2 new NRA members
1 renewal. A colleague that I have talked guns with a few times. I said “I need you to do me a favor. I need you to join the NRA.” He said, “I did, a few years ago. But they sent me too much mail.” Me: “You can ask them to stop that. And you need to renew.” Sparked a good conversation about the fight to come. He is a smart guy, and fired up.
1 on the fence
2 newbies asking me to take them shooting
All in all, a successful trip.
Oh, yeah, and I got some work done, too.
Lots of great dialog over at Sebastian’s place on the use of the term “Fudd.”
For the newbies out there, “Fudd” is a pejorative term for a hunter who believes that the second amendment only applies to hunting guns. The Jim Zumbo affair perhaps most clearly defines the issue.
I understand the sentiment about not alienating hunters. I can understand how people can misunderstand the use of the word. And I don’t want to miss an opportunity to educate people who support gun rights. So, from now on, I’ll call hunters who don’t oppose gun bans exactly what they are: collaborators.
Collaborators are the worst enemies of gunnies. There is a reason that the gun ban group “American Hunters and Shooters Association” poses as a false flag hunter’s organization. When self-professed “hunters” agree that banning some guns is OK, it becomes the “reasonable” position due to the “truth-in-the middle” fallacy. (If I say something is white, and you say it is black, the truth must be somewhere in the middle). Collaborators give moral cover to an immoral act, and lend the mantle of “reasonableness” to those whose ultimate aim is ban everything. And worst of all, they do it because they think that by betraying their fellow gun owners they can save their own skins.
I agree that we should reach out to hunters, educate them, and bring them into the fold of those of us fighting for gun rights. But the moment that they are willing to throw another gun owner under the bus..be they .50 cal shooters, other hunters, guns-that-look-like-assault-weapons owners, or anyone else…they are the enemy and should be treated as such.