May 2012 – Page 6 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Gander Mountain’s Opposition to Gun Owners

There’s a question over whether Gander Mountain’s position of banning NRA-ILA’s grassroots events from their property is simply an issue of not getting involved in politics. There are a few fundamental issues with viewing it through such a simple lens.

1) Gander Mountain’s business model requires the freedom to own and use firearms. They have no doubt profited off of the more than 100,000 concealed carry license holders in Wisconsin that NRA-ILA fought to promote. They will take the money of gun owners and run, laughing all the way to the bank, but they are unwilling to even allow NRA members to meet on their property to discuss the political process that leads to these kinds of changes. They are an inherently political business by the decision of what they sell and how they market.

2) An early blogger who raised the argument against NRA to Gander Mountain that they should stay out of politics is, in fact, a political blog working to defeat Scott Walker. The blogger brags that this is what he told Gander Mountain:

The eventsâ€™ focus was to train pro-walker [sic] supporters in the art of deception and propaganda in order to build support for Governor Scott Walker. … When Politiscoop contacted Gander Mountain in both Eau Claire and Wausau, Wisconsin, managers were quick to inform us that the company was unaware of what the focus of the meetings were when they were scheduled by the NRA. It wasn’t until citizens opposing Scott Walker inundated the company with phone calls and emails, demanding they cancel the event.

Really? In fact, they repost Democratic Party press releases calling for Republicans to condemn those affiliated with NRA, but provide no other points of view. That’s hardly unbiased and non-political.

3) The event that Gander Mountain banned is actually about civic engagement. Yup, that’s right. It’s not directly about Scott Walker. If you’ve ever attended a grassroots workshop hosted by NRA, then you’ll know they focus on several issues:

Registering Voters: This is especially targeted in helping hunters and gun owners register to vote.
Communicating with Other Gun Owners: This is the most political element in that it teaches NRA members who want to know how to talk to other gun owners about politics how to approach the issue and why it’s relevant to their interests.
Being an Effective Advocate for the Second Amendment: The lessons NRA members learn about different methods of reaching non-NRA members with messages about politics or the general issue of gun ownership aren’t about any specific candidate. It’s about being a generally effective communicator so gun owners can articulate to everyone from their local lawmakers to Aunt Bertha why their sport and rights are important to them.
How Elections are Won: This is a broader spectrum message that isn’t specifically cited for one race because it’s a broad message across the board. Whether it’s a right to hunt amendment or a candidate, it applies. In St. Louis, many of the details NRA-ILA staffers shared focused on why younger voters made a difference for Barack Obama’s election. That certainly isn’t a pro-Scott Walker message. That’s simply a statement of electoral trends and facts.

That’s the larger lesson plan of the event that Gander Mountain chose to ban from their facilities. In other words, the events focus on teaching gun owners how to be involved in their communities and encourage civic involvement. What I would like to know is how Gander Mountain decided that such messages were negative things.

4) The blogger mentioned above also targeted a conference center that was rented by NRA-ILA to host an event. They tried to attack the center as taking a position on the Walker election, but the conference center remained firm in noting that NRA-ILA rented the room the same way that advocates on any side of the aisle may do. They noted that their business is about renting rooms, and that’s exactly what they did.**

To me, attacking a business for even accepting business from NRA members seems to go along with a trend in trying to dehumanize political opponents. Consider a Twitter debate recently where an anti-gun advocate argued that unless you agreed with her position on details of gun control policy, you could not be considered an educated person. (I would point you to the conversation, but she blocked every pro-gun person & deleted all of the related tweets.) I asked her if she actually believed that my college degree did not count as an education despite the fact that it is from one of the top liberal arts schools in the country, and she said it did not unless I agree with her to support gun bans of her choosing. To her, I was not a person worthy of acknowledging as a potential equal simply because we did not agree on a matter of political policy.

In this case of Gander Mountain, the company is responding to a blog and activists who aren’t actually arguing for the company to stay out of politics. They are working with a group of political activists who believe that NRA members shouldn’t even be allowed to talk about political issues or even civic engagement because of our belief in the Second Amendment.
Continue reading “Gander Mountain’s Opposition to Gun Owners”

Boycott Gander Mountain

You’d think that outfits like Gander Mountain would have learned where their bread is buttered by now, but under pressure from left wing activists, they’ve given the boot to NRA, which intended to do grassroots workshops to help train activists ahead of the recall election for Governor Walker in Wisconsin.

Gander Mountain are certainly free to be cowards if they want, but we are also free to go take our hunting and shooting dollars elsewhere. I ordinarily cut companies a break for trying to be apolitical, because when policy does not directly impact your business, it’s smart business to stay out.

But hunting, shooting and outdoor companies are directly impacted by policy, and I expect them to join the fight against those who want to destroy their line of business, and destroy our constitutional rights. We should accept nothing less. Gander is certainly benefitting from the passage of the concealed carry bill that Scott Walker happily signed. Turning around and stabbing him in the back with cowardice is unacceptable and disgraceful for a company like Gander.

I would encourage every gun owner to contact Gander Mountain and express to them your outrage at their decision, and inform them that you’ll be taking your hunting and shooting dollars elsewhere until they capitulate on this matter.

UPDATE: Here’s Bitter’s take on why Gander Mountain’s ban on NRA-ILA events is really about keeping gun owners from organizing to support the Second Amendment and hunting rights.

George Zimmerman and Civic Engagement

I think it’s come strongly into evidence by now that George Zimmerman was a man out for his neighborhood. This is an admirable instinct, but it’s obviously one that that has lead him to the ruin of his life. This begs a very serious question, for those who go about with firearms strapped to their persons. What duty do you owe to those around you?

I am drawn to the idea of a neighborhood banding together, to do what they can to fight crime, and the tyranny of the criminal element. That is a good and healthy thing. But banding together is a key element; you agree to watch each other’s backs, and come to the aid of the other when things in the neighborhood start to get real. You and all your neighbors should very much understand what this means.

This is an impossible standard in most communities, and to a large degree, we should feel fortunate for that fact, because most communities in the United States are so unbelievably safe by the standard of human history, that we just don’t practically think much about such matters. Regardless of ideals, crime in Suburban America is low enough that people feel it can justifiably be a matter left to professional agents of the state.

Sanford seems to be a community that’s seen some hard times since the collapse of the housing bubble. It’s been hit quite hard by the economy as well, and the crime profile has changed. George Zimmerman seems to have risen, apparently largely on his own ambition, to a leadership role as a community watchman. Community members seem to have appreciated this, but ultimately, what did it get him? And where were his fellow neighbors, which all had an interest the same community security, when things got very real for George Zimmerman?

When it comes to community protection, one has to be committed to collective community protection, where everyone is expected to pitch in and contribute, and watch each other’s backs. If you’re the lone sheepdog, it’s time to start re-examining your role, and thinking about whether it might be wise to live in a better neighborhood, with better people. It is not ideal, and is certainly far from the vision of community protection our founders thought they were encouraging with the 2nd Amendment, but is the world we live in today.

In that world, I don’t blame anyone who takes the attitude of protecting “me and mine.” General policing is really best left to people paid and trained to do it, with citizen intervention being left to life and death circumstances. That is, for better or worse, the world we have created; a world so safe by historical standards, most people don’t think about their own safety or that of their community, on a day by day basis, even in a community hit hard by the economy. Â I don’t know whether that’s something to be celebrated, or perhaps to be lamented. I suspect a little of both, since safety tends to breed complacency, and complacency is the enemy, over the long run, of safety.

What do you think?

Zimmerman Case: More On That Credibility Thing

Following up from my previous post on Marissa Alexander, where I spoke about credibility when you’re making a self-defense claim, we have yet another example of that. Turns out that Trayvon Martin had marijuana in his system when he was shot by George Zimmerman. Generally speaking, pot tends to render most people dangerous only if you’re a bag of Cheetos,Â but in some people it can drive feelings of paranoia. The family is outraged:

That revelation drew a furious response from Martin’s family.

â€œThe only comment that I have right now is that theyâ€™ve killed my son and now theyâ€™re trying to kill his reputation,â€ Martinâ€™s mom,Â Sybrina Fulton, said at the time.

I believe we ought to be sympathetic to a mother who has lost a son, but at the same time I also think we need to recognize that grief is a highly effective emotion at shielding sufferers from reality. Sybrina Fulton’s clingers-on were happy to call out the media dogs to destroy George Zimmerman in public, and now lament that facts have come out showing the precious snowflake was not the choir boy he was originally been made out to be. Grieving mothers should be pitied and given sympathy. But they should not form a basis for rational discussion of public policy, and they certainly shouldn’t form the justification for a lynch mob who aims to circumvent the legal system and condemn a man in a court of public opinion before he’s even had a fair trial. Ultimately, I don’t blame Sybrina Fulton for what she’s doing. She’s going through something horrible, regardless of how legitimate Zimmerman’s self-defense claim ultimately turns out to be. But I do blame the media, and the charlatans that have exploited this case. Ultimately they are the ones who have rendered this injustice, both on George Zimmerman, the public, a grieving mother, and the memory of Trayvon Martin.

UPDATE: More detail here, which describes the levels of THC found in Marin in greater detail. If only the media like CNN, those paragons of journalistic integrity, had gone through this much trouble to educate the public on the subtleties of self-defense law. But unfortunately for the charlatans at CNN, that wouldn’t fit the narrative, so now the headline is that clearly the death is unavoidable. Their article above is actually informative, but unfortunately, it is distracted from by their attempt to main the narrative at all costs. CNN has long had no integrity, and I feel for the folks who did the good research on this article, to actually inform us of what the toxicology report actually said.

Finally Closed

Finally closed on my refinance early this evening. It’s good to finally have that out of the way, pay a lower monthly payment, and pay less interest to a bank overall. Banks have gotten much more careful with mortgages since the financial crisis, as I had to provide quite a bit more documentation than I did for my original mortgage. With that out of the way, I can focus on more pressing difficulties with the house, like this:

What neither my contractor nor I can believe was that it was only during Hurricane Irene that we noticed water coming through the ceiling. I had to wait until I found a job before I could think about getting someone out again, and we never again saw water. A few weeks before our contractor started, I noticed the drywall drooping down a bit in a spot. I used the very sophisticated technique of poking the drywall with my finger, which went clean through with no real resistance. A bit of poking around up there I felt moisture immediately. The insulation has been soaking up water and slowly rotting the drywall. The real miracle is that it didn’t come clean down.

The good news is that the joists don’t look like they took it too badly, so some new sheets of plywood, and at most a bit of sistering with a 2×4 to have a hardy surface for fasters, and I think we’ll be back in business. The good news is I’ve bottled my wine:

Because after what my house is doing to me, I’m going to need it.

The Left’s Gotchas on Marissa Alexander

I keep seeing this kind of article pop up in my Google Alerts, wondering where NRA is on Marissa Alexander. First off, NRA did not comment on the Martin/Zimmerman case. You do not see NRA standing up for George Zimmerman personally, and nor should they be expected to stick up for Marissa Alexander, if she justifiably qualifies for immunity or for a defense of self-defense under Florida law. But as I pointed out in a previous post, when you cut through all the media and the left’s bullshit on this case, Marissa Alexander is not the innocent they are portraying her as. She stands convicted largely because she engaged in behavior that destroyed her credibility to a jury.

A big problem with these cases is that no one paid attention to self-defense law before this case. Now a lot of journalist, pundits and non-pundits are bringing a vast ignorance to the table when speaking about them, and understanding how the justice system works. Many people imagine things to be fairly black and white, but they are not. A self-defense defense is, with or without a “Stand Your Ground” law, quite subjective, and will generally be aimed at each side manipulating the jury into rendering the verdict that each side wants. In a lot of ways, the law is a game, much like politics. If you give a prosecutor a path to destroying your credibility, it doesn’t honestly matter how true or how wonderful your self-defense claim is, if the jury doesn’t buy it, because it doesn’t trust you — if the jury does not believe you are a reasonable person — you stand a much better chance of being convicted. Our legal system is not an arbiter of absolute truth, nor does it weed the good from the evil in all instances.

In the cases I’ve seen where media and pundits have tried to interview actual defense attorneys, most of them have really tried to explain these realities as best they could, but it just seems something the media and pundits are having difficulty wrapping their heads around. Perhaps because in TV law dramas, the bad guys have tended to get convicted and the good guys acquitted. The police are always competent, honest and do a thorough and professional investigation. But the real world isn’t TV. You’d think you wouldn’t have to explain that to folks.

Right-to-Carry in Illinois

This is quite encouraging:

They are very optimistic at this time that the bill can pass the House andÂ things appear to be shaping up in the Senate as well. If the bill get this through both houses in May, the right to carry lobby will be ready to go for the override of the governor’s promised veto in the fall veto session.

One of the core urban centers of anti-gun thought and culture is under siege by those who believe the Bill of Rights means something, regardless of whether you live in Chicago or Cheyenne. Eventually, the gates will fall. Bloomberg is next.

The Problem of Over-Legislating Everything

In any attempt to criminalize activity, you have a real problem with trying to define the behavior that is criminals, such as this texting while walking law in Fort Lee, New Jersey:

I’m dying to see how that law is worded. How is “walking” defined? Two consecutive steps? More than two? “X or more steps in X amount of time”? Does it have to be in a forward direction, or is this like ‘traveling’ in the NBA? Can you sidestep and text at the same time?

“Not guilty, your honor. My client was texting while Riverdancing, which is clearly not prohibited by the ordinance.”

And local yo-yos are usually a lot worse about definitions than the states and feds, which is why most states generally limit the legislative power of local governments to petty crimes. Maybe we need a crime for being stupid while occupying public office. Of course, then the anarchists would have their feast, wouldn’t they?

Honoring Brian Terry

Obama doesn’t.

Other Rights our Opponents Don’t Believe In

Add Amendment Six of the Bill of Rights to the list of rights that anti-gun groups happily disparage:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Miguel has the evidence. I’d note that even other lefties are asking them to get off the crazy train at this point. I think Miguel is correct that they will likely come to regret, over the long term, throwing in their lot with the charlatans who played the media and the American public about the true nature of this case. For people who became emotionally invested in the case, and the conclusions driven by the narrative, they will likely never accept the truth, no matter how hard it punches them in the face. But the majority of the American public, I believe, ultimately, views the Sixth Amendment guarantee as an important one.

Our opponents’ only hope, at this point, is to continue foaming at the mouth, and hope that other mouth foamers are willing to open their wallets. For the Brady Campaign, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, and Violence Policy Center, I think the focus for several years now has been saving their phony baloney jobs, rather than attempting to seriously engage at the level of public policy. That’s a good thing for us, but unfortunately for us, Bloomberg is a lot smarter and more strategically minded than I think these guys ever were.