Quote of the Day - Flight 93 Election Edition

From a pretty important essay over at Claremont, The Flight 93 Election. It's a fairly long piece (not überpost-length, but not 800 words, either) so this excerpt will be too:

One of the Journal of American Greatness’s deeper arguments was that only in a corrupt republic, in corrupt times, could a Trump rise. It is therefore puzzling that those most horrified by Trump are the least willing to consider the possibility that the republic is dying. That possibility, apparently, seems to them so preposterous that no refutation is necessary.

As does, presumably, the argument that the stakes in 2016 are—everything. I should here note that I am a good deal gloomier than my (former) JAG colleagues, and that while we frequently used the royal “we” when discussing things on which we all agreed, I here speak only for myself.

How have the last two decades worked out for you, personally? If you’re a member or fellow-traveler of the Davos class, chances are: pretty well. If you’re among the subspecies conservative intellectual or politician, you’ve accepted—perhaps not consciously, but unmistakably—your status on the roster of the Washington Generals of American politics. Your job is to show up and lose, but you are a necessary part of the show and you do get paid. To the extent that you are ever on the winning side of anything, it’s as sophists who help the Davoisie oligarchy rationalize open borders, lower wages, outsourcing, de-industrialization, trade giveaways, and endless, pointless, winless war.

All of Trump’s 16 Republican competitors would have ensured more of the same—as will the election of Hillary Clinton. That would be bad enough. But at least Republicans are merely reactive when it comes to wholesale cultural and political change. Their “opposition” may be in all cases ineffectual and often indistinguishable from support. But they don’t dream up inanities like 32 “genders,” elective bathrooms, single-payer, Iran sycophancy, “Islamophobia,” and Black Lives Matter. They merely help ratify them.

A Hillary presidency will be pedal-to-the-metal on the entire Progressive-left agenda, plus items few of us have yet imagined in our darkest moments. Nor is even that the worst. It will be coupled with a level of vindictive persecution against resistance and dissent hitherto seen in the supposedly liberal West only in the most “advanced” Scandinavian countries and the most leftist corners of Germany and England. We see this already in the censorship practiced by the Davoisie’s social media enablers; in the shameless propaganda tidal wave of the mainstream media; and in the personal destruction campaigns—operated through the former and aided by the latter—of the Social Justice Warriors. We see it in Obama’s flagrant use of the IRS to torment political opponents, the gaslighting denial by the media, and the collective shrug by everyone else.

It’s absurd to assume that any of this would stop or slow—would do anything other than massively intensify—in a Hillary administration. It’s even more ridiculous to expect that hitherto useless conservative opposition would suddenly become effective. For two generations at least, the Left has been calling everyone to their right Nazis. This trend has accelerated exponentially in the last few years, helped along by some on the Right who really do seem to merit—and even relish—the label. There is nothing the modern conservative fears more than being called “racist,” so alt-right pocket Nazis are manna from heaven for the Left. But also wholly unnecessary: sauce for the goose. The Left was calling us Nazis long before any pro-Trumpers tweeted Holocaust denial memes. And how does one deal with a Nazi—that is, with an enemy one is convinced intends your destruction? You don’t compromise with him or leave him alone. You crush him.

So what do we have to lose by fighting back? Only our Washington Generals jerseys—and paychecks. But those are going away anyway. Among the many things the “Right” still doesn’t understand is that the Left has concluded that this particular show need no longer go on. They don’t think they need a foil anymore and would rather dispense with the whole bother of staging these phony contests in which each side ostensibly has a shot.

RTWT. Twice.

From the Front Lines

My favorite Merchant O'Death emails from his position on the front lines:

The statement has been made and the Kool-Aid has been drunk. In the wake of the ATF statement about the impending ban on any 5.56mm/.223 ammunition that is loaded with the 62-grain, SS109 LAP bullet (the one cartridge specifically named by the ATF&E being the M-855) known colloquially as "green tip", the masses have laid siege to my shop, buying large quantities of any and all 5.56/.223 ammo, the most common statement from the aforementioned group being: "I can't believe you guys still have any two-two-three ammo on the shelves! The government is going to ban it!" or words to that effect. The fact that Rush Limbaugh stated that the government was going to ban .223 ammo on his radio show last week has had the expected result. I shudder to think what the lines in front of ammo vendors at gun shows will look like in the foreseeable future, though thankful that I will not be one of those folks standing in those lines.

We don't have any limits on .223 ammo nor have we increased our prices. Despite the predictable reaction from the "masses", we aren't worried about running out of 5.56/.223 ammo anytime soon though our stock of 62-grain, "green tip" ammo is quite low. Not everyone has fallen for the misinformation. The vast majority of those individuals scampering out of the shop with an arm-load of .223 are of the "tacti-cool" variety. There are a goodly number of folks that actually ask: "What is the deal with the ban on two-two-three ammo?" And I happily explain it to them. Strangely enough, while the sales of ammo have spiked, the sales of "black rifles" have not. I find that a bit amusing actually.

It does indicate that pretty much everyone who wants an AR has an AR, doesn't it?

Just by coincidence I recently purchased 500 SS109 projectiles when they went on sale at one of the major mail-order vendors.  I don't shoot M855 (I handload) but these were such a good deal I thought I'd give them a try and see how they compare accuracy-wise against my normal Hornady 75 grain BTHPs.

What I told Merchant O'D was, I'm waiting for the DoD to take a second shot (so to speak) at making once-fired military brass unavailable to reloaders.  After all, the mantra of The Other Side™ is, "The philosophy cannot be wrong!  Do it again, ONLY HARDER!!"

A Crutch? It Should be Used as an Impaling Stake.

How many inconsistencies (and how much bullshit) can you find in this story:

Affidavit: Man using rifle as crutch when it fired

GRANTS PASS, Ore. (AP) -- An Oregon man told police he was using his assault rifle as a crutch to help him get up from a couch at a friend's apartment when it fired a burst through the ceiling and killed a little girl upstairs, court records show.

He was using the gun as a crutch, but it "fired a burst" through the CEILING?!?! Why didn't it take his arm off at the shoulder?

A police affidavit said Jon Andrew Meyer Jr. told investigators the gun went off accidentally June 27 at the Grants Pass apartment, the Grants Pass Daily Courier reported.

Defense lawyer Gary Berlant adds Meyer had been assured the gun was not fully automatic.

But it "fired a BURST"?  How long had he owned it?  Did it have a happy switch?

Meyer is being held on $250,000 bail on charges of manslaughter, assault and unlawful possession of a machine gun.

Authorities say he was responsible for the reckless burst of rifle fire that killed 5-year-old Alysa Bobbitt of Shady Cove and wounded apartment resident Karen Hancock. The girl and Hancock were upstairs in the same apartment as Meyer.

The little girl and her mother were visiting friends there, but just what Meyer was doing in the apartment with the rifle was unclear. Court records say his fiancee had kicked him out of her place, getting a restraining order, and he listed his current residence as his sister's home.

So he was under a restraining order, but he still had firearms? That's unpossible!!

Meyer listed his occupation as lead bouncer at a Mexican restaurant, where he has worked for two years.

Though his fiancee, Victoria Kohout, told authorities that Meyer was a "big teddy bear," her June 20 petition for the restraining order described him as an "unpredictable drug addict" who had threatened her with a gun, and threatened to burn down her house, slash her tires and break the windows on her car. The judge noted in the file that Meyer had four guns.

So he was a drug abuser, and the court was informed that he had firearms? And they didn't take them?  Or did he acquire this one after the fact?

Lori Nelson, who lives down the block, said she was startled by the noise of gunfire, and saw Meyer running down the driveway. Then she heard screaming and saw Danielle R. Wilson, Alyssa's mother, come outside holding the child in her arms.

"She looked up at me and said, 'Please, help my baby,'" Nelson said.

The perp was using the rifle as a crutch in his apartment, but after it "fired a burst" through the ceiling he is then seen "running down the driveway". It's a MIRACLE! He was HEALED THROUGH THE POWER OF JESUS!

Everything about this story stinks. I can't wait for the junk-on-the-bunk pictures and the handwringing over this guy's "arsenal."

And I hope he dies screaming in a fire.

Now watch the AP come after me.  I claim "Fair Use."  Read the disclaimer at the bottom of the page.

"Deputies believe alcohol was involved."

"Deputies believe alcohol was involved."

No, really? And Darwin. Definitely Darwin:

An Imperial man is dead after accidentally shooting himself in the head while teaching his girlfriend firearms safety.

Sheriff Glenn Boyer said that on Friday, deputies responded to 4307 Rock Valley Court in Imperial for a shooting. Investigators found 40-year-old James Looney with a gunshot wound to the head.

According to witnesses, Looney was demonstrating how to use the different safety mechanisms on several guns to his girlfriend. The witnesses said Looney would put the guns to his head, and before pulling the trigger, would ask her if she thought the gun would go off. With the first two guns, the safety mechanisms worked. The third gun fired.

Looney was transported to an area hospital, where he was pronounced dead the next morning.

According to witnesses, Looney was going to take his girlfriend to the shooting range the next day, but insisted on the lesson on firearm safety the day before.

Deputies believe alcohol was involved.

- KSDK, St. Louis, MO

I keep hearing "Hold my beer and watch THIS!"

At least the idiot died in this incident.

Exclusion

Exclusion?

David Codrea reports that the 2A Blog Bash has become . . . exclusive, and not in a good way. By all appearances, anyone who does not meet Bitter's unpublished criteria won't get blogger credentials at the NRA convention. Please do read the whole thing.

I left this comment at David's:

Of course it's an NRA public relations stunt. What do you think, they want news crews to tape a shouting match between the Prags and the Threepers?

Honestly, how many of you here think that mixing those two groups would result in Reasoned Discourse™? We already know what it does on the intarwebs.

And I think we've had this discussion before - in the Civil Right to Arms movement, the Prags play MLK and the Threepers play Malcom X. The opposition talks to the Prags, because otherwise they have to talk to you.

Don't act all surprised and butthurt. This is the role you've embraced.

And this addendum:

Note:

I'm speaking for myself here. I don't know that Bitter has done what you've accused her of, but I wouldn't find it surprising, for the reason I gave above.

I'm not happy about it, but it's her party. And no, I really don't want to get into a shouting match with Mike Vanderboegh in the hall in front of cameras. That's a public front I'd rather not put forth.

Discuss.

Well, I'm Disappointed

I'm a pessimist by temperament. That way I go through life often pleasantly surprised and seldom disappointed, but seldom isn't never.

Readers of TSM are probably familiar with this guy:


That's Jim Scoutten, producer and host of Shooting USA, and a member (with his own forum) at AR15.com. Well, I thought I'd ask him about the possibility of Shooting USA covering Boomershoot:

Jim, have you ever covered or considered covering the annual Boomershoot in Orofino Idaho? I realize it's probably far too late for this year's (end of April) event, but I think this is something a lot of people would really enjoy seeing. There's video at the link done by a local (well, regional) TV station to give you the flavor of the event, but it's not enough for us gun-nuts.

I'm going for the first time this year, and I know that other ARFCOMers have gone in the past.

Hope to see you again at this year's NRA convention in Phoenix!

The answer was not quite what I expected:

I've always thought there are some events that shouldn't get National TV coverage.

When we'd like the public to think of competitive shooting to be like other mainstream sports.

Uh, right.

My reply:

Thus Knob Creek shouldn't get national coverage?

Did you watch the King5 piece? (Windows Media file) I thought it was excellent, though short. Personally, I was amazed that a mainstream media outlet would be so positive about an event of this type. Joe Huffman, the organizer of the event, showed it to the NRA media relations rep at the last NRA convention, and she kept saying happily "Play it again! Play it again!"

One of the things that I think needs to happen is the renormalization of firearms and the shooting sports. Read sometime Hell in a Handbasket's Confessions of a Deathbeast. This is what sixty years of slow-motion hate crime has done to what used to be a respected culture. It's time and past time to start trying to restore that respect, or if not respect, at least neutrality instead of fear and loathing.

We can't all be Bianchi Cup competitors or shoot at Camp Perry. Not all shooters want to go slay an elk or a bear. Events like this are for us common shooters who want a real challenge. I think they should get more coverage so perhaps there might be more of them.

But what do I know?

Ry Jones was equally disappointed less verbose in the thread, but made up for it in the comments at his blog.

Joe Huffman's response, however, was piquant. By all means, read the thread.

UPDATE: Linoge has a pretty comprehensive post hitting all the high points, with links to everyone commenting on this tempest in a teacup.

Only Two (2) in Over Five Years

Only Two (2) in Over Five Years

Well, I just banned Billy Beck from comments here at TSM. While I generally respect the life he leads and the message he puts out, I cannot respect the messenger any longer. Billy is only the second person I've ever banned, and the other was JadeGold.

No, Billy, It's Off. You got the martyrdom you wanted. Consider your company.

I was right. I got a sh!#storm in my comments, but this isn't what I was expecting.

Again, I'm still out of town on business, and it looks like I will be at least five days a week through the end of January. In January, it may go to seven days a week, with even longer hours. I wish I could say that I'll have an überpost up tomorrow or the next day dissecting this whole thing, but I can't.

I will say that the rift exhibited here isn't good. (I'd like to accept the "Blindingly Fucking Obvious Award" in the name of H-S Precision . . .)

I will, however say something about this comment (not by Beck):

Not being satisfied with taking more than 50% of my earnings each year, the American government in a few short weeks will likely propose legislation to criminalize and then remove my firearms of military utility, along with their accoutrements.

There's a very low probability of defeating such legislation, which may include neither a sunset clause a la AWB I nor any grandfathering of existing weapons or accessories.

I and a whole lot of other folks will not comply.

At that point, the government will face a choice -- lose credibility by doing nothing, or begin the raids that will open a terribly bloody new chapter of our history.

A whole lot of folks are preparing for just that eventuality -- and are simply waiting for the government to make the first move.

When they kill Vanderboegh or other prominent folks...when the rolling roadblocks commence...when there's an obligatory "refinancing" of people's retirement funds into "government-backed retirement accounts"....when the alternative media are being squashed....when the homeschoolers are being raided "for the children"...a whole lot of folks will roll off their fail-safe points and go hot.

And it will be a bloody, tragic mess.

The operative word in these paragraphs being "When".

Not "If."

If what is predicted here comes to pass, then yes, there will be an armed uprising.

I'll make you a bet, CA: One year from now only ONE of your predictions might become fact. That would be reinstitution of an "Assault Weapons Ban."

There will be no general confiscation. None of the other things you predict will occur - UNLESS you and the "3%" start assassinating media figures, elected officials and agents of the Federal government (presumably by long range rifle shot) AS YOU HAVE STATED YOU WOULD DO IF AN ASSAULT WEAPON BAN WAS PASSED.

Is this how you intend to "force" the rest of us into revolution?

Fantasy Ideology

In August of 2002 Lee Harris published Al Qaeda's Fantasy Ideology, an essay exploring the "root cause" of the 9/11 attacks. It made a fairly big splash in the blogosphere. Here, for the purposes of this essay, are the key graphs from Harris's piece:

My first encounter with this particular kind of fantasy occurred when I was in college in the late 1960s. A friend of mine and I got into a heated argument. Although we were both opposed to the Vietnam War, we discovered that we differed considerably on what counted as permissible forms of antiwar protest. To me the point of such protest was simple--to turn people against the war. Hence anything that was counterproductive to this purpose was politically irresponsible and should be severely censured. My friend thought otherwise; in fact, he was planning to join what by all accounts was to be a massively disruptive demonstration in Washington, which in fact became one.

My friend did not disagree with me as to the likely counterproductive effects of such a demonstration. Instead, he argued that this simply did not matter. His answer was that even if it was counterproductive, even if it turned people against war protesters, indeed even if it made them more likely to support the continuation of the war, he would still participate in the demonstration and he would do so for one simple reason--because it was, in his words, good for his soul.

What I saw as a political act was not, for my friend, any such thing. It was not aimed at altering the minds of other people or persuading them to act differently. Its whole point was what it did for him.

And what it did for him was to provide him with a fantasy--a fantasy, namely, of taking part in the revolutionary struggle of the oppressed against their oppressors. By participating in a violent antiwar demonstration, he was in no sense aiming at coercing conformity with his view--for that would still have been a political objective. Instead, he took his part in order to confirm his ideological fantasy of marching on the right side of history, of feeling himself among the elect few who stood with the angels of historical inevitability. Thus, when he lay down in front of hapless commuters on the bridges over the Potomac, he had no interest in changing the minds of these commuters, no concern over whether they became angry at the protesters or not. They were there merely as props, as so many supernumeraries in his private psychodrama. The protest for him was not politics but theater; and the significance of his role lay not in the political ends his actions might achieve, but rather in their symbolic value as ritual. In short, he was acting out a fantasy.

It was not your garden-variety fantasy of life as a sexual athlete or a racecar driver, but in it, he nonetheless made himself out as a hero--a hero of the revolutionary struggle. The components of his fantasy--and that of many young intellectuals at that time--were compounded purely of ideological ingredients, smatterings of Marx and Mao, a little Fanon and perhaps a dash of Herbert Marcuse.

For want of a better term, call the phenomenon in question a fantasy ideology--by which I mean political and ideological symbols and tropes used not for political purposes, but entirely for the benefit of furthering a specific personal or collective fantasy. It is, to be frank, something like the role-playing game Dungeons & Dragons carried out not with the trappings of medieval romances--old castles and maidens in distress--but entirely in terms of ideological symbols and emblems. The difference between them is that one is an innocent pastime while the other has proved to be one of the most terrible scourges to afflict the human race.

There seems to be a lot of something much like that going around these days.

The topic of the "Three Percenters" has floated to the surface again. See here, here, here, and here. My previous posts on the subject are The Threshold of Outrage, Freedom, Hope, Outrage, Bright Lines, Revolutions and End Times, and Philosophy, Revolution, and the Restoration of the Constitution. And yes, the pieces are as long as the titles would suggest. You really need to read these links if (somehow) you're unfamiliar with the background of this topic.

SayUncle states:

I would try to engage them and point out that maybe scaring the white people isn’t the best policy decision. That their efforts are better spent being politically active instead of engaging in mental masturbation all over their keyboards. Or, as Sebastian said: If 3% of gun owners were as involved in political activism as they supposedly are at preparing for civil war, we’d be an unstoppable political force. But, like reasoning with the birds, it’s a fruitless endeavor. It will waste my time and probably annoy the birds. After all, these are guys who accuse other bloggers of cowardice for not drawing a clear line in the sand, while pointing out their own lines have been crossed while they do nothing but engage in a New World Order induced circle jerk.

Linoge says:

After wasting considerable amounts of time reading their writings, the only conclusion I can come to is that they do not give to farts about America's liberties and freedom - they only care about their own liberties and freedoms, and whatever perceived slights or affronts to them they see the government doing. They do not care that their writings (such as the letter to the editor) have almost undoubtedly done more harm than good by alienating readers. They do not care that there are political and social means and methods for airing their grievances, making changes in the governmental system, and making headway in terms of liberties and rights... and doing it all peaceably and without fomenting armed rebellion. They do not care that their proposed, poorly-thought-out actions have no clear-cut termination or resolution. They do not care that those actions would result in the deaths of many, many innocent people - people who had no interest in the situation, people whose choices were made for them by a merry band of "three percenter" misfits, people who might have supported them politically. They do not care that they do not have public support now, and they sure as hell would not have public support were they to follow through on their threats. They do not care that public support is the only way to make permanent, lasting changes in the American governmental system. They do not care that they appear to have absolultely no plans concerning what to do with the smoldering and shattered remains of the country after their glorious revolution (which indicates an admission of having no hope of success). They obviously do not care about standing up and fulfilling their useless promises in the past, when Americans' Second-Amendment-protected rights were being "further restricted" (much less other rights going out the window). They do not care about all this, and more.

They don't care, because they're taken with a fantasy--a fantasy, namely, of taking part in the revolutionary struggle of the oppressed against their oppressors. They want to take part in order to confirm their ideological fantasy of marching on the right side of history, of feeling themselves among the elect few who stood with the angels of historical inevitability.

The fact that it won't accomplish their stated goals - is antithetical to them, in fact - is irrelevant.

Fits pretty good, doesn't it?

Several people have quoted Sebastian on the topic, Uncle did so in the excerpt above. Let me repeat it:

If 3% of gun owners were as involved in political activism as they supposedly are at preparing for civil war, we’d be an unstoppable political force. There would be no need to argue about where the line is, because it would be political suicide for any politician to get anywhere near it.

I want to bring up Billy Beck again:

You know you're talking about Carl Drega, right?

Every now and then, I see someone going on about "totalitarianism". The misgrapplings surrounding this subject are rife. All the classic literature has gone far to foster them. (Arendt did damned fine work on it, but...) It just about never occurs to anyone that the root of that word can descend on any given individual, to the effect that "political scientists" always project over the whole culture, but without destroying the whole culture.

The destruction of Carl Drega was, nonetheless, "total", and it was only the logical end of the very first claim that the state ever laid on his life. After that, it was all only degrees of application until the end.

And what difference did it make?

I've been so near the end of my goddamned rope that, for years now, I've harbored a half-baked plan to set myself on fire on the steps of the Capitol. Go ahead and make fun of it. Am I any more far-gone than the rest of you? What difference would it make if I was? Here is the central problem surrounding what you people are talking about:

There is no coherent and cohesive philosophy underpinning it. Everybody's pissed off, but you all have your varying degrees of what you'll settle for. Someone like me comes along to suggest something like starving the Beast out of existence by not paying for it, or withdrawing the overt political sanction by not bloody voting -- like I've been doing for years to general laughter -- and, suddenly, nobody is so pissed off anymore. There is something everyone can agree on: "Beck's a kook."

Beck concludes (read the whole piece, it's worth your time):

But you people are talking about blowing the place up, whether you know it or not. That's the only way it can go, as things are now, because there is no philosophy at the bottom of what you're talking about. Once the shooting starts, all bets are off.

I'm pretty damned sure I'd rather not live to see that.

Realistically, neither would I. I'm not wrapped up in a fantasy ideology. Oh, I have my own personal line in the sand - my doorstep - but I don't believe that 3% of the gun owning population will rise up against the eeeevil Feds when the next Assault Weapons Ban is passed. Or the next Wayne Fincher gets arrested.

Are you familiar with the "Free Wayne Webring"? Members of this webring want to bring attention to the case of Hollis Wayne Fincher, a man who put his ass on the line for what he believed. Mr. Fincher now, I believe, 61 years of age decided that being a citizen of the U.S., and the Second Amendment to the Constitution meant that he should be able to possess fully-automatic weapons and a short-barrelled shotgun without having to jump through the hoops of the 1934 National Firearms Act. Mr. Fincher was a founder of the Militia of Washington County, Arkansas. He quite openly built up some Sten submachine guns and some Browning 1919 light machine guns and, as Syd at Front Sight, Press put it, "formally notified the governor of Arkansas what he was doing."

The BATF was not amused. Hollis Wayne Fincher was arrested for possession of post-'86 unregistered machine guns and an unregistered short-barrelled shotgun and was convicted in January of 2007, Second Amendment be damned. As I noted at the time, the verdict was completely unsurprising. Mr. Fincher made his argument in the 8th Circuit where there was already precedent on a similar case, U.S. v. Nelsen. Remember, this was long before D.C. v. Heller. So Mr. Fincher was convicted and sentenced to 6½ years. And, of course, the revocation of his right to arms forever.

This, of course, pissed off the gun nuts, and most especially the "Three-Percenters."

But nobody shot a Fed. After all, their doorway wasn't crossed.

Sebastian says that if he could get 3% of gun owners to become politically active - do the dull, grinding, irritating, necessary work involved in living in a Representative Democracy, then the possibility of this kind of thing ever occurring again would be nil.

OK, say you're just not into envelope-stuffing, knocking on doors, writing letters to your Congresscritters, writing letters to the Editor of the local birdcage liners, calling your local TV and radio stations, showing up at the local office of your Representative or Senator and asking questions (or volunteering to help their campaign - if they're on our side - or volunteering to help their opponent, if they're not) or even running for office yourself as Clayton Cramer recently did.

Change the paradigm.

We don't need a Free Wayne Webring, we need a JOIN Wayne Webring. Civil disobedience worked for Gandhi. It worked for Black civil rights.

I'll be right up front with you: I'm not volunteering, I'm just proposing the idea.

Hey, if 3% of the gun-owning population is willing to saddle-up and go kill (as Mike Vanderboegh puts it) "the bureaucrats and politicians who decided to start the war? And, like Clinton, should we target the media talking heads and newspaper editors who clamored for it in the first place?" wouldn't those same people be willing to clog the courts and even further overstuff our prison systems in the name of peaceful change?

I suspect not. After all, the point isn't to actually alter the minds of other people or persuade them to act differently. The whole point is what the fantasy ideology does for the three-percenters.

I now expect a comment sh!#storm of my very own.

UPDATE 12/7: Will Brown comments cogently. I'll have more to say about that post, if I have any energy left after work tomorrow.

Give 'Em Hell!

Give 'Em Hell!

Ride Fast and Shoot Straight does a damned fine job fisking the clueless Bill Schneider's latest column in New West, What I've Learned from Gun Nuts. He's obviously learned the wrong damned lesson, and Ride Fast schools him.

An excerpt:

I’ve learned that most gun owners aren’t hunters and some have nothing but scorn for hunters because we’re soft and care about other amendments. So, they mock us, calling us Elmer Fudds. But the hunter’s revenge is the Pitman-Robinson Act, which mandates excise taxes historically paid mostly by hunters, but now mostly paid by gun owners who never hunt or even loathe hunters as turncoats. Back at you, buddy.

Some, a small minority, may have jokingly called you Fudds, or maybe mocked you. Your guy, Zumbo, called me a terrorist. Who's the nasty bastard now? Bill, the point is we should be on the same side. Hunters fully supporting mere gun owners, shooters supporting hunters, sheep dogs supporting collectors. It's really is all about the guns.

As someone once said to me: You beat that man like a rented mule! Bravo!

Frightening the White People

There is an interesting discussion going on in the comments to a post at Snowflakes in Hell on a letter to the editor written by Mike Vanderboegh. Mr. Vanderboegh is a strident voice for the right to arms, an extremist's extremist. He is, as I described him in my own comment at Snowflakes, the Malcolm X of the gun-rights movement.

He's the guy who wants to, as SayUncle puts it so wincingly, "frighten the white people."

Mr. Vanderboegh is currently writing a book, one that makes John Ross's Unintended Consequences look like a trip to Disneyland. It's entitled Absolved, and it's being published, chapter by chapter, on various gun blogs. David Codrea, a member of the Black Rifle Panthers himself, has a link to all the chapters posted so far. You might find it an interesting read. Mr. Vanderboegh is a pretty good writer.

The general consensus of the 66 (so far) comments at Sebastian's is that actually telling people that gun owners are willing to kill over the right to arms is counterproductive in the struggle to convince a majority that having a right to arms is a good thing. Of course there are those who think Mr. Vanderboegh is off his rocker, or that anyone who doesn't agree wholeheartedly with him is a traitor, but generally the middle-of-the-road position is "he's right, but we shouldn't say things like that out loud." Most believe that we're turning back the tide of gun control, and that the Heller decision illustrates this emphatically, so tossing verbal hand-grenades is more than a little counterproductive. Others argue that incidents like the David Olofson prosecution and conviction prove that the government is still coming after us, and they'll keep doing it retail until they figure out how to do it wholesale.

I'd like to point out that Mr. Vanderboegh is not the only person out there who has stated, seriously, that lethal force against government officials isn't off the list of possible responses. In fact, in January of 2007 SayUncle (in all seriousness) and Tamara (you never can really tell) made it plain that that was a position they both took.

Mr. Vanderboegh wrote in his letter to the editor:

There are some of us "cold dead hands" types, perhaps 3 percent of gun owners, who would kill anyone who tried to further restrict our God-given liberty. Don't extrapolate from your own cowardice and assume that just because you would do anything the government told you to do that we would.

SayUncle wrote:

What makes me a gun nut?

Not the number of guns I own. For someone who yammers on so much about guns, I probably own considerably less than the average reader here. I own the following: Ruger 10/22, a Walther P22, Kel-Tec 380, an AR in 9mm, Glock 30, an AR in 5.56. I think that's it. Six firearms. I have a lot on my to buy list but they always get pushed back due to other priorities or whatever. And here lately, I've actually sold a couple of firearms. One, because I didn't care for it and one because I was offered too much to turn it down.

It's not that I like how they work mechanically or tinkering. I do that with other stuff and I'm not nuts about that. I like to do woodworking but I am not a woodworking nut. And I don't blog about woodworking.

It's not hunting. I don't hunt.

It's not the zen of target shooting. I zen playing cards, golf, and other activities as well.

So, what is it? I thought about it long and hard. And it's this simple truth:

If you fuck with me bad enough, I'll kill your ass.

Simple. Not elegant. But that truth is what scares the shit out of others and it's that truth that makes people look at you like you're crazy. It won't be a NRA slogan any time soon. But it's what you're asserting when you claim to be a gun nut, whether you like it or not.

SayUncle is one of Mr. Vanderboegh's "3 percent." So am I. But SayUncle made his statement on a blog, a site read mostly by others who share, largely, the same beliefs. Mr. Vanderboegh made his statement in a newspaper, where people who don't think the way we do are in the majority.

I'm ambivalent on the topic, myself. I think those who really need to understand that some of us are willing to kill already do. That's why they go after people like David Olofson - to frighten the rest of us. I think that the 97% of the gun owning population that isn't on the same wavelength as Mr. Vanderboegh and SayUncle and myself needs to be reminded from time to time that the Second Amendment isn't about hunting and target shooting and gun collecting. There's a reason they enumerated an individual right to arms, and it had to do with watering the Tree of Liberty, if necessary.

Where Mr. Vanderboegh and I differ is on when (or whether) that watering needs to be done. I suspect that SayUncle and I are in more agreement that Mr. Vanderboegh and I would be. As I said in my own comment at Snowflakes in Hell:

There's a group of people, and as far as I can tell it's growing, that not only believes that we're headed for violent revolution, they want it.

And what scares me is, sometimes I think they're right.

Your thoughts?

SayUncle Sez

SayUncle Sez...

"Don't scare white people."

Pat Bagley, Salt Lake Tribune

Generally good advice.

Fire Up the Music

Fire Up the Music...

...the Brady Bunch will be dancing in the blood of a 4-year old as soon as they hear about it.

Once again, gun owners manage to be our own worst enemies:

Girl shoots herself with grandma's gun at SC store

COLUMBIA, S.C. — A 4-year-old girl shot herself in the chest Monday after snatching her grandmother's handgun from the woman's purse while riding in a shopping cart at a Sam's Club store, authorities said.

A witness, Lueen Homewood, said store workers grabbed first-aid materials off store shelves to help the grandmother as she cradled the wounded child near the store's pharmacy, The (Columbia) State newspaper reported on its Web site.

The girl was rushed to a hospital in critical condition and was recovering Monday afternoon after surgery, said police department spokesman Brick Lewis. Hospital officials would not release her condition after the operation.

Lewis said the grandmother, Donna Hutto Williamson, has a permit to carry a concealed weapon and the purse containing the small-caliber handgun was in the cart near the child. The 47-year-old Williamson, of Salley, was not immediately charged with a crime.

Read the rest of it.

Stupid, STUPID, STUPID. Does she leave the child around insecticides or drain cleaner? Does she carry medications in that same purse? Doesn't she know better than to leave a young child like that with access to dangerous materials?

Yeah, Hollywood Has Our Back...

...and is gleefully and repeatedly sticking a knife in it.

WARNING: FOUL LANGUAGE FOLLOWS, BECAUSE I AM PISSED.

Remember this post? I'd been to see The Bourne Ultimatum (a not too pro-American film itself) and had to comment on three of the trailers shown before the feature: The Kingdom, Rendition, and Lions for Lambs.

Apparently the trailer for Redacted wasn't yet available.

A new film about the real-life rape and killing of a 14-year-old Iraqi girl by U.S. soldiers who also murdered her family stunned the Venice festival, with shocking images that left some viewers in tears.

"Redacted", by U.S. director Brian De Palma, is one of at least eight American films on the war in Iraq due for release in the next few months and the first of two movies on the conflict screening in Venice's main competition.

Inspired by one of the most serious crimes committed by American soldiers in Iraq since the 2003 invasion, it is a harrowing indictment of the conflict and spares the audience no brutality to get its message across.

De Palma, 66, whose "Casualties of War" in 1989 told a similar tale of abuse by American soldiers in Vietnam, makes no secret of the goal he is hoping to achieve with the film's images, all based on real material he found on the Internet.

"The movie is an attempt to bring the reality of what is happening in Iraq to the American people," he told reporters after a press screening.

(All emphasis mine.)

OK, Brian, here's my commentary on your film, which I have not seen and will not see:

If you want to make a film that brings "the reality of what is happening in Iraq to the American people" it had better include Al Qaeda suicide bombers deliberately targeting children and Mosques with VBIEDs. It had better include Al Qaeda torturing and murdering Iraqis with assistance from Iran and Syria. It had better include Americans providing medical care, building schools, providing supplies, training Iraqi police and military units, and all the other good things American soldiers do every single fucking day in Iraq. It had better include showing Americans what kind of living conditions our soldiers and Marines are experiencing as they do the damned hard job of nation-building that your fucking film makes even fucking harder. It had better show the coffins of our dead, and the effects those deaths have on their buddies, families and friends. It had better show our wounded - those who are injured, maimed, even those who lose limbs, and who still want to go back and finish the job. It had better show the "economic mercenaries" like Rocco DiPippo who go to Iraq to help them rebuild, and risk their lives to do so.

You want to make a movie about the atrocities committed by criminals in war? WAIT UNTIL THE WAR IS FUCKING OVER. Otherwise what you are doing is actively, willingly, and yes, traitorously providing a propaganda victory for the enemy. (Yes, Mark, I mean every goddamned word.)

Do atrocities occur in war? In every war that has ever occurred. Are those atrocities standard operating procedure or are they aberrations? Depends on the war. But in this case the five soldiers involved have been arrested, and most have either confessed and been sentenced or tried and convicted. Spc. James P. Barker confessed and has been given a sentence of 90 years. SGT Paul E. Cortez confessed and has been sentenced to 100 years. Pfc. Jesse Spielman received a sentence of 110 years. PFC Bryan L. Howard, who knew about the plan but did not participate in the rape and murders was sentenced to 27 months. The "ringleader" of the crime, PFC Steven Dale Green had been discharged from the Army prior to the case coming to light. He faces rape and murder charges as a civilian in Kentucky Federal court. He faces the death penalty when the case comes to trial, and I hope like hell he gets it. Maybe Brian DePalma can make a movie about that.

THIS IS WHAT WE DO TO CRIMINALS. We don't make fucking propaganda movies for the other side.

"The pictures are what will stop the war. One only hopes that these images will get the public incensed enough to motivate their Congressmen to vote against this war," he said.

NO, YOU ASSWIPE! "These images" will anger and inflame the Middle East and cause the Iraqis to doubt and fear us. It will embolden Al Qaeda and bring them new recruits. AND IT WILL MOST PROBABLY RESULT IN MORE OF OUR TROOPS GETTING KILLED.

And not only do you not give a damn about that, I'm willing to bet you're counting on it since more deaths will increase pressure on Congress to cut and run.

The film, shot in Jordan with a little known cast, ends with a series of photographs of Iraqi civilians killed and their faces blacked out for legal reasons.

Note that it does NOT end with the fates of the soldiers involved, just the victims. Thankfully this cast is not filled with big-name actors, though I'm personally amazed that Spicoli isn't playing PFC Green (or the 14 year-old girl). I guess he was too busy hobnobbing with Hugo Chavez to make the film.

Brian DePalma just got added to the list of people I will personally kick in the balls if I am ever unfortunate enough to be in their presence. He shares that list with Ted Rall.

Hey Brian, why not make your next project about the rape and murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsome? There's lots on the internet about that one. I mean, Americans need to know what's really going on here in America, don't we?

How in the FUCK did we ever produce a population that holds such hatred of their own country and countrymen? I really want to know.

UPDATE: Related pieces here and here. Without the invective.

UPDATE II: And here. WITH big-name stars.

UPDATE III: If Hollywood wants to make movies about war, here's a list of books they can option.

Here We Go AGAIN!

Via Gun Law News, meet Joaquin Jackson, NRA Board member and gun bigot, reincarnation of Bill Ruger, er, Jim Zumbo, um, clueless idiot, ah! "Only One."

He's apparently an ex-Texas Ranger, so that explains the "Only Ones" mentality.

I personally believe a weapon should never have over a - as far as civilian - a five round capacity. If you're a hunter, if you're a hunter, if you're going to go hunting with a weapon, you shouldn't need only but one round.

This after stating:

I feel like if we lose the Second Amendment, then somebody will take the first, then they'll take the third, and the fourth and there will be a domino effect....

His statement was made in an interview in 2005, and apparently the YouTube video is a recent post with no date. The NRA is now attempting damage control:

Recently, concerns have been raised in response to statements made by NRA Board Member Joaquin Jackson to Texas Monthly in 2005. We have received questions from NRA members who are seeking clarity as to NRA’s positions on the subject matter discussed in Mr. Jackson’s interview. To be clear, NRA supports the right of all law-abiding citizens to Keep and Bear Arms for all lawful purposes. We will continue, as we have in the past, to vigorously oppose any efforts to limit gun ownership by law-abiding citizens as an unconstitutional infringement on our Second Amendment freedoms. These efforts include opposition to any attempts to ban firearms, including firearms incorrectly referred to as "assault weapons", and any attempts to place arbitrary limits on magazine capacity.

Mr. Jackson also attempts to defend himself on that page:

Recently, some misunderstandings have arisen about a news interview in which I participated a few years ago. After recently watching a tape of that interview, I understand the sincere concerns of many people, including dear friends of mine. And I am pleased and eager to clear up any confusion about my long held belief in the sanctity of the Second Amendment.

In the interview, when asked about my views of “assault weapons,” I was talking about true assault weapons – fully automatic firearms. I was not speaking, in any way, about semiautomatic rifles. While the media may not understand this critical distinction, I take it very seriously. But, as a result, I understand how some people may mistakenly take my comments to mean that I support a ban on civilian ownership of semiautomatic firearms. Nothing could be further from the truth. And, unfortunately, the interview was cut short before I could fully explain my thoughts and beliefs.

In fact, I am a proud owner of such rifles, as are millions of law-abiding Americans. And many Americans also enjoy owning fully automatic firearms, after being cleared by a background check and meeting the rigorous regulations to own such firearms. And these millions of lawful gun owners have every right – and a Second Amendment right – to own them.

As a hunter, I take great pride in my marksmanship. Every hunter should practice to be skilled to take prey with a single shot, if possible. That represents ethical, humane, skilled hunting. In the interview several years ago, I spoke about this aspect of hunting and my belief that no hunter should take the field and rely upon high capacity magazines to take their prey.

But that comment should never be mistaken as support for the outright banning of any ammunition magazines. In fact, such bans have been pursued over the years by state legislatures and the United States Congress and these magazine bans have always proven to be abject failures.

Let me be very clear. As a retired Texas Ranger, during 36 years of law enforcement service, I was sworn to uphold the United States Constitution. As a longtime hunter and shooter, an NRA Board Member, and as an American – I believe the Second Amendment is a sacred right of all law-abiding Americans and, as I stated in the interview in question, I believe it is the Second Amendment that ensures all of our other rights handed down by our Founding Fathers.

I have actively opposed gun bans and ammunition and magazine bans in the past, and I will continue to actively oppose such anti-gun schemes in the future.

I appreciate my friends who have brought this misunderstanding to light, for it has provided me an opportunity to alleviate any doubts about my strong support for the NRA and our Second Amendment freedom.

And I suppose you have a "wide stance" as well.

Sorry, Ranger Jackson, that doesn't fly with me. As a former law enforcement official you were one of "the Only Ones" - and apparently liked it that way. Fully-automatic rifles were not mentioned - hunting was. (A five-round capacity for fully automatic weapons? How stupid do you think we are?) I will not accuse you of supporting a ban - you did not. You stated your personal opinion, and the word "ban" wasn't mentioned.

But it was implied that you wouldn't oppose one.

I sincerely hope that since that 2005 interview you've changed your mind on the topic, but this shuck-and-jive routine makes me think that you have not.

Nuge?.You're an Idiot.

I've said it before after initially defending him. I won't make that mistake again.

Nuge, you're an idiot.

As Say Uncle puts it, Don't scare the white people. Apparently you cannot grasp that concept.

Wedges and False Flags

See David Hardy's very important post on the ongoing fallout from the Zumbo incident, Falling for false flag operations.

This is something that all of us must combat.

Petzal Logic

I don't know how accurate this is, but it's the closest I've seen to date to the whole Field & Stream piece by David E. Petzal from 1994. Taken from a comment at Petzal's last most recent blog post - read it and weep:

Field & Stream (West ed.), June 1994 v99 n2 p26(2)
Reveille. (gun control laws) David E. Petzal.
THE BUGLE CALL KNOWN AS REVEILLE IS A CHEERFUL, energetic tune that, when I was in the Army, few soldiers actually got to hear. The real reveille was something quite different; it consisted of the NCOIC (noncommissioned officer in charge) snapping on the overhead lights at 4:30 A.M. and slamming a sawed-off broom handle around the inside of a garbage can. That is about the least cheerful experience that you can have, but it wakes you up for fair, and brings you face to face with reality.
Real-world reveille came for gun owners this February in the form of a single sentence buried deep in the 1994 Federal Budget. On page 201 of that document, under the heading "Passing Effective Crime Control Legislation," there is this sentence: "The administration also supports a ban on semiautomatic firearms; limitations on access to handguns by juveniles; and the creation of a crime control fund to pay for eligible crime control initiatives."
The key phrase, the one that turns on the overhead lights and crashes the broom handle around in the GI can, is "a ban on semi-automatic firearms." Not "assault weapons," but semi-automatic firearms. All of them. It is simple English, and there is nothing else it can mean. It means all semi-autos.
It also means that the NRA has been right all along when it warned us that an "assault weapon" bill was only one of a series of steps in a much more ambitious plan to outlaw many types of firearms. If you would like to dismiss the NRA's warning as paranoid and hysterical, you must ignore the fact that the White House has put us on notice: All semi-autos are going to go if the Clinton Administration has its way.
In January, President Clinton included the following in his State of the Union Address to Congress:
"Hunters must always be free to hunt. Law-abiding adults should always be free to own guns and protect their homes. I respect that part of our culture. I grew up in it. . . . But I want to ask the sportsmen and others to join us in this campaign to stop gun violence. I say to you: I know you didn't create this problem, but we need your help to solve it. There is no sporting purpose on earth that should stop the United States Congress from banning assault weapons that out-gun police and cut down children."
Will the real Clinton policy please stand up? Before Congress and the United States, the President said he wants to get rid of assault weapons. In the Federal Budget, it's semi-automatic firearms. Which is the real agenda?
There are a couple of possibilities. One is that some overreaching functionary was confused by the terms "semi-automatic firearm" and "assault weapon" and assumed they were interchangeable. This is given support by Barry Toiv, a spokesman for the Office of Management and the Budget, who was quoted as follows in the March 14th edition of The Washington Times: "The language in the budget is a mistake. It made its way through without being fixed."

A more likely scenario is somewhat simpler. The Administration wants to ban semi-automatic firearms, judged the political climate to be favorable, and decided to put its intent on the public record, albeit not in a forthright manner.

Let us now consider the legislation submitted to Congress by Senator Diane Feinstein (D/CA). Amendment No. 1152 would, if ratified, be applied to the Omnibus Crime Bill (which was passed late in 1993 by the Senate), and appears to be the type of "reasonable" gun bill that "reasonable" gun owners should support. Amendment 1152 would ban, by name, a number of firearms (or duplicates of same) such as the Colt AR-15, MAC-10 and NRC-11, Galu, Uzi, Street Sweeper, and others of this ilk [e.g., the FN-FAL]. It would also ban guns by description; i.e., firearms that incorporate folding or telescoping stocks, flash suppressors, threaded muzzles, bayonet lugs, grenade launchers, and "conspicuous" pistol grips.
Also included are semi-auto shotguns with magazines that hold more than five rounds, and any large-capacity magazines (tubular magazines for .22 rimfires exempted), which means those that hold more than ten rounds.
The Feinstein Amendment would, upon passage, allow the present owners of proscribed guns to keep them, provided that they obtained and maintained Form 4473s documenting their ownership. However, no new guns of the types described could be bought, sold, or owned by civilians.
The Amendment contains a sunset clause, meaning that it expires after ten years. It also contains a lengthy list of firearms that are exempt. These guns include bolt, pump, and lever-actions, and many semi-automatic rifles and shotguns of the sporting variety.
If you are a gun owner who is looking for the middle ground, it is very hard to argue against legislation such as this. Senator Feinstein, it seems, has made every effort to prescribe "assault weapons" and protect "legitimate firearms."
So what's wrong with supporting--or at least not opposing--this amendment? Perhaps nothing--except that the reveille sounded by the 1994 Federal Budget warns us we can't think of Amendment 1152 as a final step. Anti-gunners see it as an interim measure, paving the way for much wider prohibitions. Sarah Brady, Senator Metzenbaum, and others, have been quite honest about what they have in mind. The Feinstein Amendment is, in their view, just one in a series of steps to outlaw other types of firearms. The next step, without doubt, is handguns. In the lengthy list of "legitimate" guns protected by Amendment 1152, not one handgun is mentioned.
There's more. President Clinton, in a lengthy interview in the December 9, 1993 issue of Rolling Stone was asked by national editor William Greider:
"Is it conceivable that the country. . . could entertain the possibility of banning handguns? Is that a cockamamie idea in your mind? Or is that in the future?"
President Clinton answered: "I don't think the American people are there right now [emphasis mine]. But with more than 200 million guns in circulation, we've got so much more to do on this issue before we reach that. I don't think that's an option now [emphasis mine]. But there are certain kinds of guns that can be banned and a lot of other reasonable regulations that can be imposed. The American people's attitudes are going to be shaped by whether things get better or worse."
You are at liberty to interpret this any way you wish. My interpretation is: "We haven't got the votes for a handgun ban right now. In the future, if I think the votes are there, well go for it."
Judging by the letters we get at Field & Stream, and the people I talk to within the firearms industry, there are many of us who would like to rid the United States of assault weapons. It is true that these weapons account for only a miniscule percentage of armed crime, but the crimes they are used in tend to be horrific.
The classic example of this is the schoolyard massacre in Stockton, California, in 1989, when a deranged man named Patrick Purdy used an AK-47 clone to kill five children and wound twenty-nine others [in fact, most were shot with Purdy's 15-shot, 9mm handgun]. The fact that Purdy was at liberty with a gun of any kind was due to a catastrophic failure of the California justice system, but the question we have to ask is, if Purdy had not had a thirty-shot semi-automatic rifle that was designed for the express purpose of taking human life, would the carnage have been so great?
Much is made about the difficulty involved in defining an "assault weapon." However, firearms such as the AK-47, AKM, Uzi, Street Sweeper, and others [like the FN-FAL] have two things in common: They are designed for killing people, and they enable a person who is unskilled in the use of firearms to do an extraordinary amount of damage in practically no time at all.
Assault weapons are designed to be produced quickly and cheaply, and in huge numbers. They are designed to operate under conditions that would destroy civilian small arms. They are designed to put out a high volume of fire with a high degree of controllability. It is these characteristics that prevent assault weapons from being us as anything but what they are. (The AR-15/M-16, and the M1A in modified form, are highly accurate, and have a legitimate place in organized target competition.) You can remove the flash suppressors and the bayonet lugs; you can change the shape of the stocks; you can sell "sporting" ammunition for them; but they remain guns for killing people.
Gun owners--all gun owners--pay a heavy price for having to defend the availability of these weapons. The American public--and the gun-owning public; especially the gun-owning public--would be better off without the hardcore military arms, which puts the average sportsman in a real dilemma. We have received a wake-up call that clearly warns us that gun ownership is under siege. On the other hand, the public at large has been sent another kind of reveille: that guns are the root of most present-day evil, and the NRA is somehow to blame for the guns.
MOST AMERICANS HAVE LITTLE FAITH IN THE promises that politicians make, and with reason. Most gun owners are uneasy about making concessions of any kind, and with reason. But it may be time to consider shifting from an absolute opposition to any ban on any guns to an effort to get lawmakers to include a guarantee that will safeguard our handguns, and other arms--something not subject to the whims of the BATF or the Secretary of the Treasury or Sarah Brady. If the Feinstein Amendment included a list of "protected" handguns, and did away with its prohibition on magazines that hold more than ten shots, that would be something for us to think about. If Senator Fienstein is willing to meet gun owners halfway, we should think about her amendment very hard indeed.
For at some point we must face the fact that an Uzi or an AKM or an Ak-47 should no more be generally available than a Claymore mine or a block of C4 explosive. It is time for these guns to be limited to people with Treasury Department licenses, just as with fully automatic arms. I doubt if anyone would suffer much without assault weapons. Surely, we will suffer with them.

(All bold is my emphasis.) Petzal's comment in that post:

As has been pointed out by those of you with long memories, I wrote a piece 13 years ago about the then-looming assault rifle ban. The story was unpopular with a lot of people, but nowhere in it did I endorse the ban, as some are claiming. I note that none of you have seen fit to haul up the many, many times I’ve said critical things about Senators Clinton, Schumer, Feinstein, and of course our beloved former President Bubba. But then it seems that most of you who are visiting here don't read this blog, or Field & Stream, or what I've written to defend the Second Amendment over the years.

Here’s some other relevant information: When I wrote it, black guns were not nearly as important a part of shooting as they are now.

My response:

"When I wrote it, black guns were not nearly as important a part of shooting as they are now."
Yet, had the gun-rights community backed down on the "evil black rifle" topic an inch, if they had, in fact, taken your advice and not paid the "heavy price for having to defend the availability of these weapons," they would not be as popular as they are today. They would not be the dog, rather than the tail. And your M1A would most probably be banned as well, with your evil "long-range sniper rifles" next up on the agenda.
How can a "gun guy" not get this?
We cannot be divided on this topic. The right to arms is not the right to hunt. It is not the right to shoot birds or clay pigeons. It is the right TO ARMS. Defend THAT, and you get to keep your particular sport. Deny it, and risk losing all.
The Black Rifle people understand that. The Fudds for some reason don't.

No, Mr. Petzal, you didn't "endorse the ban" - you advocated "compromise" after explaining that we couldn't trust the gun ban crowd because they wanted everything. Frightened that you might lose your "sporting" semi-automatics, you were willing to give them half in the self-admittedly futile attempt to gain "a guarantee that will safeguard our handguns, and other arms". After all, you can't hunt with an "assault rifle," right?

Thank you Petzal Chamberlain for your attempt to secure "peace in our time."

But now, since we were not willing to "compromise" - and made that fact plain - the "Assault Weapons Ban" that your attitude helped pass has sunsetted and "black guns" are a far more important part of shooting world and the firearms industry than hunting rifles. And, subsequently, you've changed your words - but the tune remains the same.

Again I will quote master phrase-smith Tamara K:

Your attempt to throw me out of the sleigh, hoping that the wolves would be satisfied with my AR and would leave your precious bambi-zapper alone, is the most craven act of contemptible cowardice I've seen in a while.

Get over your stubbornness, and get your head out of your posterior.

Defend them ALL. Or LOSE them all, one little chunk at a time.

Even Neville supported Winston Churchill once reality was made obvious to him.

"More proof that anger makes you stupid."

That's the seventh comment on David E. Petzal's "last thing I’m going to say in this space about the Zumbo matter." My comment is #2.

The Wedge Goes In Deeper

Without further ado, Field & Stream's David "The Gun Nut" E. Petzal's take on the Jim Zumbo fiasco:

In case you just emerged from a coma and have not heard, the shooting world is agog over a blog posted by Jim Zumbo, former contributing editor at Outdoor Life, over the weekend of February 17. In it, Jim stated that any semiauto rifle with an AR or AK prefix was a terrorist rifle, had no place in hunting, and should be outlawed for that purpose. Then, courtesy of the Internet and all its blogs and chatrooms, the roof fell in.

The speed with which Zumbomania spread, the number of comments it drew, and the rabid nature of same were a revelation. Overnight, this thing became as big as Janet Jackson's clothing failure or - dare I say it? - Britney Spears' shaved head. Jim Zumbo is now as employable as the Unabomber, and Sarah Brady will no doubt adopt his comments to her own gun-control purposes.

For which you will now make excuses. That speed frightened you, didn't it?

For the last several days I've been visiting all manner of blogs and chatrooms, which has reminded me of when I used to deliver used clothing to the local mental hospital. I've tried to make some sense of it all, but because the waters are still full of blood and body parts continue to rain from the sky, I haven't come up with any Great Truths. Lacking that, here are some Lesser Truths.

What Jim said was ill-considered. He's entitled to his beliefs, but when a writer of his stature comes out against black guns, it sure as hell does not help our cause.

Understatement #1. What he said was not only ill-considered, it was (to many of us) inexcusable. Which is what you're railing against here.

Even so, Jim made an immediate apology. He did not equivocate, or qualify, or make excuses. He acted like a gentleman and said he was wrong, and he was sorry. Apparently this is not enough anymore. We now live in the era of one strike and you're out.

Uh, no. As both I and Tom Gresham have noted (among myriad others lost in the cacophony of outrage), Jim's initial apology missed the point. And so have you.

To quote myself:

How about this, Jim? How about we educate the public (and other Elmer Fudds like you) about semi-automatic rifles? And how about you break your damned fingers for ever typing the word "BAN" in relationship to firearms you goddamned gun-bigot?

And Gresham:

Jim basically committed career suicide. In short, he wrote in his blog on the Outdoor Life web site that he had just learned (while on a hunt) that some people use AR-15 rifles for hunting. He offered his thought that this was a bad image for hunters. Okay, that's his opinion. But, he went even further, calling for game departments to ban the use of these rifles for hunting. After crossing the line and calling for a banning of those guns for hunting, he firmly planted his foot on a land mine and called AR-15s "terrorist rifles." The explosion from that misstep was heard throughout the firearms industry.

His apology didn't address the points. He said "I'm sorry!" and "I'm a patriot!" but every apology so far has been of the order of "I didn't know so many people hunted with them!" As I said in my last piece:

The opinion I am left with is one that many, many people on many boards and in many comments have left - Zumbo just doesn't get it.

Gresham got it. Why haven't you?

For 40 years, Jim has been a spokesman and ambassador of good will for hunting. Through his tireless efforts as a teacher and lecturer on hunting and hunting skills, he has done more for the sport than any 250 of the yahoos who called for his blood.

Ever hear the expression "One 'Oh Shit!' cancels all 'Atta boy's!'"? That was a huge "Oh Shit!" And while I'm as interested in the preservation of the sport of hunting as the next guy, it seems that preservation of the right to keep and bear arms is a prerequisite, no? Unless you plan on hunting exclusively with a bow. Or a sharp, pointy stick.

Jim has paid dearly for what he said. He has lost his blog and his association with Remington. Cabela's has suspended its sponsorship of his TV show; and Outdoor Life has accepted his offer to sever ties. To all the chatroom heroes who made him unemployable, I have a word of warning: You've been swinging a two-edged sword. A United States in which someone can be ruined for voicing an unpopular opinion is a dangerous place. Today it was Jim's turn. Tomorrow it may be yours.

BZZZZT! I'm sorry, Dave, but that's the wrong answer! Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from its consequences. I could say something stupid tomorrow that might lose me my job. Therefore it's encumbent on me to control what I say. That's what's called a "market force," and it's not "censorship." Censorship is when the GOVERNMENT tells you what you can and can't say - at the point of a gun.

How long have you been a journalist again?

If Sarah Brady is smart - and she is very smart - she will comb through the same blogs and chatrooms I've been reading, excerpt some of the most vicious and foul-mouthed entries, print them up, and distribute them to Congress.

Wait, wait... Jim Zumbo should be allowed to say anything he wants without fear of consequence, but we hoi polloi, the non-gunwriters, the un-anointed, are required to shut up and take it because the consequences of our speech could be grave? Sorry, but the words of the "former contributing editor at Outdoor Life" - one of the "most well-respected outdoor writers" will carry far more weight with Congress than the rantings of we little people - and you know that. They already think we should be disarmed. Zumbo just told them that they're right. Frankly, I hope Ms. Brady does what you suggest. Congresscritters understand that we vote, and they know what one issue we vote on.

Then it will be interesting to see how the men and women who wrote that stuff enjoy seeing their efforts being put to use by every anti-gunner in America.

Sorry, David, but that falls totally flat.

Yes, a lot of people went overboard, but as I've commented several times, it's the end result of what Dr. Michael S. Brown once referred to as a "decades-long slow-motion hate crime" - the hatred of guns and gun owners by those outside our culture. It's wearing, and I'm not surprised that the patience of so many is wearing so obviously thin. Having someone inside that culture stab us in the back resulted in this outpouring of vitriol and invective. But try re-reading some of those forums and blogs. A lot of us had a lot to say about it that you obviously missed.

"ChrisH" wrote in a comment to Petzal's post:

First, Jim wrote what I'm sure a lot of folks think.

I'm sure they do. That's what's got to change. If the different factions of the shooting world don't figure that out, and soon, we might very well go the way of the British.

UPDATE, 2/23: David Codrea (and a lot of the commenters on Petzal's post) notes that David Petzal was a supporter of "advocat(ed) compromise" on the 1994 Clinton AWB:

Gun owners -- all gun owners -- pay a heavy price for having to defend the availability of these weapons," writes Petzal. "The American public -- and the gun-owning public; especially the gun-owning public -- would be better off without the hardcore military arms, which puts the average sportsman in a real dilemma" Petzal concludes by advocating compromise, something that Knox and other members of his regime say they will never accept.

This was when Field & Stream quite publicly separated itself from the National Rifle Association.

I can't say this any better than Tam did a couple of days ago when this whole thing first blew up:

Your attempt to throw me out of the sleigh, hoping that the wolves would be satisfied with my AR and would leave your precious bambi-zapper alone, is the most craven act of contemptible cowardice I've seen in a while.

That goes double for you, Mr. Petzal. "Gun Nut," my ass. RTWT (both pieces) if you haven't already.

Too Late, Zumbo!

David Codrea goes to the source. Remington has severed its relationship with Jim Zumbo.

UPDATE: AR15.com is running a photoshop thread. My favorite, by "zrxc77":

UPDATE: The official word:

As a result of comments made by Mr. Jim Zumbo in recent postings on his blog site, Remington Arms Company, Inc., has severed all sponsorship ties with Mr. Zumbo effective immediately. While Mr. Zumbo is entitled to his opinions and has the constitutional right to freely express those opinions, these comments are solely his, and do not reflect the views of Remington.

“Remington has spent tens of millions of dollars defending our Second Amendment rights to privately own and possess firearms and we will continue to vigorously fight to protect these rights,” commented Tommy Millner, Remington’s CEO and President. “As hunters and shooters of all interest levels, we should strive to utilize this unfortunate occurrence to unite as a whole in support of our Second Amendment rights.”

We regret having to terminate our long-standing relationship with Mr. Zumbo, who is a well-respected writer and life-long hunter.

And Outdoor Life has yanked Zumbo's blog, too.