Mind you, they did so in code: “Following a string of recent mass shootings, Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) is looking to renew the assault weapons ban that was originally signed by former President Bill Clinton but expired more than a decade ago.” …90 co-sponsors, which is roughly half the current Democratic House caucus. Six years ago, it would have been about a third of the Democratic House caucus, but then the Democrats started doing stupid [expletive deleted] like this. On the other hand, the Democrats that remain are probably safe enough doing stunts like this. And on the gripping hand… this is no way to get a Congressional majority back, fellows.
Via @instapundit, who likewise is pleased to see his enemies make a mistake.
Sorry: could have sworn that I had put these up already. Anyway: here. Short version: the Democrats have only themselves to thank for Americans deciding that maybe assault weapons aren’t so bad, after all. Oops, I say. Oops.
Gee, it doesn’t sound quite so reasonable when I put it that way, huh?
House Democrats are adding a controversial new demand to the government funding talks: ending a 19-year old ban on gun violence research by the federal government.
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced Thursday that Democrats will insist that the research ban be removed from law as part of the $1.1 trillion omnibus that Congress needs to pass by next week to fund the government.
…Or what, Nancy? You gonna shut down the government or something? Count the damn votes, madam. Spoiler warning: you don’t have a majority in the House. You haven’t had one in four years. And when you did have one you threw it away on passing Obamacare.
Found here. Short version: Democratic governor Dan Malloy apparently wants to have the next Connecticut gubernatorial election be competitive. …Um, thanks?
I mean, geez, this is too raw even for Buzzfeed: “The American Civil Liberties Union is taking no position on legislation that would bar people from buying guns if they are on the federal government’s no-fly list — a list that the ACLU has spent the past five years arguing is unconstitutional.” Of course, principles are principles; donor contributions are donor contributions, and the ACLU’s donors are generally rather selective in what civil rights they want protected. Many of those donors would bristle at the mere expression of the commonplace observation that firearms possession is a civil right…
Found here. Short version: …eh, Barack Obama wimped out and didn’t promise any Executive Orders overturning the 2nd Amendment. Guess that means we won’t have to arrest a chunk of the federal government for sedition in 2017 after all.
I don’t really know why; oh, wait, I do. I fully expect President Barack Obama to tell the world tonight that he’s actually a king, and that the Constitution is a mere scrap of parchment. Well. He’ll try. God knows that Obama’s screwed up everything else he’s put his hand to*.
*His crew got him elected. His crew always got him elected.
A sufficient number people reacted to this Tweet that I thought that I might as well repeat it here:
…Just in case Twitter ever goes down, or something. Background here: obviously, it’s in reference to Erick Erickson’s perfectly understandable* decision to punch small holes in pieces of paper in response to that odious NYT editorial. At any rate: I was fond of how that particular tweet came out.
*You can tell that the people screaming about Erick have never done any kind of target shooting, including archery. When I was messing about with bows as a young adult – my SCA household has a remarkable number of archers in it, so it was fresh air and good company – we used to use all sorts of things for target practice. Including representations of stuff that we didn’t like. And yet… none of us ever murdered anybody. It’s a puzzler!
This is classic O’Malley. To wit: the pontification of a man so desperate to be seen as relevant that he is willing to douse himself in flammable stupid, then strike a match.
…It’s not every day that you see a former governor of a reasonably important state announce that the time for monarchy in America had finally come. How do I put this gently? OK, I’ve got it: THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO STRIKE OUT ENTIRE AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION, YOU DAFT IDJIT.
Ladies and gentlemen: witness the inevitable end-result of a one-party state! Don’t let this happen to yours.
But apparently, not to the New York Times.
Mind you, they wrote “There will be post-mortems and an official search for a “motive” for this latest gun atrocity, as if something explicable had happened” back when they thought that the whole thing could be usefully blamed on the New York Times‘ domestic political opponents. …And, do you know something? When you put it that way, it doesn’t actually make the New York Times look any better.
Continue reading Tweet of the Day, ‘Radical Islamist Terrorism’ Is Perfectly Explicable, Actually edition.