Category: Gun Rights

Looks like other towns are violating Pennsylvania’s preemption statute.  Actually, violations of preemtion are all over if you look.  I never pay attention to it.   If one of the local townships wants to try to enforce it on me, I’ll gladly take them to court.

I was going to respond to a comment on Ahab’s site, but haloscan seems want to keep reloading, failing, and then clobbering my post. I’ll just do it here:

I know you already realize all of this. Where the problem comes in, I think, is that you guys are targeting different groups for different reasons. David et al are working against the abuses of the “ruling class” and unifying gun owners for a giant political battle – one that the Bill of Rights, not just the 2A, hinges on.

You, and I think most gun bloggers, are more focused on a more grass-roots “get Suzy Soccermom to see guns aren’t scary” strategy, and as you state, you want to instill a culture of self-defense.

And both methodologies need the other to succeed.

Read the whole thing, it’s a very insightful comment. I agree with Jay’s point here that we’re all in this together, and each have our place.

What I would point out, though, is that Suzy Soccer Mom is an intrinsic part of the political struggle. Pro-gun activists, and people who care about the issue, just don’t have enough votes on our own to be able to dictate terms to the politicians. We outnumber the anti-gun activists, but we don’t outnumber other voters. Politicians are not courageous people; they worry about appearing extreme. Scare Suzy Soccer Mom and her demographic too much, and we lose.

Base rallying is an important part of any political movement, and moderate rhetoric won’t typically accomplish that as effectively as more radical rhetoric. But in politics, it’s always a fine line. Every political movement has this problem; you have to keep your activists, volunteers, and donors excited about what you are doing, and involved in the issue. But you also need to avoid firing them up so much that you scare other people out of the movement, or scare voters who are non-ideological.

I don’t disagree that we need each other, and there are certainly people out there who feel very disillusioned about the state of our rights, and would drop out of the issue entirely if they didn’t feel they had a voice out there. I am not the voice for folks of that persuasion. I think we’re winning, both the political battle, and hearts and minds. There’s still a lot of road ahead, but I think we can make it.  There are still dangers: a uniformly hostile media, among other things, and we’re succeeding despite that.

I would just encourage everyone to remember there’s a fine tightrope that must be walked between base rallying, and going so far that we scare ordinary voters away from supporting, or at least not opposing us.

I want to clear up some things I said yesterday, and talk about a few issues. I definitely don’t want anyone to think I’m implying that other gun bloggers are extremists, or that more radical bloggers need to pipe down and be quiet. We’re all extremists compared to views of much of the general public, and I think it’s important to be cognizant of that. I also definitely don’t want to imply anything negative toward Ryan Horsley and how he’s handling his situation. Government agents are trying to close Red Trading Post, his family’s business. I don’t blame him at all for fighting back, or the way he’s been fighting back, and I hope he sticks it to them in the end and keeps his FFL.

My post from yesterday can best be summed up as “We have to be careful what we tell people, because there are boneheads out there.” If people show up to take a peek at what inspectors are doing, I really want them to be reasonable, because this kind of thing could get ugly fast if they are not.

David suggested that he’s not critical of the moderates, but that a more radical approach has it’s place, and I think he makes a good point with this. I read David’s blog because he picks up a lot of important stuff other people don’t, and the way he approaches our issue has a lot to do with the difference in content and style. I can’t, and wouldn’t deny him his place.

My objection to the radical approach has less to do with a disagreement with the radicals on many goals, than the fact that I think it’s not politically effective. Politics in a republic is really a debate between factions, and the voters are the ones who get to judge which side has the better arguments. American voters tend to be pragmatic, and not terribly ideological. In many ways this frustrates me, but in societies where that isn’t the case, they resort to violence more often to settle political questions. In the American political climate, you have to appeal to the voter’s sense of pragmatism, which means you need to use arguments they can relate to.

In talking to people about shooting, carrying, and the right to bear arms in general, I’ve had some that look at me like I had just eaten a kitten. Had even more who’s eyes gloss over, or who get that “oh god, I wish this guy would shut up” look. Our ideas and beliefs are pretty radical when presented to your average voter. This is a sad sad state of affairs, but it’s the reality that’s been made for us by a century of progressivism, urbanization, and a uniformly hostile media environment. It will take a long time to undo.

I consider people adhering to a more radical approach to be allies in this fight, but I won’t hide that I think a more incremental and moderate approach is more effective, and I will advocate for that.

UPDATE: Oops… I didn’t intent to close comments.

… meet kettle. The ATF accusing anyone of intimidation is almost laughable.

UPDATE: I’ve read the whole complaint. It would seem to me that citizens ought to be able to photograph agents of the government pretty much at will, and this should not be treated with suspicion. I sincerely hope that the judge in this case understands the need for citizens to be able to monitor the activities of their government.

When you have the power to ruin people’s lives and livelihoods with a stroke of the pen, then citizens damn well ought to have the right to scrutinize those activities. I’m sorry the agents felt threatened. I might even understand, if they don’t get the context, why they might feel that way. I’ve deleted more than a few threats to law enforcement on here, and I certainly don’t condone anyone advocating violence against anyone, including federal workers and law enforcement. There are boneheads in the pro-gun movement. They are out there. I don’t think Ryan Horsely or the person photographing the agents at work are among them, however.

Perhaps if government workers feel intimidated doing their jobs, they should be allowed to carry firearms if they want to. The second amendment, and one’s right to self-defense don’t go away just because you get a government paycheck.

Earlier in the year, when the shooting community came down like a ton of bricks on Jim Zumbo over his faux pas, I was pretty worried that his statements could be very damaging to us. Well, they didn’t turn out to be, and I think that’s largely because of how Jim handled himself after the incident. This blogger thinks Jim Zumbo did more for the shooting community than anyone else:

As a direct result of Jim Zumbo’s comments and subsequent fall from grace – Every hunting related magazine, journal, journalist, & tv show is currently pulling out all the stops to ‘prove’ to their sponsors and the NRA that they fully support ‘black rifles’ and their use for hunting. I’m reading article after article about the ‘perfect deer gun’ – a black rifle, etc, etc. Some of my favorite tv shows are featuring the hosts taking game with guess what – yes, you guessed it: black rifles.

Jim Zumbo touched off the spark that has allowed black rifles to go mainstream. My guess is that more and more hunters will begin to use these black rifles as they learn about them and see that they are accepted within the hunting community. This wouldn’t be happening if Jim Zumbo had just kept his opinion to himself.

I can’t really disagree too much with this.  While the AR platform’s popularity preceded Jim’s statement, it’s hard to deny that we’ve been getting more favorable media coverage on the topic since the incident.

There was a strong possibility, and indeed I think many of us felt, that his statements would be gobbled up by the press, anti-gun groups, and anti-gun politicians, and used to tar the whole community of AR shooters in the media and in the political sphere. But there was always another side to what Jim Zumbo said. The other side was that hunters were using ARs. He expressed resounding disapproval of this, but the idea was out there. Hunters were using these things, and if ordinary, normal people were using these for sporting purposes, maybe they deserve a second look?

I wouldn’t agree that Jim Zumbo’s statements were entirely responsible, but of all the ways that his statements could have screwed us, I think in the end, it probably did help.  That’s a big part of why I think Zumbo ought to be forgiven, welcomed back, and people should feel they can publish his writing and sponsor him again.

These are two people who should really pick topics to talk about where one of them actually has a friggin clue.  From Illinois:

Jeff Berkowitz: What about the state, should there be some state controls on the sale of guns?

Terri Ann Wintermute: I don’t have a problem with the waiting period. I don’t have a problem with registration.

Jeff Berkowitz: Would you like to see a ban on assault weapons?

Terri Ann Wintermute: It depends on what’s on the list?

Jeff Berkowitz: Semi-automatics. How about that? Do we need more semi-automatics out there?

Terri Ann Wintermute: I don’t know that we do.

Jeff Berkowitz: So, you might want to restrict semi-automatics.

Terri Ann Wintermute: It depends—Is it used for hunting? Is it used for sport?

Jeff Berkowitz: Well, you can hunt people or you can hunt deer.

Terri Ann Wintermute: Exactly. Or is it used for hunting people.

Jeff Berkowitz: So, the same gun can be used for multiple things. Do people who hunt deer need semi-automatics? Is that the way it’s done, I don’t know. I am not a hunter.

Terri Ann Wintermute: I don’t know. I think you can—there’s a description of whether it goes into the chamber–

WTF? Seriously, do either of you have any idea what you’re talking about?  If not, do us all a favor: DON’T.  Yes, semi-automatics are used for hunting, they are used for shooting clay pigeons. Even scary looking “assault weapons” are used for service rifle competition, and numerous other recreational activities.  They are also damned useful for self-defense, as evidenced by the fact hat police are using them almost exclusively these days.   So go get a clue, or leave it to people who actually know this stuff.

It scares me that “there’s a description of whether it goes into the chamber” is making public policy.

Anyone remember back in the early 90s when the NRA got in trouble for suggesting that the ATF were a bunch of “jack booted thugs”?   It caused President Bush to resign his life membership.

I guess the truth hurts.

Good job folks.  OSHA is backing down it seems.   A busy day indeed!