Two people can look at the same thing and see something totally different. One person can look at one thing and see two totally different things. We’re talking the NRA convention and the works of M. C. Esher [not shown]. Of the two, the NRA convention is the more germane. Which why the TTAG team attended the Nashville get-together of the nation’s oldest civil rights organization. We saw proud manufacturers and peaceful gun owners celebrating their gun rights. Josh Sugarmann of the Violence Policy Center probably didn’t attend the Convention. But that didn’t stop him from portraying NRAAM as a gathering of unregulated death merchants and their willing enablers. Check out his email blast below. Here’s hoping Josh’s vision becomes less Hieronymus Bosch and more Jean-Honoré Fragonard. If you know what I mean . . .
Letter to the editor at seattletimes.com replying to “Guns, kids don’t mix”
It depends on how you raise them. We raised three children with guns in the house. However, the guns and ammunition were secured and under our control. We went shooting as a family. We belonged to a shooting club with a weekly night for training children. It was well attended by parents. As a family, we had no problems with guns. The problem is much greater than access to guns . . .
TTAG reader Chip in South Florida writes:
I just had a job cross my desk that I found interesting and thought you, too, would get a kick out of it. The Chief of Police of my fine town asked me to print this poster for a display he is assembling. It’s a neat picture showing the general progression of Police from the late 1700’s to now. It starts on the left with the Rattle Watch from the 1700’s, then Officer, Marshall, et cetera up to the 50’s with the motorcycle cop and then on up to a SWAT team of today. It is a rather neat piece of artwork, well done overall. Now go back and look at the graphic again but pay attention to the stance of each presentation. From the left . . .
NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox delivered what was, far and away, one of the best speeches of the NRA Membership Meeting on Saturday. Granted, most of it was the usual political rhetoric one expects at these kinds of meetings, but it was well-delivered and he managed to avoid the sort of, uh, gaffes that others didn’t. The most interesting part of Cox’s speech came at the end, when he discussed the story of Josephine Byrd and Charles Boone, and their legal fight for the right to keep and bear arms . . .
We use the expression “wave the bloody shirt” a lot here at TTAG. It highlights the fact that proponents of gun control use the blood of innocents – without context – to further their cause. In the cartoon above, the Kitsap Sun newspaper is laying the blame for the murder of two-year-old Kaden Lum at the feet of “America’s gun culture.” It’s the same baseless smear mooted by Cleveland Police Chief Calvin Williams in a child death negligent discharge – only with a gleeful eagle/devil image. Is there any level to which the antis will not stoop to further their civilian disarmament agenda? No. No there isn’t. BTW: Lum’s family is pissed. [h/t Icabodwa]
“Tim McGraw announces he will headline a concert for Sandy Hook Promise on July 17, 2015 at 8 p.m. in Hartford Connecticut,” wtnh.com reports. “One-hundred percent of the proceeds will benefit Sandy Hook Promise, an organization founded after the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. The mission of this organization is to protect children from gun violence.” By disarming civilians? Don’t get me wrong . . .
“People lined up in front of the Doles Community Center with boxes and bags containing firearms an hour before the city opened the doors Saturday to the first gun buyback program in more than eight years,” lohud.com reports. Regular readers know my laundry list of complaints about these “feel good” firearms turn-in events: the no-question-asked policy eliminates the possibility of a criminal investigation, they create a market for stolen firearms (encouraging criminals to steal firearms), they waste taxpayer money (even if it’s just police overtime), they vilify guns, they disarm citizens, they destroy valuable firearms and they accomplish zilch in terms of reducing crime. “Gun buybacks” are nothing more than political theater. Still, the results are interesting and there’s a sad, make that pathetic twist to this tale . . .
On Sunday, a three-year-old Ohio resident got ahold of a firearm and shot a one-year-old boy in the head, killing him. Cleveland Police Chief Calvin Williams told the press that the person responsible for bringing the gun into the boys’ home may face charges. After that announcement, Williams went off-script. He told reporters that America’s gun culture bears responsibility for the tragedy. “Everybody has to know [that] this fascination with handguns, not just in the city, but in the country, has to stop,” he told cleveland.com. “We need to take a long look at what we’re doing on the state, local and national level to keep these guns out of our communities.” The backlash in the comments section includes this gem . . .
“In the gun world, there are obvious women’s guns,” wkrn.com pronounces, without revealing which firearms qualify for the double-X chromosome set. It’s a good question: what IS a woman’s gun? We asked our readers that very thing last month in Question of the Day: Is There Such a Thing As A “Woman’s Gun”?. Some 98 members of TTAG’s Armed Intelligentsia weighed-in without obvious consensus, and a lot of obvious snark. Our friends at Remington hit the NRA convention in Nashville in search of answers . . .
The surprise hit of the National Firearms Law Seminar (for me, anyway,) was the last presentation of the day by William J. Ryan, from the Office of the Chief Counsel of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE). Mr. Ryan’s speech came at the end of almost nine hours of lectures (including the luncheon speaker,) and I was internally debating whether or not I should bail out early to check out the outdoor concert and see if I could find a good pair of Lucchese roper boots from some of the nearby shops….but I am really glad I didn’t . . .
Glenn Harlan Reynolds, of Instapundit fame, was the specal lunch speaker at the National Firearms Law Seminar yesterday at the NRA Annual Meeting. Professor Reynolds gave an interesting talk derived from an article he wrote for the Tennessee Law Review last year, “The Second Amendment as Ordinary Constitutional Law.” He covered a variety of topics, but said one thing I thought really interesting (which I hastily scrawled on my napkin, so apologies if the wording is not exact): “If a premises owner bars me from possessing a gun on those premises, he should be liable if I suffer as a result of it, as if he had done it himself.” . . .
John Farnham [via Ammoland.com] writes:
Last weekend, a patrol rifle (type/caliber unknown) was stolen from a private vehicle owned by a Calgary (Canada) municipal police officer. Calgary’s Police Superintendent said this in his immediate response: “There is no reason, in my mind, why an officer would take this firearm home (apparently referring to the rifle)… We do not want our officers taking their firearms home… There’s nothing good that can come of that.” The foregoing is a typical articulation of . . .