Posts Tagged ‘gun control’

Ding Dong, The Witch Is Dead Not Taking Our Guns

Tuesday, March 19th, 2013

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…

Vetting the “Pro-Gun Democrats” Part 2: Kirsten Gillibrand

Wednesday, March 13th, 2013

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.

LinkSwarm for March 5, 2013

Tuesday, March 5th, 2013

Had a busy weekend, so here’s a late LinkSwarm:

  • Liberals are casting their greedy gaze on your 401K,
  • Charles Krauthammer: Hail Armageddon!
  • As Mark Steyn put it: “those Mayan guys only hold an apocalypse every few thousand years. Washington now has a Mayan apocalypse every six weeks, whether it’s the fiscal cliff or the debt ceiling, or now the sequestration…it’s talking about $44 billion dollars, or about what the United States government borrows every nine days.”
  • Americans speak English, but Washington speaks a strange dialect where increasing spending by $1 trillion dollars is “holding the line on spending”.
  • Obama’s weak hand on the sequester (though I disagree than gun control is a long-term winning issue).
  • News flash: ObamaCare is still unpopular.
  • The idea that there are more black men in prison than college? Bunk. (via Instapundit)
  • Student suspended for brandishing gun, threatening to shoot someone. Oh wait, no, the student was suspended for tackling the gunman. What the hell, Florida?
  • Syrian rebels take city of Raqqa.
  • The MSM idea of objectivity: quoting a Paul Sadler employee as a neutral observer on Ted Cruz.
  • Speaking of Cruz, he continues to garner a superb list of enemies.
  • Cruz will also be the keynote speaker at CPAC.
  • Groupon’s gun-hating, money-losing CEO got fired.
  • Vetting the “Pro-Gun” Democrats: Senator Max Baucus of Montana

    Wednesday, February 27th, 2013

    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 contact web page.

    The Twitter account for @MaxBaucus.

    His Facebook page.

    His campaign contact page.

    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
    (406) 657-6790

    220 W Lamme Ste 1D
    Bozeman, MT 59715
    (406) 586-6104

    245 E Park St LL E
    Butte, MT 59701
    (406) 782-8700

    122 W Towne St
    Glendive, MT 59330
    (406) 365-7002

    Great Falls
    113 3rd St N
    Great Falls, MT 59401
    (406) 761-1574

    30 W 14th St Ste 206
    Helena, MT 59601
    (406) 449-5480

    8 3rd St E
    Kalispell, MT 59901
    (406) 756-1150

    280 E Front St Ste 100
    Missoula, MT 59802
    (406) 329-3123

    LinkSwarm for February 22, 2013

    Friday, February 22nd, 2013

    Enjoy your now-traditional Friday LinkSwarm:

  • Moody’s strips the UK of it’s AAA bond rating. For all the left-wing hand-wringing about “austerity,” Cameron’s government was still running big deficits, just not as big as Labour’s (or ours).
  • Bill introduced in Washington State to allow police to go house-to-house conducting warrentless searches for guns.
  • Smart Bomb drug approved. Let me know when they finally approve the Inviso drug, and we can finally finish off those pesky mutants.
  • China’s “Yellowed Pearls”. “‘Pretty girls do not need a lot of education to marry into a rich and powerful family. But girls with an average or ugly appearance will find it difficult,’ reads an excerpt from an article titled, Leftover Women Do Not Deserve Our Sympathy, posted on the website of the All-China Federation of Women in March 2011. ‘These girls hope to further their education in order to increase their competitiveness. The tragedy is, they don’t realise that as women age, they are worth less and less. So by the time they get their MA or PhD, they are already old – like yellowed pearls.’” And how old is too old in China? 27 years old. 27?!?! What self-respecting man could possibly love the withered, wrinkled, desiccated husk of a woman who’s reached the doddering, shriveled, decrepit age of 27? Why not just marry a mummy and be done with it?.
  • Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis.”
  • ObamaCare exchange costs up 29%…before the first one has even opened.
  • The left’s racists are out to get Ted Cruz.
  • Bag bans are killing people. Well, that won’t be the first time that liberal ecomadness has killed people.
  • Can Democrats mess with Texas in 2016? Short answer: No, but state GOP Chair Steve Munisteri is taking the threat seriously.
  • New charges against accused Plano pipeline bomber Anson Chi.
  • Republicans Going Wobbly On Magazine Bans?

    Wednesday, February 20th, 2013

    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:


    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.



    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:

  • Sen. Max Baucus: 202-224-2651
  • Sen. Mark Begich: 202-224-3004
  • Sen. Susan Collins: 202-224-2523
  • Sen. Joe Donnelly: 202-224-4814
  • Sen. Kay Hagan: 202-224-6342
  • Sen. Martin Heinrich: 202-224-5521
  • Sen. Heidi Heitkamp: 202-224-2043
  • Sen. Tim Johnson: 202-224-5842
  • Sen. Tim Kaine: 202-224-4024
  • Sen. Angus King: 202-224-5344
  • Sen. Mary Landrieu: 202-224-5824
  • Sen. Joe Manchin: 202-224-3954
  • Sen. Claire McCaskill: 202-224-6154
  • Sen. Mark Pryor: 202-224-2353
  • Sen. Harry Reid: 202-224-3542
  • Sen. Jeanne Shaheen: 202-224-2841
  • Sen. Jon Tester: 202-224-2644
  • Sen. Mark Udall: 202-224-5941
  • Sen. Tom Udall: 202-224-6621
  • Sen. Mark Warner: 202-224-2023
  • 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.

    A Quick Roundup of Gun News

    Monday, February 18th, 2013

    Here’s a Whitman’s Sampler of gun news for you to chew on:

  • The Truth About Assault Weapons, in easy-to-follow graphic form.
  • Dwight is all over Polifact Texas “checking” Ted Cruz’ statements about untracked gun buyers.
  • Texas Attorney General Greg Abbot appeared on a RedState podcast discussing guns.
  • More on the tremendous success of Chicago’s gun control initiative, and how it’s throwing a wee bit of a kink into Obama’s gun control pitch.
  • In the Texas legislature, Rep. James White’s House Bill 1142 would allow firearms safety to be taught as an elective.
  • Missouri Democrats introduce a bill to seize the guns of the law-abiding.
  • What happens when an expert arrives to provide testimony on modern sporting rifles? If you’re a Minnesota Democrat, you actually walk out of the presentation.
  • Borepatch suggests a legislative strategy.
  • Interesting profile of Bond Arms of Granbury, which makes derringers. The article calls them the only gun manufacturer in the DFW area, which I rather doubt.
  • Ted Cruz will be visiting LaRue Tactical to support the Second Amendment. Sadly, Wayne Slater is evidently too unprofessional to bother telling you when Cruz will be visiting. (Do they just not teach “Five Ws and an H” in journalism school anymore?) Since I offer a full-service blog: Tuesday, February 19, 2013, 11:00 AM, LaRue Tactical, 850 County Road 177, Leander, TX 78641.
  • Finally, here’s a fine NSFW rant about how liberal “civil libertarians” are only too ready to watch the rights of gun owners trampled:

    “At the time the Constitution was written, the weapons in question were muskets.”

    You know what? You’re right. And marriage was between one man and one woman. So what’s with gay marriage? No longer will I offer any moral support, oppose any online statements attacking it, speak out for it. They have the same right as anyone—to marry someone of the opposite gender. And given that all gays support raping little boys (just like all gun owners support shooting school kids), I don’t think I can support them. We should do things just the way they were done 220 years ago. That’s the liberal way.

    “The Heller Decision was by an activist court. It doesn’t count.”

    Indeed. Just like Roe v Wade was an activist decision. It doesn’t count.

    “We’re not trying to take your guns away, just have reasonable limits. It’s a compromise.”

    And some people want reasonable limits on abortion, like waiting periods, gestational time limits, ultrasound, etc. It’s a reasonable response to an activist court decision, and reasonable restrictions on a right, for public benefit. Don’t come whining about your right to murder babies, and I won’t come to you whining about my right to shoot school kids.

    And no one is saying you can’t ride the bus. You just have to sit where people think is reasonable. No one is saying women can’t work. They just have to get paid what is reasonable for the work they do, allowing for the fact they’re going to leave the workplace and raise a family. It’s a compromise.

    “Assault weapons are an extreme interpretation.”

    True. And not allowing any religious emblems on government premises is an extreme interpretation. As long as they’re privately paid for, what’s it to you? No one is saying you can’t belong to the Christian church of your choice, just not to extreme groups, like atheists or Muslims. It would be paranoid to think anyone was trying to infringe on your legitimate right to be free from state religion, just like I’d be paranoid to think they wanted to take my guns. Quite a few states had official churches well into the 1800s. This is not an infringement on your freedom of religion.

    “Given Sandy Hook, you have to make reasonable compromises.”

    “We just want licensing and safe storage requirements so the wrong people don’t get guns.”

    “Publicizing the information lets people make informed choices about who they live near.”

    Accepted. In exchange, gay men should make reasonable compromises over Penn State. They will simply have to accept being registered and kept a safe distance from children. This isn’t a violation of their rights. It’s just common sense. The public has a right to know.

    This should apply to protests, too. No reasonable person would object to being identified. They should welcome it—it means they can’t be wrongly maligned. All union members, blacks, gays and feminists should be signed in with ID before a march or gathering, just so we can track the real criminals to keep the rest safe.


    First they came for the blacks, and I spoke up because it was wrong, even though I’m not black.

    Then they came for the gays, and I spoke up, even though I’m not gay.

    Then they came for the Muslims, and I spoke up, because it was wrong, even though I’m an atheist.

    When they came for illegal aliens, I spoke up, even though I’m a legal immigrant.

    Then they came for the pornographers, rebels and dissenters and their speech and flag burning, and I spoke up, because rights are not only for the establishment.

    Then they came for the gun owners, and you liberal shitbags threw me under the bus, even though I’d done nothing wrong. So when they come to put you on the train, you can fucking choke and die.

  • Quick Notes from the TPPF Gun Control Conference Call for February 11, 2013

    Monday, February 11th, 2013

    I sat in a Texas Public Policy Foundation teleconference on the current state legislative session, the main topic of which was Texas efforts to fight Democrats gun control agenda at the national level. On hand were Arlene Wohlgemuth, Mario Loyola and James Golsan, though I believe all the gun control points were from Loyola. Here are a few very brief notes on the call:

    There are three main legislative to avoid federal gun control laws being enacted in Texas:

    1. Nullification: Refuse Cooperation. “We don’t think this approach is constitutional or can prevail.”

    2. Keep state employees from becoming agents of the federal government. “Printz vs. United States struck down part of the Brady Act that forced state officials to enforce federal law.” Make it illegal to cooperate.
    3. Gun control version of TSA Groping bill, Rep. Otto sponsored (HR 553). “Arrest those trying to enforce unconstitutional laws, sort it out in court. High risk, high reward.”

    Some Republicans losing their nerve against fighting ObamaCare.

    Loyola: There’s a difference between setting up exchanges and Medicaid expansion. Later is holding a gun to our heads and will bankrupt our country. It’s important for Texas to hold the line rather than giving into blackmail with their own money. Republican governors need to hold the line to prevent Texas from going it alone.

    Once again a federal judge wants Texas to spend more money on education ($2,000 more per student). Smart play is to appeal and take no legislative action while the issue works its way through the court.

    A Dollop of Gun News

    Wednesday, January 16th, 2013

    Lots of news in the world of guns and the Second Amendment today, so here’s a quick lunchtime roundup:

  • So Obama has issued his executive orders on guns. The good news is that the Executive Orders themselves are not nearly as bad as many feared, at least on the surface. But remember that if you give Obama a constitutional inch, he’ll take an unconstitutional mile. His requested legislation, with restoration of the cosmetic Clinton-era “assault weapons” ban and other such mischief, are a different kettle of fish, but I’m cautiously optimistic that none of them will pass muster in the Republican House.
  • Hell even Harry Reid says that the “Assault Weapons” ban is doomed.
  • The title pretty much says it all: Joe Manchin: Lying Sack of Shit on Guns.
  • All Obama’s proposed legislation is just the latest in a long line of passing
    gun laws that in no way would have prevented the crimes they were passed in reaction to
    . (Hat tip: Say Uncle.)

  • “The D.C. gun control laws irrationally prevent only law abiding citizens from owning handguns.”
  • Cracked, of all places, offers up a dose of perspective. “Gun violence has, generally speaking, been working out pretty spiffy for us.” The writer’s suggestions are as useless as the “Assault Weapon” ban, but are at least less harmful.
  • An average of 22 children a year are killed on school buses or in bus loading zones. Where’s the outcry for bus safety?
  • Mark Steyn notes that for MSM elites, laws are for the little people.
  • Ruger’s automatic letter generator for your congresscritters.
  • Jeff Soyer at Alphecca could use your help.
  • (Austin City Council is) Breaking the Law, Breaking the Law

    Monday, January 7th, 2013

    I’m not sure if you’ve heard, but the SuperGeniuses on the Austin City Council (along with allies among the Travis County apparatchiks) have gotten it into their heads that it’s just a swell idea to ban gun shows within the city and county limits. Because I’m sure so many criminals are buying their guns legally at a gun show. (Hint: NICS is not, in fact, a misspelling of that TV show with the hot Goth chick.)

    Over at Whipped Cream Difficulties, Dwight has taken the bull by the horns, and provided not only a list of reasons why that’s a really bad idea, but a list of contract addresses for City Council critters, allowing those of you who live within the limits of the City of Austin (I don’t) a chance to express your extremely displeasure with this noxious and ill-advised gun-grabbing regulatory gambit.

    Oh wait, did I say noxious and ill-advised? Add to that one more adjective: illegal.

    As Dwight notes, a gun show ban “will expose the city to legal action under section 229 of the Texas local government code.” Let’s take a look at 229, shall we? The relevant portion states:

    (a) Notwithstanding any other law, including Section 43.002 of this code and Chapter 251, Agriculture Code, a municipality may not adopt regulations relating to:

    (1) the transfer, private ownership, keeping, transportation, licensing, or registration of firearms, ammunition, or firearm supplies

    Now, I’m not a simple country lawyer (or a simple hyperchicken from a backwoods asteroid, either), but banning gun shows sounds precisely like adopting regulations pertaining to the transfer of guns to me.

    Much smarter than your average Austin City Counci Critter

    They’d have done better listening to this, er, guy.

    It’s like the entire Austin City Council parading through the center of the state capitol wearing KICK ME signs. And the state legislature just might take them up on it.

    On the other hand, if The People’s Republic of Austin is foolish enough to push this through, I’m sure there are venues in Williamson County that would love to have that business…

    (Subject line hat-tip)

    Email and Phone Numbers: Let Them Know What You Think of Their Illegal Gun-Show Banning Ploy

    Thanks to Dwight, here’s some contact information for Travis County officials, who are evidently voting Tuesday:

  • Judge Samuel T. Biscoe (512) 854-9555
  • Ron Davis (512) 854-9111
  • Sarah Eckhardt (512) 854-9222
  • Gerald Daugherty (512) 854-9333
  • Margaret Gomez (512) 854-9444
  • And Austin City Council Critters:

  • Lee Leffingwell 512-974-2250
  • Sheryl Cole 512-974-2266
  • Chris Riley 512-974-2260
  • Mike Martinez 512-974-2264
  • Kathie Tovo 512-974-2255
  • Laura Morrison 512-974-2258
  • Bill Spelman 512-974-2256