Previous Post
Next Post


Recently the “gun-violence prevention” group States United to Prevent Gun Violence made waves with a video depicting a supposed gun store in New York City. Purporting to cater to first-time gun buyers, their actual goal was to conduct “a hidden camera social experiment to debunk safety myths. Every gun has a history. Let’s not repeat it.” For those who have not yet seen the video the “history” they are talking about is violence committed with each specific firearm model they offered. But I am not here to address the actions of gun-hating, freedom-abhorring, despicable wretches who gleefully dance in the blood of victims. I’m here to address antis in general and their reaction to a New York State Rifle & Pistol Association (NYSRPA) press release . . .

Oh my stars and garters what an uproar! From we hear NRA Affiliate Is So Scared Of This Gun Safety Video That It Wants A Criminal Investigation. Rachael Maddow said that “the gun rights groups are freaking out about this,[1]” and has a piece by our old friend Amanda Marcotte (above), The Gun Lobby Loves Freedom—But Apparently Not Free Speech that opens with:

Advocates for looser restrictions on gun ownership and use often portray themselves not as defenders of a noisy and expensive hobby, but the protectors of freedom itself.

Well, yes. It has often been said that without the Second Amendment the others are toothless. As Oleg Volk points out the old Soviet Union had freedom of speech (it was actually written right there in all three of their Constitutions); ask Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn or Yuli Daniel or Andrei Sakharov or any one of dozens of others just how well that worked out in practice.

Amanda continues:

Wrapping themselves in the Second Amendment and claiming to speak for the Founding Fathers is central to the anti-gun control argument, right up there with … peddling fantasies of heroic self-defense against a largely imaginary crime wave.

First of all Amanda we don’t claim to speak for the Founders we just want other people to listen to them and treat the Constitution and Bill of Rights like it was, oh, I dunno, how about the highest law of the land?!? Second, self-defense is rarely heroic; in fact mostly it is rather pedestrian (Mike the Mugger growls “gimme your wallet” in a menacing tone to which Cathy the Carrier replies by putting her hand on her weapon and saying “I don’t think so Scooter”) except for those rare times when it is downright bowel-looseningly terrifying. “Heroic” is how it is described later, mostly by people who weren’t there.

As for the “largely imaginary crime wave,” tell me Amanda, could the fact that we went from this:


to this:



to this:


over the last 27 years have anything to do with the dropping violent crime rates? Or the fact that we have gone from an estimated 1 million permit holders in the mid-eighties to in excess of 11 million today? Or are you a disciple of the Donohue-Levitt hypothesis pushed by anti-gunner John Donohue, which holds that rather than the prevalence of guns, legalized abortion should be credited for the drop in violent crime over the last few decades?

But anyway, back to Amanda’s charges of hypocrisy:

But what happens when gun-loving patriots are asked to support any other freedom but the freedom to own a gun?

Well, let’s see now; I have testified before the Minnesota legislature in favor of eminent domain reform, civil forfeiture reform and in opposition to ludicrous gun control bills. I have been “detained” (i.e. maced, thrown to the pavement, handcuffed, and beaten [2]) for exercising free speech outside of a free speech zone when President Bush was in town in 2004. I have been less strenuously detained for distributing jury nullification information outside the courthouse. I regularly donate money to the Institute for Justice[3] and Heifer International[4] and I would love to do more to fight for religious freedom, freedom of speech and the press, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, freedom of medication, the right to a jury trial in all matters exceeding 20 ounces of silver and all sorts of other civil rights, but I just don’t have the time.

Hence my concentration on one aspect of the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment, which does not mean I don’t support the others. Anyway, back to Amanda:

That question was put to the test recently by the pro-gun control group States United to Prevent Gun Violence, and they quickly discovered that gun lobbyists have no problem looking for ways to censor and silence their opponents.

Well that is completely unacceptable! What are they doing, circulating petitions threatening a boycott the way the Coalition to Stop Gun Ownership Coalition to Stop Gun Violence [sic] and the Demanding Moms did when Jay Leno was scheduled to speak at the 2015 SHOT Show? Did they petition to fire a reporter the way CSGV did after Emily Miller exercised her First Amendment rights and spoke at rallies with whose politics they disagreed? Are they calling for their followers to ‘SWAT’ SUtPGV members the way the Morally Depraved Antis Moms Demand Action is telling their members to do with (lawful) open-carriers?

Nope. NYSRPA issued a press release stating:

“First off, the firearms and accessories hanging in the background do not appear to comply with either New York City law or the so-called SAFE Act,” said NYSRPA President Thomas King.

“Second, it felony violation of the Sullivan Act for a person to possess a handgun anywhere in New York without a license. The video clearly shows individual “customers” handling various handguns and doing so in an unsafe manner.”

NYSRPA calls upon Attorney General Eric Schneiderman to investigate the advertising agency which produced the video, Grey New York, for possible violations of city and state law.

That’s it; they saw what they suspected were numerous violations of New York State and City laws and requested that the state’s Attorney General investigate. The antis regularly tell us how “common-sense” and “reasonable” all of these gun laws are, but G-d forbid that you try to enforce them against the people who push for them!

Or, as Amanda put it:

The official NRA affiliate in New York, the [NYSRPA] is trying to use the law to criminalize this video and participation in it. They want the state to use laws meant to ensure gun safety to be used to persecute people for speaking out for gun safety.

Oh the audacity of actually believing that the laws these very people have pushed for and support should actually be, you know, enforced against people who just have good intentions, like a journalist who uses an illegal magazine to ‘gotcha’ Wayne LaPierre, or a group which sets up a fake gun-shop in New York City. Except in this case it turns out they set up a fake-gun shop. Despite giving every impression throughout the video that these are real guns, Ms. Maddow stated that the guns were all fake, and the filming was done with the cooperation and assistance of the NYPD. Or, as Amanda says:

So the NRA’s pathetic attempt at a gotcha isn’t going to go anywhere. But it’s worrisome that they tried at all. Regardless of what formal laws the NYSRPA [sic], the intention here was quite clear: to suppress speech and silence dissent.

Okay now are we all clear on this? As long as your intentions are pure, you can go ahead and break any laws you like. Which is why TPM and Ms. Maddow and MediaMatters and MDA and CSVG held fundraisers for Shaneen Allen and Brian Aitken after their problems in New Jersey, and all got behind Ryan Jerome and Meredith Graves and Fred Vankirk for mistakenly trying to carry in NYC on outstate permits.

Oh, wait, they didn’t? Well isn’t that a bit hypocritical of them?



[1] At least she had the courtesy to call us gun rights groups instead of gun nuts or the Eee-vil Gun Lobby™

[2] And let me tell you cop mace isn’t that breath spray that you buy in ‘self-defense’ stores!

[3] IJ fights for freedom to work, against restrictive licensing schemes, against civil forfeiture abuse and eminent domain abuse, among other things.

[4] Heifer uses donations to provide animal gifts (from a pair of rabbits or a hive of bees up to a water buffalo) to those in need.


Previous Post
Next Post


    • Ad Hominum attacks contribute nothing to the conversation. All it does is fuel the other side. At least, that what TTAG use to say.

      • This. With the facts on our side, why should we ever need to stoop to the victim-disarmers’ level anyways? We can beat them AND retain the moral high ground – why give them ammunition to shoot at us with?

    • “Trannie” is a slur for a transgender person, usually a transwoman, that’s on the same level of hatefulness as “nigger.”

      • It can be used in a pejorative matter but to compare it to the word “nigger” is a gross overstatement. The politically correct word is “trans” (or “trans*”, “transgender” or “transsexual” preferred if you’re being precise and know what you’re talking about). The use of “tranny” by non-trans people is context-sensitive word. Like queer. I’m straight but none of my queer (as in LGBTQ) friends would object to me referring to a group of trans people as trannies in a completely non-hateful way, because the word is not inherently pejorative and many trans people still use it informally to refer to themselves non-pejoratively. I agree that these ad hominem transphobic attacks are distasteful. “She looks like a male in a dress and a wig” isn’t a good reason to put someone down. We should be putting these despicable antis down for their character, for their actions, and for their hatred of moral, decent gun owners.

    • I read the article (and comments) and it’s just so much concentrated stoopid that I had to stop. My head hurt too much. I’m hoping most of them are trendy hipsters, rabid self-styled feminists and loggersexuals who feel they’re too selfish cool to have kids. The gene pool is already shallow enough on the coasts, no sense in turning them into puddles…

  1. Getting really tired of the “increases in concealed carry caused the crime rate to drop!” argument. It is pretty obviously not correct. And “increases in concealed carry did not cause the crime rate to rise” not only has the benefit of being correct, but still a really good argument.

    • I think you will find that MOST of the time TTAG throws out the “correlation does not indicate causation” disclaimer when pointing out the drop in crime compared to the rise in concealed carry permits issued. Yes, this time they kind of let it slide by un-said, and perhaps a “Shame shame” is in order… this time. But for the most part, they DO make the case that more CC permits have NOT increased crime rates while pointing at a POSSIBLE correlation in the drop… sort of thing.

  2. That top map is wrong. Alabama was not a “shall issue” state in 1986. I know. It was a “probably issue” but you had to go through the local sheriff and it wasn’t automatic even if you could pass a background check and it was only good for a year at a time.

    I think they are stretching it in the 2013 map as well by claiming Arkansas is unrestricted. That is a topic of debate.

      • Give it 5 years, I bet it will be easy to go from there to everyone including transients. Or at least to unrestricted if you have a license from anywhere.

    • Arkansas is no longer a debate. We are a constitutional carry state. Despite the last attorney generals pathetic attempt to confuse the issue by focusing on the “journey” clause instead of the real issue of “intent to unlawfully employ”. Our new AG has made her impression on the law known and supports Act 746 as it is written. No clause for open, concealed, licensed or unlicensed or otherwise is implied. As long as you don’t intend to harm anyone or commit a crime with your weapon you are GTG. Go Arkanansas!

      • Uh, sorry but NO, The Attorney General opinion is NOT law, it’s simply a legal opinion. As such it holds little weight. What the law actually means won’t be decided until there’s a court case involving it. to set a legal precedent

        • True. AG opinion does not mean law but to say it holds little weight is not proper either. There are several cases slowly worming their way through the courts right now. Which I am certain will bolster your point. However the law specifically puts the burden of proof on the state to find guilt and I wouldn’t be so sure any attorney is going to want to be the test subject for that case and lose. In any case I suspect it will bounce around in court for a long time with no answer. That doesn’t mean that it is illegal in the meantime. The law does not specify any specific action other than “unlawfully employ” as illegal. Furthermore just because you have some resistant police departments doesn’t make it illegal either. Once they start getting slapped with some unlawful arrest suits they will change their policies. It’s all just some growing pains for people reclaiming their rights.

      • What about the next AG? What about a district where the District Attorney decides the AG’s opinion is incorrect and tries it in court?

        Until its Constitutional Carry, its not. That is what I was referring to. That map is very misleading. AR is not AZ or VT.

  3. Heifer International is one of the very, very few charities I will donate cash to. Normally I only give material things as I believe cash is too easily wasted in “administrative costs” (read: executive salaries and excessive overhead) but Heifer seems to put the majority of the money it collects into something actually useful.

  4. Thinking of the town constable in “Young Frankenstein,” “There’s a time and a place to form an ugly mob, and this is it!” (from memory, you get the idea).

  5. You know, Dan, I really would have preferred to close this week out without a pic of Amanda Marcotte.

    Thanks for killing my libido on date night.

  6. Marcotte got kicked off the John Edwards campaign for making up lies about the Duke Lacrosse case. She writes for Raw Story and the Guardian, which is to say the loony left. Anything she writes for Talking Points Memo’s is to inform the Kos Kool Kids Klub whats hip on the left progtard feminist scene, and we all know Media Matters is just disinformatzia.

    Hitting those links just helps their revenue model.

    Calling them out here is useful, as a reference for future historians of the sea change in 2A rights, at yet another milestone of the shrill fury of the left when citizens mock them, and punch back twice as hard with the facts and proofs that the hopey-changey cultural marxism of Progressivism v2.0 is fast collapsing into irrelevance.

    Radical Madcow and MSNBC are in a death spiral. Check the “wedgie” analogy here from the immortal Treacher:

  7. When I watched the video in question, it appeared that they were claiming not just that the gun being sold was the same model as used in the crime (as the post asserts), but the actual individual gun.

    (Which is transparently ridiculous to anyone who knows they usually vanish into evidenceland and eventually get destroyed.)

    • I really doubt they get destroyed, I think “taken home” would be a better description of their disposition. I read about a guy some time back who fought for several years to get his expensive firearm returned, when he finally did it was completely worn out, besides rusted and abused.

  8. Your First Amendment rights do not provide immunity from the law. I thought that was obvious.

  9. “against a largely imaginary crime wave.”

    Um…no. It is the anti gunners who imagine a crime wave. The pro gun folks keep pointing out that crime is steadily dropping while it is the antis who keep lying about an epidemic.

  10. I think that the point the gun rights movement people are trying to make here is to show the anti-gun crowd the kind of silly and pointless rules we must obey.
    The anti-gun people are always complaining that getting and keeping a gun is simple, anyone can do it. It comes as a shock to them when they are held to the same standards that we are being forced to live with.
    Plenty of people can relate stories of how their lives have been ruined by running afoul of some obscure firearm regulation without regard to intention. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

  11. Actually, your maps are wrong, they may portray right to CC, but not OC…WI has had OC long before 1986, and there is NOT a fair portrayal…

  12. “against a largely imaginary crime wave.”

    Funny how when gun rights are advocated, crime is imaginary. But when gun control is advocated, we have a serious crime problem.

  13. I hadn’t heard of the Donohue-Levitt thingy. But using their, ah, “logic,” so many legalized abortions per year not only cut down on the number of criminals, but it therefore also cuts down on the number of doctors, physicists, and teachers. I’ve heard of cherry-picking evidence, but cherry-picking conclusions is kind of new for me.

Comments are closed.