21 thoughts on “How They Plan to Pass Gun Control”

  1. If we accept that the Senate is, basically, a series of pre-arranged maneuvres (highly likely) then there are two options. 1) is play along (not acceptable, for obvious reasons). 2) is to play a disrupting game, politically. The problem, as I see it, is not that it’s a carefully orchestrated plan at work; indeed that is wholly unsurprising, and politicians would be fools not to have a series of contingency plans. The problem is that our ostensible ‘allies’ do not have viable contingency plans of their own. If/When this current furor dies down (whatever the outcome) we need to keep pushing for BETTER PLANS executed on our behalf. Currently, we are the only ones playing a straight game- anyone who believe cheaters never prosper will always spend a lot of time losing, and we’ll be left in the cold with our morals. Machiavelli was a pretty despicable person- that didn’t make him wrong.

  2. I really don’t want this to win favor like the 16th amendment and with all the “unintended” consequences.

  3. Good idea. Maybe the NRA should invest in a yacht bigger than Manchin’s. Oh, and with hookers.

  4. Wait a fucking second. This strategy was obvious to everyone with a brain like a month ago. I assumed that I was mistaken because why else would any republicans go along with the idea of having a vote? Why are any republicans at all helping this happen? Does McCain like being in the minority?

  5. Yeah not surprising. What we do have is Toomey saying he wouldn’t necessarily vote on the final bill. We need to hammer him and Casey hard.

  6. Assuming this is how it plays out, what the House should do is:
    1. Do technical fixes along the lines that have been discussed here.
    2. Then load the bill up with amendments-50 state CCW, Hughes repeal, suppressors as an OTC item, strict scrutiny, end to gun free zones and whatever.
    3. Then send the bill back to the Senate and see how much they want their bill.
    4. Instruct the conference committee that if they get something, we get something of equal value. Otherwise no deal.

  7. I think we may be able to get some good amendments in the Senate — if the rules allow us to try adding them.

    National CCW reciprocity got a majority last time it was tried but didn’t quite make it to 60. WAPO is reporting that under terms of the Manchin-Toomey deal it gets a vote:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/could-national-reciprocity-of-concealed-carry-permits-kill-the-gun-bill/2013/04/12/7cb4131a-a38d-11e2-9c03-6952ff305f35_story.html

    If a good clean national reciprocity amendment is tacked on to Schumer-Toomey I will take it. That is good. I give up a little cake but I get a big piece with frosting and sprinkles. Moreover it is a piece of cake that lets me expand gun culture 2.0 into Occupied Territory behind the wall. It allows our allies who have to flee to PA but work in CT (or MD-VA) to carry when they go to work. It would hopefully let us carry in DC which then brings the culture to the staffs of the political elite in DC.

    National CCW reciprocity is worth giving up gun show private sales and ArmsList for.

    1. As long as we can keep the language away from ‘transfers’ and tie it down to gun shows and on-line sales, I’d give a chip here for universal reciprocity AND killing Gun Free Zones. The biggest problem will be momentum. We have to be SURE that we can take the initiative leaving this fight- if the antis can put this up as a loss for our side, we lose too much to the MSM spin machine.

      1. Yeah I agree more would be good.

        To clarify, I would be willing to do Schumer-Toomey-(Manchin) for Thune-style clean National CCW Reciprocity.

        If they want the gun trafficking language too I’m going to want more. Significantly more. The gun trafficking language is very dangerous IMHO and so I’d want Hughes gone, Federal Gun Free School Zones Act gone, Post Office carry, silencers off the NFA, etc etc.

        1. To be clear I wouldn’t suggest anyone actually push this to their senators. I’m not even 100% sure that the deal would be good even with nationwide CCW. I would continue to suggest just pushing “NO TO EVERYTHING — WE ARE WATCHING.” I actually trust NRA to not screw us on this one based on their performance thus far. I want to give NRA as much horsepower as possible by sending a clear message.

          The thing with nationwide CCW is that I think we might get it on its own anyways. We got 58 votes for it recently (needed 60), and that was to attach it to the “must pass” NDAA. Even post-Newtown I don’t think that math has changed, and it might be better as RINOs like Dick Lugar (a no vote) are now gone.

          It would at least be a deal worth considering, though, which the Schumer-Toomey-Manchin on its own is not.

          1. Agreed Chris, we’re basically there on Universal CCW anyways, don’t see the point in using it as a bargaining chip. It may also adversely affect the Kachalsky case that’s likely headed to the Supreme Court that should give us protection for permitted, shall-issue carry.

          2. Chris is right. They can’t give us anything we can’t get eventually. We just might have to wait. No to gun control is the correct message. And since Toomey doesn’t think background checks are gun control, you should tell them you oppose any expansion of background checks.

          3. In exchange for nationwide CCW, what are you going to give up to states like California that already don’t allow private sales? California antis are gaining nothing from this bill.

            1. California and New York City get everything they’ve claimed they “need” if they get universal background checks.

              Remember — supposedly, the reason we need to “close the gunshow loophole” is to stop the alleged “The Iron Highway”*, where gun traffickers buy guns “off the books” at gun shows in Red states and trasport them to Blue states (like California and New York). If we only “closed the loophole”, then magically, evil “Red State” guns wouldn’t be showing up in the liberal controlled enclaves of Heaven like NYC, Chicago, and Compton.

              *( This Evil Genius Criminal Plan which apparantly involves paying FULL MARKUP to buy guns, only to sell them to gang bangers out of the trunk of your car for half or less of retail. Somehow buying high and selling cheap, plus gasolene for the trips, is supposed to be profitable. Full-on Underpants Gnomes Economics. . . )

    2. No, it’s not worth giving up. National reciprocity is an end result of a developing Gun Culture 2.0, it’s NOT something that would likely make it grow further. Sales are. Remember, everything we do has to be geared to expanding GC 2.0 now. It’s the only way to safeguard it.

  8. Given how theybare talking about this I don’t think theybhave the votes in the senate. They are trying to get people to go along by acting like it is a done deal, but it rings hollow to me. The White House is starting to get really worried that this won’t make it out of the senate, and if the 0man fails at this it is clear thathe will be lame duck for his entire second term, and that scares him.

  9. Mark Shields on PBS: “I think once the genie is out of the bottle, I think it’s on the floor, I think literally every piece of legislation has a dynamic unto itself. . .I’m also hopeful that, if it really starts to move and there is support, that they can — they, quite frankly, will have a real chance at some of the tougher provisions in the legislation. I think they will get a thorough background. And I think, you know, the magazine vote, I think there will be a vote on it.

    I think it’s scheduled. And so I don’t know what will happen. But I feel so much better than I did a week ago at the prospects.”

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june13/shieldsbrooks_04-12.html

    There you have it, a liberal confirming what they’re after in this bill: opening the door to further restrictions, including on magazine capacity.

    And they wonder why gun owners don’t support “common sense” measures?!

    1. And Toomey and Manchin helped give it momentum.

      That’s the biggest problem, making a near-dead issue look like it has bipartisan support – enough for the gun grabbers to be able to crow about, regardless of the language.

      Peter King is doing the same thing.

  10. Pingback: Why Pretend That It Will Make A Dime’s Worth of Difference? | Daily Pundit

Comments are closed.