appeasement

Uncategorized

Neville McConnell

June 22, 2022 by 5 Comments

If you are a student of 20th Century history, you know that the British led by then-Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain engaged in a policy of appeasement when confronted by Hitler’s demands for the Sudetenland which was part of then Czechoslovakia. Emboldened by this, Hitler later invaded Poland which marked the start of the Second World War.

I think of the 14 Republican senators led by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell who voted to invoke cloture on the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act yesterday. It is a policy of appeasement. I presume that McConnell hopes that by appeasing the Democrats on gun control that it will not be an issue of great importance in the November elections. Is agreeing to a “bipartisan” bill on gun control now any different than Chamberlain’s “Peace for our Time”? Frankly, I don’t think so. If you read any of the comments from the gun control industry issued last night, you can see they are already planning for the next move.

What Sen. McConnell does not seem to realize is that appeasement will never regain the Senate for the Republicans. Those who want gun control will never vote for Republicans and those for whom gun control is anathema may just sit out the election.

Excuse my poor Adobe Photoshop skills but this is how I see it along with an rewriting of Chamberlain’s speech he was waving in his hand after returning from Munich.

Neville McConnell

And the speech.

We, the Democrats, and the Republicans, have had a further meeting today and are agreed in recognizing that the question of gun control is of the first importance for our two parties and for the United States.
We regard the agreement signed last night and the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act as symbolic of the desire of our two parties to ignore the Constitution. We are resolved that the method of capitulation shall be the method adopted to deal with any other commonsense questions of gun control by our two parties, and we are determined to continue our efforts to remove possible sources of difference, and thus to contribute to the end of the Second Amendment.

Chamberlain’s actual speech is here.

Uncategorized

Why Appeasement Never Works

April 12, 2018 by 2 Comments

Gov. Rick Scott (R-FL) probably thought rushing to get a gun control bill passed after the Parkland atrocity would appease those calling for more gun control and help him in his run for the US Senate against Bill Nelson.

As Winston Churchill probably told Neville Chamberlain many times, appeasement never works.

I got the following email from the cult of personality known as Giffords. They are asking for money so that they can defeat Scott in his run against Bill Nelson.

In just a moment, I am going to ask you to rush an urgent donation to Giffords PAC. I hope you’ll give me a chance to explain why this request — today of all days — is so important.


Yesterday morning, Florida’s Republican Governor Rick Scott announced he was going to run for U.S. Senate. And what we need to do right now is send him a message from every American who has had enough of the inaction from Congress on this issue. And that message is:


“Rick Scott, we are going to do everything we can to defeat you this November. The gun lobby doesn’t need any more allies in the U.S. Senate.”


Shortly after the tragedy at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, we ran ads highlighting Rick Scott’s history of indulging the gun lobby’s every wish. Today, we need you to help us keep up the pressure:


Make a $3 donation to Giffords PAC today to help us ensure that Rick Scott gets nowhere near the U.S. Senate where he will cast votes on gun violence legislation that impact every American.


If we can send a message to politicians across the country that their path to further elected office is imperiled by their support for the gun lobby’s priorities, we will do more than we could possibly imagine to change the trajectory of this debate.


And that starts with keeping Rick Scott out of office.


All my best,


Peter Ambler
Executive Director
Giffords PAC

I hate to break it to Peter Ambler – and to Rick Scott – but we in the gun culture really don’t consider Scott an ally. If Rick Scott was an ally, 18 through 20 year olds wouldn’t have lost their ability to purchase a rifle or shotgun.

Uncategorized

Three Words – Smith And Wesson

August 19, 2015 by 6 Comments

A group of 13 US Senators led by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) are trying to pressure Cabelas and Bass Pro Shops to ignore the law regarding NICS checks. They want these retailers to transfer firearms if, and only if, the NICS check comes back from the FBI as “proceed”.

Under current law, if the FBI delays the NICS check, the FFL is allowed to transfer the firearm after three business days if they haven’t received a denial. Those extra three days are for the FBI to investigate purchasers who may have had a hit in the databases. Usually these are false positives.

If, the customer’s submission ends up in a “Delay” status, it means that the “Hit” produced a possible or valid match in one or more databases, and more research will be required to determine if any federal or state prohibitors apply.

When a transaction is delayed and a final status decision cannot be rendered within the allotted three-business day time frame, and no other restrictions exist, the FFL is legally permitted to transfer the firearm at their discretion.

Like these senators, Everytown Moms for Illegal Mayors is trying to pressure retailers like Cabelas, Gander Mountain, and Sportsmans Warehouse to treat delays as denials. As the NRA-ILA Alert notes:

The anti-gunners know more than they are telling, however. First, according to the FBI, if a background check cannot be completed within three days, “the NICS Section continues to search for the information necessary to make a final determination” and, if a person is determined to be prohibited, NICS will notify the BATFE to recover any firearms such person may have acquired. The FBI reports that in 2014, “The NICS Section forwarded 2,511 firearm retrieval referrals to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives,” something on the order of about 0.1 percent of all firearms sold by dealers that year.

Second, in some instances, even though the FBI continues working on an unresolved check after three days have passed, it will do so only for 90 days, after which time the check is terminated. Were dealers to acquiesce to anti-gunners’ new demand, people could be prevented from legally buying firearms by simply delaying their background checks until the time allotted for their checks expires.

That would certainly “slow down” firearm sales, while gun control supporters continue working toward the registration portion of their long-standing three-part plan by requiring background checks on private firearm sales.

My response to any retailer seriously considering changing their policies in order to appease the gun prohibitionists is a little three word reminder of the consequences. Smith. And. Wesson.

For those unfamiliar with what I’m alluding to, Smith & Wesson under their former British corporate owners had signed a letter of understanding with then-Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Andrew Cuomo that voluntarily submitted to the company to government restrictions on sales and distributions among other things. The reaction of the gun community was swift and severe. S&W almost went into bankruptcy and ended up being sold for a mere $45 million to new owners. These new owners quickly repudiated the agreement and the S&W as we know it today was created.

Social media and the Internet were just getting started back during the Clinton Administration. The reaction nowadays to a company trying to appease the gun prohibitionists would be swifter and more comprehensive. Cabelas, Bass Pro Shops, Gander Mountain, Sportsmans Warehouse, and others should take that as a warning and a promise.

Uncategorized

If I Wanted Waffles, I’d Have Gone To Waffle House

September 18, 2013 by 7 Comments

Howard Schultz, CEO of Starbucks, released an open letter yesterday requesting that Starbucks’ customers no longer carry when they visit Starbucks. It is a waffling statement meant to appease the gun prohibitionists while at the same time trying not to offend the gun culture too much. As Neville Chamberlain would ruefully attest, appeasement is never a good policy.

Mr. Schultz should realize that appeasement is never a good policy when dealing with those who would seek to curtail civil rights.

Schultz’s statement is below:

Tuesday, September 17, 2013

Posted by Howard Schultz, Starbucks chairman, president and chief executive officer

Dear Fellow Americans,

Few topics in America generate a more polarized and emotional debate than guns. In recent months, Starbucks stores and our partners (employees) who work in our stores have been thrust unwillingly into the middle of this debate. That’s why I am writing today with a respectful request that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas.

From the beginning, our vision at Starbucks has been to create a “third place” between home and work where people can come together to enjoy the peace and pleasure of coffee and community. Our values have always centered on building community rather than dividing people, and our stores exist to give every customer a safe and comfortable respite from the concerns of daily life.

We appreciate that there is a highly sensitive balance of rights and responsibilities surrounding America’s gun laws, and we recognize the deep passion for and against the “open carry” laws adopted by many states. (In the United States, “open carry” is the term used for openly carrying a firearm in public.) For years we have listened carefully to input from our customers, partners, community leaders and voices on both sides of this complicated, highly charged issue.

Our company’s longstanding approach to “open carry” has been to follow local laws: we permit it in states where allowed and we prohibit it in states where these laws don’t exist. We have chosen this approach because we believe our store partners should not be put in the uncomfortable position of requiring customers to disarm or leave our stores. We believe that gun policy should be addressed by government and law enforcement—not by Starbucks and our store partners.

Recently, however, we’ve seen the “open carry” debate become increasingly uncivil and, in some cases, even threatening. Pro-gun activists have used our stores as a political stage for media events misleadingly called “Starbucks Appreciation Days” that disingenuously portray Starbucks as a champion of “open carry.” To be clear: we do not want these events in our stores. Some anti-gun activists have also played a role in ratcheting up the rhetoric and friction, including soliciting and confronting our customers and partners.

For these reasons, today we are respectfully requesting that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas—even in states where “open carry” is permitted—unless they are authorized law enforcement personnel.

I would like to clarify two points. First, this is a request and not an outright ban. Why? Because we want to give responsible gun owners the chance to respect our request—and also because enforcing a ban would potentially require our partners to confront armed customers, and that is not a role I am comfortable asking Starbucks partners to take on. Second, we know we cannot satisfy everyone. For those who oppose “open carry,” we believe the legislative and policy-making process is the proper arena for this debate, not our stores. For those who champion “open carry,” please respect that Starbucks stores are places where everyone should feel relaxed and comfortable. The presence of a weapon in our stores is unsettling and upsetting for many of our customers.

I am proud of our country and our heritage of civil discourse and debate. It is in this spirit that we make today’s request. Whatever your view, I encourage you to be responsible and respectful of each other as citizens and neighbors.

Sincerely,

Howard Schultz

I, for one, will “respect” Mr. Schultz’s request – I won’t carry, concealed or openly, in his stores. I will even go one step further and no longer patronize his stores or his products.

By the way, open carry has been legal in North Carolina without a permit since 1921. That is when the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled it was legal in State v. Kerner saying that the right to keep and bear arms under the North Carolina Constitution was “a sacred right”.