While self-defense advocates (okay, gunnies) were taking time off work and away from their families to show up for and testify at hearings on some seriously ugly gun bills in Minnesota, DFL Rep. Alice Hausman who sponsored two of them – an “assault weapon” ban and a mag cap limit — couldn’t be bothered to show up to defend them herself. Instead she sent Heather Martens, a paid flack for the Joyce Foundation-funded AstroTurf® organization, Protect Minnesota (formerly known Citizens for a Safer Minnesota). According to the Minneapolis Star-Tribune — no friend of gun rights, they — “That is an extremely unusual practice for a legislator seeking to get bills passed in the Legislature.” Unfortunately, Ms. Hausman had “other commitments” . . .
When we left Walker Bragman and his Debunking 18 Pro-Gun Myths, I had just spent some 3,000 words dissecting his first myth alone. I will, cross-my-heart-and-pinkie-swear, try for a little more brevity on this go ‘round, but it’s hard when the opposition piles the organic fertilizer that high and I get on a roll. So, for those with short memories (or who are too lazy to click over), what’s Walker’s second myth? . . .
Walker Bragman [above right] is back. Just a few days ago I tromped all over his The Culture of Guns and Misinformation. Now he’s back spewing more dis- and mis-information in Debunking 18 Pro-Gun Myths. My regular readers are familiar with the phrase undulating lies. For those who aren’t, an undulating lie is when someone tells you something that is factually true, but so misleading as to constitute a lie. I heard a perfect example of the undulating lie the other day from an anti who testified at the Minnesota legislature . . .
A couple of years ago I had one of my occasional “moments of unusual interest” with some local police officers who were still unaware (7 years after ‘shall-issue’ passed for the first time) that Minnesota’s is a “carry” law, not a “concealed” carry law state. During the interrogation which followed, one of the officers asked me if I was a member of the N.R.A.? “No” I replied, “they are too wishy-washy on the subject of gun civil rights for my taste.” The officer chuckled in appreciation of my humor, never realizing that I wasn’t joking. I fully agree with L. Neil Smith’s that . . .
Walker Bragman has weighed in on the gun control debate with a piece at (where else?) The Hufffington Post. Titled The Culture of Guns and Misinformation it is indeed full of “misinformation” (or what less polite people would call utter horse hockey). Par for the HuffPo course, Bragman makes sure to keep it classy by lumping those of us who distrust the mainstream media with slave-owners and Southern racists:
In a recent letter to ldnews.com, William Kautz of South Lebanon, PA, makes the case that “we should accept some gun limits.” It may come as a surprise to people who know my feelings on the subject of civil rights, but I actually agree with Bill. Everybody, across the country should accept whatever limits on gun ownership make them comfortable. Personally, I would set my gun limits as follows . .
I love it when antis run these mock dialogues with “gun nuts.” Paul Bangiola follows the standard style of setting up and knocking down straw men with his logic and reason, triumphing mightily over the feeble arguments of the ignorant/paranoid/conspiracist gun nut. Paul opens with an anecdote about a debate he went to in the early ‘80s between Abby Hoffman and Jerry Rubin, another member of the Chicago Seven . . .
Armand Derfner (above) has an article in South Carolina’s Post and Courier called Pay the price for the common-sense gun laws we need. Derfner calls for civil war, although he probably doesn’t even realize it. But before dealing with the blood-stained wretch aspect of his piece, let us look at all of his conventional errors . . .
Scott A. Hodge [above] doesn’t have a strong opinion on the NRA’s post-Sandy Hook recommendation to put cops into every school in the country. Hodge’s only concern: who’s going to pay for it? If nothing else, Taxing Guns to Pay for Cops in Classrooms? taught me the official name for a tax designed to limit indirect societal costs from a given activity (a.k.a., “negative externalities”). It’s called a Pigouvian tax. The University of Illinois grad wants it applied to guns. Just one or two leetle problems, though . . .
Mike Wells Jr. isn’t just uninformed; he’s uninformed and determined to let the world know it. There are so many errors in his piece at PoliticusUSA I had to stop partway through out of sheer sympathetic embarrassment. To start with, there’s the title. The Second Amendment is Not an Unfettered Right. Actually, it’s supposed to be, hence the whole “shall not be infringed” language. But things just go downhill from there . . .
Covering for Glenn Beck the other day, Doc Thompson talked about the possibility of the GOP selling out on gun rights. He posted an e-mail exchange in which a high-level Congresscritter’s staffer said (in part):
So we’re going to stand up for our principles, but I don’t necessarily think that means refusing to do anything…This is just my hunch as a political hack, but I would guess there would be bipartisan, bicameral, in Congress for a bill addressing high-capacity magazines, mental health, enforcement of existing law, and making some tweaks to background check laws.
Normally I’m loathe to offer Leviathan any help whatsoever. But in this case, I believe we should propose our own gun control bill. Here’s my modest proposal . . .
Somebody named Mansur Gidfar has posted a list of ten supposed facts (terrifying facts!) about guns in America at upworthy.com. In an upset, some of them actually have a bare kernel of truth to them, but all are so misleading as to constitute flat out lies. So let’s fix Mansur’s post, shall we? . . .