Democratic Governors running for Senate seats are running ads bragging about their NRA endorsements, and shooting bad bills:
In addition to being bad news for the Brady folks, this is also bad news for Obama and the Democratic leadership in Congress. One wonders whether they will want to condemn this eliminationist rhetoric, which is surely only to be found on the right side of the aisle.
Japete is a bit incredulous we think so. I know I said it was time for me to disengage from Common Gunsense, but it’s too much to resist. She’s trying to rewrite history. We’re all well aware of the Brady Campaigns past, and their support of an effective ban on handguns. She points out that even the assault weapons ban didn’t actually ban anything. True, but the only reason that wasn’t the case is because they didn’t have the votes to pass confiscation, which is also the only reason it had a sunset clause. Let’s not also forget the last proposed incarnation of the AWB, which was far more draconian. Japete also needs an explanation for what followed up on the heels of the Assault Weapons Ban and the Brady Act, which was only stopped because we flipped Congress in 1994. Brady II, as it was dubbed, would never see the light of day.
Let’s make one other things clear. Whether or not you want to ban guns, or make them so difficult to own that for all practical purposes no one bothers, is an academic argument. I really could care less at this point. Recently a state lawmaker proposed a universal registration scheme which would have amounted to a tax on gun ownership. For serious collectors or competitors it would mean hundreds of dollars a year. You expect me not to oppose that because it’s not a ban? You think the fact that it costs 500 dollars to legally own a gun in DC, before even buying the gun, should be acceptable to us? Is it acceptable to you? Constitutional rights, but only for the rich? Oh, I’m sorry, I forgot the position was constitutional rights for no one.
She then goes on to lament that the slippery slope can go the other way. Yes it can. It works in both directions. That why we’re all working to make sure it keeps heading in her direction. Is there anywhere it’s going to stop? Who knows. But it’s not like gun control works anyway, so don’t expect me to stand atop my soapbox and yell “stop.” Gun control advocates seem to think if somehow we believe you aren’t going to ban guns, we’re not going to oppose you. At this point we’re not afraid of your end game anymore. We just resent the interference with our rights. Where will the slippery slope stop? When you’re about as relevant as these people.
But we’ll be able to ban them, no problem, right? They tell us criminals are too stupid to manufacture their own firearms, given what complex and advanced technology goes into one. This is clearly an example, since I’ve heard the trigger pull on this particular model is seriously sub par.
H/T to Sharp as a Marble.
Looks like John Richardson knows the guy running against Carolyn McCarthy. She’s looking more an more vulnerable, and I’m really salivating over the possibility of getting her out. Brady has raised very little federal PAC money in the 2010 cycle. I think their only donations have been incidental. Of the approximately 4700 dollars they have spent, McCarthy has been the only person in Congress Brady has donated to at the 1000 dollar level, and only one of two candidates getting that much this cycle. They are busy raising money for their Illinois PAC, however, and this indicates that this election they are just trying not to lose more ground. There’s a very good chance that Illinois is going to flip from anti to pro in the next election.
UPDATE: Jacob, in the comments, points out that he voted along with Bloomberg on colored guns. That certainly doesn’t speak well for him, but all I need from him at this point is just to be better than Carolyn McCarthy. I’ll worry about rolling the dice again with him later.
Days of Our Trailers notices another case of questionable grading on the part of GOA. A common theme seems to be that they are Democrats.
Carolyn McCarthy is on the verge of being tea partied out of office. Needless to say, despite her ineffectiveness, it would be wonderful to get her out of Congress. If you want to donate to her challenger’s campaign, you can here. He is pro-Second Amendment.
I factchecked this, and the answer is: Not exactly. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives found that states with tougher gun laws in fact export the guns used in crimes(PDF) at a much lower rate than states with weak gun laws. That is, those illegal guns handled by criminals and confiscated at crime scenes are most often traced back to states that don’t do background checks for all guns purchased at gun shows [CLICK HERE FOR MOJO'S ARTICLE ON GUN SHOWS], that don’t require purchase permits, that don’t prosecute gun dealers who violate background check laws, and that don’t allow local law enforcement to approve or deny conceal carry permits. Findings confirm that regulations dodeter criminals from getting guns.
ATF hasn’t found squat. That’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a gun control advocacy group, who has drawn that conclusion. My fact checking tells a very different story. Lesson for Mother Jones: If you’re going to fact check, it helps to have the facts.
In some back and forth between myself and the folks at Forces of Darkness HQ, I asked about the situation from Citibank’s past, highlighted by SayUncle here. They had this to say about that matter:
NRA-ILA investigated a previous problem with Citibank in 2008, which involved Citi Merchant Services denying its processing services to a major firearms distributor. ILA staff contacted Citibank, who put us in touch with Citi’s contractor for these services, First Data. First Data investigated internally and discovered that it had one employee who was denying services to firearms industry members.
The employee’s motives remain unclear, but First Data appears to have solved the problem. ILA has had no complaints about Citi between that time and the current situation. The current case appears to be of a completely different nature.
So my suggestion that we back off on Citibank wasn’t based on my forgiving them for their previous transgressions, but based on the fact that they seem to have fixed the problem that existed previously, and walked into this current situation through a mistake rather than maliciousness.
A lot of folks have questioned why NRA has a policy that’s incumbent friendly. This article pretty much nails the reason:
If 2010 is an “anti-incumbent” election, how can it be that 80 percent of the incumbents will be re-elected?
And as Glenn Reynolds points out:
Though based on the last several decades, an election where only 80 percent of incumbents survive is actually a big deal.
Yes, it is. The reason for an incumbent friendly policy isn’t because we should love incumbents for incumbency sake, but that they have a significantly high likelihood of winning their election, even this year, and that incumbency brings with it seniority, which brings with it the power to drive the agenda of the legislative body. From a lobbying point of view, once you find a friend, the last thing you want to do is toss him.
I’ve never bought into the notion of tossing lawmakers, because, like diapers, they need to be changed often. I’m in favor of tossing lawmakers when they stop serving liberty and start serving themselves. If we got a libertarian majority in Congress this November, I’d want to keep the incumbent re-election rate as high as possible as long as Congress were serving that end. The article points out:
Here’s a valuable piece of historical fact – Prior to the Civil War, it was not unusual for half or more of each new Congress to be freshmen. It was only after World War II that America’s incumbent re-election rate skyrocketed to its present 90+ percent level.
I would argue the primary driving factor behind a high incumbent re-election rate that people are rationally ignorant of politics, and as we’ve expanded the voting franchise, and increasingly consolidated the power of the media into the hands of the few, incumbent re-election rates have gone up. They probably should not be as high as they are, but perhaps the Internet has the potential to balance the media situation out sufficiently, so that better information on just how bad your current legislative critter is has more of a chance to come to the attention of your average Joe who barely pays attention.
In the mean time, NRA’s policy preferring incumbents is the smart thing to do.
First we’re the forces of darkness. Now violent death stalks us all. Geez, with an outlook like that, you’d think I might want to carry a gun or something.
