I Can’t Disagree With This Comment

A comment was made on Facebook which I think epitomizes what some of us see as the issue at the NRA.

Chris Meissen wrote in reference to a story in a non-profit journal covering the issues at the NRA:

LaPierre is behaving like a mini-Maduro, dragging the organization down around him while trying to hold on to power.

I think he has hit the nail on the head. Wayne LaPierre’s scorched earth approach to maintaining power may be good for Wayne but is horrible for the NRA as an organization. I acknowledge there are many good people on the Board of Directors. Some want Wayne gone and some still support him.

As to why those who still support him do so, I can think of three reasons. You have those who are in thrall of him like NRA President Carolyn Meadows based upon what he did years ago. Then you have those afraid of him for whatever reason. Finally, you have those who fear that with Wayne gone the golden goose will be gone with him. Thus you have the delusional, the fearful, and the greedy keeping Wayne in his position of power at least for the time being.

Quote Of The Day

The quote of the day comes from Miguel Gonzalez of Gun Free Zone blog fame. It was in response to a post on Facebook noting that Kroger grocery stores were removing gun magazines that have “assault weapons” (sic) in the stories.

Miguel’s comment from Facebook is brutal but spot on:

Standard version:
Good German businessmen who pride themselves in the righteousness of the Reich, should not have these unclean Zionist publications for sale in their places of business. Removal is a must alongside anything else related to it.


Palatable version:
Good American businessmen who pride themselves in the righteousness of “Do It For The Children”, should not have these unclean gun publications for sale in their places of business. Removal is a must alongside anything else related to it.

The NRA Endorsement Of Trump

I posted an article from Politico on Facebook yesterday. The article said the NRA was facing member backlash from their endorsement of Donald Trump on Friday. I noted that I thought Politico was stretching to find NRA members who were opposed to the Trump endorsement. I compared it to finding people at the Annual Meeting who were in favor of universal background checks. You would find them if you looked hard. I went on to add that Politico was a part of the mainstream press whose job it seems is to get Hillary elected even if she does treat them like something she found on the bottom of her shoes.

I thought what I said was fairly uncontroversial.


I was wrong.

I have lost track of how many comments and replies pro and con the Trump endorsement that I have received. Some of the comments have up to 50 replies to them. Much of it is back and forth between people who oppose the endorsement and those who thought the NRA right to do the endorsement. To get a true feel for it you need to read the comment and then the back and forth replies.

The comments on both sides of the argument have come from people within the gun culture whom I respect for their devotion to the Second Amendment. Given that, I do see that the endorsement of Trump was more controversial than I thought.

My take on why the NRA-ILA and NRA-PVF made the endorsement now is that it was pragmatic politics. The NRA is nothing if not a practitioner of realpolik. The pragmatic consideration is that an early endorsement at a time when it would get lots of media attention cements the NRA as one of the inner circle of organizations who will have the ear of a President Trump. It is already a given that the NRA will have no seat at the table under a President Clinton. She has already declared us as one of her prime enemies.

The NRA could have waited to make the endorsement later in the campaign season but they would have risked that endorsement getting lost among other endorsements. Moreover, as some have suggested, they could have just foregone an endorsement of Trump as they have done with some past Republican nominees. Given Trump’s past pro-gun control comments, they could have been excused for going this route. That said, 2016 Trump is very pro-gun, has made very pro-gun statements throughout the campaign, and has very pro-2A positions posted on his website. It could be posited that the NRA endorsement is a reward for coming over the from the dark side.

As I said above, I do see the endorsement of Trump as being more controversial than I thought. However, pragmatically, I don’t see that the NRA had any other choice than to do what they did.

Ad Denied By Facebook Because Of…Well Not Really Guns

Facebook has a policy of denying to carry ads that promote the sale of firearms. They are in the private sector and that is their option. However, sometimes their algorithms used are lacking.

A case in point is my friend Professor David Yamane who publishes the Gun Culture 2.0 blog. He had an ad denied by Facebook’s faceless minions because they thought it promoted the sale of firearms and other weapons. He was advertising a link to his report on the USCCA’s recent Concealed Carry Fashion Show held in conjunction with their expo in Atlanta. They had previously accepted an advertisement for his blog that was titled, “Bushmaster is the Worst Marketer in the History of Guns.” David said, with his tongue firmly in his cheek, that Bushmaster was bad at advertising since so few of its firearms (or any AR-15) were used in homicides.

This is ridiculous. Just like his series of posts on the gun industry which highlighted the fact that the gun industry isn’t just the Rugers and Smith & Wessons, this post doesn’t promote the sale of any product.

Mark Zuckerberg plans a series of meetings with conservatives. Perhaps he needs to go to the next USCCA Expo in Ft. Worth or this weekend’s NRA Annual Meeting to see that the gun industry isn’t just guns.

People Ask The Most Embarrassing Questions

Unlike scripted townhalls scheduled for CNN, when it comes to government agencies and social media embarrassing questions do get asked.

A case in point. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives maintains a Facebook page. They posted a number of links late last night to the new rules being promulgated as the result of President Obama’s Executive Actions. There was one about the elimination of the CLEO signoff and another about Rule 41-P and responsible persons needing background checks. My favorite, however, was their guidance about when a Federal firearms license was needed. Someone named Bre Ve asked a question that you know they would rather ignore.

Reading the comments, it appears that a Becky Solis objected to the question. The commenters had good Google-fu and found out that she was none other than an area supervisor in the Denver Field Division. Her comment objecting to Ms. Ve’s question has, of course, been deleted.

Good on Bre Ve for asking the question of the day and for the commenters in exposing Ms. Solis.

That’s Senator Insurrectionist Thug To You!

I find some things the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (sic) post on their Facebook page amusing given how absurd they are or maybe it’s just this codeine cough syrup I’m taking for the crud. Either way, they unloaded on Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) with both barrels.

Ooops. I shouldn’t have put it that way. That would have been a little too microaggressive. Or is it macro?

Senator Rand Paul tells The Daily Caller that Republican Presidential front runner Donald J. Trump “deserves both barrels” before having himself photographed today firing an AR-15 at a shooting range. This man isn’t a politician. He’s an insurrectionist thug who will never attract anything other than fringe support.

They illustrated their little macroaggression with this microaggressive picture.

If you ask me, Sen. Paul looks like he’s about to indulge in a bit of 3-gunning. His AR-15 has a full rail, a 1-4x scope, 18″ barrel, and a  Miculek compensator.

I find it amusing that they characterize Sen. Rand Paul, MD Duke, as an “insurrectionist thug”. CSGV feels free to indulge in character assassination and name calling at will. However, if someone who supported gun rights referred to CSGV leaders and supporters by an appropriate epithet, they would be screaming “microaggression!”, try to get the person’s kids taken by DSS, and possibly even “swatting” them.

There is a name for people like that:  hypocrites.

Behind The Times

Virtually everyone knows by now that the renamed combo of the Illegal Mayors and Demanding Mommies didn’t secure the Everytown for Gun Safety Facebook page before their big announcement. Rather, it went to a pro-gun rights grassroots activist who was quicker on the uptake than they were. This happened despite their supposed expertise in social media as evidenced by their presentation called “Disrupting the Gun Lobby with Digital Organizing” at Austin’s South by Southwest Festival. The SXSW presenters included both Shannon Watts and Mark Glaze.

So when did EGS get their act together and establish their Facebook presence? On April 17th, two days after their big announcement.

And how are they doing in terms of likes? They have 9 likes versus 26,183 likes for the pro-gun Everytown for Gun Safety Facebook page.

Guerrilla tactics do work, and work well, when used against a larger, wealthier opponent who has no real idea what action at the grassroots level really means. Just like in Colorado where four pissed off guys successfully took on both Bloomberg and the Democratic Establishment to recall Sen. President John Morse and Sen. Angela Giron, Everytown for Gun Safety and its over 100 local Facebook pages will cause Bloomberg to have to devote resources in order to get them taken down from Facebook. That is money that won’t be spent on ad campaigns or donated to gun prohibitionist candidates. We may lose the battle but we will win the war.

The Facebook Counter-Petition

Moms Demand Action aka the Demanding Mommies are trying to get Facebook to shut down firearm-related Facebook pages. And according to this article by VentureBeat, they might just succeed. That is, if we let them.


The Firearms Policy Coalition has started a counter-petition on Change.org. Their petition has broken the 9,000 signature mark as of this morning. As I understand it, the goal is to get 100,000 signatures by next week. Given that the NRA page has over 3 million likes and the Demanding Mommies page has less than 150,000, I think this is doable.

The FPC notes that Facebook considers even a “like” to be be Constitutionally-protected free speech. Let’s make sure that it is free speech for all and not just a select noisy few.

In Bland v. Roberts, Facebook submitted an amicus brief to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals arguing that Facebook speech, even a page “like,” is Constitutionally-protected speech. The brief said that “Facebook strives to create an online environment that facilitates communication, social connection, and the sharing of ideas, and in which Users can engage in debate and advocate for the political ideas, parties, and candidates of their choice….Facebook, for itself and its Users, has a vital interest in ensuring that speech on Facebook and in other online communities is afforded the same constitutional protection as speech in newspapers, on television, and in the town square.”

If that’s true, then Facebook will do the right thing and keep its rules fairly applied and content-neutral. Help us make sure OUR speech isn’t banned — SIGN OUR COUNTER-PETITION RIGHT NOW!