Beware the Apologist Gun Owners This 2012 Election

We’ve covered the works of Pat Wray here before. He’s an outdoor writer, who once ran unsuccessfully for NRA board, and is a “useful idiot” when it comes to giving anti-gun politicians hunting creeds. Here Mr. Wray is one again rearing his ugly head pretending that the right to keep and bear arms just doesn’t matter.

It’s hard for me to to believe this guy is this dense. Heller and McDonald are decided by a 1 vote margin, two of the five majority justices are pushing up there in age, and this guy seriously says “it’s hard for me to interpret Supreme Court nominees as an assault on my gun rights?” The Second Amendment is one vote away from being interpreted clear out of the Constitution, and as we’ve covered on this blog before, we’re looking at a flip of the coin, statistically, as to whether one of those justices dies off before the end of Obama’s second term. And that’s not even considering the possibility of retirements.

The question is, it this guy really not seeing it? Or is he helping lead the herd to the slaughter? I can forgive the former, but if it’s the latter, you can’t claim to be pro-Second Amendment, or give a whim about the right to keep and bear arms. I get that some people are liberal gun owners, and like Obama on other issues, but what’s wrong with just admitting that those other issues are more important to you than your RKBA, but acknowledging President Obama isn’t the best President in the world when it comes to gun rights. Signing two pro-gun measures attached to must pass bills does not a pro-gun record make. Supreme Court justices are the most important thing in this election, and Obama is guaranteed to put folks on the bench who will erase the Second Amendment.

12 Responses to “Beware the Apologist Gun Owners This 2012 Election”

  1. Weer'd Beard says:

    There is no sane, and competent adult who advocates for gun control these days on a serious level that does not have sinister intent. Its just too simple to google up statistics and to gather pro-gun talking points and fact-check them.

    Either he hasn’t (which makes him willfully ignorant, given that he was able to write this anti-rights smear) or he has and choose to promote the agenda that leads to less safety, and less freedom. Making him evil. And I don’t use that term lightly.

    Also as a general rule I suspect like the antis of AHSA, are being compensated for their support of the agenda.

  2. Alpheus says:

    Talk about not getting it! If I were that hypothetical NRA member, discussing “under the radar”, I would immediately mention Fast and Furious, and quote Obama, er, I mean “President” Obama, about how he told the Brady Campaign, before this scandal broke out, that he had something in the works! I would then mention that, yes, while “President” Obama, being a liberal, is going to appoint liberal judges, those liberal judges are going to decimate our right to keep and bear arms.

    It’s interesting how he brings up certain issues that have already been debunked on our side, but ignores others, ain’t it?

    For the record, while I’m not a birther, I’m sick and tired of our Country’s attitude of recognising the person to be elected as President to be “my” President, and that I’m supposed to respect him because of it. He’s the President of the United States, and that is all. If I were in the military, he’d also be my Commander-in-Chief, but really, I’m the President of My Own Life, and the sooner we could get the President off of the pedestal that we, as a society have put him on (since about the time of Woodrow Wilson, who climbed up there himself, as I understand it), the better off we’re going to be.

    • Matthew Carberry says:

      “Decimate our freedoms” might be literally accurate in this case.

      The Second is one-tenth of the Bill of Rights after all.

  3. Scott Connors says:

    Can you say “Judas Goat?”

  4. Wes says:

    He’s a fool. He has a part on there about the assault weapon ban not being talked about for three years.


    • Pyrotek85 says:

      Obama had that as a campaign goal too if I do recall, so is he blaming us for taking him at his word? Yeah he hasn’t done anything that overt, but calling us paranoid isn’t fair when they said it themselves (at the time at least), it’s not something we made up.

    • Jamie in ND says:

      Yup, I thought of that same thing when I read that.

  5. Thirdpower says:

    So who’s going to pay him to start this elections false flag group. Way back when it was AGS. Then last time it was the AHSA-holes.

    They need some sort of “I’m a gun owner butt..” group for 2012.

  6. Bubblehead Les says:

    Although I do not play an Attorney on the TeeWee, I do have this Fear that we might be hosed come this November with regards to the Judiciary. Correct me if I’m Wrong (and I hope I am), but let’s just say Obama loses the Election. Could not Harry Reid on the Morning After declare the Senate in Recess? Then could not Obama “Recess Appoint” the 80+ empty Federal Seats to the Judiciary that are currently Vacate? Yes, they would only be there for One Year, but they could do a LOT of Damage during that Year. And I think it would be Constitutional. And if Obama does win, and the Dems gain more Votes in the Senate, then couldn’t they then be Rubber Stamped into Permanent Jobs come January?

    That’s why I hope to God the 4 Conservatives stay around as long as Possible, and Kennedy keeps his Head on Straight.

    • Patrick says:

      Recess appointments only last until the next session. Once the President of the Senate drops gavel on the next session, a confirmation is required and the President gets to pick who goes through the confirmation. The President is sworn in on January 20; the elections are mostly decided by 6/7 November. The House adjourns roughly 14 December this year and the Senate usually within a day or so of the same. Congress will gavel-in at the latest on inauguration day, but generally o/a the 20th (this year it was the 23rd).

      The average federal case takes something on the order of 9-10 months. There would be no time for a recess-appointed judge to really do anything (mid-Decmeber to Mid-January also is a time the courts slow to a crawl). Add to that the question of whether a recess appointment of an Article III judge is even constitutional in “normal times” – litigants would be fair to request another judge who has attained the approval of Congress.

      Clinton recess appointed a judge who was later confirmed during the Clinton presidency. I don’t think Bush did the same. I don’t think Obama could do much to the Federal Courts with the schedule he has.

      FWIW, you are on the right track. A lot of mischief can occur in a short period of time. I can come up with a few ideas I’ll keep to myself, but there is the obvious opportunity to pardon-in-advance a number of F&F miscreants. I’m sure there is a certain former US Prosecutor (Burke) sitting and expecting the same.

    • Alpheus says:

      For what it’s worth, this is one reason I think that the old Congress should be dismissed at the First of November, and the new Congress should be sworn in right after the elections.

  7. Sounds like the NRA needs to refund someone’s money …