search
top

UFA Renewal Passes Senate

Passed by unanimous consent, which is effectively the same as 100-0, but it looks like Chuck Schumer is going to remain disappointed. This is not a victory of any sort — we simply avoided losing more ground — but I don’t mind Schumer remaining disappointed.

11 Responses to “UFA Renewal Passes Senate”

  1. Archer says:

    Agreed. We haven’t “lost” anything by this. Not until plastic/polymer technology expands to where it can handle the stresses needed to make an effective firing pin and barrel.

    Now, what I want to know is, will Obama sign it or veto it because it doesn’t go far enough? What “Executive Orders” will he write up on this topic?

  2. Shootin Buddy says:

    I can hardly wait for the “Rand Paul sold us out on UFA” blog posts from the Wookies.

    • Andy B. says:

      Of course, they’ll be right. As Sebastian commented, “This is not a victory of any sort.” Least of all for us.

      • HappyWarrior6 says:

        And Rand should be questioned on it when the time comes and he comes to us with hat in hand for courtship. He is owed this if he runs on a “civil libertarian” stance, which you have said does not resemble what it did “back then.” I would agree to some extent, depending on how he answers. If it sounds more like, “I did it to get along” then I think we have our answer. If it’s more like “here’s my strategy…” then that’s something different. This was partly why Toomey has gotten blasted. What he did was not part of a strategy that I’ve heard anyone reasonably articulate. He had his chances, and now I hear he’s taking money from the antis. If a candidate is depending on anti-gunners for a win, I think we have our answer.

        • Andy B. says:

          I will readily admit to my bias and my pet theory, that people like Rand Paul use our RKBA issue as a “decoy issue,” to win our political support that they need, so they can advance their read agendas. When the chips are down or political trades are to be made, our issue goes out the window.

          It might be interesting to route questions for Paul through NAGR. At one time at least he had an email address through their servers. See what Dudley et al have to say in his defense.

  3. Matthew Carberry says:

    It’s also not really a loss of any meaningful sort. It isn’t a binary choice.

  4. Patrick H says:

    Its a loss, but a small one. Nothing changes. And the fact they did it by a voice vote shows that they were a little concerned about the blowback.

  5. Matthew Carberry says:

    If your opponent is already at first and goal, and they try a play and gain no yards, that is in no way a “loss.”

    To push them back would be a win, but merely holding when they have the ball is not a loss.

    Especially when they are looking at having to turn over the ball in short order.

  6. Patrick says:

    The Dems had no choice. If they had played with it, the law would have expired and it would have been their fault. No way they could have amended and gotten it back through the House by the end of this week – Boehner is claiming he will not go past the 12th.

    This was a win in two ways: firstly, the opposition desperately wanted to use amendments to gin up gun control coverage and they did not get that; second, the GOP played a solid game of not giving the President what he wanted. They fully expected the GOP in the House to make the story for them.

    The law is meaningless to us. It is symbolic. We denied them a symbol and an opportunity to make more press coverage – and to denounce us yet again as “extremists”.

    I wish they had taken the bait and amended, because then the law would have ended. But they didn’t, so I am happy enough with this outcome.

  7. Andy B. says:

    “This in no way is a loss. . .”

    Of course not. If Republicans supported it unanimously and without reservation, that would mess up our entire theology.

    • Matthew Carberry says:

      I don’t get your meaning.

      If you do not lose ground, then you haven’t lost ground. If you had “x”, and you didn’t end up with “x-1″, then you didn’t “lose” by the definition of the term “lose.”

      Conversely, if you had “x”, and you didn’t end up with “x+1″, but “x+1″ was not assured, or even likely, then you didn’t lose anything either, to include an opportunity to gain.

      This isn’t a binary situation. A “tie”, particularly on something with almost zero to potentially gain (possible potential new micro handgun production) but a lot to immediately lose (restrictions on magazines and more onerous restrictions on existing firearm production techniques) is not a loss.

      Given the concept of political momentum; if we hold ground in one area that has effectively zero to offer the goal of expanding gun ownership and thus our political power, “Gun Culture 2.0″, while expanding it in others that do grow that political power, expanding carry rights and reducing barriers to entry for example, we are, in the strategic sense, winning.

      Even the compliant media is casting this as a loss for Schumer et al; meanwhile we’re bitching about what the other side is bemoaning.

top