2013 – Page 39 – Shall Not Be Questioned

MAIG Still Stepping in It

First they read the name of Terrorist Kabalamov, or whatever the bomber’s name is, and that caused a media sensation that seems to have caused the media cycle to shift decidedly against MAIG’s favor. Now MAIG is saying that someone coming at you with an axe handle isn’t armed with a deadly weapon. His argument seems that if someone doesn’t have a gun, you’re not justified in using a gun. This seems to have been a bit much even for Chris MatthewsÂ (h/t SayUncle).

So MAIG is endorsing the “proportional force” standard, generally employed in countries where self-defense is effectively unlawful. Be a man! He pulls a knife, you fight him with a knife. He pulls a baseball bat, well, do some grappling and hope you don’t get your skull bashed in. Fortunately, proportional force is a relatively extremist viewpoint few Americans agree with, and this is a big reason why.

Media Spinning Colorado Recall Elections

Media spinning the recall elections in Colorado as “phony.”Â Expect this to continue. A lot of them aren’t even mentioning his vote on gun control, and it’s being downplayed.Â WaPo doesn’t like how recall is being used. Funny, did they feel the same way about the Scott Walker recall?Â Why no, they didn’t.

What’s funny is I’m sure that the Colorado Democrats are now dutifully studying the Scott Walker playbook on how to beat a recall. All this could have been avoided if Morse and Giron had listened to Coloradans instead of taking orders from the White House and Gracie Mansion.

Gun Control Advocates Who Don’t Trust Bloomberg

Who can you trust to promote gun control? Apparently not Mike Bloomberg, according to folks who would like to at least see some gun control.

But there is another face of gun control that is much less trustworthy. It is a face which gun rights activists believe represents wholesale registration and eventual confiscation. That face belongs to Michael Bloomberg, mayor of New York City, who is also the money behind Mayors Against Illegal Guns. This group made headlines recently for using a list of supposed gun victims, but which included killers like Tamerlan Tsarnaev, one of the Boston Marathon bombers.

I almost have to wonder if someone pitched this editorial, and whether this represents infighting within the gun control movement now that they have accomplished nothing at the federal level in the wake of Newtown. Conceptually and strategically, I think MAIG has been a stronger opponent than the other gun control groups, at least in the last decade. But they are definitely saddled by the fact that Bloomberg isn’t a very likable or charismatic figure, and is easy to demonize.

Happy Tuesday: News Links

Any day where the dew point is under 50 and the high is only supposed to hit 82 is a good day in my book, so with the servers being kept cool with fresh outside air, here is the news:

Hey, gun people are everywhere. What’s more important is for other people to realize that.

Connecticut is going to talk about weakening their self-defense laws even further (they already have a duty to retreat).

Dave Hardy takes another look at the racial implications of SYG. Not the narrative you’ve been hearing in the media, is it?

Josh Horwitz of Coalition to Prevent Gun Ownership hates logic.

Does MAIG support sexual harassment?

Joe gave me a scare for a bit, but it raises a good question of how many of us have first aid training? I admit to being deficient in this area.

Good to see folks had fun at the Northeast Blogger Shoot. I went shooting in New Hampshire once, but the journey through Mordor has only gotten more perilous.

Destroying gun control as a political movement is our end game. To do that, we have to make it a toxic issue for both parties. We have succeeded, largely, in convincing many Republicans. Now the Democrats have to be freshly punished for their late transgressions. Maybe then they’ll finally get it for good.

The Brady Campaign gets one of their lawsuits tossed. I’m sure it was helpful for fundraising letters while it lasted. Eugene Volokh has more on the lawsuit getting tossed.

Expect the antis to keep pushing this concealed carry insurance mandate. Anything to drive up the cost and deny the poor the same rights the 1% have. They even have a blog.

Senate Democrats have abandoned efforts to pass a law this year. This has the right people very upset.

NRA is appealing the 18-20 year old gun rights case to the Supreme Court. I’ll be surprised if they grant cert on this, but anything is possible.

Smith & Wesson employees seem particularly worried about the prospect of more gun control in Massachusetts. They should be worried. The left has shown that gun control fantasies are more important to them than good paying jobs.

Second Bite at the Apple for CCW in New Jersey

After failing in the federal 3rd Circuit,Â the Second Amendment will have another bite at the apple at the New Jersey Supreme Court. I don’t expect this to go differently than in the 3rd. I’ll be shocked if it does. Most likely the NJSC wants to revise their now antiquated collective-rights ruling to be one which recognizes the Second Amendment as being a fundamental, inalienable right that doesn’t mean anything, so don’t get any ideas, peon.

As a side note, though somewhat related, if I could pick one fact to drive into the brains of gun owners around the country, it’s that the Second Amendment doesn’t fundamentally mean anything short of what the robed ones say it means. You’d be surprised how common the “Well, they just can’t do that. The Second Amendment, you see…” like the founding fathers are just going to descend from the heavens and beat some sense back into policymakers if someone gets it wrong. They have no idea how much this game has been rigged.

They Can Add Me to the List …

… of people who are not fans of Chief Kessler. IÂ think his being the public image of this issue in Pennsylvania is more harmful than helpful. In the past few years, I’ve I haven’t been talking as much about what I think is smart activism, versus what I think is just clownish behavior can actually hurt the cause. I’ve heard Chief Kessler speak, and heard what he has to say, and I did not walk away with a favorable impression of him as someone who can carry our message effectively. The news stories since then have not dissuaded me from that view.

In the wake of the Newtown tragedy, we had a strong, local upwelling of pro-gun sentiment that happened relatively spontaneously. After years of trying and failing to organize in various contexts, it was something to feel optimistic about. But as time wore on, the sensible folks who wanted to do real political engagement were pushed out by the clowns and whack-a-doodles, and the crowds aren’t turning out anymore. The potential is there, but it’s not surprising to discover most gun owners don’t really want to engage in loud and aggressive open carry protests and counter-protests all of the time. Every tactic has its limits.

After this groundswell got started, the local politicians were paying attention. Even politicians we never figured would touch the gun issue with a 20 foot pole were at least willing to come see what the buzz was about. Now I’d be surprised if they want to touch the gun issue with a 50 foot pole, especially if they think it’ll mean having to explain their involvement with a group allied with Chief Kessler’s CSF to their largely suburban constituents.

Only about half of households are gun owning, and many of them are completely unfamiliar with the gun culture. They have a difficult time even putting something like IPSC or IDPA into context, let alone something like a Constitutional Security Force. Additionally, it’s always a good rule of thumb is that when even fellow gun owners are put off by your tactics, it’s a signal you might want to rethink what you’re doing. You can hew and haw all you want about how wrong they are, and you might have a point, but at the end of the day you need to bring those people along with whatever you want to accomplish.

There is a very strong strain in the pro-gun community that seems to believe only good intentions matter, and arguing over what makes for effective tactics amounts to a form of elitism. I’ve resisted these conversations in recent years, because to be honest, I haven’t had the time or energy to deal with it. But I’ve watched too much opportunity here in Pennsylvania get sacrificed to clownish behavior in the past few months to keep completely silent about it.

Here’s the cold, hard truth: if we do not manage to keep suburban legislators and suburban voters on the side of, or at the least acquiesced to the idea of civilian gun ownership, Pennsylvania will slowly begin transforming into New Jersey and New York. Attitudes might be a bit different in places like Gilberton, but because of migration patterns in Pennsylvania, it’s increasingly suburban Philadelphia voters who call the shots in state elections. You can’t avoid having to consider what those voters think of you.

And it’s not just suburban voters; suburban gun owners have to feel comfortable being involved. Tactics that alienate and keep them on the sofa are cutting off your nose to spite your face. It takes more than a couple dozen activists with megaphones, banners, flags, and ARs and AKs strung across their chests to defeat a gun control bill, to push a pro-gun bill, or to successfully swing elections. Whether you want to accept it or not, those three things are the meat and potatoes of political action. Anything that doesn’t involve supporting those processes is window dressing.

As a movement, we seem to enjoy window dressing a bit too much these days, and my fear is that’s going to kill us if we’re not careful.

Rhetoric in the Gun Control Movement

While Sebastian was reading the anti-gun communication playbook that others have posted, he was rather shocked that making tiny distinctions in language was apparently tested and showed different results. The pollsters & marketing staff warn the gun control advocates:

DO advocate for â€œstrongerâ€ gun laws. DONâ€™T use the term â€œstricterâ€ gun laws.

He asked me if one word change like that while talking about the same policies would make a difference. Yes, it can to a low information voter.

Take away the topic at hand – gun control – and just think about how you think about the words “strict” and “strong.” If we played a word association game, you’d probably name pretty negative things with the word “strict,” but mostly attribute positive things with “strong.” They know that gun control isn’t a positive thing, so they want to candy coat it with positive words.

Related to that instruction is their explanation that women will likely to pay attention to them if they use the phrases “reducing gun violence” and “reducing gun crime” interchangeably. However, they found that men really only come around to their ideas when they are presented “reducing gun crime.”

I suspect that’s because lower information male voters are more likely to hear their policy proposals as something related to punishing criminals if you frame as a gun crime reducer. However, women seem to view the ideas as solutions for everything bad in the world. I do think this is related to the above issue of “stronger” versus “stricter.” It’s the similar process of candy coating something, but it’s also because being seen as standing up against crime is viewed as a good thing.

Now, we can learn from this, but you really should already know the lesson I’m about to mention. Where we really make inroads with fence sitters and low information gun voters is by talking about the ways that specific legislation will turn them or people they know into criminals. People want to stand up against criminals when they think it is some masked dude hiding in an alley, but they get pretty pissy when they find out the definition of criminal is simply being changed to include them and their buddies.

It’s a simple lesson in making the political personal, and it’s something you should all try to do in every discussion about the issue.

It is the same thing I do when I try to make signs and lists at gun shows that highlight the types of guns the attendees are likely to own or know people who own them that anti-gunners are currently trying to ban. I use the scarier language, but I also frame it in a way that people understand that it will impact their lives.

Ammo Hunting

I hope everyone had a satisfactory weekend. I spent part of it at Cabela’s teaching my dad how to buy ammo without looking like a newb. Several years ago he moved from the Delaware Valley to Bumfsck, Central Pennsylvania, and he’s been interacting with the local culture. Unfortunately, the rifle I lent him is chambered in .17HMR, which is about as rare as hen’s teeth these days, so I was growing concerned that we wouldn’t be able to feed it.

Fortunately he just called and told me he scored some at a local gun shop. I guess panicking suburbanites aren’t making their way out to the rural shops to clean the shelves of rimfire ammo just yet. A quick safety check shows he was learning good habits, so the people teaching him seem to be on top of that kind of thing. That’s not something I wanted to take for granted because some of the poorest gun handling I’ve seen has been on public ranges in rural areas where everyone grows up around it. Fortunately, my dad has access to a private range.Â As I’ve mentioned before, I did not grow up in a gun owning family. I didn’t really get into shooting until after I moved out and had a decent paying job where I could afford toys.

Attacking the Shooting Sports in Colorado

With so many major gun control legislative battles happening around the country in the spring, it was easy to miss the local level stories that reflect just how far gun control proponents really wanted to go in their crusade. Sebastian & I both missed the story recounted on this Friends of NRA committee page from Colorado Springs.

I donâ€™t know how many of you heard about it on the news, but the Board of County Commissioners, every year, declares the banquet day to be â€˜Friends of NRA Dayâ€™ in El Paso County.

Nobody has ever cared one way or the other â€¦ until this year. Someone decided to raise a stink and it made all the papers and the local news. Protestors showed up at the BoCC meeting and it took them several hours of testimony before they could vote. They UNANIMOUSLY agreed to declare it â€˜Friends of NRA Dayâ€™ despite the opposition, misinformation, and general ugliness.

Keep in mind that this a resolution simply recognizing a single event for a non-profit organization that doesn’t engage in lobbying or politics and simply supports the shooting sports. Yet, that was still unacceptable to anti-gun leaders in Colorado. When they say that we can keep our shooting sports, it sounds a bit hollow when they turn around and try to banish all recognition of them, even when it’s not a political fight.

The good news is that not only did they win the resolution vote, but they managed to turn it into an opportunity to raise some more money for shooting programs in Colorado:

The original, signed Resolution was read by the sponsoring Commissioner and then donated to the committee for live auction. Before we sold it, Sheriff Terry Maketa (who received a HUGE standing ovation for all his efforts on our behalf) signed it at the bottom, and Congressman Doug Lamborn did the same. It went for $2000!!!!!!! Then the back up bidder asked for a second signed copy for $1200!!!!

I’m really glad to hear that this local group of activists managed to turn a nightmare battle into a positive for the cause.

Anti-Gunners: Go for Bans & Attack Concealed Carry Licensees

Continuing to look at the anti-gun communication strategy book making its way around the internet, there were more than a few tips that struck me as rather odd.

First, there’s a clear theme that they want the gun control groups to jump on board with a semi-automatic ban again. They really put a big focus on how they want anti-gun advocates to continually describe modern rifles as more dangerous than previous rifles owned by their grandparents.

By telling their supporters to stay away from facts and details, they keep them focused on the broader message so that they don’t end up in a Carolyn McCarthy moment.

She tries to follow the same kind of tactics they are endorsing, and she almost manages to get away with it twice. But the people who wrote this report know that their supporters will almost never be caught in a situation like this and hope that their followers will be able to get away from refusing to answer detailed questions.

However, this video is a great reminder that catching your opponents in moments like this can really hurt their credibility. If you’re ever at an event with a Q&A period with a gun ban supporter or if you yourself ever take one on in a debate, have a question like this in your mental file. Just ask what a specific part of a gun is and why it should be regulated. It’s such a simple question, and most of the antis, especially ones who read advice like in this report, will completely fall down on it.

As part of the AWB push, they also promote the idea that all “loopholes” must be closed with any proposed bills so that no supposedly “more deadly” guns can be sold again. Basically, they suggest to their supporters that they go BIG when it comes to promoting a gun ban. My assumption is that this is a way to try and inch the “compromise” line closer to their ultimate position. There’s a case to be made for that style of arguing, but those kinds of proposals are also what help us motivate more gun owners to act. So, for that reason, I really hope that all anti-gun groups follow this advice of being as extreme as possible.

One way they suggest getting people to buy into the messaging is through visuals. This is good advice for our side. But just so you know what you may be going up against, their advice to use visuals to scary looking rifles and guns to illustrate their call for gun control. Anti-gun advocates don’t want to talk specifics of bills at all, just find the scariest guns they can find and then claim that’s all they really want to ban. Don’t write it off, it works. That’s why I use eye-catching lists at gun shows targeted to my audience to highlight the kinds of things they want to regulate. It gets people who otherwise aren’t inclined to act to step up.

When Sebastian was reading the report, he noticed an interesting trend. While they warn off insulting NRA members, they actually embrace insulting concealed carry license holders. They refer to those who are licensed to carry their firearms outside of the home as “gun-toting vigilantes.” Even when they know that these folks have had the repeated background checks they hold in such high regard, they still argue that anti-gun advocates should frame the debate that these people licensed to carry in public are a danger to society.

I can’t fathom where this type of attack got the blessing of the report writers since they warned off similar individual attacks of NRA members. Consider the Pennsylvania numbers for concealed carry through the end of 2011 (the latest data available on the State Police website), there were 792,317 concealed carry licenses issued in between 2007-2011. In the 2010 census, there were only about 9.9 million people 18 and over in Pennsylvania. That means it’s safe to say that these folks suggest hurling personal insults to about 1 in 10 Pennsylvania voters. It’s no wonder they don’t want to talk politics since no politician would take the advice to piss off about 10% of the voting population with a few careless words.

On other specific policy debates, the report suggests staying away from actual legal principles like “duty to retreat.” They acknowledge that it is a real legal principle that comes into play in self-defense laws, but they ask people not to talk about it. Once a duty to retreat is mentioned, it would seem that law-abiding folks don’t like that concept as much. These anti-gunners don’t want to have to defend the fundamental argument they are making – that innocent victims should be blamed for not retreating properly when attacked by criminals.

The report also asks gun control proponents to avoid talking about details of their background check policies. They suggest that being weighed down by details of their proposals is a bad thing. Well, yeah, it is a bad thing for them. When details start coming out about their background check proposals, that’s when they start losing all of the gun owner support they claim they have. So, in order to keep that perceived support, they ask anti-gunners to just stay away from all details of proposals and keep voters in the dark.

Overall, these concepts aren’t anything new to those of us who have watched the language of anti-gun groups over the years. However, it is handy to see that they have been packaged in a way that will likely make its way around their lower level activists. If they use these strategies, now our people can have a better understanding of the tactics and how to defeat them.