Happy Friday! Time to clear the tabs again.
Member of DNC Platform Committee doesn’t think anyone should have a gun.
Clayton Cramer examines “Gunning for America,” which we talked about here. Clayton notes in the paper: “The Gunning of America Builds on Sand.”
Notice how women’s magazines are running all these anti-gun articles? I don’t believe this is a coincidence. It’s got to be someone’s campaign. If this sage advice had been followed.
Civil Rights victory in New Hampshire! They are no longer allowed to deny permits on the basis of not having one from their home state. We happen to know the parties involved in this case. New Hampshire was a good option for New Jersey people to be able to carry in other states, and now it is again!
John Lott: “Four ways Hillary Clinton will work to end gun ownership as president”
The Guardian profiles Cody Wilson.
Gun related stocks tank on news that NICS numbers are softening. At some point the gun bubble is going to burst, but if you look at the numbers, this is still the best April on record.
Crime drops when NRA comes to town. Happens every year. You’d think based on what the anti-gun groups say, the city would be rife with shootings over parking spaces and gun accidents.
Dennis Henigan: “Guns Make Killing Easy.” Of course, the flip side to that is they also make it easy to defend yourself. That old saying “God may have created man, but it was Sam Colt that made them equal.”
Boston Globe: “Katie Couric’s editing of ‘Under the Gun’ seems to have backfired.”
Yeah, it’s a sad truth that if you watch gun handling at the NRA convention, you’ll start to wonder how accidental shootings are so rare. I’ve always told myself there are probably a lot of non-gun folks who come to ooh and ah. Yes, that sounds comforting.
Hillary Clinton won’t say whether there’s a constitutional right to carry a firearm. Almost certainly she’ll put people on the Supreme Court who will say there isn’t one, if they don’t just overturn Heller outright.
Don’t for a minute let anyone tell you Hillary isn’t flatly against the Second Amendment.
Brian Anse Patrick has a few unkind words to say about “Arming America” “The Gunning of America”
The Ivory ban is going through, but it looks like there’s some exception for firearms.
Denying fundamental constitutional rights based on browser history. Obama is a master of “Let me argue against this stereotype of what you believe rather than addressing the real issues.”
Off Topic:
Slaying Daesh: An American Advisor in Iraq.
You missed that (disgraced) general petreus joins Mark Kelly’s gun control group.
“John Lott: ‘Four ways Hillary Clinton will work to end gun ownership as president’ ”
I’m not going to suggest a single thing John Lott said in that article is wrong. But I am going to say I wish he would do more to preserve his credibility as an academic, rather than reducing himself to a dime-a-dozen partisan mercenary, which as nearly as I can tell, is what he’s been for at least 15 years now. Even if he did write that article himself, he should have passed it off for someone else to publish.
Back in 2002 I had a brief run-in with Lott over his shilling for anti-gun Republican gubernatorial candidate Mike Fisher. I wrote a long article about Mike Fisher’s transgressions at the time.
In an internet confrontation with Lott about it, I determined that he — trusted researcher that he was — had no actual knowledge of the candidate he was enthusiastically shilling for. It was pretty clear he was merely selling his name to the campaign as a mercenary. And at that, Fisher deservedly lost.
My complaint is, that so many of us have cited Lott’s work on gun issues for so many years, that when he discredits himself as an academic by becoming nothing but a partisan mercenary, he renders his past work valueless, and squanders the credibility of those of us who cite it.
Do we really need an academic researcher to tell us that Hillary will be bad news for gun rights? I don’t think so. He should be restricting himself to giving us some fresh academic studies to support our positions.
I wish he would do more to preserve his credibility as an academic, rather than reducing himself to a dime-a-dozen partisan mercenary, which as nearly as I can tell, is what he’s been for at least 15 years now. Even if he did write that article himself, he should have passed it off for someone else to publish.
Yep. I agree completely. A lot of others have played that game better. Then there’s the whole Mary Rosh thing. I appreciate the work he’s done, but there’s been a lot of self-inflicted wounds over the years that have damaged his credibility.