Category: Anti-Gun Folks

When an Oregon paper editorializes that Obama’s pro-gun moves have been sensible, it really has to chap hides over at the Brady Campaign. That’s partially because the paper otherwise supports the anti-gun agenda and is willing to give a pass on some issues, but also because even when they take our side, the facts are wrong. It’s rather funny, actually.

The anti-Second Amendment group last week criticized Obama for “continuing concessions to the ‘guns anywhere’ mentality of the gun lobby.”
…
The restriction in national parks was unenforceable, and lifting it has caused no harm as far as has been reported.

Likewise, the Amtrak ban on transporting guns in checked baggage was nonsensical on its face, considering that the only people it affected were legitimate hunters and competitive shooters traveling to marksmanship matches. It forced these people to transport their equipment on the highways instead of taking the train. Criminals, on the other hand, if any were taking Amtrak trains, could carry their handguns concealed as they got on the train.

By signing acts of Congress that got rid of these restrictions, Obama did the sensible thing.

So now they’ve been called out on their Chicken Little response to everything we support by a sympathetic group, and that can’t be fun. But the knife has got to hurt a little more since the support for the national park carry is justified by the fact that it hasn’t caused any notable problems. While I doubt it ever will cause problems when it actually takes effect, I’m sure that Peter Hamm is writing a swift response to claim the end of civilization in and around national parks won’t happen until next month. Just wait, that sky will fall soon!

Maybe now the Brady staffers will get a very small dose of what it’s like when the media grandstands on the issue without actually knowing what the hell they are talking about. We’ve been dealing with the problem for years.

The President’s State of the Union address would have been a prime opportunity for Obama to speak about gun control. The police officer who stopped the Fort Hood shooting was among the audience, but was never acknowledged (none of his guests were, actually, which is kind of shocking). You have all the props there to make a good argument for the Brady Position. Not a peep. Nothing. That has to hurt, especially after they tried to embarrass him by making a media sensation out of giving him a failing grade.

Josh Sugarmann notes that Pennsylvania is number one in Black Homicide victimization. His solution, naturally, is to “put a focus on reducing access to firearms.” I don’t see any reason to inject race into the equation, other than it makes his numbers work out for states that he wants to put pressure on. Any murder is a problem for society, and the solution to fixing the problem of murder is the same no matter what the race, color or creed of the murderer or victim — locking the criminals up, and making sure they serve real time. Studies have shown that among alleged murderers in Philadelphia, nine out of ten have had prior criminal records, with half being charged with either violent offenses or weapons offenses. Josh’s response is to turn society into a low level prison, where the innocent and guilty are likewise punished.

Looks like Heeding God’s Call is getting their new media game on with a shiny new Facebook page, where for now people can comment freely. If arguing the religious and philosophical basis for self-defense isn’t your thing, CeaseFire PA also has a Facebook group, and it’s all “Lost and Stolen” all the time over there. Well, assuming there was any discussion, which so far it doesn’t appear that there is.

I don’t expect these to be open discussion forums for long. Our experience with gun control new media projects is that when they are overwhelmed by pro-gun arguments, they quickly decide that stifling the opposition viewpoint is really the best means to their ends.

There’s been some coverage of the Brady Campaign turning on the Obama Administration. Namely from The Hill, Politico, and NPR, just to name some. The biggest MSM coverage that I’ve seen is this blurb in USA Today, where it’s mentioned among many other left-leaning groups that graded Obama. but my favorite one is probably this, from a small town Washington State news outlet:

Also clearly, the folks [at the Brady Center] aren’t showing much political savvy of the kind that allows a president to govern.

Case in point — the Massachusetts election Tuesday for the vacant U.S. Senate seat once held by Sen. Ted Kennedy.

The Brady Center’s Paul Helmke, in endorsing Democrat Martha Coakley, said: “This race is a clear choice between a tough, law-and-order leader who wants to fight gun violence in Massachusetts and a state legislator who has, either wittingly or unwittingly, become a poster child for the ‘guns everywhere’ gun lobby.”

The National Rifle Association was upfront about what it thought of her opponent, Republican Scott Brown.

“Scott Brown is ‘A’ rated by the NRA Political Victory Fund,” the NRA’s Political Victory Fund website says.

Massachusetts voters resoundingly chose Brown, a state senator.

I don’t know if I’d be that harsh. Progressive are abandoning Obama like rats from a sinking ship at this point, and the Bradys are no doubt wanting to join, in the hopes that Obama might decide he needs to win back a few friends, and they might be one of them. Plus, getting cozy with other disillusioned progressives might bring some money in, and that wouldn’t be unwelcome by the Bradys, who have to be getting desperate for money at this point.

It wouldn’t be an unreasonable strategy if Brady had something to offer Obama and the Democrats in return for support, but what do they have? Money? No. Their PAC spent nary a cent in the last election, only 55 thousand dollars, or thereabouts. For contrast, Brady spending in 2004 was three times as much. Spending in the 2000 election was more than thirty times. Votes? The lack of ability for anti-gun groups to deliver votes is fairly undisputed in political circles at this point. So what do they have to offer Obama? Of the holy trinity, only favorable or unfavorable media can really be truly delivered, which is what they decided to try here. But I have to admit, they will need more than a brief blurb in USA Today, and some of the online sources to return to the former glory days of Handgun Control Incorporated. So far I would say this gambit is falling flat.

Via Dave Hardy, we have this fun article from The Hill:

President Barack Obama received a failing grade this year from The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence on Monday .

The Brady Campaign blasted the president, whom the group endorsed in 2008, for not having taken significant steps to advance gun control laws.

“It’s been a very disappointing year for us, especially considering what he campaigned on,” the group’s president, Paul Helmke, said during an appearance on MSNBC. “This year they ran away from the issue, and actually signed two repeals of good gun legislation.”

I’ll be honest, I think they are being a bit hard on Barry. It’s not like we weren’t careful to ensure these provisions were attached to must-pass legislation he really couldn’t have vetoed. It’s also not like Congress is in the mood to take up gun control, even if Barry wanted to. If the Bradys want someone to be mad at it ought to be Rahm, who is the one who orchestrated the Democrats’ return to power using moderate Democrats who were more sensitive to the sensibilities and temperament of their local districts. They are the reason the President is painted into a corner on this issue.

But I can also see why they are disappointed. They probably thought they were backing another Clinton. Even better, a candidate who hated guns even more than Clinton. But when Bill wasn’t busy playing “hide the cigar” with his female interns, he was busy fighting culture wars. Obama doesn’t seem to have any interest in culture war issues, probably because he’s way too focused on making the entire economy a ward of the state. Culture wars are for later, you see. Clinton was just ahead of his time.

The Brady Campaign are engaged in a new media campaign to try to bring the number of sponsors of HR 2324, the bill that would severely reduce the number of gun shows in this country through onerous regulation, up to one hundred. The current number of Congressional Cosponsors is 82. That’s not a bill that’s going anywhere, really. One striking aspect of the sponsors and cosponsors is just how geographically concentrated they are. To show you, I made up a quick map:

View Sponsors and Cosponsors of HR2324 in a larger map
I took the sponsors and cosponsors of this bill, and dropped a pin on their district offices so you can get an idea of where they represent. You can see significant clustering. Fully 60% of the bill’s sponsors are located in just three states: California, New York and New Jersey. A full twenty nine US states do not have any members of their delegation sponsoring this bill. Of the twenty-one that do, eight of those states only have one rogue member of their delegation, and seven more only have two members of their delegation (Pennsylvania has two, Fattah (Philly) and Schwartz (Philly & Montco)). Illinois has five members, all in Chicago. Massachusetts has three, centered around Boston. Within California, support is concentrated around Los Angeles and San Francisco almost exclusively. Within New York, around New York City. Within New Jersey, it is almost exclusively confined to the populated areas near New York City and Central New Jersey.

This is not broad support. This is a few cities trying to impose their attitudes toward guns and gun ownership on the rest of the country. Eighty three sponsors and cosponsors are only nineteen percent of Congress, after all. So I agree with the Brady Campaign on this one. Call your Congress Critter. If he or she is on this list, tell he/she you want them off it, and if he/she is not on it, please ask them to oppose HR 2324.

Harold Ford, based on NRA grades, was never a gun owner’s best friend. But as a C rated candidate in Tennessee, that’s not nearly anti-gun enough for Manhattan. Via Dave Adams at @VSSA, we find out that Ford is now declaring that record to be not representative of his new views.

I remain committed to promoting gun safety and handgun control, and I look forward to working with Mayor Bloomberg and Newark Mayor Corey Booker and their coalition to reduce handgun violence in cities across America.