Time for another LinkSwarm!
Posts Tagged ‘gun control’
Republican Senators have been yelling at Ted Cruz. At the top of their lungs, no less. “How dare you make me stand on principle???”
We won the gun control fight because Senators Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and Rand Paul stood up for principle and shamed other Republican Senators into standing up as well.
We sent Cruz to Washington to shame Republicans into acting like Republicans. Not, you don’t get to to betray conservative principles and expect us to keep donating and working for you merely because you have an (R) after your name. No, you don’t get to cave into Washington’s permanent liberal establishment without cost. No, you don’t get to enjoying fawning “strange new respect” profiles from the media without getting primaried. “You could just not be a bunch of squishes.”
Does anyone doubt that we’d now be seeing fawning profiles of Senator Dewhurst for his help in forging a “compromise” on gun control?
A random basket of gun news, including more fallout from the Senate’s failure to restrict gun rights:
Gun owners care year in and year out. And they vote on the issue. This had little to do with the fearsome power of “the NRA”, or their fundraising efforts. It had to do with gun owners who will do their best to unelect any politician who votes to deprive them of what they view as constitutional rights. Those gun owners are more likely to live in swing states than the most avid gun controllers: progressives who cram themselves into a handful of cities. And they vote on the issue, unlike progressives, who, for all their furor at the outcome, put a large number of issues–taxes, abortion, welfare programs, and so forth–much higher on their list of priorities. By 2014, the odds of any “No” vote losing their job over it are pretty slim.
Manchin-Toomey went down in flames today, a cloture vote falling six votes short (including four Democrats (Baucus (MT), Begich (AK), Heitkamp (ND) and Pryor (AK) voting no) of the 60 it needed.
Let’s catalog what Democrats won’t be getting during the current congress, shall we?
This is one case in which the Senate’s deliberative style has worked in conservative’s favor. If Harry Reid had been able to ram through a vote days after the Sandy Hook massacre (as happened in New York), it’s very possible some sort of gun control might have passed. But with time for the knee-jerk emotional response to die down, and for the NRA and gun owners across America to mobilize, all Democrats managed to do was endanger a few senate careers, both among themselves and the RINO herd. Remember Michael Moore declaring how the NRA was doomed?
Didn’t work out that way, did it?
Instead, they got…well, let’s Mr. Wonka break it down for them:
And how about a little sad trombone?
And thanks to Senator Ted Cruz for fighting the good fight.
Shall Not Be Questioned has the blow-by-blow description of the Senate debate.
The “assault weapon” ban of Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-osen’t Know the Constitution) died before it could even reach the Senate floor.
What happened? The NRA-ILA happened. Ted Cruz happened. Actual voters happened. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid evidently didn’t have the clout to put the squeeze on members over gun control the way Nancy Pelosi did on Obamacare and taxpayer-funded abortions. That, or the fact there’s no way in hell the Republican House would pass a ban, Reid decided the political cost would be too high (including, very possibly, the loss of the Senate) for no legislative gain.
This is one of the times that the Senate’s glacial pace helped prevent knee-jerk liberal opportunism from making it’s way into law.
There’s still a lot of other bad gun control ideas floating around Washington, DC (not to mention out in the states), but at least we managed to kill this one.
Maybe in a few months I can buy an AR at a decent price…
After putting up this look at Max Baucus, I haven’t had a chance to look at other top “pro-gun” Democrats.
Fortunately, S. E. Cupp has already done that for me with this look at New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. When she represented an upstate House district, she earned an “A” rating from the NRA. And after she moved to the Senate?
She was appointed to Hillary Clinton’s Senate seat in 2009, following a messy selection process by then-Gov. David Paterson. On the day of her appointment, Mayor Bloomberg publicly criticized her for her staunch opposition to gun control.
Suddenly, the moderate Gillibrand of 2006, who had earned the affection of the ultimate moderate Democrat in Bill Clinton, needed a makeover, and quick, if she was going to make it as a senator, not just an upstate representative.
So a new and improved Gillibrand, one who was more politically palatable to downstate liberal elites, was born, practically overnight.
Within two years, she had impressively turned that “A” rating from the NRA into an “F.” NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam remarked at the time that he couldn’t recall a similar instance in recent history of a politician’s score changing so drastically, so quickly.
When it comes to Democrats at the national level, there are two types: Those who have betrayed gun owner rights already, and those who are going to betray them when enough pressure is applied.
When push comes to shove, there’s no such thing as a pro-gun Democrat.
Had a busy weekend, so here’s a late LinkSwarm:
With hearings beginning as proponents of civilian disarmament gear up for their best chance since the Clinton years to erode America’s Second Amendment rights, now’s a good time to look a good, long look at some of those supposedly “Pro-Gun” Democrats. Let’s start with the Senate, where the anti-gun Washington Post has provided a handy chart of ratings for each Senator from both the NRA and Gun Owners of America.
Ranking highest among all Democrats is Senator Max Baucus of Montana. Baucus has been in the Senate since 1978 (disco was still alive, and LeBron James hadn’t been born) and is up for reelection in 2014. Baucus got an A from the NRA (just short of their top A+ rating), but gets a D- from Gun Owners of America. But the NRA A rating listed by the Post is out-of-date, since the NRA is now running attack ads against Baucus.
GOA seems to have based their ratings on a number of actual votes where Baucus voted against the interests of gun owners. Baucus has a record that seems to indicate support of gun-owner rights…except when it matters. In truth we already know that Baucus is willing to break his promises and betray gun owners, because he’s done it before. Back in 1993, “Baucus broke his promises and broke trust with the people of Montana by voting for both the Brady waiting period and the Feinstein semi-auto ban.”
Yet more proof that when push comes to shove, there’s no such thing as a pro-gun Democrat at the national level. Max Baucus is even less “pro gun” than Bart Stupak was “pro life.”
Is Baucus vulnerable in 2014? A late 2011 poll found that he was “one of the least popular Senators in the country with only 37% of voters approving of him to 51% who disapprove.” Sounds like a great Republican pickup target for me, especially given what a deep red state Montana is. Baucus is also one of Capitol Hill’s most notorious pork barons, writing reams of crony giveaways into law as part of the “fiscal cliff” deal. Interestingly, he’s also suffered an exodus of high profile staffers.
Montana gun owners should contact Baucus to let them know that any sellout of gun owner’s rights is unacceptable.
Here’s his DC contact info:
United States Senate
511 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-2602
DC Phone: 202-224-2651
DC Fax: 202-224-9412
Here are some of his staffers:
Chief of Staff: Paul Wilkins
Scheduler: Brenda Carney
Legislative Director: Heather O’Loughlin
Communications Director: Jennifer Donohue
And here is the contact information on his regional offices:
222 N 32nd St Ste 100
Billings, MT 59101
220 W Lamme Ste 1D
Bozeman, MT 59715
245 E Park St LL E
Butte, MT 59701
122 W Towne St
Glendive, MT 59330
113 3rd St N
Great Falls, MT 59401
30 W 14th St Ste 206
Helena, MT 59601
8 3rd St E
Kalispell, MT 59901
280 E Front St Ste 100
Missoula, MT 59802
Bad news: There are signs that some Republicans are thinking of caving on magazine capacity bans. “An increasing number of lawmakers in both parties appear willing to compromise on high-capacity magazines, the one component of gun control legislation that seems palatable to Republicans who view a full ban on assault weapons as politically toxic.”
There’s also this report from last year that suggests some Republicans are thinking of caving.
Democrats in congress have already introduced bills to ban standard capacity magazines. In the Senate, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) has introduced legislation (S.33) that would ban the manufacture and sale of magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds. In the House, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY)’s H.138 would do the same.
If there’s a bright spot, it’s that neither piece actually names any Republicans. It could be the usual case of Democratic allies in the media trying to make a magazine ban look “inevitable,” when in truth it’s anything but.
But gun owners can’t take that risk. Democrats believe they can achieve gun control (and eventually a complete ban on civilian firearms ownership) incrementally, and a useless, cosmetic ban on easily machined pieces of metal and plastic is part of their divide and conquer strategy. We need to make a magazine capacity ban every bit as “politically toxic” as any other gun control measure. Gun owners should let their senators and congressmen know we’re having none of it. You need to tell them you absolutely oppose any magazine capacity ban.
I’ll even provide a sample letter:
Dear ENTER NAME HERE,
Since you’re my representative, I just wanted to write you today in opposition to the firearm capacity bans currently proposed in congress. Both Senate Bill 33 and House Bill 138 seek to ban firearm magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds. This is a foolish, irrational, and unconstitutional idea for many reasons.
First, several modern weapons are designed and shipped with magazines of higher capacities. Glock pistols, for instance, regularly ship with 17 round magazines. Second, like all gun control laws, it only penalizes the law abiding, as criminals will continue to use any capacity magazine they want. Third, with tens (if not hundreds) of millions of higher capacity magazines already in circulation, the ban would only penalize law-abiding gun owners purchasing from licensed firearms dealers. Fourth, the ban would be unenforceable for the non-law abiding, as magazines, being relatively simple mechanisms of metal and plastic, can easily be manufactured by anyone with basic machining equipment. Finally, such a ban violates not only the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, but also the 10th, as the Constitution nowhere specifies a role for government in regulating firearm magazine capacity, thus leaving the matter to the states.
This issue is very important to me, my family, my friends, and all other law-abiding firearms owners. We’re being scapegoated and hung out to dry by irrational appeals to emotion and knee-jerk legislation being pushed in response to the isolated actions of madmen. Instead of addressing the real root causes of mental health, liberals and their media allies seek to cow and stigmatize the sane and law-abiding over the actions of the criminal and insane as part of their long-term goal of completely eliminating civilian firearm ownership. As such, there can be no compromise on this issue, and any ban on 15, 20, or 30 round magazines must be categorically rejected as an irrational infringement of the rights of law-abiding Americans.
I urge you in the strongest possible terms to reject any magazine capacity ban bills.
YOUR NAME AND CONTACT ADDRESS
Here’s Dwight page of contact information for their Texas Congressional representatives, and here’s a link for any other congressional critters.
And the NRA-ILA just sent around a list of senate phone numbers to contact:
And after you’ve contacted your representatives, follow up. If they say they’re opposed, send them a thank you note. If they say they support such a bill, or waffle (“the Senator only supports reasonable firearms legislation”), keep after them. Ask them for a definitive answer and express your opposition. Tell them voting for a bill is cause not only for voting against them, but for backing both primary and general election challenges against them.
Gun banners only succeed when we fail to oppose them hard enough. Keep up the pressure.