search
top

Anti-Gun Reactions

I pondered with Sebastian this morning what the reaction from anti-gun advocates would be in response to the Manchin-Toomey deal if it really turned out that it left many private sales alone, pushed no other fronts of gun control, and possibly gave gun owners several benefits.

I admit to being thoroughly amused by the first Brady tweet following the press conference.


It kind of brands whatever happens in the Senate as Obama instead of Brady. Combine that with the fact that they still haven’t released a statement on the deal limitations yet, and I’m thinking they are none too happy.

As VSSA notes, CSGV is talking to the press about how they want Senate Democrats to ignore all the pundits warning them off hardline gun control measures and just pass it already. (Although they have opted to remain silent after the press conference and just promoted their protest against a filibuster.)

Remember that the White House told the gun control groups that they are not allowed to criticize anything in this debate. They are no even allowed to second guess anything publicly.

Now the question is whether the gun control groups have the nerve to pick a fight with the White House over the deal if the administration decides that they’ll take whatever Reid can manage to send over to the House. How much are they willing to risk being shut out of meetings where they will get to “feel” important?

MAIG, for their part, has decided to focus their attention on possible GOP presidential contenders in elections that are years away. That doesn’t exactly sound like they are jumping up and down in excitement there in Bloomberg’s office.

UPDATE: Just as I put this up, the Brady Campaign says they “are reviewing carefully.”

23 Responses to “Anti-Gun Reactions”

  1. Motor-T says:

    Reviewing what, I wonder.
    Is there text of this abomination somewhere that I’ve overlooked?

  2. RP says:

    What are the odds that the grabbers get greedy and attach something that makes it harder for other Republicans to pull a Toomey?

  3. HappyWarrior6 says:

    Personally, I think this was a strategic move by Toomey for our benefit. But, given my name, I don’t tend to have a bad outlook on everything automatically. But my initial reaction is this gives us more than we had before, including providing an avenue for more concealed carry holders, thereby increasing the gun culture 2.0.

  4. NUGUN Blog says:

    The thing is, Toomey left his constituents in the dark. And we’ve been burned far too many times.

    No mention was made by his office of endeavoring to ensure wording doesn’t turn law abiding citizens into felons, and seeking to have protections such as protecting gun owners as they travel across interstate lines.

    That would have allayed many fears.

  5. RP says:

    I’m just thinking out loud here… but I wonder if passing the most innocuous gun bill possible could be a good thing. I know it feels like a punch in the gut when we were seemingly so close to pitching a shutout, but if the shutout would have happened, these dimwits would never stop. Bloomberg has the money to keep this up indefinitely. It would re-enforce their belief that Congressmen are slaves to the evil gun company funded NRA and that they need to “demand a plan” and that they have to “do something”.

    But if they get slightly beefed up background checks, I think there will be some level of resolution to the gun control push. I mean, what else can they ask for and expect to get any traction on? Even if they don’t think the BGC bill goes far enough, they aren’t going to get a majority of senators to re-visit it. I’m sure many of them desperately want gun control to fade away. Gun and mag bans aren’t going anywhere in the near future. The average anti will hopefully go back to banning assault lightbulbs, cop-killer sodas, and toilets of mass destruction.

    Gun people on the other hand will not move on. The antis just kicked the crap out of a hornet’s nest.

    Of course, all the above depends on how “innocuous” the bill is.

    • aerodawg says:

      I’m all for letting NOTHING go through. Let them be King Lear impotently raging at the tempest.

      It’s time not only to not give them an inch but to once and for all turn the tide and put a knife in their heart. Advance immediately and rapidly on all fronts, legislative, judicial and public opinion.

    • Richard says:

      RP, the issue is that this bill isn’t going to make anyone safer. So a few years down the road there is another massacre and we will hear about how the shooter was able to pass or get around a background and we’ll be right back at Schumer’s bill. We are playing the long game here.

      It’s hard to go from A to Z right off the bat. But if you push for A to Z, it feels like a win to agree to C. Thats until the next time arises and soon you find yourself at Z anyways. Depending on the language which we don’t know yet can do is move the yardstick a little further.

      • Ursa Ele says:

        Everytime we let these people get from point A to B it just encourages them to keep trying to get all the way to Z.

    • DamDoc says:

      I hear you, but it is all a slippery slope.. drip, drip, drip.. it needs to start sliding up hill!

      • RP says:

        I definitely understand everyone’s instinct to never give up an inch. But as we all know, 99% of gun sales at gun shows are subject to a background check and have been for a very long time. Giving them the other 1% is conceding them an inch, which we’re all opposed to. But is giving them that 1% worth taking away one of the biggest anti talking points: “the gunshow loophole”?

        In my opinion, yes. Or at least maybe. They use the “gunshow loophole” to push way more insidious gun control than simple BG checks at gun shows. We can take that away from them by giving up very very little.

        “Never give an inch” is an awesome ideal, but its not always strategically wise. It sucks that we have to play games and negotiate to fight for our fundamental rights, but that’s the name of the game.

  6. Sebastian says:

    I’ll address some of these issues when I have some time, but there are silver linings to everything.

  7. Jacob says:

    The antis are going to claim whatever materializes in the Senate to be the greatest thing to happen since man discovered fire. They have to have a “victory” or their movement is dead on the national stage.

    • Jim says:

      These people will NEVER stop. Just take a quick look at England, where you have to be 18 years old to buy dull KITCHEN knives. Not even the sharp ones.

  8. DamDoc says:

    OK.. you can scream now… I wonder if Toomey caved for an agreement with Schumer that the dnc would run a weak candidate against him in 2016.. just sayin…

  9. Fiftycal says:

    The bill supposedly only address “commercial” sales. I expect that this will be defined as selling to someone not a “blood relative”. So if you sell to your neighbor without registering the sale with a FFL, you will be charged with “gun trafficing”. The buyer may be safe. Lotsa ways for BATFE to run stings, confiscate property and put pro-gun people in jail as felons. Just like the socialists want.

  10. Ursa Ele says:

    Jim Jones found a way to make the cyanide taste good by mixing it with Kool Aid. I do not care how good this bill tastes, because it still has cyanide in it.

    • Sebastian says:

      Cyanide would be Schumer or Feinstein’s bill. This concessions made here are a setback, rather than a gun culture killer. I’m not saying it’s a good deal, given we don’t know what’s in it yet, except what they are telling us, but this isn’t the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs. We’ll survive this.

  11. Lucky Forward says:

    The courts will take the language of the Toomey bill, and expand gun control and quash gun rights.

    Scott Brown, I mean Arlen Specter, I mean Mike Castle, I mean Toomey, needs to be PUNISHED in the primary. For a “Tea Party” politician to do what Toomey is doing is demoralizing.

    Let’s get one of the good sheriffs and run him or her in the primary!

  12. Charles Cherry says:

    Will someone please educate me! What internet sales are they referring to? Gun broker, Gallery of Guns, Penny Auction, all these internet sites require FFL to FFL transfer. Cheaper than dirt, Cabelas, MidwayUSA, and ohers like this require FFL to FFL transfer. Am I not correct in this? What other internet sales are there? Craiglist, Ebay do not even allow such sales to happen. I have got to missing something.

    Charles

    • Motor-T says:

      That seems to be a mystery until the actual language comes out.
      Is it gunbroker? Or is it the classifieds on glocktalk? Or is it somebody from my gun club sending out an e-mail saying that he is selling his XD?

    • Matthew Carberry says:

      There are a multitude of online intra-state gun sale sites set up like craigslist where sellers and buyers can advertise and then meet to do legal FTF private transfers. Many, but not all, are attached to gun forums.

      alaskaslist.com is one up here like a craigslist.

    • Andy says:

      I’ve completed a Gunbroker deal in a face to face transfer. I’ve also bought off The Outdoor Trader. Glocktalk, Sigforum, Georgia Outdoor News, etc all have classified sections. The only time a FFL. Is required is in interstate transfers or intrastate where shipping is involved (because, IIRC, shippers will only deliver to a FFL).

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. SayUncle » A republican gun control bill - [...] anti-gun people aren’t happy about it. But they’re never happy about anything. The NRA says let’s [...]
top