Terrorists for Gun Control

Bob Owens has an interesting find about one of the Boston Bombers. Dan Riehl had the Tweet of the night last night:

And Massachusetts, in particular, has been particularly successful at ensuring the only people with firearms were the cops and terrorists. And they want to bring that idea to the rest of America? No thanks.

UPDATE: Bob updated with more information that would appear to indicate the Twitter account is fake.

OFA’s Post-Vote Call to Action

OFA sponsored a broadcast conference call to supporters of gun control today, and they focused on trying to rally the troops into not admitting defeat. Their strategy really is best summed up as a never-ending campaign for office instead of policy campaigns.

Whereas there was quite a bit of commentary yesterday about the tone of Obama’s speech perhaps being a bit too over-the-top emotionally, OFA was damn proud of the speech that they bragged was “anger and frustration” of a community organizer who will organize us all into doing what he wants. The message was very much framed as action is a personal challenge from Obama and that activists are doing this to serve Obama. It makes me wonder if that is partially in response to the negative feedback OFA initially got when they started using the campaign lists to push for policy & ask for constant donations.*

As for the actual action part, right now their focus is on thanking those who voted for Toomey-Manchin and to start chastising those who did not. They made absolutely no mention whatsoever about any of the other amendment votes, including those that Obama has repeatedly said were on his agenda (the gun ban & magazine ban). They suggested the supporters focus their praise & chastisement on Twitter (mentioned most often), via phone calls (second most frequently mentioned), and through Facebook messages (mentioned only a couple of times).

OFA also said that supporters in states with pro-gun senators “will be given tools” to help them fight for more gun control immediately, but no real mention was made about what those tools will look like. They also indicated that supporters in states where both senators voted for gun control will be asked to shift their focus to those other states. That may work in a campaign strategy when it’s about knocking on doors and making phone calls to show up on one key day, but every time I have contacted a lawmaker’s office, they have asked for at least my zip code before indicating they are remotely concerned about comments.

A key message of the call was to attack NRA for “outright lies” and the supposedly mistaken perception that the gun vote will hold lawmakers accountable while the anti-gun vote will have moved on to different issues. They swear it won’t be like that, and OFA is going to prove the NRA wrong. Well, just to be clear, I’m not getting emails from NRA trying to shift my focus onto immigration reform. I am from OFA. Just sayin’…

They are also promoting some kind of National Day(s) of Action on Friday and Saturday, but they gave no indication what those days of action will look like. There was mention of the importance of the “tone” of these events, but then they promptly followed that with an expectation that messages “scream” over the recent votes. OFA is seeking “swift” and “aggressive” action for the supposed round 2 of this fight. It’s rather funny since they are being warned by their own party not to do this right now.

*For those who complain about NRA requests for donations, you haven’t seen anything compared to OFA. Seriously, imagine if every single call to action to call your lawmakers had a call for money. Every. single. alert. Plus, the standard fundraising pitches that are stand-alone pitches. You think that Obama trying to shame the American people for not voting his way is annoying? Try reading his blatant attempts to shame those who don’t give his favorite policy group more money.

More Opinions on the Gun Control Failure

Professor Adam Winkler has a pretty good analysis. Let me quote a bit:

Focusing on assault weapons played right into the hands of the NRA, which has for years been saying that Obama wanted to ban guns. Gun control advocates ridiculed that idea—then proposed to ban the most popular rifle in America.

Gun control advocates have told me the assault weapons ban was intended to be a bargaining chip. Ask for the moon, settle for less—in this case, universal background checks. If that was the strategy, it backfired.

This is all stuff I didn’t want to talk about before a vote, because you don’t interrupt your enemy when he is in the middle of making a mistake. This was a ridiculous strategy, because by putting gun and magazine bans on the table, it made it possible to wake up millions of gun owners and getting them to paying attention. Traffic on this blog has been at record levels the past several months, even on search traffic for specific bills.

The Democrats then poisoned their own well even when it came to things like expanded background checks, by putting forth Schumer’s ridiculous language that moved to cover even temporary transfers, making handing a gun to someone in the wrong circumstances a 5 year federal felony. Now the meme is out there in the heads of a lot of gun owners “When they talk about background checks, that’s not what the bill is really about.” Those of you who are regulars, and not new to these parts, have known that for some time. But now we’ve educated a lot of people. The next time they come at us, we’ll have more allies than we did before.

Megan McArdle has more on Winkler’s piece, including why the “asking for the moon” strategy was never going to work:

In fact, by demanding too much, you can often worsen the chances for a deal.  That’s why negotiators typically start off with a price that’s outside the [Zone of Possible Agreement], but not so far outside that you shut down negotiations.

Imagine our car dealer posted a price of $40,000 on the car.  Would that get him closer to the full $18,000 he’d ideally like to collect from you?  Hardly.  You’d take one look at that absurd pricetag, decide he was an idiot, and take your business elsewhere.  Similarly, if you kept insisting that you only wanted to pay $2,000 for the car, the salesman would probably quickly decide that you weren’t serious, so it wasn’t worth wasting his time on a negotiation.

Arguably, that’s what happened to gun control…

Read the whole thing. In truth, if they had started off with something like Manchin-Toomey, then fallen back to something like the Coburn proposal, with some of our preferred agenda items thrown in to sweeten the deal, I’m not sure we would have been able to rally enough opposition to defeat it. The problem is, they’ve always approached negotiation from the standpoint of the negotiation being how much they will take away from us. That’s no longer political reality. The question is whether the gun control movement accepts it.

Manchin on Failed Gun Control Effort

The Senator from West Virginia notes:

“If people want to blame, I guess you blame me,” Manchin told reporters at a Wall Street Journal breakfast. “I just never knew how hard it was to get the facts out. I think there is a lot more I can do to get the facts out.”

Getting the facts out isn’t the part that’s hard. It’s writing a bill that actually does what you say it does that’s hard. Every I must be dotted and every T must be crossed. Gun owners have zero faith in “just trust us,” or how certain statutory language is going to be interpreted by those who enforce the laws, or how it’s going to be interpreted by the Courts. Manchin-Toomey was a sloppy bill, no matter how you look at it. The unfortunate thing for us is that Manchin-Toomey will be the basis of the next attack as soon as they have a pretext.

“His universal base bill is gone. That bill’s gone,” Manchin said. He said that if Manchin-Toomey had appeared shortly after the Newtown shooting, it would have passed easily.

The President and his allies completely poisoned the well on this issue, by coming at us with everything and the kitchen sink. They insulted us, dismissed our concerns, and tried to screw us in every way their warped minds could dream up. Gun owners woke up like I haven’t seen since I’ve been involved in this issue. I think he’s right. If they had been politically saavy and understood where the center of this issue had really moved to, I’m not sure we could have beat a Toomey-Manchin like bill out of the gate. What we have to be cognizant of is that they will not make that mistake again.

Pelosi on Gun Control

It’s inevitable, according to her:

“It’s a matter of time,” Pelosi said Thursday during a press briefing in the Capitol. “It might be inconceivable to the NRA that this might happen; it’s inevitable to us.”

As soon as they have the next pretext, they will be back standing on the graves of the dead. You can count on that. And next time, they might not make the same mistakes. We have to be vigilant.

Roundup of Reactions

I’ll start off with Joe, who reflects pretty much how I feel:

Yes. It was shameful that so many people put so much effort into attempting to infringe upon a specific enumerated right. This forced millions of other people to put their own effort into stopping that attempt. The entire country, especially the politicians, had important other things to do and we had to take time out to fight the statist scum.

I’ve wasted a lot of time outside the blog fighting this. I’ll keep up the fight for as long as necessary, but I honestly have better things to do with my time. Thanks, Mr. President, you asshole.

Jacob notes the anti-gun meltdown. Their tears are sweet.

Investors Business Daily: Exploiting the Families of Sandy Hook Victims Backfires.

Instapundit: Anger has always been their hallmark. Also: “This sort of politics may be emotionally satisfying to Obama’s base, but Obama’s base wasn’t big enough to pass the bill.”

Robb: A brief respite. They will be back, you can count on it.

Tam: “Team Gun Control is positively frothing on Facebook. If I had a car that ran on hippie tears, I’d be set for years.”

SayUncle points to another sad clown.

Dave Hardy has some headlines, notes an amusing Christian Science Monitor headline from three days ago. Also, “But no, the antigunners couldn’t win, even going for a very small victory and paying a very big price, and with the media cheering section in full play and the Executive applying every tool it had. (For those not experienced in DC, that includes private offers of big grants and pork to legislators, and denial of favors to those who oppose).

Krauthammer thinks the emotional blackmail didn’t help their case.

Miguel is feeling the love, and notes Obama is a sore loser.

The responses of the increasingly irrelevant old-line gun prohibitionists.

Obama and OFA already planning for round two. One thing we can all be proud of is that we’ve shown we can beat Obama’s machine.

Senate Votes Today

We’ll cover the one amendment vote. Blumenthal is up on the stage emotionally blackmailing the Senate and American public by standing on the graves of dead children. He’s also saying they won’t give up. They will keep pushing for gun control laws that would have done nothing to prevent Newtown. He’s thanking a lot of people for their efforts, but he pretty clearly is acting like he’s been beaten. We have to keep beating these people. Now is not the time to go back to sleep.

Vote on the Barrasso Amendment

This is the amendment that would make information private. Looks like a carrot and stick approach with federal funding. From Thomas.gov: “To withhold 5 percent of Community Oriented Policing Services program Federal funding from States and local governments that release sensitive and confidential information on law-abiding gun owners and victims of domestic violence.”

Wow, Pat Leahy is suddenly a federalist.

Barrassoo Amendment, by 67-30, is Agreed To

Vote on the Harkin Amendment

Tom Harkin (D-IA) is speaking for his amendment, noting it would reauthorize certain Department of Education programs in regards to mental health services, intervention, and suicide prevention.

Lamar Alexander (R-TN) notes that this bill was unanimous in committee, and urges a yes vote.

Harkin Amendment, by 95-2, is Agreed To

The Senate is now in recess. This concludes our coverage. I should note that I don’t think either of these amendments were replacement amendments, meaning they are still attached to a gun control bill that doesn’t really have a chance of passing.

The Other Carry Vote Today

In a very conveniently timed vote, Illinois had a last minute vote on a may-issue carry license bill that apparently was every thing an anti-gunner forced to pass some kind of carry bill could dream up–including the lack of preemption that would allow license holders subject to arrest for local possession laws–on the same day that gun owners were largely watching the federal debate.

It lost. In the words of Thirdpower, it “fail[ed] spectacularly.”

I heard there may be votes on better bills coming up as early as tomorrow. So, Illinois gun owners, keep paying attention to the state fight.

Some of the Interesting Votes of the Day

After a shared bottle of sparkling wine, a nice dinner of salmon with lime butter, and another shared bottle of white wine just for giggles, I’m ready to look at the votes in the roll call records. I said earlier that I found the 6 vote disparity on the gun ban and the magazine ban to be the most interesting. Those had pretty much the same universal opposition on the ground, so why would they not have nearly the same vote tallies?

These Senators voted against the gun ban, but voted to ban the magazines that are commonly used with those guns and so many more models:

Mike Bennet (D-CO)
Martin Heinrich (D-NM)
Tim Johnson (D-SD)
Angus King (I-ME)
Mark Udall (D-CO)
Tom Udall (D-NM)

Johnson has already announced his retirement, so this was a giant “screw you” to South Dakota gun owners. In my opinion, South Dakota gun owners need to punish his party for his vote severely in 2014. I realize that the party could put up a person with a pretty pro-gun record. But, unless the Republicans put up a nominee with an anti-gun record, I would still suggest punishing the party in order to remind them not to screw with the gun vote. In fact, I would suggest that if the Dems do put up a pro-gun candidate, gun owners should go out of the their way to contact that person and the local party officials to let them know that you’re really sorry, but you can’t support their guy/gal after the betrayal by Johnson. Ruin his political brand and the association with gun control, even if he never plans on running again. It will show that not only will you punish those who vote against your rights, you’ll hold the state party accountable for the votes.

In Colorado, Bennett isn’t up until 2016. However, the degree to which gun owners have been screwed should motivate them to stay active until then. It would be quite nice to send him back home. His 2010 election was less than a 2 point race, and he couldn’t break 50% as the winner. However, the his colleague Mark Udall is up first in 2014. Unfortunately, he had much bigger numbers on the board during his last race, winning a 10 point victory. It’s clear that one goal of passing a magazine ban in Colorado was to give political cover to both of the senators to vote for federal bans. They simply proved what we warned gun owners about – they’ll tell you they are only after the magazines that hold more than 15 rounds, then they’ll say 10 rounds, and next it will be 7 before it drops again. So, Colorado gun owners, get to work to send a message to Udall. If you can do it through a direct election loss, awesome. If not, focus your efforts on the state-level Democrats you can target.

For New Mexico gun owners, you have your own Udall on the ballot in 2014. Tom Udall is up, but I’m not sure how likely he is to beat. I don’t really know what to suggest to local gun owners there based on the 2008 results. On one hand, there’s a much better chance of sending him packing from DC in an off-year. On the other, he won by nearly 23 points. That was a better performance than Obama in the same year. Local folks are free to give their thoughts on any potential electoral punishment on that front. Unfortunately, his colleague, Heinrich was just elected and won’t be up again until 2018.

King from Maine isn’t up until 2018, so I’m not sure there’s much that can be done on that front for the state’s gun owners. I guess the best advice would be to start “investing” in pro-gun potential challengers. Give money when you can and help out with elections between now and then. The best long-term strategy in that situation is to make sure there are plenty of viable pro-2A candidates to choose from by the time it someone needs to declare. Not even Susan Collins felt the need to vote for a ban, and she’s actually on the ballot in a blue state in the next election.

Thanks to All Who Did Something

Many thanks to all of you who called, wrote, or otherwise got involved in this fight. If you had told me back at the beginning of the year we’d be where we are right now, I’m not sure I would have believed you. I thought we were going to have to bend over and take something. Also, a big thanks to Bitter, for taking over covering the Senate when I was unable to. That coverage was a joint effort, even if I started the post, and I could not have done all that on my own.

While we are not out of the woods yes, I think we can all give ourselves a big pat on the back for winning round one. They will be back for more, and there will be 2014, which will be critical. We cannot allow the gun community to return to their slumber. The gun rights machine is fired up and engaged, and it’s important to keep everyone involved so that we can not only push our opponents back, as we have done today, but drive them to political extinction. We came very close, once again, to achieving National Reciprocity in the Senate. We won today because millions of gun owners woke up and did something. Let’s hope we can keep that up.

No vote on either gun bans or magazine bans cracked a bare majority of a Democratically controlled Senate, with the full weight of the White House and Bloomberg driving the anti-gun effort. We have succeeded in moving the center of this issue to the point where gun bans are practically a third rail. That is a great victory.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to go get a nice bottle of champagne to celebrate with over dinner. I think that’s worth celebrating.