search
top

Our Friends the Republicans

Apparently they are talking with the Administration about gun control. I am so glad we kicked those anti-gun Democrats out of Congress, let me tell you.

Remember, politicians have an overwhelming urge to appear to be doing something, and even though gun control is what you do instead of something, it’s easy for them to do. The question then becomes, what are we going to need to do to make this issue go away? One, call your Congressperson and tell them you want no more gun laws. Make that crystal clear. The more Congress hears from gun owners, the more you’re helping NRA’s federal lobbyists either stop this outright, or mold it into something that’s harmless, like with the NICS Improvement Act last time through. If we’re silent, we’re going to get something rammed down our throats that we’re not going to like.

22 Responses to “Our Friends the Republicans”

  1. Fiftycal says:

    Well, before you proclaim that you want to toss out the Republicans and resurect the Whigs, let’s see what happens. Even if some establishment types want to be “moderate”, I doubt something could get thru either the House OR Senate.

  2. Carl from Chicago says:

    From the article: Staff at Thursday’s meeting will consider whether the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is effective.

    So many unanswered questions. Whether NICS is effective at what? If NICS is found to be ineffective, will dismantling of the system be then considered?

  3. Carl from Chicago says:

    Actually, I don’t have a problem with keeping guns away from the mentally ill.

    That said … working on this issue will come with the expectation to work on other issues, as well. Frankly, there are lots of ways to try and keep guns away from mentally ill … including complete bans.

    An attempt to keep guns out of the “wrong hands” could VERY easily include attempts at gun registration, licensing and fees, waiting periods, private transaction bans … any manner of the stuff that the gun control groups have wanted all along.

    And finally, with 300 million guns around, it’s not like they are hard to get ahold of anyway. The gun ban folks loose sight of the needle for the haystack.

  4. Sebastian says:

    The risk here is what could get thrown on this bill along the way, and even if we neuter it, a la the NICS Improvement Act, it will still offer our opponents something to latch on to in order to declare victory. I’d prefer they walk away empty handed.

  5. Hank Archer says:

    Closing the “private sale loophole” will have no impact on crime because criminals and the mentally ill aren’t getting their guns from clueless Bubba. They’re getting them by purchasing them from thiefs, straw purchases and stealing.

  6. Chas says:

    NICS is BS. Look at how effective it was at keeping guns from gangbangers in Chicago during the handgun ban.
    Anyone who wants a gun, and is not locked up, can get one. NICS = BS.

    The only way to keep guns away from the mentally ill is to keep the mentally ill away from society’s guns. That means locking up the Loughners, but the political left will not allow it. Jared was their boy, and he gave them the crisis that they have not been allowing to go to waste.
    Unleashing the mentally ill on our society is consistent with the bringing down of America that is part of the left’s agenda. Loughner was a big bonus for them, but not an entirely unanticipated one.
    So what are the Republicans doing? They are talking NICS with the Democrats. Maybe the Tea Party has the nads to set an agenda that has not been pre-determined by the Democrats. It seems that the Republicans cannot.

  7. Lucky Forward says:

    Many Washington insiders, including the Wall Street Journal’s Peggy Noonan, have recently pushed for gun control, and are betting that the GOP will throw the Second Amendment under the bus, the implication being, we have no where else to go. I’m concerned these insiders know something we don’t; remember how the START treaty and the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal were going nowhere, then fly through Congress only days later.

    I’d urge everyone to contact Boehner’s office, and the offices of the Judiciary Committee members, and remind them on which side their bread is buttered. Speak now, or forever hold your peace.

  8. Jujube says:

    Chas,

    Ronald Reagan, National Review letter from 1973: http://old.nationalreview.com/flashback/reagan200406080927.asp

    “California has pioneered the concept of treating the mentally ill with an expanded system of community mental health programs. When we started, the budget for community treatment was $18 million. This year it is more than $140 million and California’s shift from the “warehousing of the mentally ill” in large state mental institutions has become a model for the nation.”

    Ronald Reagan was the one who closed the mental “warehouses” because it meant “smaller government” and “less taxes.” He pushed for more community mental health because it was cheaper.

    Reagan was a conservative, not a liberal.

  9. Ken says:

    I contacted Rep. Dean Heller and Sen. John Ensign and reminded them, first of all, that I had worked for their campaigns; and second, that we managed to get through four years of Pelosi with no gun control. I asked them if they honestly think they can win an election if they pass a gun control law within *one month* of taking office.

    BTW, I note a distressing tendency in the pro-gun commenters here to prove, for the ten thousandth time, that gun control doesn’t work. What we need to realize is that they know that as well as we do–or rather, that it doesn’t work to control crime. Don’t prove to them what they already know. Tell them that if they support gun control, they will be out of office, and tell them that you expect them to be pro-2A leaders, not just designated “no” votes.

  10. Sebastian says:

    Jujube is correct on this count. Reagan was one of the advocates for deinstitutionalization.

  11. Brad says:

    What nervous nelliies gunnies can be! The article is really a cause for hope instead of fear. Of course I can’t really blame the chicken littles among us, anyone who’s taken the abuse gun enthusiasts have taken over the last twenty years is bound to be a little gun shy.

    From the content of The Hill article, it’s clear to me that Obama plans on covering his left-flank on gun control by pushing a NICS that is better at screening the mentally ill (who are not allowed to purchase a firearm already). Considering the horrible alternatives Obama might have pursued, such as the McCarthy magazine ban, this is good news, and more evidence of the political weakness of the advocates of gun control.

    We are winning, folks. So rejoice!

  12. Ken says:

    Right, I’ll rejoice at having another million or so people administratively having their civil rights revoked, without ever being convicted of a crime.

    Isn’t it wonderful to be part of a persecuted minority like the Jews in Nazi Germany? Rejoice!!!

  13. Ginn says:

    i think we are reading too much into this. Yes, we should start sending emails to our reps and the leaders of both houses but we have to take a step back and assess the situation. IMHO i dont think the republicans are going to agree to a mag limit. This sounds to me like they are looking for another NICS improvement act. In fact this might be good since we could attach pro-gun amendments to the bills (we have the votes in both houses).

  14. Ken says:

    An NICS “improvement” act would ban an unspecified number of Americans from ever defending themselves or their families again. It is not acceptable–not that our opinion matters.

  15. Brad says:

    Ken

    To argue that the due process rights of the mentally ill to buy a gun are being violated is a sure fire loser. If you think the gun community could make headway by arguing against the part of the GCA 68 which prevents the mentally ill from buying a firearm from an FFL gun dealer, you are very very wrong. The proposal being discussed in the news article is nothing more than improving the ability of NICS to screen what is already against the law.

  16. Ken says:

    Nothing is as sure a loser as giving up without a fight. Do you think that there’s some huge majority of gun control voters out there just waiting for gun owners to piss them off, so they can have the pleasure of swatting us down? Time after time we’ve been told that we really, really need to embrace this gun control measure or we were DOOMED!!! Time after time, it hasn’t worked out that way.

  17. Sebastian says:

    I would advise not reading too much into this. Contact your critters. Make sure this either goes in a positive direction, or it goes nowhere.

  18. Sebastian says:

    Do you think that there’s some huge majority of gun control voters out there just waiting for gun owners to piss them off, so they can have the pleasure of swatting us down?

    There is not, but politics is fought from the margins, but we’re battling for the middle. We want the middle to be closet to what we want than what they want. I agree it’s not time to start making deals… but to a large degree, we don’t get to decide that. A deal may be forced on us. The question now is what form that deal will take, if it has to be taken at all.

  19. I don’t have a huge issue with improving NICS, other than that NICS is not highly visible to the non-gun owning public (and even to the casual gun owner). It also isn’t likely to be terribly effective as has been pointed out.

    As crime and suicide are both highly correlated with substance abuse, if we could find some way to get substance abusers onto the NICS list that might not be a bad thing. I wouldn’t have huge heartburn with allowing judges to easily enter a temporary NICS suspension as a condition of probation or parole for various substance abuse related offenses. Plead guilty on your DUI? Well, then, one condition of that might be, “no purchasing new firearms for the duration of your probation,” and the judge (or clerk) should be able to easily enter that into NICS. The courts already have this power, it is just a matter of making it easier for them to interface with NICS.

    The ultimate problem I have is that I have no trust that even a limited and partially effective measure would be abused. For example, Schumer’s whole “Military recruiter says you failed a pee test = prohibited person for life” schtick which it seems like he is headed towards is unacceptable. By that logic you’d have to go back to 1993 to find a president who was fit to buy a gun. I have no trust that the legislators on the other side of the issue and the agencies tasked with implementing the laws would not take the inch and run a mile. While in a perfect world I wouldn’t have huge heartburn with a tweak to make it harder for substance abusers to buy guns, in the world we live in I think it would end up being unacceptable.

  20. Correction: Should read… “The ultimate problem I have is that I have no trust that even a limited and partially effective measure would not be abused”

  21. divemedic says:

    How could any system keep Cho and Loughner, two men who were never judged to be mentally unstable, and were convicted of no crimes, from obtaining firearms?

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Republicans To Talk About Gun Control | Eyes Never Closed - [...] Republicans To Talk About Gun Control By JP 5.56, on January 26th, 2011 I was going to post…
  2. Sharp as a Marble - Fears, quite possibly irrational, but there nonetheless - [...] into this equation that Republicans are not our friends and I see plenty of desire to look ‘bipartisan’ that…
top