Even the NRA apparently checked out, much to the President’s barely-throttled fury:
“The National Rifle Association sees no reason to participate in a public relations spectacle orchestrated by the White House,” NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam told the network [CNN].
You can definitely detect a sneer in the NRA spokesman’s voice, there. Possibly even a sniff of disdain. Which is precisely the way that one should act in this situation. This is Barack Obama’s last year as President. His job is to stay the heck out of the way and let people get on the with the business of electing a new leadership, and while I certainly don’t mind the President making life hell for Democrats I suppose that the Democrats themselves might have a different opinion. And maybe eventually they’ll even be brave enough to express that opinion, too.
Tell me again about how smart it was for Harry Reid to kill the filibuster over nominations. Because I’m pretty sure that it’s going to end up giving the NRA a public win:
A number of Senate Democrats have indicated that they might oppose President Barack Obama’s choice of Vivek Murthy for the post of U.S. Surgeon General, according to Senate aides, putting the nomination at risk over the issue of gun control.
Dr. Murthy’s nomination is opposed by the National Rifle Association, the country’s largest gun lobby, because he has expressed support for gun control, calling it a public-health issue.
Continue reading Harry Reid offers the NRA a scalp on controversial Surgeon General nomination.
Because if so, Eric Cantor just hit it:
You don’t walk into a R+10 district and tell a bunch of lawful gun owners that they’re actually a bunch of illiterate bigoted losers who have to wear white sheets to cover up their failure*. Unless you’re an idiot, of course.
:cough cough: “Get over,” as opposed to “Get off.” :cough cough:
*If you’re a member of a minority group and you’re curious about how the NRA feels about you being armed, go ask one. Just be warned: the average NRA member will do his or her best to turn that discussion into a shopping trip.
I’m highlighting this for a somewhat tangential reason:
“When you have not one, not two, but dozens of women well over 70 come in here to buy a gun, something is going wrong out there,” he says. “It’s not just little old white women — it’s young people, white and black, affluent and struggling, who are worrying about the (government’s) overreach and the need to protect themselves.”
As if on cue, a middle-aged black man walks in and is greeted with a hearty handshake. The man says he came in to pick up a gun he ordered the week before.
The 65-year-old shopkeeper says everyone who walks through his door is concerned that the latest push for stricter gun laws will return to the congressional agenda, perhaps within weeks, despite his belief that Americans do not support the legislation as much as the Obama administration claims they do.
His newest customer nods in agreement.
Continue reading Reminder: gun rights are *civil* rights.
They apparently don’t have the votes for a ‘compromise’ amendment extending background checks for firearm purchases.
NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell tweeted this morning “Sen. Joe Manchin tells me ‘ we will not get the votes today.'”
The Senate had been expected to vote Tuesday on the deal Manchin unveiled last week with Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., but Democrats late Tuesday were still scrambling to find the 60 votes the amendment will need to pass.
…Which means that Chuck Schumer’s original, quite comprehensively bad, restrictive background check language will likely be in the final bill*. I certainly hope that every Democrat up for reelection in 2014 in a Red state enjoys voting for it, particularly since John Boehner and Bob Goodlatte are already patiently waiting for the legislation over at the House. Complete with a brazier, a can of gasoline, and a match.
Continue reading Sic transit gloria Toomey-Manchin?
For some reason, when that now-infamous Bloomberg ad of the quote-unquote ‘responsible gun owner who happens to think that Bloomberg’s right on the money, yes-siree, no fooling’ came out, I didn’t publish a post on the subject that thoroughly mocked the probably-actor with his finger maybe-on the trigger and the muzzle pointed far too close to his putative kids. I mildly regret that; turns out my instincts were sound, but what’s the point of having sound instincts if you don’t hit the Publish button?
Ach, well. It’s only a mild regret: everybody else ripped apart the ad. Including, now, the NRA.
Because there’s a crucial bit missing from this report of anti-NRA shenanigans at the Texas Motor Speedway (TMS):
Sources confirmed Friday that two drivers were advised by their public relations directors not to do interviews in the TMS media center so they could avoid having the NRA logo behind them.
…which is to say, Who are they? – Because I’ll tell you this, right off the bat; there’s going to be a bunch of people keeping track of who is not going to be in the TMS media center. And since we’re talking about potential PR problems: let’s just say that being visibly against a basic civil right, not to mention kowtowing to gun-grabbing fanatics, is not something that a NASCAR driver is going to want to have hanging around his* neck in the long term.
More details here: seriously, though, this is a huge demographic FAIL. Which is, of course, why the drivers aren’t giving out their names.
PS: Almost forgot: Sen. Chris Murphy seems to think that he could actually tell Fox to cancel coverage of the NASCAR race today and Fox would take him seriously. Gotta love epistemic closure, huh?
Well, that’s what the WaPo wanted to say:
Sen Mark Begich declared a “sea change” in the politics of gun control immediately after the school shooting in Newtown, Conn., telling his local newspaper that he would not hesitate to buck the powerful National Rifle Association.
But in the months since, the gun rights group has made itself impossible for the Alaska Democrat, and many other lawmakers, to resist.
Begich has signed on as a co-sponsor of a bill, drafted in consultation with the NRA, that would change the way mental illness is reported in the background check system… [And it descends into agitprop at this point. – ML]
Continue reading Washington Post: Mark Begich (D) is terrified of the NRA.
From the New York Times’ glum realization that no, the President has no stomach for a fight with pro-gun civil rights activists over the 2nd Amendment comes two sentences that really did deserve a directed lightning strike.
In addition to limits on high-capacity magazines and expanded background checks, Mr. Biden’s group is looking at ways of keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and cracking down on sales that are already illegal. One possibility is tougher laws against straw purchasing with longer prison terms for those who buy guns for others.
Unless they work for the Obama administration, of course. In that case there’s apparently no need for prison terms at all.
PS: It must be distressing, having a President from one’s party who is also a coward. I wouldn’t know, of course: I’m a Republican.
[UPDATE: Link fixed.]
Simply… this. There are, in fact, ten amendments in the Bill of Rights, and they’re all in there for a reason. I despise gun-grabbers intensely; but neither am I particularly impressed by people who seem to labor under the mistaken belief that the First Amendment does not protect the Second as thoroughly as the Second Amendment protects the First.
And this isn’t the first time that this has happened, either.