July 2013 – Page 5 – Shall Not Be Questioned

The Science Settles It

But researchers who study mental illness, guns and suicide say curtailing access to guns wonâ€™t necessarily reduce firearm suicides. Education and prevention may be a much better answer than stricter gun laws, they say.

They are pushing for education rather than laws, saying new laws won’t make much of a difference. It also notes they are getting help from the gun community. Funny how that happens when your goal is actually to solve problems rather than just take away our rights and freedoms. The only person who seems to insist gun laws would matter is a Joyce stooge.

Inflation

Being a somewhat shameless member of the species packus ratus, I’m finding myself going through a lot of old files that I’m trying to avoid moving back downstairs to my office. I keep literally everything, and I’ve decided that’s a bit much. But it’s fun looking back at how much more I spend on gas and food now. Eating out used to be a lot cheaper. Guns too. I found a credit card statement that had my first firearm purchase back in 2000, during the hight of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.

This was for a Romanian AK and 1000 rounds of ammo, showing here:

ak-47

I was not even really into shooting at the time. I bought it as a symbolic and perhaps obscene gesture to those people who said I shouldn’t own one. Today the ammo damned near costs that muchÂ if you can even find it. I miss those days. I have to give Barack Obama credit — he’s done a lot more to keep guns and ammo off of store shelves than any president in history.

Neat Graphic on Pennsylvania History

We found this during genealogical research. It shows the evolution of Pennsylvania counties from the founding of Pennsylvania in 1682 until the present county divisions that has remained in place since 1930. It also shows the claims Virginia, Maryland and Connecticut made over Pennsylvania. The border for Maryland was eventually settled by the Mason-Dixon survey, and settlers often fought low-level wars with settlers from Virginia and Connecticut over their claims. Connecticut claims were strong enough that many Revolutionary War service records for soldiers from what is now Western Pennsylvania are to be found with the State of Connecticut.

Speaking of the Mason-Dixon survey, here’s an interesting fact:

It was not the demarcation line for the legality of slavery, however, since Delaware, a slave state, falls north and east of the boundary. Also lying north and east of the boundary wasÂ New JerseyÂ where, in reality, slavery existed, in limited numbers, until 1865. It was not until 1846 that New Jersey abolished slavery, but it qualified it by redefining former slaves as apprentices who were “apprenticed for life” to their masters. Slavery did not truly end in the state until it was ended nationally in 1865 after the American Civil War and passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the US Constitution.

There was technically some measure of slavery in Pennsylvania until 1847, when slavery was completely outlawed. Pennsylvania passed itsÂ Gradual Emancipation ActÂ in 1780, which didn’t abolish slavery, but which prohibited further importation of slaves into the commonwealth, and made any children of slaves freeborn. This was actually the model used by most of the northern states, but New Jersey was one of the last states to begin gradual emancipation, only starting in 1804, 24 years after Pennsylvania started the trend.Â The only state to do immediate emancipation was Massachusetts in 1783, and that was through a court decision. So it’s probably not entirely fair to single out New Jersey in this example.

Fixing the Legislative Process

I see this op-ed is a bit of a back-handed compliment.

It acknowledges NSSF’s legal concerns about the abuse of the emergency certification by lawmakers seeking to avoid accountability to concerned citizens, but then basically says that it is really only a problem when such a process is abused for their pet concerns – like restricting pictures available to the press.

It argues that while it may not be ideals, it’s ultimately okay to abuse it for screwing those damn gun owners since that’s clearly a real emergency and it’s not important to actually discuss details of gun laws that could land innocent people in jail.

Reasonable Conversations

NRA is opening a new museum in Springfield, Missouri that highlights historical sporting firearms. (It will be located inside the Bass Pro Shops flagship store, hence the focus on arms used for sporting purposes in history.) Anyway, I caught something from a few days ago that shows Talking Points Memo picked up the story.

Knowing their extreme anti-NRA bias, I couldn’t help but wonder why they might be going after a freakin’ museum that focuses on the shooting sports.

Turns out that the actual blogger didn’t really add much in the way of anti-gun commentary, but the readers sure did. I think it’s useful to see that the same masses claiming they aren’t after your guns used for sport really aren’t even willing to truly accept a museum dedicated to sporting arms where the guns aren’t even available to individuals. Here are some of the highlights:

“The NRA’s National Sporting Arms Museum” better known as The Tower Of Death! Bring the kids for a unique family experience tracing the history of bloodshed in America! …

Are the floors spotless marble or are they covered in blood? …

What’s next? A NRA amusement park where people go in but don’t come out. Where “Stand Your Ground” is a shooting gallery for the Zimmermans of the world so they can shoot young unarmed black teenagers.

Of course, there are plenty of assumptions that NRA members are ready to shoot hippies, minorities, gay men, and atheists. Oh, and don’t forget the assertion that all NRA members are men who need to hire hookers to prove how manly they really are.

This is just the response to news that there will be a museum on inaccessible firearms that have a place in our nation’s sporting history. Imagine how these same people really feel about the concept of owning a firearm for actual self-defense. And these people want me to believe they are open to good-faith compromise? Yeah, right.

Why Gun Owners Really Aren’t Paranoid

Dave Hardy has an excellent essay in Reason about why gun owners have history on their side to back up fighting new gun restrictions. I know that most of you know these things, and it may seem like preaching to the choir. However, I really think it’s worth a read because it’s clearly written for a non-gun audience. I think we sometimes need to remember how to communicate with those who are sympathetic to our cause, but maybe don’t really see what the big deal is over bills like Manchin-Schumer-Toomey.

Compromise requires that both parties relinquish something. If your counterpartâ€™s position is â€œgive me this now, and Iâ€™ll take the rest later,â€ there is no real compromise to be had. Over decades, that has been precisely the experience of American gun owners.

Most of the piece gives specific examples of violations of this concept of “compromise” that we’re so used to dealing with.

Don’t Take Advice from Joe Biden

A man is arrested for firing a shotgun in the air to chase off what he thought were car thieves. He actually invoked the Vice President’s advice as a defense.

Cook County Bans Long Guns for 18-20 Year Olds

And if that wasn’t enough, a whole heaping helping of taxpayer dollars to fund a Joyce initiative aimed at training new anti-gun activists. Sounds like we need a ban on taxpayer dollars being used to lobby government. Might be tough in Illinois, but maybe not in other states. Kansas is leading the way.

Who Benefits from Stand Your Ground?

Clayton Cramer highlights an article in The Daily Caller that would seem to show that Blacks benefit disproportionally from Stand Your GroundÂ in Florida. This does not surprise me either. Blacks are statistically more likely to encounter situations where they may need to use deadly force in self-defense, less likely to get the benefit of doubt in the legal system, and less likely to be able to afford a good defense attorney, the last of which prosecutors are going to weigh when thinking about bringing charges. Prosecutors generally don’t want to bring cases where they aren’t sure they can get a conviction.

I’ve wondered how much of the negative reaction to the Zimmerman case was driven by the idea that Blacks would never get such easy treatment in similar circumstances. In that case, the fact that Zimmerman was walking the streets and not looking at a trial inflamed their sense of injustice. I think they have a point about that, to be honest. But I don’t see how stacking the deck back in favor of the prosecution is going to do anything except make it objectively worse for Black defendants who find themselves arguing self-defense in equally marginal situations.

Update on the Colorado Recalls

Not surprisingly, the decidedly unhappy Democrats who are subject to recall are fighting with everything they’ve got and going to court. The decision will is apparently expected at about 1pm local time today.

As an outsider, you know what I see? I see two incumbents who are continuing to generate headline after headline that voters in their district don’t want them anymore. While they may be delaying the potential recall elections, they are also creating more headlines and stories that opposition in any general election could use against them. Oh, and it’s giving local opposition more time to recruit and vet recall challengers. I see the opportunity for people within their own party to figure that they want this this mess to go away already, so they may be considering whether or not they want to primary the incumbents.

The big challenge for our side will be keeping gun owners fired up and ready act once there’s an election happening. They need to be willing to give to opposition candidates with both their time and money. It’s tough to keep that kind of excitement sustained, but hopefully Colorado can pull it off.