Frustrated liberals are asking why a Democratic-controlled Congress and White House can't manage to close the Guantánamo prison or keep new gun-rights laws from passing.After all, President Barack Obama pledged to shut down the military detention center on Cuba for suspected terrorists. And Democratic control of the government would suggest that any gun legislation leads to tighter controls on weapons, not expanded use.
Last week the Senate voted 90-6 to join the House in blocking the transfer of any prisoners from Guantánamo. By way of explanation, the lawmakers said they need more information on where detainees will be sent.
Also Wednesday, the House voted overwhelmingly to join the Senate in letting people carry loaded guns in national parks and wildlife refuges. More than 100 House Democrats and 174 Republicans voted for the gun measure, which was attached to an Obama-backed bill imposing new restrictions on credit card companies.
We've already discussed this at some length, the idea being that although the gun amendment was attached to another piece of legislation, it certainly didn't avoid scrutiny. So what explains its passage?
Now, there's an interesting idea: a national organization to counteract the NRA.The gun votes were less surprising to many Democrats than were the Guantánamo developments. The NRA remains among the most powerful lobbies, and many lawmakers take care to stay off its political enemies list.
"People do not want to be on the wrong side of this particular cultural divide," said Rep. David Price, D-N.C., who supports tougher gun controls. "It's too bad there's not a more responsible national organization" to counteract the NRA, he said.
Many Democratic lawmakers predicted that Obama will resolve the Guantánamo problem and eventually turn to gun issues, where he has advocated ownership rights with "common sense" regulations.
"I do believe that down the road the president will start working on some of the gun violence issues," said McCarthy, the New York Democrat. "But let's face it," she said. "We've got an awful lot of issues on our plate right now."
What' your opinion? Do you think Congresswoman McCarthy is right that Obama will eventually get around to the gun issues? What about the strength of the NRA, would Obama be able to stand up to it? Or do you think Obama has already decided to "stay off its political enemies list?"
Please leave a comment.
"...a national organization to counteract the NRA."
ReplyDeleteWe've got plenty of them: The Brady Campaign, the VPC, and the ironically named Freedom States Alliance to name a few.
"What' your opinion? Do you think Congresswoman McCarthy is right that Obama will eventually get around to the gun issues?"
Yes. My personal belief is that he will wait until late in his second term when he essentially has nothing to lose by pushing the issue. His biggest obstacle will not be the strength of the NRA, but the unwillingness of congress to go on what is essentially a kamikaze mission.
Now, there's an interesting idea: a national organization to counteract the NRA.
ReplyDeleteThey need more than money and, paid staff and checks from the Joyce Foundation, they need members.
See if you can figure out how to join the Brady Campaign. Unless signing up for their spam is "joining", it isn't clear on their website how to do that.
Why wouldn't they want members? Can you find a significant anti-gun organization that is easy to join?
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteI hope that people like you and the other gun banners continue to focus on the NRA.
Honestly, Please do.
Because you miss entire layers of activity that have little to do with the NRA.
Take one of the few bloggers, I've met; JR at akeyboardanda45 blog. He lists amny of the pro and anti gun bills in the Texas Legislature and we fellow bloggers and readers act on his heads up.
Not a NRA guided activity, just concerned citizens responding. THIS IS WHAT IS MISSING FROM THE ANTI-FREEDOM Crowd.
People like you use the NRA and "gun lobby" as short cuts so you can explain away losses and defeats. The fact is that even a small percentage of the 80 million something gun owners getting involved makes a difference.
There are numerous national organizations to counteract the NRA. They have an estimated combined membership of less than 150,000 compared to the 4 million ( and growing) of the NRA. Never mind the members of the SAF, GOA, JPFO, CCRKBA, and others.
ReplyDeleteNo matter what the polls say (usually written by anti-gun groups), they don't have the support of the general public. What they do have are sugar daddies like the Joyce Foundation and George Soros to fund their operations.
Sevesteen said, "They need more than money and, paid staff and checks from the Joyce Foundation, they need members."Most pro-gun people are passionate. On the other hand, the anti-gun folks suffer from apathy. That's where I come in.
ReplyDeleteAs in Copy and pasting from Brady and VPC, and refusing any sort of stuctured debate or any form of support for your cause.
ReplyDeleteYeah you'll show those who suffer from "Apathy" what a read Go-Getter you are, Mike!
Most pro-gun people are passionate. On the other hand, the anti-gun folks suffer from apathy. That's where I come in.
ReplyDeleteYou are a rare breed--Enough passion to continue the argument, but not enough to actually educate yourself.
One of the things that happens is that anti-gun people who do educate themselves switch sides--they don't necessarily take up arms, but they begin to support the right.
Sevesteen, The Violence Policy guy Diaz claims to be one who moved the other way. He's high profile. I'm just a little guy, but I did too.
ReplyDeleteDon't you find it a bit arrogant to say that the only people who maintain the anti-gun stance are ones who haven't educated themselves enough?
Aren't you living proof, Mike?
ReplyDeleteYou won't discuss the issue, you screen your comments, you won't supply support for your issues in anything but paid anti-freedom lobbyists.
...And you are anti-gun.
All the other sites with no comments, and no discussion allowed are the anti-gun ones. Meanwhile gun rights sits PRIDE themselves in their open comments.
You can't argue a point with Paul Helmke, Josh Sugarmann, or Bryan Miller.
Meanwhile you can voice your opinion to Dave Hardy, John Lott, and Eugene Volokh.
http://armsandthelaw.com/
http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/
http://volokh.com/
Meanwhile I don't even know if this comment of mine will be voiced HERE.
There is certainly a trend. I'd be willing to discuss it...I suspect you won't be.
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteIt isn't arrogance, it is fact. We don't claim ALL anti-freedom, pro-ignorance people don't educate themselves.
Just you. Using your own words, you declare yourself as unwilling to take the time to educate yourself.
Bob, One of the more reasonable pro-gun commenters, Michael once said he doesn't agree with calling the anti-gun folks "anti-freedom."
ReplyDeleteI think he had a point, which he eloquently explained at length, maybe you even read it.
I think the reason you do it is because you can't resist the name-calling and you've discovered through the tedious process of trial and error what insults I'll allow on my blog.
Like many of your attacks, this one has some element of the pot calling the kettle black. You, my friend, are the one lacking in freedom. You are the one afraid to leave the house without a loaded gun in spite of the fact that, based on your own recent past experience and any reasonable projection of the future, you will never need it for defense. It's you business, but I don't call that freedom. And ironically, you keep calling me anti-freedom.
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteI think the reason you do it is because you can't resist the name-calling and you've discovered through the tedious process of trial and error what insults I'll allow on my blog.What I've discovered is your double standard. You accuse us of being responsible for criminals use of firearms, but you deny responsibility for criminal use of computers and cameras.
What I've discovered is that your double standard is an excuse for you to post information straight from the VPC or Brady Campaign then claim you don't have time to honestly debate the issue.
You, my friend, are the one lacking in freedom.Sorry, but you compltely miss the point. As an indivdual, I have the freedom to CHOOSE. Something you claim is important but want to take away from people. I don't require you to go armed, but you want to take away my freedom to do so or not.
You are the one afraid to leave the house without a loaded gun Once again, you show how completely WRONG you are. It isn't fear MikeB, it is a rational decision based on the information, the statistics and the consequences. For your information, I am in Tennessee and have been since Saturday. I haven't been armed the entire time. BY MY CHOICE.
Tennessee has a reprocity agreement with Texas. I could have checked a bag, a firearm inside that bag and carried in this state with EASE. I chose not to.
It isn't out of fear that I've made a decision to carry. That is your psychological PROJECTION of your mental state on to me.
based on your own recent past experience and any reasonable projection of the future, you will never need it for defense. Sorry, but you've only heard a little bit of the experience and factors that went into making my decision. You have no clue as to what all went into that decision.
This is what I find ironic coming from you. You've made statements in the past that you've ILLEGALLY carried firearms for your self defense but question my decision to carry. How deliciously judgemental you are. Hypocrite!
It's you business, but I don't call that freedom.It is my business but you want to be in the middle of my business and take away my freedom to choose. And that is why I call you anti-freedom. You want to limit people's freedom to decide what to do with their lives, how to live their life. You want to be the one to make those decisions.
Taking away the right of the people to chose for themselves is anti-freedom.
Howdy MikeB...
ReplyDelete1st time visitor here and I'll start off by saying that you're a bit more honest about yourself and the pro gun-control crowd in general.
Let's start off on good terms.
This is my honest prediction about Obama's attack plan when it comes to the 2A, Bullet-list style, pun intended.
-Obama has alot of political capitol right now.
-Obama is not going to waste that capitol on gun control for now.
-Obama's plate is quite full and what is the refuge for a steaming pile of domestic problems? Foriegn affairs, that's what. And Iran and North Korea are more than happy to ablige in piling more crap onto that plate.
-it's 2009
-midterm elections in 2010.
-gun control is a nonstarter before the end of 2010 as congress will be in re-elction mode and will refuse to piss off 80+ million gun owners while campaigning to keep their jobs.
-Now it's 2011 and Obama starts to position himself for re-election in 2012. No gun control here either for the same reason.
-If Obama is re-elected, he will focus on his legacy.
-As AztecRed noted, Obama will go for gun control mid to late 2nd term for the reasons he listed.
In the mean time, gun owners are buying guns and ammo at a rate not seen since the Civil War.
There's a reason that the phrase "History repeats itself" has become a cliche'.
Because it's true.
You sound intelligent and thoughtful person, so apply your analytical skills to the following scenario.
You have two opposing forces.
1. People who don't own guns, fear guns and know very little about guns.
2. The exact opposite of #1 with the Bill of Rights backing them up.
Please don't view that as a threat in any way, I'm just trying to make a point that if the Constitution is going to treated like so much toilet paper, there are those who have drawn a line in the sand and have the means, the will and the "passion" to make the government(our employess) take notice.
For the time being, we vote at the ballot box and with our wallets to send D.C. a message.
We all would much rather fight a slow cold war in the congress and in the courts than turn this into a hot war nothing short of a 2nd Civil War.
I'll leave you with this.
Once you have identified one thing in this world worth dying to defend, you have, at the very same instant, identified something worth killing to protect.
If there is nothing in this world you can identify as being worth dying to defend or killing to protect then I honestly believe that you are living in the wrong country.
Kaveman, I've seen your comments on other blogs. Thanks for coming over here and thanks for the compliments.
ReplyDeleteIt's not a pretty picture you draw, but I find myself in agreement with it. Your description of why Obama has disappointed the anti-gun crowd sounds very plausible to me. And your projection about how he might do it in his second term, sound about right too.
Your ideas about what's behind the stockpiling of weapons and ammo is the frightening part. Those line-in-the-sand guys, are they the same as the 3 percenters?
Please don't be offended, since we just met and all, but I often have described that talk as "exaggerated victimism." The fantasy of your having to shoot it out with the feds, Waco style, but better, is nothing more than a fantasy. It's the same fantasy that many concealed carry guys have on a smaller scale. Most of them live and commute in completely safe areas, but they have that fantasy.
I honestly hope you don't get offended by these ideas of mine, they're only that, my ideas. I'll return the compliment to you by saying I like the way you write and express yourself. Please make yourself at home here.
Thanks for the invite, I'll stop by from time to time.
ReplyDeleteI don't think the word fantasy is a good choice. I can appreciate that you feel that way about those who carry but in a way, you make my point for me.
The town in which I live, has more guns than people in it, and we have had ZERO murders, ZERO rapes and ZERO assaults in the 11 years I've lived here. The reason is quite simple. We're a small town, everybody knows everybody else and everyone is armed. The only problem I have seen in the last 11 years is the occassional stolen car (for joy riding, they don't strip down and sell) and burglaries of some out-buildings. I know of no burlgaries of the residence proper.
Having established that, I personally don't have a fantasy about shooting anybody. I simply prefer to have the option of defending myself should the need arise.
I am also prepared to defend the Constitution if need be.
All elected members of our government and members of our military take the same oath which reads in part...
I swear to preserve, protect and defend the Contitution of the United States aginst enemies both foriegn and domestic.
I don't want to shoot anybody, I want the government to take their oath seriously and simply leave me alone. I want to exercise my Rights without a nanny state telling me what to do.
That's our history and heritage. Wanting to preserve that is a nobal cause in my opinion.
You, my friend, are the one lacking in freedom. You are the one afraid to leave the house without a loaded gun in spite of the fact that, based on your own recent past experience and any reasonable projection of the future, you will never need it for defense. It's you business, but I don't call that freedom."Freedom from fear" is not an actual individual liberty. The right to keep and bear arms IS. I (and I assume Weer'd) carry a gun because we understand reality and we've made the personal choice to proactively take personal responsibility for our own protection.
ReplyDeleteYou choose not to do so, and I don't hold that against you. The problem Mike, is that you actively seek to deny me that freedom of choice in exercizing my Constitutionally protected individual liberties.
Do you wear a seatbelt Mike? I don't claim you're afraid and living in fear because you wear it. I don't say your paranoid or afraid for having a fire extinguisher in the house either.
If you've never had a fire or been in a serious accident, then you probably dont "need" either based on past experience. Throw away your fire extinguisher Mike, and cut out your seatbelt. It's not freedom if you're living in fear, right?
Those line-in-the-sand guys, are they the same as the 3 percenters?No, the 3%'ers believe we now need to violently overthrow the government.
ReplyDeleteI think everyone, even you, has their own personal "line in the sand" where they will consider actions taken against them by agents of the state on the same plane as those of a common street thug.
Having a line in the sand doesn't mean we think it's necessary to start a violent revolution.
(And then there are those like me, who think that even a successful armed revolution would not lead to a tangible in the level of individual liberties we enjoy as Americans)