Still more post-election gun-nuttery
In comments here, Countertop says:
Just had a long leisurely lunch today with a former high ranking Clinton Administration official and long time Friend of Bill from Arkansas (who works as an outside consultant for one of my clients). There were less than half a dozen of us sitting at the table at the Capital Grill gaming out possibilities over the next two years for moving legislation and the difficult minefields we have to walk through. Someone brought up the subject of Pelosi keeping her troops in line – and I mentioned the gun control agenda and calls for a renewed AWB. This guy, fell off his seat and said thats the most toxic issue a democrat could touch and as far as he (and presumably the Clintons) were concerned they (specifically including Nancy Pelosi who is a smart smart politiican) are smart enough not to touch that third rail.
He compared it to the stem cell blunder Republicans made in Missouri and thought that they (gun banners) would have to fight even to get face time with Pelosi (much less Harry Reid who could lose his majority to defections over the issue).
To further press his point – Harold Ford Jr. walked by – and he simply said Tester, Webb, and Ford. No one would have imagined their success this election – and if gun control were an issue in any of the races, Reid would be in the minority.
I just report it as I hear it.
Don’t let your guard down, but don’t get too worried
November 14th, 2006 at 10:34 am
All the anti-gunners need is a highly publicized shooting to occur with culprits using the evil black rifles. The constant flow of possible terrorists that are being allowed to come in over our southern border should help in that possibility. Then the “problem-reaction-solution” would be a higly charged emotional push to further restrict our rights and disarm us. That sort of terrorists attack which our governemnt is aiding and abetting with open borders would be the impetus for them to double-team us with an “assault weapon” terrroist attack. That’s what worries me.
November 14th, 2006 at 10:57 am
I don’t mean to cast doubt on Countertop’s story, I’m sure that guy said what he said.
But the gun-controllers are coming on hard in the next few months. They may overplay their hand, I expect they will. But they’re going to see this as the best, possibly last time to slam a lot of restrictions down.
Once they’re down, they’re very hard to remove. “Sporting purpose” was put in the ’68 GCA without any concept of how mangled and misused it would become. Had the “AW”B not had a sunset – it would still be the law of the land.
So, I think C-top’s source is just underestimating the desire of the nutroots to get more gun control enacted now. I don’t know how his estimation of how it will play with the top (D)’s, none of whom are remotely friendly to gun rights. The high-visibility races that turned the tide of the election certainly are more gun friendly, but it remains to be seen how well the leaders will be able to force them to stay with the party.
For the long run, it would be far better for them to dissent from the party, but the top D’s are authoritarians with a Cartman complex… I don’t see them being at all happy about it.
November 14th, 2006 at 11:12 am
Unix-Jedi,
Yes! You’re exactly right! The establishment “D’s are authoritarian” who otherwise claim to be defenders of civil liberties, but will trample all of those civil liberties, with hired guns, when it comes to taking away the most basic HUMAN RIGHT of armed self-defense!
November 14th, 2006 at 12:29 pm
I’m looking forward to the fight. Jim Matheson here in Utah has had an easy time the past 6 years because he’s never been forced to choose between the Democrats and getting elected. He voted with the Republicans on the “hot button” issues like gun control, and the national party left him alone because they needed every blue seat they could get for other things.
Now that they’re in the majority, they’re going to expect him to toe the line and support Pelosi. If he votes for gun control, I can guarantee you he’ll be gone in 2008. And I can guarantee you he is well aware of that.
Don’t forget, people, that we stopped the Gun Show Ban just a couple of months after Columbine when everyone in Washington — and I mean everyone, including Republicans and the NRA — was ready to pass it. We can do the same with the AW Ban. The Brady Bunch might talk big, but the truth is most of the moderate Dems are terrified of the NRA.
November 14th, 2006 at 2:31 pm
Unix Jed – I think your right.
And also remember – this guy is a former Clinton Official – and as your probably aware Hillary wants to ping to the center and away from the lunatic left. They know gun control is a loser – and Howard Dean knows it (it may be the one issue they both agree on) but at the same time they are fighting a crazy left wing hungry for power and willing to eat its own.
You can see lots of that in the ongoing fight over Murtha’s nomination. The left wing special interests don’t care about ethics – they’ve got as many ethical problems as the republicans – but they are willing to push the issue (and in truth, some of their concerns are sound but at the same time also infect almost everyone in DC – I wish I was in a position where they impacted me) to take down an enemy to their progress.
I still see the gun controllers falling to the bottom of the heap as the rest of the liberal interest groups cast them aside for fear of risking other liberal agendas over gun control. But its make or break time for Brady. If they can’t move something now, they really do run the risk of losing lots of funding.
Its an interesting time – and I would look for Brady to scream from the treetops – the only problem though is that no one in the forest (at this point) is really ready to listen to them.
November 14th, 2006 at 2:33 pm
Also, its worth pointing out, this was a small bit (30-40 seconds) of a 2 1/2 hour lunch.
Very very off the cuff thoughts.
November 14th, 2006 at 3:08 pm
All it takes is a Columbine-type shooting.
All it takes is another Buford Furrow.
Another John Malvo.
All it takes is one heart-rending episode of a lunatic (or lunatics) with a gun and a slow news day for the Bradys to seize upon it and stand, once again, on the still-warm corpses and shriek for more gun control…
November 14th, 2006 at 5:39 pm
Can you find 51 anti-gun votes in the Senate? I can’t.
Dems would be fools to make this the issue that defines how they differ from Republicans.
November 14th, 2006 at 6:24 pm
The fact that it could hurt them most likely wont stop them from trying. They can’t help themselves. Its in their genes. If they’re going to do it though, they will do it sooner rather than later, because they know people have short memories. By the ’08 election season, they’ll want the issue to have died down.
Once more I see it necessary to be the only one mentioning the obscure document that should have put an end to this whole discussion– the Bill of Rights. There, I said it.
The “real question” then, is; “How do we prosecute the offenders– those Oath breakers who are conspiring to deprive their fellow citizens of their constitutionally guaranteed rights?”
Dumb question? Hey, its the law, why not enforce it? Have we in fact sunk so low that such an idea has become preposterous? What enterprising lawyers are out there who want to make history?
November 14th, 2006 at 6:34 pm
Define “anti-gun.” If you mean 51 votes to pass a law requiring Mr. and Mrs. America to turn in all their guns, then of course not. By Feinschwein’s own admission, those votes were never there. But if you mean 51 votes to exhume Brady II or the “assault” weapons ban, then hell yes. The latter passed the Senate in 2004, and that Senate was more pro-gun than the new one.
November 15th, 2006 at 10:23 am
The only real success I see the Brady crowd having next year may just be in MD. We now have an anti-gun-owner governor who campaigned on an AWB, and he has a go-along anti-gun-owner legislature that will be virtually unchecked (depending on how the committees are stacked this term). The momentum they get in MD will be exported to other states, or even up to the Feds as a supposed “groundsell tidal wave.”