CNN Poll Agrees

If Paul Helmke had a cow over Gallup for releasing a six month old poll now, he’s really going to lose his lunch over the CNN poll that says the same thing.

Since 2001, most Americans have favored stricter gun laws, though support has slightly dropped in recent years: 54 percent favored stricter laws in 2001, compared with 50 percent in 2007, according to Gallup polling.

Now, a recent poll reveals a sudden drop — only 39 percent of Americans now favor stricter gun laws, according to a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll.

It will no doubt create a Maalox Moment over at the Brady Campaign offices.  I would suggest the maximum relief chewables.  They have a calming, candy like flavor, and they are a good source of calcium.

CeaseFire PA Not Keen on Cause and Effect

They are suggesting something rather absurd:

Reforms such as reporting lost or stolen handguns to the police – a simple, common sense measure supported by an overwhelming number of Pennsylvanians – languish in the General Assembly.  Three more officers killed this weekend by gunfire, two others wounded.  Eleven policemen total shot and killed in Pennsylvania in the past four years.

When will the General Assembly act to protect our police and our citizens from the clear and present statewide danger presented by illegal guns? We call on the Assembly to act – now – by passing a lost or stolen handgun reporting requirement into law.

How the hell does “Lost and Stolen” have anything to do with the police officer shooting in Pittsburgh, given that the guns involved were neither lost nor stolen?  Talk about reaching to push your agenda.  Hey, Joe Grace, if you’re going to exploit a tragedy to push your agenda, at least be competent about it.

Talk About Sensationalism

Apparently now our police mudering loser is a terrorist, according to the Beaver County Times.  Victims of a far right terrorist philosophy.

We can debate gun control and we can bemoan the economic, social and family conditions that went into creating someone like Poplawski.

But we also need to take a good hard look at the danger that the far right poses to our domestic tranquility.

Except for brief outbreaks of left-wing violence, most recently in the late 1960s and early 1970s, political violence in the United States has been the almost exclusive domain of the right.

Oh really?  This is news to me.  I guess anyone who disagrees with the media’s leftist agenda is a preacher of hate and violence.

Stupid Things I Do

I’m upstairs now, because Bitter started watching season three of The Tudors.  I am only on season two.  But it just occurred to me, it’s not like I don’t know how all this ends up.  What will become of Anne Boleyn?  Will she ever bear Henry a son?  Will Henry succeed in bringing about an English reformation?  Who is his Jane Seymour character, and why is the King looking at her like that?  Stay tuned for the next exciting episode!

I mean, you know they aren’t going to change it so the Pope sails to England, throws a few holy hand grenades, and restores the Catholic Church, but for some reason I still don’t want to watch ahead.

Things I Don’t Get About Militias

This article in the Cleveland Plain Dealer talks about a community’s dispute surrounding a “live fire exercise” that was to be put on by a militia group.

Lacey Fair, who lives next to the training site, was concerned for the safety of her daughters, ages 4 and 12.

She said Brandon Drabek, who owns the site and identifies himself as the public-relations person for the Home Guard, could not give her adequate assurances.

Her home is about 120 yards from his land. Fair said that when she asked what to do while the training was going on, he told her, “That’s a good question. Keep your dogs and children inside.”

I wouldn’t exactly feel to reassured by this statement even if it were me.  It’s one thing to shoot in the middle of nowhere, or at a properly engineered firing range, but while this area is rural, it’s not exactly desolate.  Is it good community relations to distribute leaflets informing everyone that you plan to shoot up the neighborhood in a live fire exercise?  I’ve also never honestly understood the need for militia groups to claim some kind of legitimacy.

Fair said Drabek told her the group would be using automatic weapons; he denies that. Fair also said Drabek claimed the group had been endorsed by Geauga County Sheriff Dan McClelland.

McClelland said that he extended no such endorsement and would not because he does not know enough about the Home Guard or the Ohio Defense Force.

I have no issues with grown men getting together and playing army, and I’ve never believed all militia groups to be hate groups, or radical outfits, even though I don’t pretend to understand the motive behind it:

Eckhart said the Ohio Defense Force is about 10 years old, and many of its founders were disenchanted with the state-run Ohio Military Reserve, in part because it no longer trains with firearms.

But is the motivation to serve the community, which you can apparently do in the Ohio Military Reserve, or to train with firearms?  If the purpose is to train with firearms, why all the grasping for legitimacy, and the origanizing into platoon sized battalions and whatnot?  Can’t a couple of fellas get together and teach each other to shoot without all the pomp and circumstance?

The only thing I can figure is that a lot of these guys are looking for ways to relate to their government, and serve communities that they feel increasingly isolated from, and have a hard time relating to.  Government has become cold, impersonal, and with an agenda all its own, even at the local levels.  I don’t think the existence of these groups says as much about the men who join them as it says about the governments they don’t feel like they could be a part of.

Understand This: There is No Compromise

Pelosi is suggesting some kind of compromise will be found on “assault weapons”:

During an interview on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” Pelosi said that the Congress will work to find some middle ground between the previous ban, which expired in 2004, and the precedent laid by the Supreme Court in a ruling enumerating more concrete gunowners’ rights last term.

There is no middle ground.  The first ban was useless.  Any “compromise” legislation is going to be even more useless.  We’re not going to go away happy you only half screwed us.  Pass anything and watch what happens in 2010.  We won’t show any mercy to your blue dogs who cross us.

“Right now, we have the debate in Congress over the District of Columbia wanting a vote on the floor of the House, something we all want. That’s a civil rights issue,” she said, pledging to find “middle ground” on the issue. “And, yet, they want to put a gun…bill, attach that to that. I don’t — I don’t think that that should be the price to pay to have a vote on the floor of the House.”

The gun issue is a civil rights issue too, Madam Speaker, no matter how much you wish it weren’t so.  If you wish to remain Speaker, you’ll learn to accept that.  Your predecessor, Tom Foley, didn’t think it was a civil rights issue either, and I doubt very much he expected to pass the gavel to Newt Gingrich in short order.  Don’t make the same mistake he did.

UPDATE: I should point this out too:

Pelosi indicated that new regulations might entail registration and prohibitions on transporting some firearms across state lines.

This will make it impossible for competitors to attend Camp Perry, unless they live in Ohio.  It will end high power competition in this country.  If you are represented by a blue dog Democrat, I would highly advise contacting them, and mention you are very unhappy about the Speakers remarks, and are skeptical your Congressman will support your gun rights as a member of the same party.  The only way we’re going to put Pelosi back in her pen is to get the blue dogs upset with her.

UPDATE: This should give Pelosi some pause.

We’ve All Met Them

Two examples today of old timers who don’t understand the changes in the shooting culture.  One is here, in a letter to the editor calling for more restrictions on “assault rifles.”  Even more disappointing that he apparently realizes these are just ordinary semi-automatics, yet somehow still thinks they are more dangerous than, say, this.

Then this more lenthy article from an old man who doesn’t get it:

I don’t understand the allure of these weapons.  I once shot a deer at 300 yards with a 1935 bolt action Remington 30-06.  Not a bad shot for a seasonal shooter.  I am an advocate of wildlife management by granting State Licenses and state regulation of hunting seasons.  We ran all of the predators off so now we have to manage the deer population.  It is what it is – I am not making any judgement about what was done before – only about what needs be done now.

Did you think the same thing when high power shooters were shooting these, or these?  Or are those OK because they don’t look scary because there’s no polymers or pistol grips?  It’s time for guys like this to come down off their high horses and understand something: people get into shooting all kinds of different ways, and go in all kinds of different directions with the hobby.  That’s a good thing, because it’s numbers that allow him to keep going afield, and keep competitiors on the line at matches.  I don’t care if someone only has an AR-15 to take it out to a public range every once in a while and plink.  That used to be me, in fact.  It is a lot of us.

Pirate Attacks

Looks like we have a hostage situation.  I’m in favor of paying the ransom to get the crew back safely, then killing the pirates as they try to make off with the booty.  After that, I would attack all their coves and vessels.   It’s a shame we no longer have these in service.  Nothing says “don’t mess with us” than sixteen inch shells.

But we’re in the era of hope change, which means the pirates are likely to get away with this.  Fat White Man wonders why our merchant vessels aren’t armed.  The answer is because most of the rest of the world are afraid of guns, and don’t allow them in their ports in possession of civilians.

UPDATE: Looks like the crew is back in control.  Good to see Americans still fight back.

Less than 4 Percent

The Center for Consumer Freedom takes the Humaine Society of the United States to task for spending so little of their money on animal welfare:

According to new research from the nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) contributed less than four percent of its $91.5 million budget to hands-on dog and cat shelters in 2007. CCF is criticizing the nation’s largest animal rights group for not doing more to help hard-working local humane societies, calling HSUS’s name “misleading.”

That’s because they aren’t about local animal shelters, they are a radical animal rights group who wants to ban hunting masquerading as an organization that helps animal shelters.  They are PETA with slicker marketing and PR.