Jonathan Kay of Canada’s National Post is weighing in on America’s “gun culture”. Before asking what in Hades a Canadian could know about the subject, know that he spent two years studying the conspiracist subculture on his way to authoring Among The Truthers, so his current polemic, America’s firearms culture forged by paranoia, racism and civil rights unrest, is based in part upon that experience. Which may also explain the paranoia he attributes to us “gun nuts”. Unfortunately he doesn’t seem to have researched this topic as fully as his book. If he had . . .
In preparation for her July 30 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in support of Sen. Amy Klobuchar’s ill-named Protecting Domestic Violence and Stalking Victims Act, women’s boxing champion Christy Martin penned a commentary explaining why guns are bad. Titled My Gun Didn’t Protect Me, she explains how her former husband almost murdered her. My normal modus operandi is to break gun grabbers’ pieces into small bits, the better to demolish them. In this instance, though, I want you to get the full story of the attack . . .
Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law and author of The Second Amendment: A Biography, is dipping his toes into the citizen journalism pool. Unfortunately his shorter polemic, ‘What the Second Amendment intended‘ seems to be at least as riddled with falsehoods, undulating lies and outright fabrications as his book. Right out of the blocks, he’s off on the wrong foot: “As school shootings erupt with sickening regularity…” . . .
Mother Jones reporter Stephanie Mencimer apparently needs a Valium, a stiff drink or maybe a couple of hits of Colorado’s newest tax revenue bonanza. Something to calm her palpitations at the thought of peasants carrying guns in the District. The title of her piece Anyone With a Concealed Carry Permit Can Now Come Dangerously Close to the White House indicates just how overwrought Steph has become. She doesn’t even manage to get through the first paragraph before the lies start . . .
There has been some confusion about the “Domestic Violence Gun Confiscation” bill recently passed in the MN House of Representatives. I have been updated on exactly what the bill does and does not do by someone in the know and it is important that people understand what’s going on. In addition, Rep. Tony Cornish really is a friend to gun owners. He worked very hard to turn this bill (which originated from Felonious Mayors Against All Illegal Guns) from a complete and utter disaster into something which actually pretty well mirrors federal law . Interestingly enough . . .
Paul M. Barrett of Bloomberg Business Week has posted an interesting screed on Georgia’s (presumptive) new gun law, How to Understand Georgia’s ‘Guns Everywhere’ Law: Four Blunt Points. As is customary, he starts out with a little hyperventilation: “Georgia appears poised to enact a so-called guns-everywhere law, making it easier for firearm permit holders to take their weapons into bars, churches, and even airports.” OMG! You mean that GA is going to join 42 other states that allow carry in bars? And 44 that allow carry in (the non-secure area of) airports? Not to mention at least 31 states that allow firearms in houses of worship? It’s going to be all right, Paul, really . . .
Columnist Shawn Vestal of the Spokane, Washington Spokesman-Review is horrified by the idea that the natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil and Constitutional right to own and carry the weapon of your choice is soon going to apply (in a rather limited fashion) to college and university campuses in Idaho. Furthermore, he seems to believe that if he piles up enough distortions, twisted and irrelevant facts and outright lies, he will get people to agree with him; at least that is what I assume he’s doing with the piles of distortions, twisted and irrelevant facts and outright lies he presents in Statistics are poor ammo in Idaho debate about guns.
The Spartanburg, South Carolina Herald-Journal has published an editorial explaining why they believe that allowing people to exercise their natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil and Constitutional right to own and carry a firearm of their choice is a bad idea. Let’s take a closer look at some of their arguments, shall we? . . .
The ignorance of most members of the dead tree media never ceases to amaze. Take, for example, columnist Winston Jones who unleashed this little gem: “I’m not sure why there’s so much emotion behind the Second Amendment. There’s never been an effort in the United States, that I know about, of the government to take away citizens’ guns. They are regulated so that felons can’t legally possess them” . . .
Is it that time of year again already? Time for the antis to trot out some ginned up stats about which to hyperventilate and ‘view with alarm’? Our pal Josh Sugarmann of the Violence Policy Center has provided the “study”, one he hopes people will gloss over without really looking too closely. Unfortunately for Josh, debunking the panty-soiling hysteria of antis is pretty much what we do . . .
Steve Zorbaugh believes that the Second Amendment should be repealed, because “guns are too costly for society.” Normally when I see someone talking about “repealing the Second Amendment” I point out that the Bill of Rights protects natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, and civil rights — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility. But Steve is way smarter than I am and has nipped that argument in the bud right off the bat . . .