Update on RNC Chairmanship selection

The most important part of my earlier post today was my urging to get involved with choosing the questions that will (hopefully) be asked of the aspirants to the chair in tomorrow's debate.

Since then, a great many good questions about what the candidates would do to thwart the citizen disarmament advocates have been submitted. Please keep voting for those questions.

Along related lines, there's a straw poll up now (with the clearly anti-gun Michael Steele currently holding a narrow lead over the clearly pro-gun Ken Blackwell).

Blackwell may not be the only good choice, but Steele is certainly a wrong choice--let's knock him down a few pegs.

Some housekeeping

A bit of a mixed bag of things I should have taken care of already:

David Codrea will be on Tom Gresham's Gun Talk Radio today at 2 PM (Eastern). The topic will apparently be predictions on gun rights politics for 2009 (a somewhat frightening prospect, but no less important for that).

Also (and there's real time pressure here), if one registers at RNCDebate.org (a quick, painless process, that doesn't require one to provide personal or sensitive information), one can help determine what questions will be asked in tomorrow's debate (1:00 PM Eastern) for the Republican National Committee chairmanship. If you spend two minutes on it, you're taking your time--there's that little excuse to not bother. David Codrea asked (HTML code isn't allowed in the submissions on the RNCDebate website, but I inserted some links in the quote below, for the sake of clarity):

I want an unequivocal statement from each candidate on the right to keep and bear arms. I should note that Mr. Blackwell looks good*, and Mr. Steele's bizarre advocacy that "society should draw line" about the right to own semiautos** makes him about as acceptable to gun owners as Barack Obama. How about the rest of the field? No equivocation, please! It will be recognized and held against you. * "Gun Rights and Presidential Politics," Townhall.com, Nov. 26, 2007 ** Washington Post interview Oct 16, 2006

I, being an unapologetic plagiarizer when it suits me, asked pretty much the same thing, and Pistolero has a good question, as well. Time is running out on this, folks, and I hope the importance of it is obvious. By the way, in addition to submitting questions of your own, once you register, you can vote on questions already submitted. "Yes" votes on the three questions linked to above would be greatly appreciated.

Finally, I want to (very belatedly) thank Masters in Criminal Justice (a web resource for those interested in pursuing a career in criminal justice) for including Armed and Safe among their Top 50 Constitutional Law Blogs (#22, in the "Second Amendment" category). I'm not sure how my blog (not bad for a wannabe "3%" blogger) was chosen for that, when so many others were not, but it's much appreciated.

Triggers with a pulse?

A longtime nemesis of gun rights (and thus liberty) in Illinois, state Commissar Senator Dan Kotowski (whom I have discussed often) was interviewed last month by the citizen disarmament advocacy organization he once directed, the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence (ICHV). ICHV's website is laid out rather awkwardly, and I can't link directly to the interview, but at the moment, it's the top item here.

The interview is pretty much what one would expect ("Guns are bad, mmkay?"), but the last question sheds some light on what Kotowski apparently considers the next front in the war on the peaceable armed citizenry of Illinois.

ICHV: In your view, what should the gun control movement be focusing on in the coming years?

Sen. Kotowski: We have to think outside of the box. It's not just about focusing on owners, since the vast majority are law abiding, but making sure that the gun industry is looking out for the health and safety of children. How can we get this industry to be more accountable? That is where the battle will be waged.

In the next year or two, we have to show that there are reasonable ways to keep our kids and families safe. In Illinois, for example, we need to give the Attorney General authority to approve health and safety standards for loading indicators, drop fire tests, finger-printing recognition software, and trigger pulse standards.

So, California-style "safety" requirements, New Jersey-style "smart gun" requirements (just don't even get me started), and . . . "trigger pulse standards"? Being the generous sort, I'll give Kotowski the benefit of the doubt, and assume that he's no Carolyn "What's a barrel shroud" McCarthy, and that it was whoever at ICHV who did the interview who mistook "trigger pull standards" (meaning, presumably, that guns would be required to have triggers too heavy to fire accurately) for "trigger pulse", rather than Kotowski himself.

Still, one would think that an organization whose sole purpose is attacking gun rights would at least have learned enough about the subject of what they're trying to regulate to know that triggers don't have a pulse.

What I don't understand about 'pragmatism'

I had pretty much made up my mind to step away from the rancorous, and apparently endless, debate between the "pragmatists," on the one hand, and the "3 percenters," on the other. It's an argument that will pretty clearly never be "won" by anyone, except perhaps the citizen disarmament advocates. After catching up on my reading of the Sispsey Street Irregulars, however ("catching up" being necessary after my month-long break from involvement with the gun rights issue), and seeing the intensity of vitriol* some of the more outraged "prags" have seen fit to direct at Mr. Vanderboegh and his "merry band," I feel compelled to once again wade into the fray.

In the interest of full disclosure, my sympathies are very strongly and unabashedly with the "3 percenters," although to count myself actually among them would be to give myself vastly too much credit, considering my physical inability to usefully participate in any militia endeavor. Still, if Mike and the rest don't object to me referring to myself as an "honorary 3 percenter," I'll gratefully do so.

As far as the "prags" go, I don't consider them cowards, or collaborators, or many of the other insults that "3 percenters" have tossed their way. I do consider them vastly overly optimistic about the prospects of gun rights prevailing through solely "within the system" activism. They remind me a bit of Neville Chamberlain, with the Heller decision being their Munich Agreement (and by the way--don't give me Godwin's Law--that ain't what this is about).

And this brings me to the source of my confusion. The "pragmatic" strategy, apparently, requires gun rights activists to count on the Constitution for protection against people who have made it absolutely clear that they consider the Constitution to be so much Charmin substitute. At least one "prag," for example, has railed against some other gun rights advocates, for their refusal to vote for one of the chief architects of one of the most brazen attacks on the First Amendment in recent history.

I have frequently criticized proponents of restrictive gun laws for their bizarre "strategy" of attempting to use laws to rein in the behavior of the lawless. I can't really see much of a difference between that, and counting on the Constitution to protect freedom from those bent on subverting it.


* Some examples (just a couple, of many):

"Three Percenters" are self-righteous, anarchist, egotistical, self-centered, solipsistic, incorrigible asses, and are appropriately full of shit.

and;

I love this “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” nonsense from the .3-percenters. Fine: I’m against you. Not in principle, actually, but just in the childish, moronic way that you draw attention to yourselves. Typical, from people who’ve never actually had to fight a war against an oppressive state.

Pathetic bunch of losers.

Pretty please, with sugar on top, keep your filthy hooks off our @!#% guns, so we don't have to kill you

A couple days ago, I wrote about Robert Smith, Jr, who, in a blog he writes for The Detroit News, contends that the Founding Fathers were wrong to extend Constitutional protection to the fundamental, absolute human right of the individual to keep and bear arms, and who indeed argues that we should "Ban All Guns." I wasn't the only gun rights advocate to take exception to this advocacy of such an attack on liberty--Pistolero, David Codrea, and Mike Vanderboegh (must read) have all weighed in on the subject.

Some of the criticism came not in blogs, but in comments left at the site of Mr. Smith's opinion piece. Now, it seems that another Detroit News blogger, Libby Spencer, thinks the criticism is out of line (excerpt follows):

Nonetheless, the point is, most people who are for gun bans don't have experience with hunters or recreational gun owners. Their only knowledge comes from the real dangers of inner city use in the commission of crimes. When you respond to the slightest whiff of disagreement with hateful pile-ons such as we're seeing in the comment section now, you not only make supporters of your rights like me want to rethink my position but also solidify the fears of those who would ban guns altogether.

If you don't want to be treated like a raging pack of trigger happy hotheads, don't act like one. A little civility in making your case would go a long way.

In other words, it seems that Libby, although supposedly one of the "supporters of [our] rights" (she can keep her "support," as far as I'm concerned), thinks that we should be polite in defense of our fundamental rights.

The problem with that is that it's just so damned difficult to come up with a polite way of saying "If you try to take our firearms we will kill you." The title of this blog post is about the best I could do.

Thanks, Pistolero, for bringing Libby's chastisement of gun rights advocates to my attention.

HopeandChange™: coming to a school near you!

One recent development I failed to cover during my last hiatus is the announcement of the "Lightworker's" choice for Secretary of Education--you know--to oversee the federal government's Constitutionally enumerated power to regulate education (what's that you say--nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government granted that power? An issue for another day). Obama's choice is the CEO of the Chicago Public School system, Arne Duncan.

Readers can be forgiven for wondering why, in a blog ostensibly dedicated to gun rights, I am talking about the next Secretary of Education. It's actually not as off-topic as it may seem. This is, in fact, not the first appearance of Arne Duncan's name on this blog. Duncan has a pretty extensive history of using his position as head of the CPS to push for ever more draconian forcible citizen disarmament laws. This, despite the fact that his area of operations has been Chicago, where private citizens are outright prohibited from purchasing handguns and most semi-automatic rifles.

Back in October, in fact, Illinois' chief citizen disarmament group, the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence presented him with an award for his efforts to disarm peaceable Illinoisans, although he theatrically declined the award, because Illinoisans are not yet disarmed enough for him to think his work on this task is finished.

In refusing the Lincoln Award -- a statue of a hand holding a gun broken into pieces -- Duncan asked the crowd of dignitaries to renew their commitment to reducing gun violence.

"I won't accept this award today, but I will accept your hand in partnership -- and our commitment to keep on fighting to end the violence,'' said Duncan, who had been selected for his anti-violence efforts at CPS, including encouraging kids to text-message police with tips, and his lobbying against handguns in Springfield.

About that "lobbying against handguns in Springfield"--Duncan refused to content himself with doing his own lobbying--he also repeatedly bused CPS students down to Springfield to do that.

I imagine busing all those students all the way from Chicago to Springfield and back was pretty expensive--I'm glad the CPS is apparently rich enough to afford that--with state and federal budgets in such disarray, it's encouraging that Chicago will apparently not need help on the monetary front.

I guess it's not a concern that all these field trips to Springfield eat into classroom time--and why should it be a concern? After all, the CPS boasts a whopping 51% graduation rate.

That's the kind of leadership I want brought to the entire nation's education system.

Freedom--the Founding Fathers' greatest 'mistake'

Well whaddya know--the day I finally decide to end my sudden disappearance from the blogosphere, but am kind of hard pressed to find material, I stumble (pretty much by accident) on this little gem, by Robert Smith, Jr. (titled, simply enough, "Ban All Guns"):

The Founding Fathers of our country made a mistake when they said we had the right to bear arms. They did not know we would be allies with the British and no longer have to worry about them coming over to oppress and colonize us. The British found greater spoils in Africa and India and never looked back on the United States after the Revolutionary War.

Never heard of the War of 1812, eh Robert (and why should he have heard of it--it's not as if it inspired our national anthem or anything)? There's also the little issue of the fact that the Constitutional guarantee of the fundamental, absolute human right of the individual to keep and bear arms exists not only for fighting off British imperialistic ambitions--actually, that was never even the primary reason for the Second Amendment.

The right to bear arms is killing all of us.

Setting aside for the moment the fact that rights don't kill, I'm a little puzzled about how, with a national population that grows every year, anything can be said to be "killing all of us."

In 2005 the Center for Disease Control and Prevention reported 3,006 children and teens killed by gunfire, most of them young, black men in inner-city neighborhoods.

Most of these "children and teens" are men? Apparently, Robert defines either "children" or "men" (perhaps both) in a rather . . . unusual manner (unusual, at least, outside forcible citizen disarmament circles).

Robert then lays some numbers on us.

The Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois gun killings took 32 lives, and the world was upset and every day 128 young people are shot to death in hard-pressed, poor communities across America and there is no outcry to change it, just report it on the local news.

Punctuation, evidently, is no more a strong suit of Robert's than history is. Looking at those numbers, I'm afraid I can't vouch for his mathematics skills either. I refer to his claim that "every day 128 young people are shot to death in hard-pressed, poor communities across America." That would come out to over forty-six thousand shooting deaths per year. The number of shooting deaths in the U.S. (all U.S. shooting deaths--more than half of which are suicides--with no filtering for age or economic status) has hovered around or a bit above thirty thousand per year for the last several years, but Robert somehow finds over one and a half times that number of deaths, just among young people in poor communities.

And this is the guy who would lecture the Founding Fathers about their "mistake."

Easing back into things, with an exciting announcement that's probably not news to anyone here

I've kinda developed a bad habit of burning out on blogging for weeks at a time, without warning or explanation. I really need to stop doing that. If I still have any readers, I apologize.

Anyway, I'm feeling motivated to write again, but after a month of being out of touch, I'm going to set the bar for myself kinda low, and instead of trying to come up with any deep insights, point to an exciting new development relating to one of my (many) betters (a much better, in fact).

Back in October, I mentioned that David Codrea (War on Guns) had a new gig (yet another one--this is a guy who knows how to work through the kind of burnout that shuts me down so often). I refer to the Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner column.

The exciting news is that the Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner column will soon be known as simply the Gun Rights Examiner--it's going national.

Coming in early January, the "Cleveland" is going away.

The column has done well both regionally and in the "Politics" category. So the powers that be have decided they'll be better served if it goes national--meaning it will now show up on the national page as well as be accessible from 59 separate city pages.

This is big news, folks. This is one of the best gun bloggers (and I would make the case for dropping the "one of the") gaining a national audience that's not limited to the gun blogosphere.

Congratulations, David, and go get 'em.

This could have been the GOP's response to Obama

I hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving weekend.

I see that "Iron" Mike Ditka wants to disarm the entire NFL.

"This is all about priorities. When you get stature in life, you get the kind of contract, you have an obligation and responsibility to your teammates, to the organization, to the National Football League and to the fans. He just flaunted this money in their face. He has no respect for anybody but himself. I feel sorry for him, in the sense that, I don't understand the league, why can anybody have a gun? I will have a policy, no guns, any NFL players we find out, period, you're suspended."

This, of course, was in response to New York Giants receiver Plaxico Burress negligently shooting himself in the thigh in a Manhattan nightclub. Seems a bit drastic as a reaction to one knucklehead doing what knuckleheads do.

As for the Sean Taylors and Darrent Williamses
produced by such an edict, I suppose that's just their tough luck.

My point isn't that this could happen to the NFL--those guys can find a way to take care of themselves. My point is that Ditka--the guy whose "solution" to an ignoramus negligently shooting himself is to treat everyone as an ignoramus--was once pursued by the Illinois GOP to run against Obama for the U.S. Senate in 2004. Iron Mike declined, after some consideration.

I don't think he would have won, and I'm certainly not arguing that he would not only win, but go on to win the presidency four years later--my point is more about the state of the GOP in Illinois.

Even someone courted by the party as the next tough guy hero ends up being a nanny-stater.

Happy Thanksgiving

No blogging today--just going to enjoy the family time.

Hope everyone has a great one, and that everyone remembers that we still have a great deal for which to be thankful.

Victim of 'gun violence' says to blame the 'stupid person,' not the gun

From KABA, we learn the latest about Seattle Mayor Greg Nickles' plan to (illegally) ban firearms on city owned property.

That's already been pretty well covered on other sites, and after some internet trouble early today, I'm running behind, so I'm just going to take a brief look at one aspect of Nickels' little flirtation with despotism. The push for this executive order (or the excusefor it, to be more accurate) was an incident at the Northwest Folklife Festival, back in May. Basically, some idiot (and drug addict, apparently) started shooting into the crowd, over what had heretofore been, at most, a pushing and shoving kind of confrontation. Thankfully, there were no life-threatening injuries.

What is interesting is that one of the two people shot (and the boyfriend of the other), has shown no inclination to blame the gun for what he has gone through.

Penaluna, for his part, doesn't think a gun ban would have made him any more safe.

"I was hurt by a stupid person who happened to make a stupid decision with a gun," he said.

"There are thousands of people all over Seattle, I know, who walk strapped. And they're not gang-bangers. They're responsible adults who are afraid of gang-bangers," he said.

"I think this ordinance is nothing more than a classic governmental way of trying to put a Band-Aid over a problem instead of finding a solution.

Sshh, Joshua--that's not how victims of "gun violence" are supposed to talk!

The article covers some incidents of senseless violence in Seattle, and quotes Seattle residents who carry defensive firearms to defend themselves.

It's actually a better article than one might expect from the L.A. Times.

'Who really cares about it being unconstitutional?'

Sebastian, at Snowflakes in Hell, has found the Quote of the Day--if not the Quote of the Month.

“Who really cares about it being unconstitutional?” said Councilwoman Tonya Payne. “This is what’s right to do, and if this means that we have to go out and have a court battle, then that’s fine … We have plenty of dead bodies coming up in our streets every single day, and that is unacceptable.”

Councilwoman Tonya Payne was referring to Pittsburgh, PA's adoption of "lost or stolen" reporting requirements for gun owners.

Ignore, for now, the uselessness of such an ordinance.

Ignore, for now, the wrong-headed evil of "blame the victim" legislation.

Ignore, for now, the fact that felons and other people prohibited by law from possessing firearms are the ones who cannot be prosecuted under a law like this, because of the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination.

I assume Ms. Payne was referring not to the U.S. Constitution, and the Second Amendment, but to the Pennsylvania state constitution, and its mandate for state preemption of firearms regulation. [Correction: the Pennsylvania mandate for state preemption of firearm regulation is apparently not part of the state constitution, but was instead a statutory measure. Sorry for my misunderstanding.] In the end, though, that doesn't really matter--her attitude is a classic example of the mindset of the forcible citizen disarmament crowd--the mindset that believes the agenda is more important than protections against a government drunk on power.

It is, in fact, government officials with that kind of mindset who are the reason that the Second Amendment is so necessary.

Obama, executive orders, and the 'Gephardt Doctrine'

I've talked before about the possibility of Obama not even bothering to wait for Congressional approval of his citizen disarmament agenda, and I wasn't the first. Walls of the City also covered the subject well, as undoubtedly did others.

Obama's selection of Eric Holder for Attorney General would indicate to me that he is unlikely to get much advice about the blatant unconstitutionality, on many levels, of citizen disarmament by executive order--I expect Holder will think it's a splendid idea.

Some might argue that "The Lightworker" will not be interested in picking that kind of fight (and looking at the Congress he'll have, he may not need to make an end-run around the legislative process). Some might point out--quite correctly--that executive orders have no legal power to overturn the Supreme Court's rulings on Constitutional questions.

Then again, though, perhaps Obama is a believer in what I'll call the "Gephardt Doctrine."

"When I'm president, we'll do executive orders to overcome any wrong thing the Supreme Court does tomorrow or any other day," Gephardt said.

Gephardt, then a Democratic congressman from Missouri, said that in 2003, back when he hoped to be the Democratic nominee for the 2004 presidential election.

Frankly, I don't believe the majority decision in Heller will prove much of an obstacle to Obama's citizen disarmament agenda. Still, it's pretty clear that he would like Justice Stevens' dissenting opinion even better.

Under the Gephardt Doctrine, Obama could "overcome" the "wrong thing" of the majority decision's statement that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own firearms, unconnected to service in a government sanctioned militia.

Police reaction in New Mexico to spike in sales of so-called 'assault weapons': shrug

Advocates of forcible citizen disarmament never tire of pointing to police support for bans of politically incorrect firearms, as "evidence" that such bans are necessary. Typically, the quoted support comes not from the actual beat cops, but from an "Only One in Chief", who is appointed by, and answerable to, the mayor and/or city council--which tend to have their own citizen disarmament agendas.

Apparently, though, the memo hasn't reached at least part of New Mexico, where the Farmington, NM police chief and San Juan County Sheriff have noted the run on so-called "assault weapons," but are not concerned.

A recent spike in demand for assault weapons is putting hundreds of additional high-powered weapons into San Juan County homes, but law enforcement agencies say that won't cause an increased threat to officers.

"Most of these assault-type weapons that everyone is talking about are being bought by home owners. Those people who are buying those kind of weapons aren't the ones we're usually dealing with on a day-to-day basis," Farmington Police Chief Jim Runnels said.

[ . . . ]

"There isn't a higher threat," San Juan County Sheriff's Lt. Tyler Truby said. "Although there are being more firearms lawfully purchased right now, that doesn't necessarily mean there's going to be an increase in the hands of people who are going to be using them for any unlawful purpose."

What's that you say? More firepower in the hands of people disinclined to use it for evil isn't a problem? Blasphemy! The International Association of Chiefs of Police won't like that.

I should acknowledge that Farmington Police Chief Runnels did parrot one of the statists' talking points:

But with rising numbers of the high-powered weapons in residences and rising numbers of home burglaries in the area, assault rifles might find their way into criminal hands.

"A significant portion of these weapons could turn up as stolen property and then they're on the street," Runnels said.

Then again, "assault rifle" ammo "might find" it's "way into criminal[s']" bodies.

The article does make one interesting point I hadn't considered.

"This has been a concern long before what's going on now, as more and more weapons were made available," Runnels said. "By and large, law enforcement has kept up with the types of weapons, as far as not being outgunned."

But the dramatically increased demand for firearms in recent weeks hasn't left local law enforcement agencies unscathed. Police report ammunition costs have risen by as much as 30 percent.

Although many have attributed the increasing ammunition costs to American wars in the Middle East, Runnels said suppliers have reported a dramatic increase in demand from civilian gun owners.

"The ammunition is still available, there's just been a price increase," Truby said. "It definitely does impact our budget.

Guess you can thank "The Lightworker," his policies, and his ideological allies for that.

Gun rights: safe and sound, now and forever

Yep, you read that right. I am categorically declaring that an Obama/Biden presidency (with the HopeadChange™ Anti-Gun Dream Team cabinet and staff), combined with Democratic hegemony in Congress, is no threat to gun rights--and I'm not being sarcastic.

I have also not taken leave of my senses. Before you dispute that assertion, you need to understand what I am not saying. I don't, for example, deny that the Obammuist and his acolytes want to implement every restrictive gun law they can--they have left no doubt that they do. Nor am I claiming that they'll necessarily be prevented from putting in place the most draconian gun restrictions in our nation's history--I think there's a good chance they'll have the power to do just that.

What I am saying is that, their wishes notwithstanding, our gun rights are beyond their filthy reach. That's why, after all, they're called rights--if they could be taken away at the whim of the government, they would be privileges. Whatever executive orders Obama signs (and are upheld), whatever laws Congress passes, whatever decisions the Supreme Court hands down, whatever U.N. treaties are signed and ratified, our Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms will remain.

Granted, the "Constitutionally guaranteed" part isn't necessarily forever (although I don't see it going anywhere anytime soon)--any Constitutional amendment, even one that is part of the Bill of Rights, can be repealed. As I said, I don't find that very likely, but in terms of what rights we have, even the repeal of the Second Amendment wouldn't matter. As the Supreme Court said in the United States v. Cruikshank decision:

The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.

Many refer to the right to keep and bear arms as "God given," although those of a less religious persuasion might prefer to call it a "natural" right. In practical terms, the distinction doesn't really matter--the upshot is that the right is not the government's to either grant or rescind.

Obama and his minions can perhaps turn us into "criminals" (or even "homegrown terrorists"), but they cannot take our rights, and if we are to be worthy of those rights, nor can they take our guns--not, at any rate, while our hands are warm and living.

III

Paul Helmke's 'bridge to nowhere'

The Brady Bunch's Paul Helmke advises President-elect Obama to "'Build a Bridge to Nowhere Moderates,' with Common Sense on Guns." Helmke quotes Robert Green as saying (emphasis Helmke's):

These findings suggest that sensible gun legislation provides a unique opportunity for the new Administration to build a bridge to moderate voters in both parties. It is no longer plausible for opponents of gun legislation to assert that gun laws will somehow lead to a total gun ban.

Left unsaid is any acknowledgment of the fact that Helmke and friends are the ones defining both "moderate," and "common sense." That little trick in the collectivists' arsenal has been expertly noted by others.

Mr. Green's mention of "[t]hese findings" is in reference to the Brady Bunch's loudly touted poll, supposedly illustrating widespread support for the Brady Backed "common sense" . . . infringements on that which shall not be infringed. Also left unexamined is the question of the credibility of the poll--a question rather worthy of examination, it would seem.

Then again, perhaps not--after all, even if a majority (or even a large majority) of the public does support more draconian gun laws, our Republic is not supposed to be subject to the tyranny of the majority. In other words, 51% of the populace is not supposed to be able to vote away the rights of the other 49%--nor indeed, is 99% supposed to be able to vote away the rights of the other 1%. Another way to say that is that 97% of the population will not succeed in trampling the rights of the other 3%--and they would be well advised not to try.

Finally, in reference to the "bridge to moderates" claim--I thought that according to the Brady Bunch, Ray Schoenke and the rest of the AHSAholes (I can't claim credit for that term), and His HopeandChangedness™ himself, the position on guns Obama campaigned on (when he dared mention it) was the moderate position.

If that's the case, why would he need to "build a bridge" to moderates--wouldn't that be a "bridge to nowhere"?

In other news--add this link to your bookmarks, and check it at least daily--you'll be glad you did. Mike Vanderboegh is finally blogging.

Alert: Cook County, IL needs help

Almost a year ago, I discussed here and in subsequent posts a campaign on the part of the most rabidly pro-citizen disarmament Cook County Commissioners (which is rather a lot of them) to make Cook County's gun laws even more insanely draconian than they are now (it actually takes some imagination to even come up with ways for that to be possible--but they're creative when it comes to disarming the law abiding).

That endeavor didn't go anywhere, thanks in large part, I have to believe, to the resistance of concerned citizens.

Now, however, the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA) reports that they're trying again, but on a different tack:

ISRA Alert: County County Phone Poll For Gun Control Ordinance Is Still Active

Larry Suffredin and his cohorts on the Cook County Board are up to their old tricks again.

In order to justify passage of gun control ordinances designed to close all gun shops and ban and confiscate most guns owned by citizens of the county, the Cook County Board is conducting a telephone poll where callers can vote for or against the gun control ordinances.

Like everything else in Cook County, this poll is probably rigged. So, it’s very important that you do the following:

1. Call 1-312 -603-6400 and select Option #1 when prompted. At the next prompt, select Option #1 again. Then, when prompted to vote on the gun control ordinance, press #2.

2. You should also forward this alert on to all your gun owning friends and have them vote too.

3. You should also post this alert to any and all Internet bulletin boards or blogs to which you belong.

YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE A RESIDENT OF COOK COUNTY TO VOTE!

Let’s beat Suffredin at his own game! And, save your guns.

Your help would be much appreciated.

A caveat

For going on three weeks now, there has been a great deal of talk about the HopeandChange™-inspired spike in sales of firearms (particularly so-called "assault weapons"), ammunition, and standard capacity magazines. I see this as a good thing, on several levels.

For one thing, it's one segment, at least, of the economy that is ticking along nicely--what's not to like about that?

For another, it simply makes sense to stock up on useful items that the people coming into power have made no secret of their plans to make unavailable.

Third, it's always fun to see the citizen disarmament advocates wailing around their cud that people shouldn't be buying these "weapons of war," or alternatively, simply denying that any such sales spike is really happening--forget what the FBI says about a dramatic increase in NICS background checks.

Finally, all these purchases are something of a "show of force" to the citizen disarmament advocates in the government--a message that Americans do still treasure their Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental, absolute human right of the individual to keep and bear arms. Perhaps most importantly, it reminds them that we're keeping and bearing rather a lot of arms--many of which are effective fighting arms (effective for fighting, as a hypothetical example, the forces of a tyrannical government).

Still, I think it needs to be said that this message could be misinterpreted, perhaps deliberately. Some who see themselves as having been elected our masters might get the idea in their reptilian, predatory brains that because of the "surge" at gun shops across the country, the majority of people who really want so-called "assault weapons,"--those who, in other words, would fight hardest for their continued availability--already have one (or more), thus somewhat blunting the resentment of an impending ban.

That, clearly, is not the message that we need to send. We need to make clear that we're not buying up black rifles just because they look good in the gun safe--we're buying them for a rainy day.

Are those thunderheads on the horizon?

III

Securing the Homeland with HopeandChange™

The HopeandChange™ Anti-Gun Dream Team keeps getting bigger and "better," with the newest addition being Arizona's Governor Janet Napolitano as the next Secretary of Homeland Security. What's her stance on guns?

Well, in 2007, she vetoed Arizona SB 1302, which would have made Arizona's "Stand Your Ground" law retroactive. This could have made the difference for Harold Fish, who is serving a prison sentence for second degree murder, despite the fact that a strong case was made for the argument that he fired in self-defense. Napolitano said that her veto came out of concerns that reopening all the cases that could be affected by the change in law would overburden the court system. That makes sense--we certainly wouldn't want to give innocent people a chance to get out of prison if doing so would be inconvenient.

Early this year, she got the veto pen out again, and killed a bill that would have made carrying a concealed firearm without a permit a petty offense, rather than a Class 3 felony. It would also have prohibited the confiscation of the firearm. While even a "petty offense" for the exercise of one's Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental, absolute human right of the individual to keep and bear arms without first having become "licensed" to do so is offensive, it beats the hell out of a felony and confiscation of one's property.

So, what can the Homeland Security Secretary do to affect gun ownership? We've already had rumblings about some rather . . . startling definitions of what constitutes a "homegrown terrorist," and Napolitano might be tempted to make them more "startling" still. Dare to utter a quote of Jefferson's "tree of liberty" line, and you could find yourself characterized as the next Timothy McVeigh.

If it comes to that, some may decide that if they're going to prison, it won't be for merely talking about refreshing the tree of liberty.

If this be treason . . .

III

Opposition to deer hunting with handguns can't agree on why it's wrong

A change in deer hunting laws in Delaware, providing more opportunities for the use of handguns, has (predictably) drawn some criticism. Amusingly, though, not only does the criticism not agree with facts and logic, it doesn't even agree with itself.

On the one hand, we have Scott Vogel, of the outrageously misnamed "Freedom States Alliance," who argues that handguns used for deer hunting are "too powerful."

The Freedom States Alliance is a national nonprofit organization that is dedicated to reducing gun-related deaths and injuries through public awareness campaigns. According to the FSA Web site, .50 caliber guns have effective ranges up to 2,000 yards, or 20 football fields laid end to end. Deer hunters typically shoot at ranges of 150-200 yards.

.50 caliber rifles can be effective at that range (in the hands of an extremely skilled shooter), but a .50 caliber handgun (like the .500 S&W Magnum) could be fired all day (assuming the shooter's ability to sustain that kind of recoil, and his wallet's ability to sustain the ammo costs, permitted it) without the intended target ever noticing he was being fired at. By the way, Delaware law does not require that deer-hunting handguns be of .50 caliber--and most hunters who choose to take the opportunities offered by this rule change will probably not go out and buy one.

"We don't support this change," said Scott Vogel, communications director of FSA. "A .50-caliber handgun can easily puncture a police officer's vest."

Probably--but no more easily than any deer rifle (and probably less easily than most deer rifle cartridges). Besides, do Delaware police have a habit of disguising themselves as deer during hunting season--why is a hunting gun's ability to defeat body armor even an issue?

On the other hand, we get the argument that handguns are not powerful enough to hunt deer.

The Humane Society of the United States worries not only about the safety of the hunter but of the deer. The group worries that deer shot by handguns would suffer needlessly.

"If the hunters were truly interested in a quick and painless death for the deer, they would not use a handgun," said Casey Pheiffer, campaign manager of the Wildlife Abuse Campaign for the Humane Society.

Granted, the range at which a deer can be humanely taken is probably less, in most cases, with a handgun than with a rifle. Within that range, though, with adequate care on the part of the hunter, a powerful handgun is quite up to the task of ethical deer hunting, and will probably in most cases kill a deer more quickly than can generally be done with bow and arrow. Besides, my guess is that being torn apart by wolves or a mountain lion is probably less than pleasant, too--that's one of the downsides of being helpless prey.

"Helpless prey," by the way, is exactly what citizen disarmament advocacy groups like the Freedom States Alliance would like to make us.