From The People’s Cube:
You can see the full list of e-mails obtained by Judicial Watch between MAIG leadership. Bitter linked to earlier today. It’s rather long, but 90% of it is uninteresting. But it does offer a view into the world of our opponents in the first few weeks after Sandy Hook. Some takeaways, some of which are different than the Blaze article:
- They still don’t really know who their enemy is. Reading their e-mails, they are a very much top-down movement. They coordinate to a much much greater degree than we do. While they were coordinating our opposition from the top, we were all watching a grassroots movement self-mobilize, and just trying to help spread the word and contribute any way we could.
- They really do believe their own BS about the NRA representing the gun industry. A lot of them wisely realized that assault weapons were a bridge too far, but assumed it was because it threatened industry profits rather than the fact that gun and magazine bans really really piss off our grassroots. Colorado’s recalls I think helped drive that message home.
- The NFL and most of the sports teams are our enemies.
- The media coordinates with the anti-gunners. For instance, on page 518, it’s mentioned that certain cartoonists are onboard with gun control.
- This is a movement of political elites and celebrities, and not of ordinary people. We knew that, of course, but it’s always good to see that confirmed behind the scenes. From the looks of it, MAIG only really writes checks to consultants, media groups, lobbyists, PR flacks and polling firms.
There’s quite a bit of data, and there’s a lot of documentation to go through.
Important to note that there are a lot of these elitist enemies of freedom led by former NYC Dictator Bloomberg; and they are people who genuinely believe they are doing the right thing by crushing you; and who are genuinely clueless that it’s you – the individual citizen – who’s resisting them. They don’t understand that individual citizens resist them, they do not understand your point of view, and they do not care, because they feel they know what’s best – and they will impose their beliefs on you through force.
From Daily Caller:
Senate Republicans were unable to stop military pension cuts when Senate Democrats blocked a vote on an amendment to prevent the cuts by closing a welfare loophole for illegal immigrants Tuesday evening.
The two-year budget deal brokered by Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray and House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, would cut military pensions by $6 billion over ten years, leaving some Senate Republicans scrambling to stop the cuts.
“Removing this unbalanced treatment of our military retirees ought to be one of the key actions we should take before this legislation moves forward. In fact, greater savings than this can be achieved by passing a legislative fix recommended by the Inspector General of the U.S. Treasury that would stop the IRS from improperly providing tax credits to illegal aliens,” Alabama Republican Jeff Sessions said Monday, announcing his co-sponsorship of Mississippi Republican Sen. Roger Wicker’s amendment to restore the military retirement benefits Monday. …
In 2011, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration found that “individuals who are not authorized to work in the United States” and therefore did not have a valid Social Security number were still able to obtain billions in Additional Child Tax Credits by filing returns with an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number.
But as usual, Democrats turned out to vote against veterans and for illegal aliens, again voting for evil, failed, and wrong.
The Free Beaconpreviously reported that military retirees under the age of 62 would receive 1 percentage point less in their annual cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) in the plan crafted by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) and Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray (D., Wash.).
The section of the U.S. code that has been altered also applies to disabled servicemembers, many of whom have been wounded in combat.
Doesn’t seem like a lot of money, until you’re on a fixed income. Or until it gets adjusted again.
An original copy of a summary of the budget agreement, obtained by the Free Beacon,explicitly stated that disabled veterans would be exempt.
“This provision modifies the annual cost-of-living adjustment for working-age military retirees by making the adjustments equal to inflation minus 1 percent,” reads the summary, which was sent on Dec. 10. “This change would be gradually phased in, with no change for the current year, a 0.25 percent decrease in December 2014, and a 0.5 percent decrease in December 2015.
“This would not affect servicemembers who retired because of disability or injury.”
The summary now posted on the House Budget Committee website removed the sentence relating to disabled retirees.
Republicans may suck, but they did try to stop this…. and failed.
“By blocking my amendment, they voted to cut pensions for wounded warriors,” he said afterwards. “Senators in this chamber have many valid ideas for replacing these pension cuts, including my proposal to close the tax welfare loophole for illegal filers, and all deserved a fair and open hearing. But they were denied.”
Sessions’ office claimed the vote Tuesday to block the amendment was a vote to “cut military pensions instead of cutting welfare for illegal immigrants.”
Problem is that veterans don’t vote for Democrats in the same percentages as illegal aliens and their supporters do.
Let’s start with one of the most recent, as it’s one that’s changed in the last week. I have some commentary on these, but screenshots and links are provided so you can see these statements of his in their original location.
Brandon Webb wrote a forward to a piece called “America and the Gun Civilization” here, wherein he lamented the unwillingness of people to engage in “intelligent conversation”. The link can still be found via webarchive. Why is it gone from his blog? Good question.
Brandon Webb wrote a piece on his “The Loadout Room” where he stated his opinion of the NRA quite clearly in the first paragraph – unless it’s out supporting MIL/LEOs, he views it with utter contempt:
The rest of the post is a grudging “the NRA doesn’t totally suck, because they do things for military and law enforcement”… who seem to be the only people that Webb and his SOFREP pals think should own firearms.
Webb and MikeS1X, a contributor to Webb’s SOFREP website, engaged in a discussion on twitter with a firearms enthusiast UtesByFive who made a record of the conversation here. It can be read fairly easily at the link, but in case that disappears (like Webb’s post up above that no longer appears on his website), screenshots for posterity.
Webb called MikeS1X in to continue the discussion. It shows what kind of company he keeps, and who he’d invite to address a discussion. Someone who views civilian firearms ownership as a privilege to be regulated by government, and someone who views modern arms in leftist terms as “weapons of war” and demands restrictions.
It gets worse from there (I do recommend reading the whole thing) as MikeS1X views anyone who’s not part of his elite club of as worthy of contempt, then laughs about stringing someone along and being an asshole, but this is about Webb, not his asshole buddies – though it is important to note the company he keeps. (And he does keep some very anti-gun company.)
Webb offers his “A Navy SEAL Sniper’s Perspective on Firearms Ownership and the NRA in America” on his SOFREP blog complete with contempt for people who’ve called him out:
He starts off by saying that he only joined the NRA in 2005 because he wanted to go to a Range Development Course to open up his own range. In short, he had the opportunity to get something from the NRA, and he did so. Now he views the NRA and NRA members with utter contempt for questioning him – he being someone who was unfamiliar with firearms, who was only trained in a regimented, structured, ordered institution; and who eventually led that regimented, structured, ordered institution and now he wants to push that on everyone in the name of compromise.
Webb’s piece on school shootings can still be found here… but screenshots in case it vanishes:
The US vs Japan thing a common leftist talking point, but one that fails when one ignores the massive differences between ethnically and culturally homogenous Japan and the melting pot that is the US and the respective histories of the two countries. It’s a failure of an argument that’s been taken apart many times before.
The NRA did something productive. It’s called the School Shield program.
Webb for one is pulling a leftist talking tactic, where he ignores what’s really going on, ignores the actions the NRA did, then sets up his own argument accuses the people he wishes to defeat (in this case the NRA proper) of actions or inaction in order to benefit from it. He’s making up a story and then writing himself as the hero.
And the comparison of RKBA and slavery is still baffling.
The states I like are mostly Fs. F- is too much to hope for.
They give their map and their arbitrary factors here in PDF, and it’s important to note that they are, as expected, arbitrary and based on what states enact laws they like.
Now, this is a really interesting map, because it plays with two different types of statistics. One is the Brady’s arbitrary scoring system for laws (which I’ll get to later) and the other is playing with gun death rates. The rate requires both death and a percentage of population. Note how this map by Slate (who are just as far left as Brady) looks very different:
Judging by the Brady scorecard, with their adjustment for gun death rate, Montana and Wyoming are lawless, out of control places that need martial law, while Illinois is a solid B with a stable gun death rate, and Washington DC is simply ignored, which is something that the Brady Campaign/Handgun Control Inc/National Council to Control Handguns has been doing for a while.
It should be noted that as expected, anti-gun forces are more concerned with addressing taking guns from everyone without addressing problems that exist in urban areas that lead to greater crime and mayhem. The Slate map does the favor of showing where the greatest deaths are actually taking place – for the most part in heavily populated areas. No real surprise there – people kill people, after all.
As a brief aside, the Slate map also contains errors. There’s a small dot near the Big Bend area of Texas that’s listed as five murders in Terrell in Texas. The actual Terrell, Texas where the murders took place is a city of 15,000 people east of Dallas. The murders are listed on Slate’s map as having taken place in Terrell County, Texas, which has a population of 984 across the entire 2358 square mile county. For comparison, the state of Delaware is 2490 square miles. Point being, there are 5 murders listed in the “No Country For Old Men” part of Texas that gives the impression of lawless countryside, when in fact, it’s really fairly peaceful.
Now, were the Brady Campaign to assess county scores, 5 hypothetical murders in Terrell County would be a murder rate of 508.6 per 100,000. Likewise, states like Montana, Wyoming, and Nevada, show skewed statistics based on low population. A triple-murder spree by teenagers (who violated laws against murder to begin with) did so in a state with 576,000 people. That single action itself bumped the entire state’s murder rate up by over a half a point per 100,000.
To give another example of how this works, take a look at this map of change in gun homocides from the UK Guardian:
States with smaller populations, like Montana and Wyoming, are shown to undergo massive transformations. Montana’s gun homocide rate went up from 40 to 300 percent, and Wyoming’s dropped from -20 to -60.
Within that, there is also the question of how gun deaths are recorded. For example, accidents and suicides, while deaths, are often included to make the threat of violence and crime look higher; accidents are skewed by accessibility of EMS in rural vs urban areas, and suicide methods by gender.
Defensive gun uses where no one in harmed vastly outnumber the number where anyone is harmed, and defensive gun uses where a violent criminal is justifiably dispatched (by either citizens or police) are sometimes recorded in overall gun deaths, which makes self-defense look like a crime.
Of course, to the Brady Campaign, self defense is a negative:
Most of the rest of their criteria are similar, where they dock points for not having medical professionals question you about firearms ownership, give points for allowing cities to establish their own arbitrary patchwork laws, give points for making unsafe firearms (those with magazine disconnects, non-existent “smart gun” fantasy designs, and of course the mandatory patent scam of microstamping).
In short, it’s pretty much everything we’ve come to expect from people who are all about citizen disarmament, short of these ads outright:
It should be noted that Nebraska gets a D from the Brady Campaign in no small part because of draconian gun laws in the city of Omaha, which is primarily directed at the black/urban population of the city. But that’s nothing new for gun control.
No, it’s not Army Lt. Col. Robert “We Will Pry The Gun From Your Cold Dead Hands And Then Round You Up Into Camps” Bateman… but it is a military guy.
Here are some choice quotes from this guy’s announcement, maybe they’ll help you guess:
I believe in responsible firearms ownership, and that Americans should be able to responsibly enjoy the sport.
Thinks the Natural Law right of self-defense that is the Right to Keep and Bear Arms recognized as a restriction on government to stop infringments and thus written down as the Second Amendment is a “sport”. Got it.
We can’t bury our heads in the sand when it comes to firearms legislation. The NRA needs to actively participate in the legislative process not dodge it.
But the NRA-ILA already does that. Well, let’s see what else he has to say…
I don’t think idiots should be allowed to purchase or own firearms…more to come later.
Responsible gun ownership is taking an NRA or equivalent firearms safety course to learn how to handle a firearm safely. Over 50% of my range visits in Nevada I’ve encountered unsafe handling of firearms.
Universal firearms initial safety training and all state CCW should be a no brainer. Just like LEOs need to standardize training methodology.
Maybe a friend of Harry Reid’s from Nevada?
If my professional accomplishments and expertise … don’t qualify me to some degree then I don’t know what to tell you.
Well, he has professional accomplishments… maybe some military experience. Y’know, McCain has military experience, and he supports compromise and being a “maverick” by supporting the other side a lot. Good thing this guy isn’t all about pissing off people who he claims to want to represent.
If you’re not pissing some people off then you don’t stand for anything.
Oh. I guess not.
Much of the problem is that he won’t tell readers where he stands, instead making an announcement to run and following it with things like this when asked to outline his positions:
I’ll do that once I’m ready and have my package.
You are joining the ranks of those on here who’ve made ungrounded statements. I’ve read and defended the US Constitution. When I run I’ll outline my position in detail, members will vote, and that will be that.
Because it’s not something I can address in detail in five minutes. I have a family, a business, and a book I’m on deadline to finish. Out here.
A very sharp commenter named Christina Hernandez responded: “…really? I guess we’ll all have to play the fool, and vote for you to find out what’s in you..”
And the response is thus: “what didn’t you understand about me explaining my position in detail once I start my run in 2015?” Because it’s sooo hard to explain a position more than just say things like compromise and get common sense gun laws, and cite his credentials that are ultimately unrelated to an understanding of the Constitution. But I suppose explaining positions is more difficult than getting snippy and saying you’re too busy to talk to the little people.
…being a citizen and a member of the NRA qualify me to run for a board seat. I’ve never advocated for “new legislation” I only said that the NRA needs to take an active role in the national conversation instead of sticking its collective head in the sand. I’m a gun owner and believe in the 2nd amendment.
Never advocated… except in the same string of posts where he says that it’s time to compromise and create gun legislation.
Not participating in the process is a mistake. The NRA has taken the position of the Sierra club…not willing to compromise and create gun legislation that makes sense. If you refuse to participate then you end up with silly laws that end up hurting responsible gun owners.
I’m not advocating more gun laws, and compromise comes in many forms.
He has some interesting comments on that:
Compromise comes in many forms. I fought the Sierra Club for a gun range in CA in 2007. They would not even sit down and here us out. If they did it would have been a “compromise”, I don’t think it’s in any organizations best interests, including the NRA, to be uncompromising when it comes to having an intelligent conversation about major issues, guns included.
Sitting down and hearing someone out if you don’t have to is a waste of compromise. If the Sierra Club can get their way 100% in that case, why should they sit down and compromise? All they would be doing would be giving up something they want. If they didn’t need to sit down and talk because they held all the cards, why should they compromise? It’s in their best interest, and their specific interest, to get what they set out to do, not to surrender part of what they already have.
Why would you have a conversation with someone in order to compromise if you don’t have to? That’s voluntary surrender.
His responses to those critical of his “common sense compromise” and “I won’t give details” are mostly a variation of “You’re stupid and you can’t fix stupid.”
Man, I wonder what he thinks of the NRA? Oh, this:
From my perspective the NRA is great at drumming up hard core right wing support through sensationalizing the “gun issue” with the main incentive of driving membership revenue…. AND they have been great at waving the flag when it suits their purpose.
So you must be wondering who it is… maybe Joe Manchin? Matt Damon? Michael Moore?
Who is it? Why it’s Brandon Webb, Navy SEAL sniper and SOFREP writer, who announced his decision to run for the NRA board of directors. His first exchange highlights who and what he is, if the quotes above (all in that same FB post) seemed strange, you can read them in context and see how he responded to a very early question about the Second Amendment as a tool against tyranny:
Navy SEAL, SOFREP guy, frequent guest and on-air buddy of real conservative Andrew Wilkow, what could go wrong? Except that Webb won’t explain his positions, talks surrender with the other side, gets snippy and angry at people who question him, threatens physical violence against people who question him, and admits virtually no real firearms culture experience before his work for the government. All of that combined doesn’t look good at all. (As a side note, I’ll be emailing Wilkow about this, because I suspect he may have some harsh questions for Webb.)
Thing is, when you start saying stuff like the statements above it makes you look like somebody who’s an enemy of rights because you’re speaking the language of the leftist, not a friend of rights, and bandying about “compromise” when compromise invariably means surrender.
Compromise is “just the tip” with a rapist. No means no.
And of course responding that stating no principles and calling for compromise and saying you should have universal training, “idiots” shouldn’t own guns, and calling the Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms a “sport” means that anyone who questions you is a “crazy”.
Which he follows up like this:
Compromising and making more gun legislation by finding common ground with the enemies of gun rights is compromising on the Second Amendment. Furthermore, he already states that he is opposed to “idiots” and believes in “universal firearms initial safety training”.
No idiots… and universal initial safety training. If you wanted a handgun in Michigan, up until around 2008, you had to have a “safety inspection” of your pistol. It was simply registration and a chance for the police to inspect you.
He’s upset about idiots, and the 50% of unsafe people at the range in Nevada, and he wants universal safety training. And he only learned about guns in the military. No chance for statist leaning there!
The one thing he makes clear again is his desire for compromise. Back in January 2013, he made the point as he was discussing Sandy Hook… starting with some favorite things from the left anti-gun playbook:
In 2008 America had over 12,000 deaths at the end of a firearm, compared to 11 in Japan, skew for population ratios and it’s still a massively high number. …
I don’t have all the solutions on this issue but I do know that I’m personally ready to compromise to limit mass shootings, and I’m ready to have an intelligent conversation on this issue. If leading gun organizations like the NRA don’t take a leadership role in proposing realistic solutions, then they will have failed to truly represent gun owners. …
Sometimes change, and healthy debate, as difficult as it can be at first, is a good thing. After all it was once within our constitutional rights to own and enslave other human beings. I believe in the 2nd Amendment and our right to bear arms but, if we continue to do nothing on the issue (mainly a mental health one) of mass shootings then we can expect more of them in the near future. Remember that when you kiss your kids goodbye on their way to school.
What he’s saying through this stupid sentence is that the Second Amendment is like slavery, because it’s ultimately an obsolete right in these modern times, and that’s why it’s going to go away. He views it as a “sport” he’d like to keep, so he can train people or something, and if you don’t compromise, well, remember that Japan doesn’t have killings like Sandy Hook, so it’s your fault.
Unless he’s batshit crazy and he’s pro-gun and pro-slavery, and laments the loss of slavery.
Now today he’s come out with this post on his own blog to “clarify”:
I never shot much as a kid, aside from shooting clay pidgeons off the bow of the boat I worked on. I hunted quite a bit, but it was with my spear gun, not a rifle. I learned to shoot in the Navy, and only became an expert with a weapon by the time I finished my first SEAL platoon work up.
Dissecting this, the lack of firearms familiarity as a child wouldn’t necessarily be a strike against him, as there are plenty of compromising Fudds who used guns as kids, but it also means he’s further from having a Western tradition of valuing firearms intrinsically, even if not having examined the beliefs that lead to that tradition.
What we also see is that he was introduced to guns in an institutional setting, with control and order and structure and the state running things.
Yeah, which means before then he hadn’t even thought about it. Let’s make this clear – before 2013, he was simply someone who used firearms as a tool for the state, and whose exposure to firearms before then was very limited and in very regimented, controlled military settings. Or in California, where gun rights are infringed upon, which is why he doesn’t understand that NICS checks do take minutes, not days.
Many people I’ve encountered on social media lately have misinterpreted my position on the 2nd Amendment. Lately, I’ve heard people develop wild and ungrounded conclusions about my position on the 2nd Amendment. Some think that I’m automatically talking about Americans giving up their right to keep and bear arms, and 2nd Amendment compromise. They couldn’t be more wrong.
He couldn’t be more wrong. Let me borrow from Law Dog to explain how compromise works, Brandon:
Or to put it another way, “just the tip, baby”.
In the dark corners of the Internet they lurk, call names, and make ridiculous emotion-based (not fact-based) assumptions. I’ve heard it all, and I’ll take this on the chin. To be honest, I could have been clearer on my position in the past. However, do keep in mind that the word “compromise,” a term I’ve used before, comes in many forms; sometimes it includes sitting down with your adversaries and having an intelligent conversation and debate on major issues.
Oh, look, an ad hominem argument…
They’re all lurking internet trolls calling me names! They’re making ridiculous emotion-based arguments! But I’m the better man, I’ll suck it up. I’m so magnanimous, I’ll even admit I could’ve explained things better. They just misunderstood what I was saying, and they misunderstood how I meant compromise. You see, compromise can mean intelligent conversation because they don’t want to engage in debate.
Picture totally unrelated.
That way we can get real, positive, common sense laws enacted.
But Webb digs the hole deeper:
What have I learned since getting out of the Navy in 2006? Few things will stir people up in this country like the 2nd Amendment. It’s right up there with gay marriage and abortion. And I’ve learned that you can’t have a conversation with a fanatic.
He didn’t know that before 2006. Yet he claims to be a super badass guy who knows everything about guns who served from 1993 onward, and yet didn’t understand the importance of the Constitution and rights.
That last little link there goes to AR15.com calling him out. If you have the time, read it. The folks there have seen his type before and call him out for what he is. Him calling them “fanatics” as a name-calling term is another ad hominem. His Churchill line also fails… as it comes from a great man who responded to tyranny thusly – with no compromise:
We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.
Webb goes into non-detail details:
I’m Canadian-born American citizen by birth (by a US parent).
I grew up hunting fish (Halibut, Yellowtail, Bass, nothing was safe) and Lobster in the kelp forests of the Channel Islands with my spear gun.
Neither of which means a thing, except that he’s definitely lacking in the Western tradition of instrinsic understanding of firearms ownership. By itself, wouldn’t be an issue. He could learn later in life, but all he’s learned since 2006 is that people get upset when you tell them “I’ll just put in the tip, baby”, and 50% of all civilian and therefore non-SEAL gun owners are unsafe idiots who should not have guns.
Then he goes on to introducing himself as a SEAL sniper, in case you forgot.
I bought my first gun when I was a new SEAL at Team 3. I still have it – an HK USP .45.
Favorite gun manufacturer: Rifle-Blaser Handgun-HK
I was an M-60 Gunner in my first platoon (It’s one bad ass area weapon!)
I am a certified SEAL sniper, sniper instructor, and US Army-trained stinger missile gunner.
The snipers in the Teams used to go on Navy-sponsored hunting trips, mostly white tail.
I shot my first buck in 2002 at 443 yards with my issued .300 Win Mag in Washington State.
I served in the Navy from 1993-2006.
So? What this says: “I didn’t own or use guns until I was already thoroughly ingrained in an institution of government – an institution that is still the crux of my identity – did I mention I was a SEAL?”
A Snap Shot Perspective of My Views on Gun Ownership & The 2nd Amendment
The 2nd Amendment is inherent in America’s cultural DNA
But not his. And he compares it to slavery.
I believe everyone who owns a gun should attend a basic firearms & range safety qualifications course and that these courses should be standardized
The NRA should be like PADI or NAUI and encourage gun ranges to only accept NRA basic qualified shooters on the range.
Translation: “I believe in tyranny of the experts.” Requiring qualifications for a right means that the right is now predicated on meeting criteria which are ultimately arbitrary. Citizens of New York City can exercise their rights, provided they’re properly licensed. Oh, so those rights are infringed and functionally eradicated? Oh, well, at least they’re properly licensed.
Also PADI and NAUI (diving groups) are more about liability for shops, from what diving folks say on the subject. Quite a different thing.
Background checks are a good idea but should take minutes, not days
Translation: “I don’t understand how NICS works.” Background checks do take minutes in most states, just not California, where he’s from.
Often gun laws are made by people who don’t use, own, or understand firearms
Translation: “Did I mention I was a SEAL!?! I know everything about guns and I should teach you!” Lon Horiuchi knows a lot about sniping, but that doesn’t mean he knows jack about the Constitution.
Mass shootings have to be dealt with head-on or America will face more gun restrictions and erosion of 2nd Amendment rights.
Translation: “This is why I push for compromise and working with people who want restrictions and erosion of rights. Because when you compromise with them, you get compromise, and compromise means good. You’re a crazy and a fanatic if you aren’t willing to compromise becasuse they’re going after you. And you’re crazy if you think compromise means compromise.”
NRA training needs to be brought up to date
Translation: “I really, really, really love organizations and institutions.”
Dogs/handlers at schools and colleges are better than armed guards, in my opinion. Dogs are an incredible resource to use in these situations
This one I’m not even sure I can make fun of. It’s so baffling in its stupidity outright. If I were able to ask him a question, I’d say “Brandon, if there was a threat to a school of an armed shooter, would you rather have a dog there or a Navy SEAL sniper as a guard?” And if he said “I think the dog would be better”, I would just have to walk away, because the man is daft.
I believe we should be able to concealed-carry and open-carry where practical (e.g., not on an elementary school campus or an airplane)
“Dogs will magically protect you on campus! And we’ll have dog pilots! They’ll protect the skies! Dogs everywhere!”
Guns are guns and people should be able to own and obtain a permit to own everything, short of an anti-tank weapon or WMD, if they’re properly trained/certified
Translation: “I do not understand the difference between rights and privileges, between having a right and begging permission. I have no idea how certification or training is used as a tool of tyranny. But I’m a SEAL and I love me some government!”
The NRA should take a strong leadership position when it comes to legislation affecting ownership pro and con, not just a “supporter” of legislation. The perception from the left is that the NRA is an uncompromising organization
Translation: “I believe in making friends with the left by compromising and giving them part of what they want. If they want your rights, I will give them some because it’s not nice to not compromise. But I will never compromise on the Second Amendment. I will just allow reasonable restrictions and permits and training and certifications and compromise.”
No means no. I don’t care if a rapist thinks a woman’s a frigid witch – no means no. She shouldn’t compromise to make the rapist feel better.
Also, is the man wholly ignorant of the NRA-ILA?
I believe the 2nd Amendment is a right we should keep and hold dear
“But I believe we should compromise in order to give up some of the right so we can keep organized and certified and permitted sports.”
And in case you wanted even more on this:
Donating time to your own foundation as a defense against being called out for being somewhat self absorbed? And then the “get a life or move to a communist country”?
And then there’s this:
The threats he made were in response to a PM criticizing him posted in its entirety here.
There’s also already a Facebook page dedicated to stopping him.
And the source for this quote, from his website:
From my perspective the NRA is great at drumming up hard core right wing support through sensationalizing the “gun issue” with the main incentive of driving membership revenue…. AND they have been great at waving the flag when it suits their purpose.
The rest of the quotes above can be found either at the FB post he made announcing his run or in various links provided.
Update: Sipsey Street Irregulars linked back to us here. I will note that the email I sent to MV was bluntly harsher and more critical of Webb (not quite polished for publication), and was simply to provide a quick rough summary of everything that’s gone on so far, and why much of the firearms community, myself included, have come to the decisions we have, and I have. So it’s a lot more terse and acerbic.
Now, as for some constructive criticism – Webb could actually listen to the people who disagree with him rather than accuse them of not wanting to have “intelligent conversation” merely because they disagree with him. He could listen to why they say the things they do, rather than get defensive.
I wonder if Brandon Webb can see that the Sierra Club got what they wanted – his range being cancelled – by not compromising. They got what they wanted by not wavering on their principles, and they didn’t need to talk to him. It would have never benefited them to even talk to him. The Sierra Club beat out Brandon Webb by never backing down, and yet he can’t see that Dave Webb there is trying to tell him that compromise only lets you lose incrementally.
The best interest of the Sierra Club and what they believe was to keep Brandon Webb’s range from ever coming into being. They didn’t win by “intelligent conversation” and “compromise” with their ideological enemy. They won by sticking to their principles.
He might start to understand the vehemence with which his vague, contradictory, mushy statements and gun-grabber-sounding statist authoritarian words are being met if he would allow himself to listen to people who are disagreeing – and why.
From the New Yorker:
For decades, business owners have resisted higher minimum wages by arguing that they destroy jobs, particularly for young people. At some theoretical level, high minimum wages will distort job creation, but the best empirical evidence from the past decade is aligned with common sense: a minimum wage drawn somewhat above the poverty line helps those who work full time to live decently, without having a significant impact on other job seekers or on total employment.
Except it’s wrong, ignores the loss of jobs that are never created and the subsiziding impact of welfare and low-income benefits that also siphon funds away from job creation and into government redistribution.
I’ll let Orphe Divounguy explain it again:
(For example, a study of pairs of neighboring counties with differing minimum pay found that higher wages had no adverse effect on restaurant jobs.)
Of course, he doesn’t cite the study, the amount of difference in pay, or an analysis of what jobs were lost, not created, or where these counties were.
Even so, a federal minimum wage of ten dollars or more will not solve inequality. It will not stop runaway executive pay or alter the winner-take-all forces at work in the global economy.
And here we see the true intentions. The objective is to make equality of outcomes. The ideology is a belief that executive pay is “runaway” and that the economy is a “winner-take-all” scenario, rather than one of mutual cooperation for benefit. Apparently the New Yorker’s Steve Coll doesn’t understand where pencils come from.
Yet it will bring millions of Americans closer to the levels of economic security and disposable income that they knew before the housing bubble burst.
No, it won’t. It will artificially increase wages, which will then result in employers increasing their expenses to customers. There will be a transfer of wealth from the many to the few. There will be a visible result of a handful of people with minimum wage jobs making more money, but it will result in a less visible loss of wages by everyone who uses those services, by employers whose payrolls will be adjusted in favor of old employees versus new ones – meaning jobs that would be created will not be created, and it will result in overall economic loss.
Coll starts his piece by talking about increases in wages for baggage handlers at SeaTac airport, where the minimum wage was bumped from $10/hour to $15/hour by a ballot initiative. Businesses spent money pushing against it, and Coll celebrates that leftists emerged triumphant, that the “grassroots left, which seemed scattered and demoralized after the Occupy movement fizzled, has revived itself this year—with help from union money and professional canvassers—by rallying voters around the argument that anyone who works full time ought not to be at risk of poverty”.
Union money was sent in by union people who can now look forward to extracting union dues from those $15/hour workers at a higher amount than when they were $10/hour workers. Professional canvassers are leftist marxist agitators and professional shit-stirring revolutionary groups who serve no function but to create conflict that they exploit for their own personal profit. The businesses involved opposed it as best they could, but the leftists in Seattle & Tacoma voted for it.
What that means is that the expenses against the airport have gone up, and they’ll have to come up with something to balance it out. That may mean layoffs, it may mean no new hires, but most likely it will mean increased rates and fees to customers. The customer is hurt at the expense of the visible aid to the fictional oppressed proletariat.
…life on fifteen thousand a year is barely plausible anymore, even in the low-cost rural areas of the Deep South and the Midwest. National Republican leaders are out of touch with the electorate on this as on much else, and they are too wary of Tea Party dissent to challenge their party’s current orthodoxies of fiscal austerity and free-market purity.
Life on $15,000 per year is not something that someone manages alone. First off, there are massive government handouts to those of that low income group; second, as Orphe explained, a lot of times, those workers are entry-level workers just getting started – like teenagers.
The Tea Party is composed of people who understand how economics work – that you can’t just arbitrarily say “we’ll make your employer pay you more” without that money coming from somewhere. Again, Margaret Thatcher’s famous quote comes to mind:
Coll finishes with this bleeding heart plea:
The case for a strong minimum wage has always been, in part, civic and moral. Minimum wages do not create new “entitlement” programs or otherwise enjoin the country’s sterile debates about the value of government. They are designed to insure that the dignity of work includes true economic independence for all who embrace it.
The case for strong minimum wage laws has been couched in some people’s idea of what other people are entitled to. If you pay the neighbor kid $5 to mow your lawn, it’s not moral for the neighborhood to tell you that you MUST pay him $20. The result will be that the neighbor kid goes without the $5 and you mow your own lawn. There’s nothing moral about dictating to people how much a worker has to sell his labor for or how much an employer has to pay for that employee’s labor – because it destroys entry-level jobs and harms the community.
The tut-tutting busybody who wants to put the government’s gun to someone’s head and make them do what they feel should be done is not moral.
Minimum wage laws inflict an entitlement by force. The dignity of work comes from what people put into it – and earning a paycheck, not having the government hold a gun to your employer’s head – leaving you either paid more than you’re worth or unemployed entirely.
There is no “true economic independence” for a $10/hour job, a $15/hour job. Idle rich and trust fund babies have “true economic independence” – and even they can lose it if economies change. Economic independence comes from having one’s own skills that are marketable in different job environments.
If Coll and clowns who publish his Marxist drivel want to provide “dignity” and “true economic independence”, why not mandate a $100/hour minimum wage? If people made $8000 every two weeks, they’d be doing pretty well. Why not a $1000/hour minimum wage? Or a $10,000/hour minimum wage? You could work for a day and pay off student loans and buy a new car all in one.
If he’s got intellect greater than that of a grapefruit, he’d respond with “but businesses can’t afford to pay $10,000/hour.” And just the same, they can’t afford to pay any other artificial minimum wage without modifying their business model. Some businesses could handle $10,000/hour minimum wages, but it would harm them severely and result in cutting many employees, hiring no more employees, and passing costs off to customers. Some businesses can handle a bump to $15/hour minimum wages, but it will harm them as well, it will harm future employment, and the business will pass costs off to their customers.
He wonders why the Midwest and South have a lower cost of living – and that is due in no small part to not having to deal with wage inflation – those costs are passed on to businesses, which pass them back on to us.
Update: Some leftist union organizers have decided to stage strikes for higher fast food wages across the country. When they get the government to force their employers to pay them $15/hour, they’ll find that those businesses can’t stay open because no one wants to pay $17 for a Whopper or $13 for a Big Mac. They won’t be able to afford the Taco Grande meals they make.
The fast-food effort is backed by the Service Employees International Union and is also demanding that restaurants allow workers to unionize without the threat of retaliation.
It’s like I should just write “the usual suspects are at it again”.
Beating a dead horse – if they’re not worth the pay, they’re not worth the pay. That’s not a measure of their value as a human being, just their respective value in their chosen job. Demanding more wages because you’ve chosen to make an entry-level job a career is a problem with the individual’s ambition and drive and desire to sit on the bottom rung of the economic ladder, not a question of whether their employer is a greedy robber baron capitalist pig-dog.
A stupid op-ed from WaPo:
In 1947, Sen. Harley Kilgore (D-W.Va.) condemned a proposed constitutional amendment that would restrict presidents to two terms. “The executive’s effectiveness will be seriously impaired,” Kilgore argued on the Senate floor, “ as no one will obey and respect him if he knows that the executive cannot run again.”
Which is as stupid today as it was then. Presidents will be obeyed and respected based on their character and what they do for the nation. Respect can be lost, and accepting obedience can be replaced with grudging obedience, disobedience, or outright defiance depending on the president.
…the argument of our first president, who is often held up as the father of term limits. In fact, George Washington opposed them. “I can see no propriety in precluding ourselves from the service of any man who, in some great emergency, shall be deemed universally most capable of serving the public,” Washington wrote in a much-quoted letter to the Marquis de Lafayette.
And Washington would’ve burned the city named after him to the ground for the actions of the Obama administration in arming narcoterrorist cartels and hushing it up, in targeting citizens for political reasons with the IRS, and leaving an ambassador to die in Libya while smuggling weapons to Al-Qaeda affiliated groups in Syria. Washington may still agree with his statement then in theory, but that would require a moral people of politically interested citizens, an uncorrupted voting system, and parties that were not rooted in socialist redistribution and Marxism – an ideology that didn’t exist in the late 1700s. As the Daily Caller notes in picking apart the WaPo op-ed:
Zimmerman is untroubled by the prospect that long-term control of executive apparatus, along with the natural advantages of incumbency, might smooth the way for continuing rule by a president regardless of genuine popular will. The Obama Internal Revenue Service targeted the president’s political enemies before the 2012 election. The history of presidents for life in other nations shows ever-growing popular votes for the incumbent that in most cases masked widespread popular discontent.
The bureaucracy that existed in Washington’s time was miniscule in comparison to what we have today. The unelected bureaucrats were few in number, and the legions of regulators simply did not exist. While Washington’s theory may still hold up, it doesn’t address the problems that the Daily Caller bit notes. The ever-growing popular votes for the incumbent are also often indicators of widespread voter fraud by dictators who will never relinquish power. With institutions like ACORN actively engaged in voter fraud, and Democrats demanding that voters never have to show ID – so they can engage in more fraudulent voting, there is a great threat of political leftists simply taking over through manipulation of the electoral systems – even by outright controlling who counts the votes.
Zimmerman at WaPo goes on:
Only in 1940, amid what George Washington might have called a “great emergency,” did a president successfully stand for a third term. Citing the outbreak of war overseas and the Depression at home, Democrats renominated Franklin D. Roosevelt. They pegged him for a fourth time in 1944 despite his health problems, which were serious enough to send him to his grave the following year.
To Republicans, these developments echoed the fascist trends enveloping Europe. “You will be serving under an American totalitarian government before the long third term is finished,” warned Wendell Wilkie, Roosevelt’s opponent in 1940.
Economically, people were suffering under it. And if you were an American of Japanese descent, he was vividly proven right.
Zimmerman at WaPo continues with more voices from supporters of camps past:
“I think our people are to be safely trusted with their own destiny,” Sen. Claude Pepper (D-Fla.) argued in 1947. “We do not need to protect the American people with a prohibition against a president whom they do not wish to elect; and if they wanted to elect him, have we the right to deny them the power?”
The people of Minnesota didn’t want Al Franken, but they got him anyway, due in part to illegally voting felons (which the Democrat party favors… because they vote Democrat). The people of many states don’t want the dead or nonresidents voting… but they do anyway.
It’s time to put that power back where it belongs. When Ronald Reagan was serving his second term, some Republicans briefly floated the idea of removing term limits so he could run again. The effort went nowhere, but it was right on principle. Barack Obama should be allowed to stand for re election just as citizens should be allowed to vote for — or against — him. Anything less diminishes our leaders and ourselves.
“It’s time to put that power back in the hands of ACORN and the Democrat party. Republicans thought about the idea, just like ending the filibuster, but we opposed it then as tyranny, but now we’re okay with it because we think we’ll win and dominate you with a reign that will last 1000 years. The effort went nowhere because no way we’d let Reagan be around for another four years, but it’s a good thing now because Obama has an 8 year incumbency and all of the bureaucracy to target his enemies so he can win and be president for life. Barack Obama should be handed re-election just like Hugo Chavez and citizens should be allowed to vote for him – or be targeted for opposing dear leader. Anything less diminishes our party power and you’re a bad person if you disagree with me.”
That’s the real crux of it.
Washington is correct, given a population of moral citizens who are politically-interested yeoman farmers, an uncorrupt voting system, and no savage oppression of the citizenry with a massive bureaucracy. In his time, it would work. In his time, the federal government existed on customs, tariffs, and duties, not a progressive income tax administered by a ruthless, unaccountable, politically-driven bureaucracy.
Washington’s ideal worked up until the New Deal’s economic policies dragged a harsh market correction in 1929 into a decade of misery and liberal fascism. Washington faced with the situation of 200 years of advancement in society would probably look at it and say: “If we restore civic virtue in the American people to what it once was, we should have no reason to preclude ourselves from retaining the service of any man the public requires, but as the current system is largely incompatible with such widespread virtue, I understand the necessity of limiting consolidation of power by one man and one party, lest tyranny take firm hold and our Constitution be trampled further.”
Followed by: “What do you mean I can’t carry a modern rifle on the streets of my own city?”
Update: Looks like this idea has been bounced around a bit more. Jazz Shaw at HotAir covers a few more folks’ discussions of it.
When Siskiyou County, CA Sheriff John Lopey tried to buy an M1 Garand rifle through the Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP), he was denied and told he failed to pass the background check conducted via the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).
Lopey is a sheriff: he carries a gun and enforces the law for a living. Prior to being a sheriff, he spent 33 years with the California Highway Patrol and is a retired Army Colonel. He had Top Secret clearance in the Army.
The FBI handles NICS background checks for firearms purchases. Ironically, Lopey recently went through and passed a background check to attend the FBI national academy.
Very interesting, since he’d bought guns within the past year and had no problems. But then there’s the fact that he’s not very politically popular with the left and the Obama administration, mostly for opposing tyrannical environmental regulations that are destroying his county and region.
RED BLUFF — Sheriffs from nine Northern California counties on Saturday blasted government regulations and public agencies that, they said, have devastated their counties.
“We were sworn to defend America against all enemies, foreign and domestic. It seems we have more enemies that are domestic these days,” said Jon Lopey, Siskiyou County sheriff. “There is a movement to destroy rural America as we know it.”
Standing tall and trim in a dark suit and tie, Siskiyou County Sheriff Jon Lopey grimly delivers his message of resistance, warning of state and federal regulators moving to usurp control of local resources and constitutional rights.
“We’re in a fight to preserve our heritage, way of life, economy, public safety, health and the welfare of the citizens and the freedoms we hold dear,” he tells meeting rooms packed with his law enforcement peers and their constituents. “This is serious business folks.”
That specific statement went out to an audience of about 300 at a September gathering of sheriffs in Josephine County, Ore., one of more than a half-dozen such public meetings during the past year where Lopey’s remarks have been greeted with approving applause.
“We sheriffs have recognized that some agencies and several special interest groups are using money, influence, politics, regulations and sometimes lies to push an extremist agenda which threatens to literally destroy rural America and our way of life,” he said.
This Huffpo piece names Lopey as one of the left’s most-hated sheriffs in the nation (right next to Joe Arpaio), but the comments are much more informative about the condition of northern California than the Huffpo propaganda.
You can also just consider what Lopey has to say about the Second Amendment and consider if that might make him unpopular with the fedgov.
Now, it’s just speculation that he’d be targeted, hence the “tin foil” tag… but given that the IRS, the ATF, and numerous other fedgov agencies have specifically targeted Obama administration opponents and continue to do so all lends credence to the idea.