Hopefully this will make you guys crack a smile. It’s cheesy, but it’s an amusing take on the shoe throwing incident of 2008.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ua05RTaDE8o[/youtube]
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State …
Hopefully this will make you guys crack a smile. It’s cheesy, but it’s an amusing take on the shoe throwing incident of 2008.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ua05RTaDE8o[/youtube]
Tonight we went to Cabela’s for a bit of random shopping and just to get out of the house. Sebastian wanted to look at a few miscellaneous shooting-related items, and I was happy to learn that I could exchange the shotgun shell Christmas lights in for a set that actually works. (We ordered two strings online, and one didn’t function at all. I was not pleased.) So yay for a Cabela’s trip, right? Uhhh…no. It’s not looking good for shooters who want somewhere to shop in person. Sadly, I think the non-hunting among us can look forward to mostly shopping online at other stores.
I just have to brag…
Oklahoma quarterback Sam Bradford arrived in Norman three years ago with modest hype and low expectations. The Sooners’ coaches acknowledged that they had recruited him for depth behind Rhett Bomar, who had been the country’s top quarterback prospect.
But Bradford’s rise from relative obscurity to national pre-eminence was sealed Saturday night when he won the Heisman Trophy, which is given annually to the country’s most outstanding college football player. …
In leading No. 2 Oklahoma (12-1) to the Bowl Championship Series title game against Tebow and the Gators, Bradford orchestrated the most prolific season in the modern era of college football. The Sooners scored 702 points, the first modern team to break the 700 mark. They finished with a flourish, scoring more than 60 points in each of their final five games.
Bradford led the nation with 48 touchdown passes and threw only 6 interceptions. He finished with an average of 14.78 yards a completion.
I’ll be looking forward to OU kicking Florida’s ass in the Championship.
If you have never heard of Nigella Lawson before, you’ll start to fall in love with her right now. If she didn’t live in London, some of you might volunteer to go protect her since she recently pissed off ALF and PETA.
When asked on BBC1’s The One show if she thought the fashion industry should outlaw fur, Nigella replied that she would wear it if she could kill the animal herself. …
Then she made a stabbing motion and added, “Going into a shop and buying a fur coat would be an act of weakness. But if I could go into the woods and kill a bear myself, I would wear it proudly as a trophy.’’
ALF just named her a “legitimate target” according to one outfit. PETA seems more sane by simply saying her comments make her unattractive. I’ll let you guys decide if they are right.
I knew a woman who trapped the foxes that made up her vest. I admit, I think it would be pretty cool to have a fur jacket that I caught myself.
Obama did his little YouTube weekly address, and he started to release the details of his economic plan. Would you like to see it visualized?
That’s the big first step. You think I’m joking? No.
Yes, we all know about England’s gun laws. Yes, we all know they are even cracking down on drinking. Yes, we all call them the nanny state and have for years.
But I bet you didn’t know it went this far*:
In England at least, you have limited choices; for a wedding to be legally binding it must be conducted in a licensed building. This effectively gives you three choices: a registry office, another licensed building for a civil wedding service or a religious building registered to carry out marriages (i.e. a church). Further restrictions relate to weddings taking place in churches as it must either be your parish church (effectively your local church) or a church with which you have a ’special connection’ and for which you must have a ’special license’. Unlike America, you cannot get married outside although it is possible to have a civil ceremony first and exchange vows again outside.
You can’t even get married outside? That’s nuts!
I read something the other day that just didn’t sit with me very well. I mulled over it a bit, and decided to focus on the one section of a much longer post about building infrastructure for a conservative movement. Patrick Ruffini, while calling on the right to stop popping out new groups all the time and focus on the good ones we have, broke down the grassroots into three segments. The way he worded it was what jumped out at me.
Right now, the balance of power in the conservative movement when it comes to grassroots muscle rests with the economic (AFP, FreedomWorks, Club for Growth, etc.) and social (AFA, Focus, etc.) wings. You also have the NRA.
I agree with Sebastian on coalition building in order to advance our pro-gun efforts. I realize that we are not the only issue the GOP can cling to, and in fact, it’s actually pretty far down the pecking order of day-to-day political issues, even with the most anti-gun leaders in office. (We are lucky to have that be the case. Can you imagine hearings in 6 different committees on a dozen different versions of gun control every few months? I’m exaggerating, but you get the idea.)
However, reading that, I’m curious about the fact that NRA members are singled out. One, we’re last. Two, we don’t even get put into the same sentence. While I’m glad that it’s recognized that among those who commit to grassroots work for gun rights, we may differ on our social and economic views, it’s still troubling to just be casually thrown in like that at the end. (That’s not to nitpick Ruffini’s sentence structure, I’m just explaining my thought process as I read his piece.)
I had to ask, are we the “oh yeah, them, too” members of the movement? Many of us certainly feel that way.
Considering NRA’s membership numbers far out pace all of the other listed groups, we shouldn’t be. When you also consider that most of those other groups define member as anyone added to their email list in the last 5 years, vs. NRA requiring you to fork over $35 every year, it’s even more daunting. By simply having a mandatory paid membership model, NRA members prove every single year that we’re more willing to engage at the grassroots level than any of the other group lists.
So why do so many of our activists feel like when they do engage with others in the movement that we’re taken advantage of? I don’t think it is quite as simple as an attitude of “who else are they going to vote for? Barack Obama?” from the other conservative activists. I think a big part of it is our fault. When I think about events where a standard right-of-center activist might encounter gun nuts, I realize that gun nuts aren’t there. NRA is, and they try to give our issue presence. But we’re not.
For example, in my years of going to CPAC, I was used to seeing people there who spotted the NRA booth and their reactions are generally limited to variations on these themes:
That’s not the entire crowd by any means, but for most people, the issue is not a serious thought. They don’t know the political battles we’re fighting. They don’t know that beyond NRA, we have even more local communities like our gun clubs and even commercial ranges.
I think there are ways that NRA has successfully managed to rise above getting a pat on the head from the crowd by doing things like having Cam broadcast live from radio row. It reminds folks that there is a real issue to deal with in the political game. It’s not always an every day issue, but when it comes up, it’s usually big one way or the other.
But where are the attendees who make it clear that they are there for the Second Amendment? Where are the folks sitting in the crowd between speakers talking to the people around them about how guns are targeted more often at the state and local level? You don’t find us there.
When going door-to-door for the campaigns this year, the Victory Office gave us a bag full of buttons to choose from in case we needed them to identify us with a volunteer effort. There were no sportsmen buttons in there. There were clipboards with various coalition group bumper stickers plastered on there – not one had sportsmen. (At least until Sebastian got his hands on one with no stickers at all…) People complimented our Sportsmen for McCain t-shirts we created online, and that was the extent to which they saw gun owners involved. We had to create our own visibility.
Now, this doesn’t mean that I think every gun owner needs to go out and make their own “Sportsmen for X-Candidate” gear to make us visible. When I was in the main phone bank room one afternoon and we took a collective breather, I talked to the other volunteers about why I was there – gun rights. Plain and simple. Yes, I liked other issues, but gun rights were the top of my activist agenda. We attended the local GOP volunteer party even though we’re not Republicans. Sebastian talked to a candidate about why he needed to return his NRA questionnaire next time, and we met one of his fellow club members who was brought to the event by a friend – another discussion in front of conservative activists about gun rights as an issue.
There is a lot of work to do to solve this problem. But, if we want more proactive candidates, and we want a hand on the proverbial steering wheel of any political party or social movement, we have to become more visible. For those of us who identify on multiple fronts of the conservative movement, we need to mix it up in those circles a bit. Get in those other circles and talk about guns as an issue we face, and why it is one that inspires your activism.
We can’t keep making excuses that our guys would rather just be at the range instead of out talking to the other members of the movement. Every issue has that problem. We just need to get over it if we want that position of “you also have the NRA” to change. If we don’t, then we can keep on being keyboard warriors and resign ourselves to sitting in the back seat instead of with a hand on the wheel.
Just to note, this is an even bigger problem in the Democratic circles since gun rights are marginalized within their activist base. But everyone here is pro-gun and can at least acknowledge that many of our political friends (though by no means all) are on the right side of the aisle – especially at the federal level. I definitely don’t have any special solutions there, but I’d love to hear ideas from those who lean left on other issues
Dr. Helen describes a gift she found online that may possibly be one of the worst gifts ever – for the child’s parents anyway. Her response to the description?
How much must you hate the parents of the kid that you give this to? I can’t imagine how annoying and loud this thing must be. Nothing like a loud magaphone, flashing lights and a working fire hose to bring tranquility to the house.
She then asks her readers for stories about annoying gifts their kids have received and what ultimately happened to the items.
Not having any children, this isn’t something I’ve had to deal with. However, Sebastian and I were quite concerned about it while shopping for his buddy’s son recently. We tested any toy we considered throwing into the gift bag.
No really, it’s not a political debate. They just got it wrong. The Capitol Visitor Center opened today, and Heritage Foundation’s Matt Spalding highlights how Congress got it wrong.
In the Visitor Center’s Exhibition Hall, the theme is “E Pluribus Unum — Out of Many, One.†Initially, words etched in marble called that stirring phrase the nation’s motto. A bad plaster job now covers the reference, someone having noticed that, well, “E Pluribus Unum†is not our national motto. “In God We Trust†is.
You’d think for a project that ran more than double the projected costs and is nearly 5 years overdue, they would take some time to get it right. But what’s more troubling is the blatant left-wing bias that permeates the exhibit. The Washington Times reports on the butchering of the Constitution:
He singled out the display on “Knowledge,” which he said selectively cuts the powers granted to Congress by Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, reducing the full explanation “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries” to an expansive grant: “The Congress shall have Power To … promote … useful Arts.”
The display says that grant of powers is the basis under which Congress has founded the Library of Congress, “promoted public education, supported the arts and sciences, and funded extensive research.”
Essentially anything in the Constitution that discusses a limit on power got chopped. Lovely.
The Times reports that members of both parties reviewed the education materials and approved them. In fact, the Architect of the Capitol, the office charged with creating the Visitor Center, noted in a letter that the GOP very specifically signed off on this interpretation:
In June of 2005, the Commission, under the Co-Chairmanship of Speaker Dennis Hastert and President Pro Tempore Senator Ted Stevens, unanimously approved the CVC exhibit plan and script of the thirteen minute orientation film. Subsequently, in December of 2006, the Commission unanimously approved the final version of the orientation film under the continuing leadership of Co-Chairmen Hastert and Stevens.
And because this is a gun blog, there’s no mention of the Second Amendment of any text of it anywhere in the educational materials or the script of the movie. Unfortunately, combined with the hatchet job done on the rest of the Constitution, these are gaps that not even a bad plaster job can fill.
UPDATE: Oh yeah, and Harry Reid is just happy he doesn’t have to smell the common people anymore.
And now with video:
NSSF mentioned last night that ACORN is asking to get involved in an appeal of a Jersey City case that twice previously threw out one-gun-a-month laws. But their brief doesn’t answer questions gun owners want to know like why the hell ACORN wants to get involved.
It turns out that ACORN has actually been involved with the case since that last appeal when they joined as intervenors for Jersey City in an effort to uphold the law to limit lawful sales. Why is ACORN involved in gun law litigation? According to their case filings, they believe that efforts to limit lawful gun ownership are relevant to their mission.
Oddly, you won’t find that in their “About” section on their website:
ACORN members across the country work to raise the minimum wage or enact living wage policies; eliminate predatory financial practices by mortgage lenders, payday lenders, and tax preparation companies; win the development of affordable housing and community benefits agreements; improve the quality of and funding for urban public schools; rebuild New Orleans; and pass a federal and state ACORN Working Families Agenda, including paid sick leave for all full time workers.
Nothing about gun control there. But here is what they said in previous case documents:
ACORN has a strong interest in supporting the gun control ordinance at issue in this case, because it can help reduce the number of handguns in Jersey City and therefore reduce the level of gun crime in our neighborhoods.
Anyone who knows anything about New Jersey gun laws already know that the permit-to-purchase system often limits lawful buyers to notably fewer than 12 guns a year. In fact, at the time the ordinance was being debated, City Council President Mariano Vega, Jr. described the law as “feel-good legislation that will probably not reduce crime, but we have to start somewhere, so I am voting yes.â€
But why is ACORN covertly targeting guns?
Let’s follow the money first. ACORN, not surprisingly, is popular with known anti-gunners and other names which aren’t know for their direct gun control work, but who fund many of the anti-gun foundations and projects.
The list goes on. I could spend a week cross posting all of the organizations that are handing money to each other to try and cover their tracks in support of gun bans and other gun control. You get the idea. ACORN is looking out for all of the pet issues supported by their top donors.
Second, let’s look at their arguments. How much gun control is ACORN really supporting? The case is only about one-gun-a-month, but can we expect them to get involved in future cases? Well, if this statement is reflective of their views, I’d say we can expect more:
This case does not concern an individual right to bear arms, which does not exist in New Jersey.
They rail against strict scrutiny in their brief, claiming that “the trial court’s improper application of strict scrutiny prevented it from reaching the correct conclusion.” In fact, they really fall into a game of name calling in their brief, and it’s targeted at the court that previously shot the ordinance down. They claim the court tried to act as a “super-legislature” by “independently concluding” that the ordinance was wrong because clearly all legally bought guns end up on the street and there are simply not enough hurdles to gun ownership in New Jersey.
ACORN makes the argument that reducing the supply of handguns to law abiding gun owners is clearly a rational step to reducing the number of crimes in the city. To support their view, they don’t look for actual results that have stemmed from previous attempts to ration guns, they just say that other people do it, so we should, too. They make no indication about where a line should be drawn. Do we stop at limiting the number of guns purchased in a month, or do we make other efforts to restrict ownership like, say, a ban? Based on their view that the Second Amendment doesn’t apply, it’s entirely possible they would support a complete ban.
One statement in their brief leads me to believe they would support a “may issue” licensing scheme for ownership, as we see in Massachusetts. (One town will issue a license to own, another will refuse it for any reason or no reason at all.) In trying to overcome the legal argument for state preemption over local gun laws, they say:
Certain aspects of gun control, such as licensing and permitting requirements may arguably benefit from uniform statewide regulation.
That wording leaves an awfully big door open to no longer having any state preemption, possibly having a patchwork of extreme and lax gun laws around a state that leaves the law abiding gun owners at risk. In fact, they close that section of their brief by making a much broader statement of support for patchwork gun laws beyond just licensing, permitting, and purchasing by claiming that the “trial court erred by failing to recognize that gun control is not a subject that requires uniform statewide treatment.”
Ultimately, it’s hard to say exactly where ACORN will go in terms of pushing gun control. From the sounds of it in Jersey, they would look favorably on just about anything, potentially even a ban. They draw no line in the sand for what they determine to be “reasonable” regulation. Given that their financial backers tend to support other gun control groups that also supported the DC ban, it’s reasonable to assume that they might go so far.
From what I hear, ACORN is involved with other gun-related litigation. I haven’t tracked down documents yet, but I’ll update if I find more.
*Lobbied for the DC Gun Ban; Supporters of VPC, Brady, & other anti-gun groups.
**The NJ Branch of Appleseed provided legal services to ACORN in the Jersey City Case.