Well played
Congratulations to John and the team at the Renzulli Law Firm. The Brady Bunch looses their case after filing four minutes late.
John and Lisa are family friends, and I’m proud of the work that they are doing.
Happy Birthday!
Happy Birthday, Mrs. Newbie. I love you very much.
Quote of the day
Q: What do you call a blogger outed by an anti-gun group?
A: Well read.
Dod, from American Manifesto, on this post.
Paul Helsinki is a dick
Paul Helsinki, proprietor of GunsAmerica.com seems to be upset that bloggers are allowed to attend SHOT.
We have to crawl over nobodies who can install wordpress and have nobody reading anything they write, It isn’t so hard to qualify internet media using Alexa.com and Compete.com. Why do you waste the manufacturers’ time and make the real internet media have to deal with wish I were internet journalists who are just using your stamp of approve to solicit review guns and accessories?
Yeah, I had never heard of it, either.
On propaganda
Sean has gotten me reading Brian Patrick’s “The Ten Commandments of Propaganda.”
Commandment One is Control the Flow of Information. Seems pretty simple, right? If you control what people see, you can control what they believe.
The modern “Gun Control” movement was based on this tactic. They controlled the mass media and they controlled the message. And the tactic was very effective for a long time. It reached it’s high water mark with the passage of the 1994 “assault weapons” ban. The Violence Policy Center is quite open about their use of the tactic:
Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.
– Josh Sugarmann, Director, Violence Policy Center, “Assault Weapons and Accessories in America”
The problem that the gun control industry has is that they no longer control the flow of information. Any news release that they put out with skewed statistics is immediately dissected by an army of unpaid volunteers, every fallacious post quickly fisked, every tweet drowned by a flurry of counter tweets.
And so, they resort to the same old muscle memory. Control the flow of information. Joan Peterson (no link due to this blog’s policy, but you can read for yourself at commongunsense.com) “moderates” her comments, ignoring arguments that she cannot win. Baldr Odinson does the same.
It’s with this background that I read this post from Miguel at GunFreeZone. It seems that the CSGV noticed our counter protest and has decided that the best course of action was to distort what happened, and also “out” gunbloggers. Miguel’s link (and that’s his real name) will take you to the original CSGV page. Go take a look. I’ll wait.
There are two problems with this approach. First, none of us are ashamed of what we write, and anyone who reads our blogs will simply find a group of thoughtful, intelligent people with diverse backgrounds. Second, and this is key, is that they no longer control the flow of information. The primary sources are out there and available. And all CSGV did was highlight the size of the counter-protest.
Project Phoenix
Good bye, Vicious Circle. Hello, The Squirrel Report!
Phew, I was getting the VC DTs. They are going to ease me to an analog.
On mockery
We have been accused by the usual suspects of mocking the Tuscon victims. In particular, on the-blog-that-shall-not-be named-but-censors-discussion Japete wrote the following:
And this, my friends, is how the gun rights extremists reacted to a nation wide vigil with thousands of victims and others lighting candles and ringing bells. Cynical, stupid, wrong-headed, rude, twisted, ridiculous…. These folks think of themselves as clever and want to get into the faces of victims and gun violence prevention organizations.
We in the gun rights community refer to the ilk of Japete as blood dancers. They coat themselves in the blood of victims and use their tragedies to push their agenda.
I have nothing but sympathy for the victims of Tuscon. I’m sorry that there wasn’t a good man with a gun able to stop the bad man with a gun more quickly. I do know that the law against mass murder didn’t stop the bad man, so I struggle with how another law would have prevented this tragedy.
Do I want to get in the face of victims of violence? No, absolutely not. I do want to get in the face of “gun violence prevention organizations.” I find your actions reprehensible, and as I pointed out here, sinful. You are counseling a child in a burning building to hide in the closet from the flames. While you are lighting your candles and ringing your bells, I’m telling the kid to get the hell out of the burning house. You are getting people killed, Joan. So, yes, you could say I am in your face.
Rude? I’m sorry if you find me rude. Angry, certainly. You are trying to put me and my family in danger. Brusque? Perhaps. I can only tolerate nonsensical thinking for so long. Your conclusions aren’t supported by the evidence. When we point this out, you call me insensitive and dismiss my arguments. I can only go on that merry-go-round so many times.
Review the footage from the match again. I see a target surrounded by no-shoots. Sounds pretty similar to the situation in Tuscon. I see people training to stop that situation. Perhaps Joe and Barron were not mocking the victims, Joan. Perhaps they were honoring their memory by making sure that, by god, that wasn’t going to happen again on their watch. Which, when you get right down to it, is probably a better way to prevent violence than lighting a candle.
So to be clear, Joan. We weren’t mocking the victims. We were mocking you.
Being a Catholic gunnie
Weer’d had a comment from P. Edward Murray on this post. Mr. Murray said the following:
As a Catholic Christian American I am disgusted at your attitude toward the sanctity of human life and your attitude toward Congresswoman Gabby Giffords and those who lost their lives that day because people like you think that a Gun is more important than anyone’s life.
Jesus said to St Peter that those who live by the sword shall die by the sword. Today’s sword is a gun.
I hope that Jesus forgives all of you before you have to meet him.
Strong stuff, that. First, I’m not sure why he introduced himself that way. Does being a “Catholic Christian American” give him a particular insight into morality? I think he is trying to suggest that his opinion is more…holy?…than Weerd’s and thus his conclusions are…more enlightened? It doesn’t make any sense to me, for reasons that I will explain.
I am a Catholic, an adult convert in fact. I was baptized when I was 20. I say this only to make the point that I made a conscious decision to become Catholic after long thought and prayer. I’ve studied the teachings of the Catholic Church fairly deeply. I disagree pretty vehemently with Mr. Murray.
First, the religious beliefs of one person cannot possibly bind another person. Weerd has said that he is not a Christian, let alone a Catholic. (I’m not implying anything here, other than that Catholicism is a specific form of Christianity.) Therefore it’s impossible for him to sin in the context of Catholicism, any more than it would be sinful for me to eat pork. My religion, my rules. In becoming a Catholic, I took on the code of my religion, not Weerd. To judge him by my rules is nonsensical. (There is a deeper argument here regarding salvation, but lets save that for another time. 
)
For those who aren’t aware, the binding teachings of the Catholic Church are not the Bible (actually a bone of contention between Catholics and some other Christians!) but the Catechism. Like it or not, the Church is a top-down system. The Catechism, not the Bible, not your priest, not your Bishop is the source for orthodox teaching. Luckily, we live in a modern era. The Catechism is indexed, hypertexed, and available here.
Lets see what the Catechism has to say on the matter, shall we?
On self-defense:
2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
- If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.66
The Catechism goes on to state it even more plainly:
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.
Emphasis is mine.
To put it in basic terms: God gave you your life. It’s not yours to squander. It’s not just your right, it is your obligation to defend that life. If you are responsible for the lives of others, you have not only the right, but the religious obligation to defend your life, even if that costs the unjust attacker his.
If it’s your obligation to protect yourself, doesn’t it follow that God would expect you to do so with the most effective means possible? The most effective means of defense is a personal firearm. It renders you capable of defending yourself regardless of the physical disparity of between victim and attacker.
Finally, on the notion that we are mocking Gabby Giffords. Horseshit. Re-read the articles. We are apalled by the violence in Tuscon. We are not mocking. We are begging, pleading, cajoling. You are not safe. Carry your guns! Learn to use them.
Sorry, Mr. Murray. You are the sinner here, not Weer’d.
I am a gunnie
Well, we seem to have kicked over the hornet’s nest with our counter protest!
Weer’d highlights the fallacy.
And Madmedic in the comments makes it a meme.
I’m a solutions architect for a major software company.
I am a gunnie.
I have a Bachelors degree in Computer Science and Philosophy. They are more closely related than you might think.
I am a gunnie.
My MBA is in Finance.
I am a gunnie.
I’m a dad and a husband. The two most important roles in my life. I want to make sure that my daughter grows up with her daddy, and my wife grows old with her husband.
I am a gunnie.
I love my daughter more than life itself. I can’t imagine what it would be like if she was threatened, and I couldn’t protect her. I can’t let that happen.
I am a gunnie.
While I’m larger than I used to be, I don’t think it can fairly be called a beer belly.
I am a gunnie.
I do, however, enjoy a good stout.
I am a gunnie.
I learned a long time ago that criminals break the law, whether it is the law against carrying a gun or the law about killing your neighbor. And begging for mercy from the merciless is a bad strategy.
I am a gunnie.
The deepest shame that I can imagine is my family hurt or killed, and knowing that I could do nothing to stop it. It’s my responsibility as a father and as a husband to provide food, shelter, and safety to my family. I do that with my tool of choice, the defensive firearm.
I am a gunnie.
You have nothing to fear from me. I mean you no harm. I don’t break the law. In fact, I’ve spent hundreds of dollars to make sure I don’t. I’ve been fingerprinted, background-checked, trained. I’ve proven that I can use my tool safely. And that wasn’t enough. I know the awesome responsibility I’ve taken upon myself. I’ve spent thousands of dollars more on training, making sure that I can use my tool, effectively, safely.
I am a gunnie. I’m your friend, your neighbor, your teacher, your pastor, your doctor, your mechanic, your customer. Look to your left and to your right. I’m one of you.
Why we win
Emily Miller is a columnist for the Washington Times. She has been writing a series on her attempt to get a legal gun in Washington D.C. It’s an interesting series. She has a blog entry discussing her trip to the Beretta factory in Maryland. During the trip, she got to shoot the Beretta ARX-160 rifle. The results are here:
I think the laughter and grin speak for themselves.
-
Do your part!
-
-
-
-