Comparing two events:

And at least one of the people at the “Gun Control Rally” is a pro-gun ringer.

But compare the media presence, hey?

(Via Andrew Rothman at GOCRA)

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

White male madmen routinely take guns into “Gun Free Zones.” It’s as if they see the signs then intentionally disregard them.

White men never go into the Ladies Room. Not even madmen do that. The sign stops them cold.

Women will use the Men’s Room in a pinch, such as a rock concert, but the reverse never happens. It’s taboo.

If you could make the Gun Free Zone as strong a cultural taboo as the Ladies Room, things would be grand. If not . . . .

Joe Doakes
Como Park

It may be society’s last genuine taboo…

This just in from the Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance:

Senator Diane Feinstein has released her “Assault Weapon” ban proposal, and it is as bad as we expected, including a magazine limit of nine rounds, banning of rifles with even one incorrect cosmetic feature, and hundreds of specific guns banned by name.

 TODAY is the day to call Senator Klobuchar and Senator Franken and tell them that you will not tolerate any further infringement of your rights.

Senator Al Franken (D)
Web contact form
Phone: (651) 221-1016
full contact information

 

Senator Amy Klobuchar (D)
Web contact form
Phone: 1-888-224-9043
full contact information

Get out and call them. And then your Representative.

The Congress fears and respects the power, numbers and tenacity of the Second Amendment movement.  We need to show them they need to fear us more – and turn that fear into action.  Or inaction.

I’m getting on the phone now.

“Hey, why don’t you come over to teh MinnPost to debate?”:  For the same reason I don’t “debate” at MPR, Startribune.com or on much of any other website or blog.   Between my blog, Twitter and, I dunno, my freaking day job, not to mention trying to maintain a modestly-well-adjusted real life, I gotta draw the line somewhere.  I’ve given up a lot of online diversions lately .

And, let’s face it, the MinnPost’s comment section is about the same as the Strib’s these days; it’s all noise and no signal.  Both of them have come to represent the worst of online “discourse”; mostly people who hide behind anonymity to bellow with rage at people who are different than them.   Usenet Newsgroups phoned the Strib and MinnPost comment sections and told ’em to dial back the crazy.

Both are a waste of time.  I try not to waste time.

“Why do you oppose banning teh automatic weapins?”:  They’ve been mostly illegal since 1934.  Seriously – learn the issue before you try to regulate other peoples’ civil rights.

“You oppose gun control?  So you think felons should have guns?”:  Nope. That is a reasonable “reasonable restriction”.

“If you debate at teh MinnPost you’ll lose!”:  In the same way a black guy walking into a Klan rally will “lose”.  I’ll get shouted down, sure.

But I won’t lose a “Debate”.

In fact, I may as well reiterate this; I’ll meet any liberal figure – blogger, talking head, pundit, reporter (oh, snap), politician, what have you – in an actual debate about anything we mutually care to debate about.  Guns are the hot topic these days – and on Second Amendment issues in particular, I’ll not only meet the libs in an actual debate, I’ll likely make their argument better than they can, before I destroy it.  I’m not limited to guns – we can talk education, taxes, transit, whatever.  I’m pretty solid on all of ’em.  On Second Amendment issues?  Let’s just say I’m confident.

Just saying.  Try me.

In a real debate, mind you; at a neutral location, with some basic “rules” (they don’t have to be all that formal, but shouting matches bore me) and we can go to town.

Recursive institutionalized (heh) pissing matches like “newspaper” comment sections don’t really make the cut, thanks.

“Why are you constantly bagging on the DFL leadership for not supporting gay marriage?  The effort against the Marriage Amendment wasn’t a referendum on gay marriage, after all.”:  That’s not the way “Minnesotans United For All Families” and the rest of the anti-Amendment crowd put it.  Their rhetoric – “we don’t have popularity contests on civil rights!” – wasn’t focused on the procedural battle over what does or doesn’t go into the Constitution.  It was over Adam and Steve and their picket fence.

For Tom Bakk and Paul Thissen not to jam a bill through the legislature that they control largely because of the campaign against the Amendment is intensely hypocritical.  For the people who voted for the DFL based on the Amendment not to demand better of the caucus they elected is a betrayal of Gay Minnesotans.  Now that the left-leaning PPP poll shows Minnesotans supporting gay marriage, there is no reason whatsoever for Bakk and Thissen not to jam this issue down.

Other than political cowardice and hypocrisy.

“You oppose gun control?  So you think felons should have guns?”:  Asked and answered.  Nope.

“Hahahaha, Merg!  You won’t come to teh MinnPost to debate! You are teh coward!”:  Real debate.  Say when, where, and agree on the rules.  If you’ve got the cojones.  We all know what an “if” that is.

“But Mitch?  There’s a court case in Henco that’ll basically end in legalize gay marriage sooner or later.  Bakk and Thissen needn’t lift a finger”:  Well, there’s a profile in courage for you!

“You oppose gun control?  So you think felons should have guns?”:  Er, I answered this twice already.  No.

“Mark G***eson says you’re like teh Lord Haw Haw?”:  I get called ugly things by people sitting at the back of the bus that also bark at the moon and have tinfoil wrapped around their heads.  I give ’em about the same weight.
“Hey, Merg!  The Second Amendment refers to “Militia”!  Are you in the National Guard?”:  I’m sorry – were you in treatment for the past five years or something?  The SCOTUS in Heller said “right of the people” means “people” – not government.  We – every able-bodied adult – are the militia.  That means you, me, and everyone around you that doesn’t have a disqualifying criminal record.

 “You oppose gun control?  So you think felons should have guns?”:  Er, no.

“I’m sick of your arguments.  It’s time to re-consider what “reasonable restrictions” are!”:  Well, at face value, I’m with you.  Most of the restrictions that exist today – gun bans like in Chicago, bans on weapons based on cosmetic features – are utterly useless.  Let’s reconsider them!

But that’s not what you’re talking about, is it?  This is sort of like the “new conversation about guns” from a few weeks back, which involved your side talking and my side shutting up.

You want to eliminate the Second Amendment, because you think that civilians shouldn’t have guns.  It disturbs your idea of the natural relationship between people and government, with citizens toiling away and a benevolent government protecting us, like a dutiful parent.  I believe that’s a noxious and repugnant idea of what government is supposed to be, and the Second Amendment helps keep it that way.

“Why don’t you write more about music and history?”:  Oh, I meant to over this past two months, trust me.  Real life – doing my little bit to defend a vital civil right – got in the way.  But there’s more to come.

“You oppose gun control?  So you think felons should have guns?”:  Er…

“You oppose gun control?  So you think felons should have guns?”:  It’s cold out, isn’t it?

“You oppose gun control?  So you think felons should have guns?”:  There are no bones in ice cream.

“You oppose gun control?  So you think felons should have guns?”:  That surely is a writing implement of immense magnitude.

“Why do you always show your opponents in these pieces to be addled, defective or not-so-bright?  Isn’t that a rather demeaning fiction?”:  You’ve never met my “critics”, have you?

“You oppose gun control?  So you think felons should have guns?”: Um…

“You oppose gun control?  So you think felons should have guns?”: …

“You oppose gun control?  So you think felons should have guns?”: (facepalm)

“You oppose gun control?  So you think felons should have guns?”: …

The media yaks endlessly about the thin film of Minnesota law-enforcement leaders – Dakota County sheriff Bellows and prosecutor Jim Backstrom, Chaska’s Scott Knight and a few others – who bark for gun control when the DFL tells them to.

The following group – related in a news release from the Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance – somehow got less coverage (emphasis added):

Yesterday, Minnesota sheriffs — experts in both crime and politics — joined judges and legislators in proposing fact-based, realistic solutions to the problem of violence in our society.

These proposals focused on enforcing existing laws and making government bureaucracies do their jobs without infringing on the rights of the law-abiding 99%

The Minnesota Sheriffs Association, represented by Hennepin County Sheriff Rich Stanek and Carver County Sheriff Jim Olson, laid out five specific recommendations:

Improving the completeness and accuracy of the state criminal records system

Making Minnesota courts quickly and accurately report civil mental health commitments that result in a firearms prohibition

Making these public mental health commitment records instantly available to street cops so they know who they may be facing when they arrive at a call for service

Providing earlier mental health assessments for jail inmates, so they get the help they need sooner

Reassessing Minnesota’s civil commitment laws to ensure that dangerously ill people get the treatment they need

GOCRA fully supports these policy proposals, and applauds the sheriffs and other coalition members for focusing on real, solvable issues, and not on fear-mongering. GOCRA also congratulates Senator Ron Latz (DFL-St. Louis Park), formerly an opponent of gun rights, for signing on to this practical approach.

These elected leaders and sworn law enforcement officials recognize that their law-abiding, gun-owning constituents are not the cause of societal violence, and that infringing on the Constitutional rights that they swore to support and defend will not make us safer.

Their common-sense, to-the-point recommendations should be given immediate attention by the Minnesota Legislature.

You would do well to contact Sheriffs Stanek and Olson – and especially Rep. Latz.  Yes, he’s DFLer, but not only is he one of the DFLers that actually thinks about the issue, he’s one of the first in the metro area to break ranks with the orcs.

Mess with the Second Amendment, and your bottom line is gonna bleed red:

A massive boycott sparked by the NRA and other gun-rights groups outraged that the nation’s largest outdoors show banned the exhibition of assault weapons has caused the show’s organizers to abruptly cancel the week-long event in Harrisburg, Pa.

The successful boycott was the biggest demonstration of support by the outdoors industry and outdoorsmen yet against gun control efforts being pushed in Washington and in several states.

It’s also a sign that the Administration’s attempt to drive a wedge between “sportsmen” and defense shooters is failing.

The show is the biggest in the nation and features several outdoors groups, hundreds of exhibitors and the most popular TV hunting show stars. It draws thousands from the Washington-Baltimore area. As the assault rifle ban became known, exhibitors, sponsors and the TV stars withdrew by the dozens.

The NRA is a huge sponsor of the show and pulled out Tuesday after Reed moved to ban assault rifles like Bushmasters and AR-15s at the show. A Bushmaster was used in the Newtown, Conn., shootings, according Connecticut State Police Lt. Paul Vance, and Reed said it was bowing to concerns about the gun in banning it from the show.

Real Americans know that guns are inanimate objects.

The rest of the right could learn a lesson or two from the Second Amendment movement; fire the Beltway consultants and do what’s right, for starters.

Brian Lambert took umbrage to Joe Doakes’ and my dissection of Eric Black’s anti-gun piece last week in the MinnPost, which cited a justifiably obscure theory by Dr. Carl Bogus.

Look out! It’s gun owners! At least, according to the MinnPost. I can just see the “job” interviews at the MinnPost; “do you now, or have you ever, supported an originalist interpretation of the Tenth Amendment, or ever blasphemed against the Commerce Clause?” Behold the liberal alt-media.

And Lambert took after that dissection with the keen analytical mind and the rapier logic I’ve associated with Lambo for the 26 years I’ve known him:

At the conservative consortium blog True North, Mitch Berg goes after our Eric Black on the issue of … “gun grabbin’ ”: [lengthy quote from my piece removed] The sweat stains are showing among our gun-fondling friends.

“Grabbin'”.

“Fondlin'”.

Must be that “reporter badge” doing the talking.

Er, “talkin'”.

The 2nd Amendment movement is winning this one.

Over the weekend, the left’s chanting-points bots erupted on Twitter with the story of Christian Oberender’s arsenal.  As reported in the Strib by Paul McEnroe and Glenn Howatt (under the rather tabloid-y title “Murderous ‘monster’ acquires an arsenal”), it’s one of those stories that’s intended to put Second Amendment activists on the defensive.

It’s an ugly story, on its surface:

They knew the Delano house far too well. It was where Christian Philip Oberender, then 14 years old, had murdered his mother in a shotgun ambush in the family rec room in 1995.

Now, 18 years later, Carver County Sheriff Jim Olson was sending his deputies back to the home where Oberender still lives. Just two days earlier, Olson had scanned the day’s shift reports and froze when he tripped over Oberender’s name. A scan of a Facebook page then showed firearms spread out like a child’s trophies on a bed inside the home, along with notes about the Newtown, Conn., gunman who shot 20 children to death.

A Star Tribune review of state court records found case after case in which individuals deemed mentally ill in judicial proceedings later wound up in possession of guns and accused of violent crimes.

At least 84 people have been charged since 2000 with illegal gun possession or assault with a dangerous weapon even though they had previously been committed by a judge as mentally ill. Of that group, 29 were charged with multiple counts of weapons possession and nine were considered by a judge to be mentally ill and dangerous.

Additionally, the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) has more than 168,000 “suspense files” — records on Minnesotans who have been arrested since 1990 but whose files are so incomplete that the state can’t determine if they should have the right to buy guns.

“The system failed in this case,” Olson said in an interview. “We are having discussions with the BCA to make sure there aren’t similar things like this hanging out there.”

How did Christian Oberender succeed in obtaining a gun permit?

The answer lies in a combination of deceit on his part, failures in the state court system, and haphazard data collection by state agencies, according to interviews with law enforcement officials.

No state permit is required to purchase a long rifle or a shotgun in Minnesota. Buyers going to a licensed retailer must pass a federal background check at the counter — but those records can also be incomplete because they are supplied to the FBI by state agencies.

Minnesota’s gun laws don’t require an applicant to provide a fingerprint or a Social Security number to verify identity.

“This was one of our concerns during the ‘Conceal and Carry’ debate in Legislature 10 years ago and it was beaten down like everything else,” said Heather Martens, executive director of Protect Minnesota, a gun violence prevention organization.

Martens said Oberender’s case highlights the reluctance of lawmakers to tighten gun laws because they fear being accused of infringing on individual rights. “Public schoolteachers have to go through a complete background check, even including a fingerprint,” Martens said. “For buyers of assault weapons and pistols, law enforcement currently has only seven days to verify the person’s identity and criminal history — otherwise, a permit is automatically granted. We should at least allow police enough time to verify the person’sidentity.”

At the BCA, a spokesperson said the agency’s database will catch closely matched names and aliases, but it would not snag a name like the one on Oberender’s application.

In Oberender’s case, the first glitch was that he simply transposed his first name and middle name on the gun permit application, apparently in an attempt to avoid recognition by the BCA’s database.

Additionally, when Oberender applied for his permit, records show, he lied about his mental health history, a move that triggered no red flag in the computers — the BCA’s system doesn’t contain any state commitment records of the mentally ill and dangerous.

Over the years on this blog, I’ve made certain observations about human behavior as manifested through online media, like blogs and Twitter.

I’ve captured and codifed some of these observations as “Berg’s Law“, a series of common observations that I’m pretty sure are universal.

One of the most commonly-invoked Laws is “Berg’s Seventh Law”, which states “When a Liberal issues a group defamation or assault on conservatives’ ethics, character or respect for liberty or the truth, they are at best projecting, and at worst drawing attention away from their own misdeeds”.

I’ve rung up quite a number of occurrences of Berg’s 7th over the years. And I’ve found another.

Big-time.

(more…)

To:  Eric Black, MinnPost
From: Mitch Berg, Peasant
Re:  The New JournoList?

Mr. Black,

You built your reputation as a reporter.  And for that, I give you all due respect.

I was a reporter, too.  Not much of one; a couple of radio stations, some free-lance print work.  Nothing big, and certainly nothing to build a career out of – but I did learn one thing, and practice it; a reporter is supposed to ask questions.

And while I apply only the broadest possible definition of “journalist” to myself, I do ask questions.  I’m told I’m not bad at it, at least on the radio; even a reporter on your side of the aisle commented on it (I’ll direct you to paragraph 16).  So it’s not a foreign concept to me.

Now, far be it from me to gainsay one of the deans of Minnesota political writing, but I’ve got a question here.

Last week, you wrote about Dr. Carl Bogus’ assertion from fifteen years ago that the Second Amendment was written to protect slavery.  Now, my friend and frequent commenter Joe Doakes – who actually is a lawyer – pointed out that Bogus’ theory is given no weight by the legal academy, because it’s been pretty soundly debunked and, more signally, ignored by legal scholars; Bogus’ theory is only kept alive by anti-gunners who like, as Doakes put it, to “borrow his degree to lend them legitimacy”.

So here’s what I’m curious about.

Bogus published his theory fifteen years ago.  It was roundly shredded in short order.  It was substantially ignored (beyond a few trivial references to incidental research) in the SCOTUS’ debates that led to the Heller and McDonald decisions, which respectively adopted the “individual right” definition of the 2nd Amendment and incorporated that definition onto the states.

And yet somehow last week Bogus’ theory was pulled from legal history’s scrap heap and restored to glorious prominence by the gun-grabber left.

Hey! It’s Confederate soldiers, defending slavery! The MinnPost ran this image in Eric Black’s story last week about Carl Bogus’ theory. I’m never going to let the MinnPost live this one down!

So I got to checking.  The first I heard about it was a comment on my blog on 1/17, which pointed to your article in MinnPost the same day; around that time, I started seeing a lot of lefties on Twitter chanting more or less the same thing.  Danny Glover and Roger Ebert had spoken or written about it, stating the “slavery” theory as settled fact, around the same time.   And the story was churning around the leftyblog fever swamp, as these things do, once the likes of Kos and  Crooks and Liars repeated the meme (which meant every bobbleheaded leftyblog carried it like it was the revealed truth).

Disarmed people – Jews, in this case – dealing with the SS, which is short for “Schützstaffel”, which loosely translated means “Department of Homeland Security”. Connect the dots, people. The MinnPost can run its inflammatory, searing, emotionally manipulative images, I’ll run mine. Mine happen to be good analogies based on historical fact, but whatever.

Now, a concerted Googling (and a reading of your piece) seems to show that the “writing” about the subject links back to last Tuesday, when lefty talk show host Thom Hartmann – who is sort of the Dennis Prager of the left, only without the intelligence or credentials – wrote a piece on the lefty überblogs TruthOut and Smirking Chimp , lavishly citing Bogus’ theory.

Oops, I did it again! More disarmed people! The sign above their heads says “Arbeit Macht Frei”, which is German for “Work Creates Freedom”, which was sort of the “Hope and Change” of the era. Again – you publish your inflammatory, emotionally manipulative images? I’ll publish mine.

And I thought the dynamics of the story were interesting; in two days, the “story” of Bogus’ “theory”, which had laid mostly dormant since being shredded in the court of academic and public opinion half a generation ago, suddenly was on the lips and minds and blogs of, it seemed, every lefty,  from the fever swamp to Hollywood (pardon the redundancy) to, well, MinnPost and a half a million chuckleheaded leftybots on Twitter.

I’ve been writing online for a long time, Mr. Black.  I’ve seen memes come and go.  The “come” side usually takes a while; someone writes something, it gains traction, it holds sway, it rolls away like the tide.  It usually takes a little while.

The Klan attacking black people! And therein lies the real truth – and the Berg’s Seventh Law reference; Gun Control actually has its roots in American racism. The first serious American gun control laws were aimed at – you guessed it – blacks. In fact, the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment was written in part in response to a Texas law aimed at former slaves who’d been shooting up Klansmen.

But the Bogus  theory went, metaphorically, from zero to sixty in four seconds flat.

Didja notice that?

Anyway, those are the facts; Bogus’ theory came, was shredded, went away for fifteen years, and suddenly re-germinated across the broad swathe of lefty opinion over the course of two measly days.  Now, leaving aside the fact that the theory is, well, bogus (as noted last week) – wouldn’t it have been a useful fact for the reader to know that Bogus’ theory has been languishing in academic obscurity for 15 years for a reason? I know, that would have been a statement against your interest and, I suspect, the MinnPost’s, but it’s kinda significant, no?

But here’s my question:  aren’t you the least bit curious as to the, er, pace at which this meme swept the left?  From “forgotten” to “conventional wisdom” in two days?

It almost seems as if there’s some sort of back-channel communication – one might even call it a list of journalists, absurd as that sounds – a, for lack of a better term, “Journo List” that syncs the leftymedia up on the major chanting points.

No, I know – that’s just crazy talk.  I know.

Anyway – did that strike you as odd in any way?  If not, why?

That is all.

PS:  Well, no.  It’s not.  Because while the theory that the Second Amendment was “about protecting slavery” is pretty much a fringe, fever-swamp conceit, it is a matter of settled historical fact and Constitutional Law that the roots of the gun control movement are intensely racist.

More at noon today.

To: His Holiness, Pope Benedict
From: Mitch Berg, Protestant
Re: None Of Your Business

Your Holiness,

With all respect due to your eminence in your church on spiritual issues, and to your predecessor’s stances in defense of freedom, I must confess that when I see you and your various ecclesiastical bureaucrats saying things like this…:

In an editorial aired yesterday on Vatican Radio, Fr. Federico Lombardi, director of the press office of the Holy See, called “initiatives announced by the United States government in view of limiting and controlling the diffusion and use of arms … a step in the right direction.

 

“Forty-seven religious leaders of various confessions and religions have issued a call to American politicians to limit firearms, which ‘are making society pay an unacceptable price in terms of massacres and senseless deaths,’” Lombardi stated in his address. “I’m with them.”

…and especially twaddle like this (I’ll add emphasis)…:

While acknowledging “that arms, throughout the world, are also instruments for legitimate defense,” and even admitting “No one can be under the illusion that limiting their number and use would be enough to impede horrendous massacres in the future,” Lombardi nonetheless asserted “it is necessary to repeat tirelessly our calls for disarmament, to oppose the production, trade, and smuggling of arms of all types.

“If results are achieved, such as international conventions … all the better!” he proclaimed.

…it fills me with protestant pride.

Your line, it seems, is “sorry about all the dead innocents who won’t  be able to defend themselves, but let’s hear it for those great guardians of the sanctity of human life, the U F****ng N”.

Sorry, Fr. Lombardi.  We fought a war in this country at least in part to be free of the rule of monarchs, whether secular or ecclesiastical.  And when I read your church’s official word on self-defense (again, emphasis added)…:

“According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, individuals have a right and a duty to protect their own lives when in danger, and someone who ‘defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow,’” CNS concedes, but offers a significant caveat. “According to the catechism, the right to use firearms to ‘repel aggressors’ or render them harmless is specifically sanctioned for ‘those who legitimately hold authority’ and have been given the duty of protecting the community.”

…it puts me in mind of the fact that functional representative democracy came much, much later to the Catholic than the Protestant world for a good reason.

In other words, Fr. Lombardi, your assistance is not needed here.  Thanks.

Here’s “The Racist History of Gun Control” by Clayton Cramer.

And here’s the website for the Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance.

Remember – tomorrow’s the “Guns Across America” rally, on the steps of the capitol of whatever state you’re in.  Including here in Minnesota.

The Strib has the basic details of the Minnesota rally, without much editorializing.  Or you can go to the Facebook page for all the official info.

I’ll be there before the event, but I’ll have to leave before it starts; it’s smack in the middle of my show-prep time.

Speaking of which, tomorrow’s guest on the NARN will be Andrew Rothman to talk about the President’s power grab and the outlook in the legislature.

We’ll be seeing a lot more stories about the national crisis of fictional girlfriends and “catfishing”, about Kate Middleton’s pregnancy and weight, about Lance Armstrong, and of course about all those precocious children and their demands for gun control

Wny do I predict this?

Just a hunch.

I hinted at this in the past few weeks; one of the hard parts about being a Second Amendment supporter is that it feels a lot like the movie Groundhog Day.  Every time the left goes through one of its spasms of gun-grabbing, they bring up the same, exact, precise points every single time.  There is nothing new, ever, under the sun when it comes to anti-gun “arguments”.  Never!

And yet every single liberal, especially in the media, receives the same threadbare worn-out arguments from their elders during every spasm of this debate, as if they’ve discovered some new logical Killer Anti-Gun App.  And they trot them out with all the pride of a toddler that just made a good pants, repeating the moldy meme with a nod and a knowing, condescending wink, as if they think you’re lucky they suffer fools like you.

And you – me, in this case – shake your head, and re-muster facts that you’ve been deploying since before your children were born, and feel a little like the burned-out gunfighter in a Clint Eastwood movie; I’ve lived this day, or at least this argument, more times than I can remember.  I know these facts backward and forward.  There is not a corner of the left’s argument that I can’t make better than the lefty I’m wasting my time with.  

And on you go.

Fortunately, we’re not alone.

———-

The problem with Eric Black isn’t that he’s a lefty who’s been getting steadily more “out” about it for years, in the “pages” of the MinnPost, whose focus has been sliding away from “legitimate journalism” toward “being a DFL Public Relations organ” for this past year or so.

It’s that he believes, and reports, so much that is just not so.

Yesterday, he – oh, God, it’s that Groundhog Day endless repetition thing again – dragged out the theory by the gloriously-occuponymous Dr. Carl Bogus, that the Second Amendment was written to protect slave-owners.

I read it yesterday, and thought “even in monster movies, there’s only so many times you have to kill the critter before the movie ends”.  So with the esteemed Carl Bogus.

Fortunately, Joe Doakes from Como Park – an actual lawyer – took over.  I’ll add the odd bit of emphasis to Joe’s email:

God, not that old chestnut again. Carl Bogus? Really?

 Okay, facts: Bogus was indeed a law professor. He wrote a law review article for UC Davis in 1998. He admitted there was plenty of evidence the Founders intended the Second Amendment so ordinary people could resist tyrants. But he argued Southern slaveholders probably wanted to keep ordinary people armed to prevent slave rebellion. Therefore, the Second Amendment might have served two purposes: resist tyrants and oppress slaves. Bogus’ explicit argument is that ordinary people couldn’t have resisted tyranny and oppressed slaves acting alone so when the Founders said “the people” they must have meant “state militias.” His implicit argument is that since slavery is bad, the Second Amendment is tainted so we can ignore it.

Bogus’ arguments were immediately rebutted by other legal scholars, see for example “The Approaching Death of the Collectivist Theory of the Second Amendment” by Douglas Roots, 39 Duq. L. Rev. 71.; and “The Supreme Court’s Thirty-Five Other Gun Cases” by David Kopel, 18 St. Louis U. L. Rev. 99. The Supreme Court cited several of Bogus’ works in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) but the majority opinion expressly rejected his collectivist legal theory. Bogus was mentioned in Justice Stevens’ dissent in MacDonald v. Chicago, 130 S. Ct 3020 (2010) as the source for a single statistic on handgun violence, but not even Stevens endorsed Bogus’ collectivist legal theory. Nobody endorses his secret slavery theory.

Bogus’ legal theories are not taken seriously by Constitutional scholars, only by gun-control advocates hoping to rent his diploma to give the appearance of credibility. That’s why Bogus was appointed a director of Handgun Control, Inc. and served on the advisory board of the Violence Policy Center. That’s also why Eric Black cites him. It’s as if the Flat Earth Society suddenly learned of this brilliant mathematician named Ptolemy who PROVED the Sun does indeed revolve around the Earth and thus vindicated what they’ve believed all along. Sorry, fellas, serious scholars have moved beyond that hoax.

Joe Doakes

Como Park

I’m thinking; is there an issue besides guns where a journalist can get away with so much guileless incuriosity as the gun issue?

And wrap that incuriosity in so much misguided-yet-inflammatory rhetoric?

Inevitably, the MinnPost ran a photo of Confederate soldiers along with Black’s piece. I suppose we should be thankful it wasn’t a photo of white guys lynching a black guy, huh?
That said, I suspect I just gave some clever MinnPost copy editor another bright idea for the next round of anti-gun articles, along with the next, inevitable citation of Carl Bogus as an expert on the Second Amendment.    You’re welcome, MinnPost.

Feminist dogma patrol, maybe, and even that doesn’t generally impact the Constitution.

Mark Dayton’s mental health?  That’s not so much “incuriosity” as “a gentlemans’ agreement between journalists and the DFLers who own them”.

What is it about Second Amendment issues that makes so many journalists act like journalists think mere partisan bloggers act?

———-

Nothing against Eric Black, of course.  He’s doing his job, which these days seems to be “advancing the DFL and Democrat Parties’ narratives”.  It’s good to have a gig.

But the mainstream media in the Twin Cities has gotten a free pass on their habit of just slopping whatever crap fits the DFL’s narrative in front of the public for far too long.

SCENE:  MITCH is talking with AVERY LIBRELLE while standing in the bulk organic aisle at Mississippi Market.

LIBRELLE:  I’ve been reading your blog.  I’ve noticed that you constantly refer to gun owners as “Real Americans”.

MITCH:  Yep.

LIBRELLE:  Why?  You’re saying you have to support the National Rifle Association to be a “Real American?”

MITCH: Of course. not.  But let me ask you this.  If I said “I support the Bill of Rights, but I think  the Fourth Amendment should not apply to Mexicans or Mexican-Americans?

It’s time for all Real Americans to come to the aid of the Constitution, while we still can.

Saturday at noon is the “Guns Across America” rally at the State Capitol grounds.

It’s smack in the middle of my show prep time – but I’ll be there before the event, at any rate.

It’s go time, Real America.

To:  Governor Messinger Dayton
From: Mitch Berg, Peasant
Re:  A Time For Choosing

Governor Messinger Dayton,

I have  a couple of questions for you.

1. Do you support President Obama’s declaration that legal gun ownership by the law-abiding citizen is a dangerous condition that needs monitoring?  I’ll ask you not to equivocate; yes, or no?
2. If you support it, please make sure everyone knows.  You’ve never been shy about using the media that serves as your praetorian guard, and the lavishly-funded apparatus that your puppeteer ex-wife owns, to get the message out before; please don’t stop now.
3. If you support the President, could you please prevail upon Minnesota’s DFL legislators to publicly declare their support as well?  Very, very publicly?  Maybe in a big press conference on the Capitol steps?

You ran as a “pro-2nd-Amendment” candidate in the 2010 election.  I’ve always suspected that you did it more out of memory of what happened to Ann Wynia (and the rest of the Democrat majorities) in 1994, or to the DFL’s majority in the House in 2002, than out of any sincere care for civil and human and rights…

…but I’m willing, if not expecting, to be surprised.

I mean, one way or another, it’s time for a big profile in courage, isn’t it?

That is all.

To:  Senator Amy Klobuchar
From: Mitch Berg, Peasant
Re:  Powers

Sen. Klobuchar,

I have  a couple of questions for you.

1. Do you join President Obama in the belief that the law-abiding, legal gun owner is a public health risk and manifesting a mental illness?  I’ll ask you not to equivocate; yes, or no?
2. Could you please make your reasons for this support as public as you can, if applicable?  You’ve never been shy about using the media that serves as your praetorian guard to get the message out before; please don’t stop now.
3. If you support the President, could you please prevail upon Minnesota’s DFL legislators to publicly declare their support as well?  Very, very publicly?

You’ve spent the past six years in a calculated effort to create a public image of studied innocuity.  But given your massive victory last November, surely you feel secure enough politically to be honest about your stance and motivations.

I mean, you just know you’re bulletproof come election time, don’t you?

That is all.

To:  Senator Al Franken
From: Mitch Berg, Peasant
Re:  Powers

Sen. Franken,

I have  a couple of questions for you.

1. Do you support President Obama’s executive order saying law-abiding gun ownership is mental illness?  I’ll ask you not to equivocate; yes, or no?
2. If so, please make your support very, very public.
3. Again if so – please do what you can to make MN DFL legislators “come out” publicly on their support, would you please?

I mean, you just know you’re bulletproof come election time, don’t you?

That is all.

To: Rep. Colin Peterson (DFL MN-07)
From: Mitch Berg, Peasant
Re:  Power, Power, Power!

Rep. Peterson,

If you’d be so kind, I’d love it if you answered the following:

1. Do you support President Obama’s decree, yesterday, saying that law-abiding legal gun ownership is a form of mental illness?  Yes or no, please.
2. As you’ve always claimed to be a pro-Second-Amendment guy, then – if you don’t support Obama, what do you plan to do to fight this usurpation?

Your attention to this matter will be appreciated.

That is all.

To:  Rep. Tim Walz (DFL-MNCD1)
From: Mitch Berg, Peasant
Re:  Powers

Rep. Walz,

I have  a couple of questions for you.

1. Do you support President Obama’s executive orders trying to equate legal, law-abiding gun ownership with mental illness? I’ll ask you not to equivocate; yes, or no?
2. If so, are you urging DFL legislators in the 1st CD to do the same?
3. If not, how do you plan to manifest this dissent politically?  Concrete terms, please.

Please make your stance on this issue as public as you possibly can.  Tell the Strib, if you’d be so kind.  Failing that, at least inform Sally Jo Sorenson; she’s always been a reliable steno.

That is all.

To:  All Minnesota State Legislators
From: Mitch Berg, Peasant
Re:  Powers

Dear Esteemed State Representative Or Senator,

I have  a couple of questions for you.

1. Do you support President Obama’s decrees, especially the ones trying to turn legal, law-abiding gun ownership into a public health issue?  I’ll ask you not to equivocate; yes, or no?
2. Are you supporting legislation this session to “control guns” in Minnesota?
3. If so – how do you plan to publicize your approval for the Administration’s actions?
4. If not, how do you plan to manifest this dissent politically?  Concrete terms, please.

Please make your stance on this issue as public as you possibly can.  It does need to be part of voters’ decisions in this next election.

As it was nationwide in 1994, and in Minnesota in 2002.

Thanks for your attention to this matter.

That is all.

I’m going to call this one a tactical victory for Real America.  It’s a won battle; it’s not the war.

The President saw the result of Slow Joe Biden’s trial balloons last week – the suggestions of magazine limits, assault weapon bans and other draconian nationwide assaults on law-abiding Americans’ Second Amendment Rights – which was measured in an explosion of NRA memberships, a mobilization of grass-roots support for the originalist version of the Second Amendment, and the greatest gun-buying frenzy since the US Army signed gave a blank check to John Garand in 1040 – and blinked.

No ineffective gun bans – this time.  No reinstatement of the worthless and abuse-prone Assault Weapons Ban – yet. No useless magazine capacity restrictions – this go-around.

That’s the good news.

In a more mixed vein?  Here, reportedly (according to Business Insider) are the Administraiton’s recommendations, with my responses following in blue:

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.  [These first two, at first glance, don’t seem like bad ideas in and of themselves, although I have a hunch what’s in that data is going to be worth a fight.  More below]
3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.    [Like what Minnesota could have done, had Gov. Messinger Dayton not vetoed the “Stand Your Ground” bill in a fit of bitchy partisan picque, you mean?]
4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.   [Nice and vague and subject to boundless politicization]
5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.   [I’m a little amazed this doesn’t already happen.  I’m also leery of giving more “discretion” to law-enforcement, or at least law-enforcement in places like Chicago]
6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.   [Superfluous]
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.   [You mean, like the ones the National Boogeyman Rifle Association has been running for decades?]
8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).  [Superfluous; gun locks and safes arguably prevent a few accidents; again, it only bears on those responsible enough to use them, rather than criminals]
9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.   [Again, amazed this isn’t already the case]
10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.  [As above]
11. Nominate an ATF director.   [Superfluous at best, adding to the bureaucratic misdirection at worst.  The BATF has little measurable effect on crime; it serves mainly to badger the law-abiding, at least when it comes to firearms sales]
12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.  [Which is great; law-enforcement has advanced a lot in this area since Columbine; given that it took cops 20 minutes to respond to New Town, it’d seem it hasn’t advanced enough.  And you can be sure the federally-mandated training won’t include the conclusion that’s blazingly obvious from the training that is being given to law enforcement (that resisting as immediately as possible with lethal force is vital); that having people in the target area with guns and the abiliity to resist is beyond vital]
13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.   [Exactly as the NRA has been asking]
14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.   [Now we’re getting Orwellian – and this is the area where Real Americans need to be watchful.  The Administration seems to be moving toward the passive-aggressive long game – towarad calling gun ownership a precursor condition to mental illness.  There is great danger here]
15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.   [This is a nod toward “gun safety technology” like bolt-face stamps and biometric safeties that make guns much less safe for the law-abiding user, and much more expensive for the lower-income citizen.  Which is, of course, one of the goals] 
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes  [In other words, turning doctors into Adminstration spies, gathering data for future actions.  Suffice to say I’ve got one ‘condition’ I’ll never tell my doctor about]
17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.   [Also amazed this isn’t generally the case]
18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.   [Wait – you mean exactly as the NRA recommended?]
19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.   [Provided, apparently, that those “model plans” not include “armed citizens killing monsters”]
20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.  
21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.   [Within the context of a rapidly-socializing healthcare system, this and the previous are how the whole “Mental Health” issue gets dealt with, I suppose.  Sigh]
22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.  [Because who better to lead a dialogue on mental health than a couple of bureaucrats?]

LIke most tactical victories, today’s developments leave many potential roads to future battles; the definition of mental health, the potential for using Obamacare’s information systems to add millions of Americans to the federal NICS database as “mentally ill” without any real recourse, and on and on.

And on some issues – “School Resource Officers” and safety training – the Administration is bordering on triangulation to the right.  Which isn’t all bad, since both of those measures are (on their face) sensible.

But the price of liberty is eternal vigilance – and the orcs have left us much to be vigilant about.  Joe Doakes of Como Park emails:

The President assured the nation the federal government isn’t going to take all guns, just impose common sense public safety measures.

I’m thrilled to hear it. I encourage the President to extend that reasoning to other Constitutionally protected rights.

We won’t ban all religions, only those with a tendency toward violence: Catholics. And Jews, because their mere existence provokes peaceful Muslims.

You still can say things that have serious artistic or literary merit, but nothing critical of the government; that’s sedition.

We will only use warrantless searches on the persons, papers, houses and effects of radical extremists: gun owners and church-goers.

See how easy this is? Utopia is within our grasp if we only have the Will to impose it.

Joe Doakes

Como Park

The slope is still slippery.  It’s not as steep as it could have been, but we’re all still sliding.

They’re coming for your guns.

Oh, not all of them, and not today.  But by executive fiat, Barack Rex is about to stick that camel’s nose under the tent all the way to the shoulders.

Make no mistake; this is a diversion to draw the peoples’ attention away from the terrible economy and the ruinous debt.  But the fact is, if we lose our civil and human right to defend our lives, our property and our liberty in a diversion, it’s no less lost than if it were Barack Rex’s main focus.

So it’s time for all Real Americans to come to the aid of the Constitution, while we still can.

Saturday at noon is the “Guns Across America” rally at the State Capitol grounds.

More details as the weak grinds along.

It’s go time, Real America.