posted by Caleb on Jul 23
You know, every time Josh Sugarmann writes an editorial for the Huffington Post, it just gets a little more sad. I mean, now he’s trying to claim that because S&W is making a DC vs Heller commemorative revolver that they’re walking in the blood of people killed with .38s. Nice, Josh, way to keep the debate classy.
And that isn’t counting his repeated personal attacks on Alan Gottlieb - he just can’t go an editorial without bringing that issue up over and over again.
Of course, maybe he’s just worried that he’ll keep getting calls to transfer firearms, since he actually has a Federal Firearms License, one of the very few FFLs in Washington DC.
You know what? Here’s the VPC’s phone number: (202) 822 8200. Since they’re one of a few FFLs in Washington DC, let’s all give them a call and see if they can transfer one of those new S&W commemorative revolvers to a DC resident. Really, we’re doing Josh a favor, since one of the conditions of holding a Federal Firearms License is that you have to be engaged in the business of transferring firearms.
Again, that number for the VPC is 202-822-8200, ask them about whether or not they plan on doing transfers for DC residents.
posted by Caleb on Jul 18
Joe Huffman finds a veritable cornucopia of bigotry and hate towards both women and gun owners. Oddly enough, many of them are Euro, or at least claim to be. Here’s a sample:
Poor America ! Why do you need all these toys ? Is it that difficult to defend yourself with words ? Is violence the only language you understand ?
I like the pictures of the kids holding the guns… Bowling for Columbine… remember ??? Are you, americans (lowercase) shocked when a riffle occurs ? Well… you now know how it is so easily possible !
Dear americans, don’t be sad when you’re shot… America provides you with the guns !!!
NRA can be proud, they have made a good brainwashing ! And they make a good money on your back…
A European with a brain !
AMAZING
Pretty standard grammar and sentence construction for these posts. I never cease to be amazed at the levels of vituperation that gun bigots are willing to dispense, all while claiming to have the moral high ground. It would be funny if it wasn’t true.
posted by Caleb on Jul 15
They have penis jokes.
posted by Caleb on Jul 8
From NSSF, with love(?):
Dear Senator Obama:
Last week the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark decision District of Columbia,
et al. v. Heller held that the Second Amendment protects the right of law-abiding
Americans to “keep and bear arms,” including handguns. Recently, you have claimed the Second Amendment provides an individual right to own firearms. Your current position stands in stark contrast to your support while an Illinois state senator for banning the civilian ownership of handguns. Prior to the Heller decision, you said you believed Washington, D.C.’s gun ban did not violate the Second Amendment. Much like the District of Columbia, your hometown of Chicago has since 1982 effectively banned its law-abiding citizens from having handguns and long guns in their homes.
In light of the Heller decision, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade
association for the firearms industry, would like to know whether you believe the City of Chicago’s gun ban violates the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Chicago
residents? Do you continue to support banning an entire class of firearms from private ownership by law-abiding citizens, including your fellow Chicago residents? Do you
believe the Second Amendment rights of Americans should depend on where they
happen to live? If you do, which other individual rights enshrined in the Constitution do you believe are limited by municipal borders?
We look forward to receiving your responses to these important questions so that
the over 90 million law-abiding Americans that own firearms can know where you truly stand on the Second Amendment.
I’d like to see Vegas odds on whether or not he’s actually going to reply to that; because it quite accurately calls him out for his constantly “evolving” stance on the right to keep and bear arms. I practically need a spreadsheet just to keep up with how many times he’s changed position on the issue. First he was for gun bans, then he’s against them, then he’s for them, now he’s against them, make up your mind!
Of course, to really get the scoop on Ol’ Baracky, you should go to this link, which contains detailed info on all of Obama’s “2nd Amendment” positions.
posted by Caleb on Jun 30
I love the God Not Guns blog. The latest post is called “Gundamentalism’s Day” (tinyURL to mess with pagerank), it is absolutely hilarious.
You know why it’s so bad? Because it reads like one of those really bad TV preachers combined with an After-School Special. I mean look at excerpts like this:
Rather than offering a vision of community in which we are bound together by our humanity, gundamentalism encourages fear, teaching us to see each other as “The Other,” a potential enemy, a threat endangering our family, our home, our person. Such fear blinds us to the image of God embodied in every human being. Even more it blinds us to our own connection to the Divine. How can we reach toward God with arms open wide if in one hand we are clutching a gun?
I honestly don’t know whether I should laugh or be insulted by the blatant attempts to essentially tell people that they’re bad Christians if they own a gun.
I will give the interns that write the blog some credit though, because they’ve gotten a little smarter. They’ve moved away from making poor, easily defeated Biblical analogies and have focused on the more nebulous “spiritual concepts” side of things. Of course, it hasn’t stopped them from, well, lying outright, but I guess breaking the 9th Commandment is okay as long as you’re doing it for a good cause, right?
So here are the quick hits of the different outright lies in today’s God Not Guns entry:
- Gundamentalism is a religious movement without spiritual grounding. Rather, it is rooted in the sale and promotion of violence.
- Rather than offering a vision of community in which we are bound together by our humanity, gundamentalism encourages fear
- Gundamentalism creates a culture of fear then offers a seductive promise: with a gun one can live with out fear.
- Gundamentalism cannot survive without the complicity of industries, citizens and law-makers
- With the gun as its icon, the 2nd Amendment as its creed, gundamentalism proclaims that nothing is as sacred as the right to own a gun
I guess I could cut them some slack, I mean they only had 5 statements that were nothing more than outright falsehoods, surely that’s okay since it’s for a good cause, right? Or maybe the interns Rachel Smith subscribe to the inverse of Romans 6:1, and believe that if they go on sinning, then grace will increase.
posted by Caleb on Jun 27
I couldn’t resist one last Heller pun, and for that I apologize. I was pretty busy with work yesterday, and didn’t get the chance to put my thoughts all together in one post. Plus, there was just so much information to digest after the opinion was released that I didn’t even know where to begin.
Overall, I am pleased with the decision; while I would have preferred a 6-3 or a 7-2 win, a win is still a win. Like many others I am concerned about the willingness of four justices to toss out the Constitution because they believe that it means something other than what it says. That concern is the genesis for my reasoning that once the celebrations are over, we need to saddle up and get moving.
I expected that the Court wouldn’t address the issue of licensing and registration; and while they definitely left the back door open on that one, I’m glad they put the “if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously” exception in there. I think that you can make a very strong case to argue that a lot of “may issue” permit processes like those in New York and places in California violate that, as there is no clearly defined process for the everyman to get own a firearm.
Really, the thing that I feel like I need to stress repeatedly (and to use a poor analogy) this is not the end of the war, just a victory in a key battle. The fact that the Court didn’t address incorporation or licensing and registration directly means that we still have a long row to hoe on the right to keep and bears issue. While it is extremely nice to put the final nail into the “collective rights” coffin, we’re not out of the woods yet, not by a long shot.
Lawsuits have already been filed against Chicago, and are pending against San Francisco, and possibly New York.
You know, I haven’t done a “Wisdom of the Duke” post in a long, long time; but I think that today a little John Wayne wisdom would be appropriate. What Would John Wayne say to supporters of gun rights, in light of the monumental decision? From The Sands of Iwo Jima: “Saddle Up!”
posted by Caleb on Jun 27
And Paul Helmke last night was, for lack of a better word, really weird to watch.
You can watch the entire 15 minute segment here.
Chris Matthews doesn’t even bother to hide his bias; repeatedly trying (and failing) to trap Wayne into saying something - look at his questions about “walking down broadway with a bazooka” or “are the government helicopters coming for your guns now”. To his credit, Wayne doesn’t take the bait on any of those.
Paul Helmke though keeps repeating the same arguments that we’ve heard over and over again, and honestly he looked kind of beat up. If you watch the whole thing, a lot of it is him saying “well, yeah, we lost, but…”.
The oddest part was at the end, right after Matthews’ “helicopters” question, where he paid Wayne a kind of weird compliment, calling him “one of the best lobbyists” out there, and then turned to Paul and said “Paul, well…” and just sort of tailed off.
The whole thing is pretty fun to watch though - not only does Wayne do a great job, but Paul just looks defeated and tired.
posted by Caleb on Jun 25
Could be today, could be tomorrow.
Watch here or www.scotusblog.com for updates.
Update: Curse you, Supreme Court! No Heller for me today. Definitely tomorrow.
(note: I just wanted to say “curse you” like some comic book villain)
posted by Caleb on Jun 24
Oh my goodness, I actually laughed out loud when I read the latest post from the God Not Guns Blog (tinyURL used to weaken their googlefu). It’s called Gundamentalism, and it’s really, really bad. Basically, she’s comparing pro-gun groups to religious fundamentals, but the problem with her comparison is that it’s so loose that it could be applied to any group that is fanatically devoted to their cause, like, oh, I don’t know, anti-gun advocates. I took her entire post and changed just a few words, I call it “Anti-Gundamentalism”.
In her book,
Battle for God, Karen Armstrong says that fundamentalism in every religion encourages a sense of crisis among its believers, fostering the conviction that they are the first and last defense against the corrosion of crucial values. Armstrong says that because fundamentalism is rooted in a profound fear of annihilation, its adherents see themselves in a fight for survival against society at large. I believe that this is precisely how gun control proponents portray themselves.
I believe that
America’s anti-gun culture is marked by zeal closely akin to that of religious fundamentalism. The gun control movement is built upon a system of belief that is both absolutist and aggressive. It has its sacred text, its creed, its icon and its ideology. According to its doctrine, only the government offers protection against tyranny at the hands of criminals, foreign terrorists, even our own government. Its followers believe they are in a cosmic struggle to protect
America’s most cherished value: safety. I call this movement “Anti-Gundamentalism.” In my next several entries, I’ll be talking about this movement and its ideology.
I changed maybe three or four words, that’s how poorly written this post is. If she actually starts comparing pro-gun advocates to religious fundamentals, please make sure to come here the day after for my critique. What Rachel fails to understand is that while the pro-gun movement is undeniably passionate about our cause, comparing us to religious fundamentals fails on many levels, not the least of which is that the gun rights movement is predicated on logic and reason - if anyone could be accused of having a religious fervor about their cause, it would be the anti-gun crowd who believes that inanimate objects have some sort of malevolent will to cause violence.
posted by Caleb on Jun 23
Side note: I was going to title this post “Peanut Butter Heller Time”, until I saw that Unclesaurus had already used that title while I was on vacation.
SCOTUS is expected to announce Heller at 10am today, which means that around 10 there will be a firestorm of blog posts going up about it, what it means, etc. I am still cautiously optimistic about the outcome of the case, and in the bad event that it doesn’t go the way we’re expecting, I suspect that Uncle is right and we’ll have a nice big glass of “cool your shit” juice and figure out a plan.
I’ll have more updates right here at this post as they come from SCOTUS and the intertrons.
Update: Thou shalt not receive thy Heller opinion, it will likely be on Wednesday.
