Tag: gun control

Shocker*: Senate uninterested in limiting self-defense in response to terrorist attack.

Seriously, Democrats? Seriously? “Several gun control measures failed in the Senate Thursday afternoon, just one day after a mass shooting in California left 14 people dead and more than 20 injured.” Yes, by all means: let us take the guns out of the hands of people who would actually follow stupid Democratic-inspired gun control laws and leave them in the hands of people who would not.  That sounds brilliant.  BRILLIANT.

Swear to God, there’s something about a hardcore gun-control position that causes neurological damage.

Moe Lane

PS: Having that five seat buffer in the Senate means that I can stay phlegmatic about Republican Senators who need local cover. Besides, it’d never would have passed the House anyway.

*This not actually a shocker.

Chuck Schumer wants to charge up the gun-control hill again.

Via @RobertBluey: I swear to God, they never learn.

One of the Senate’s top Democrats has promised to renew a push to pass sweeping gun control legislation in 2016.

At an event sponsored by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., announced that Senate Democrats will “bring a universal background check bill to the floor of the Senate early next year.”

…Senate Democrats could have done this in 2009 when they had sixty votes in the Senate, instead of the forty-five they have now.  Of course, if they had we’d probably have sixty votes in the Senate right now and a President who would have cheerfully signed a repeal bill in 2013. What is Senator Schumer’s victory condition, here? Does he even know?

Moe Lane

Bloomberg spends $2.2 million of antigun money to do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in Virginia.

Reuters doesn’t exactly elide that: but neither does it really push too much the minor detail that the two seats that Mike Bloomberg poured his money into replaced a retiring Democrat and Republican with… a Democrat and Republican.  Indeed, it’s almost as if Bloomberg needn’t have put in any money at all. Although I don’t mind if Democrats and/or liberals throw a lot of money into the electoral process and never get anything back. In fact, I think that they should double down…

 

Robber tries to rob store with fake gun, gets shot by man with real one.

Via @charlescwcooke comes this reminder as to why you should not go into a convenience store wearing a mask, brandishing a gun, and demanding money:

As the alleged robber pointed his gun at the store’s employees, however, a customer pulled out his own gun.

The robber’s gun, it turns out, was fake.

The customer’s was not.

Continue reading Robber tries to rob store with fake gun, gets shot by man with real one.

LA Times: “Can Hillary Clinton change the gun debate?” Me: “No.”

Simple enough, nu? Even the LA Times admits that, really: they claim – somewhat entertainingly – that Hillary Clinton could successfully run on a gun control platform while at the same time admitting that even if she did win nothing would change on the gun liberty front. Which leads one to wonder why an anti-gun sort should be enthusiastic about Hillary Clinton’s gun control plan in the first place: if nothing’s going to get done anyway you might as well pick a candidate that actually believes in the stuff that you also believe in.

Via RCP, by the way.

Reason’s ‘A Gun-Free America In 5 Easy Steps’ video.

I agree and disagree with Ed Morrissey’s point about this video:

Yes, Ed is correct in that that the process could be short-circuited with a few crucial Supreme Court nominations, but the sticking point is always going to be Step 5: enforcing confiscation. I’ll tell you this right now: gun owners will not give up their guns voluntarily. And I don’t think that the anti-gun movement quite understands the logistics, demographics, and complexities of gun ownership in this country. Unfortunately, they think that they do, which is of course a recipe for disaster.

Time to buy more firearms stock, apparently.

Seriously, this was inevitable.

[Hillary] Clinton proposed repealing legislation that shields gun manufacturers, distributors and dealers of firearms from most liability suits, including in cases of mass shootings.

CBS News reports that shares of gun makers surged after Clinton’s gun control speech.

At 1 p.m. ET, shares of Smith & Wesson’s rose more than 5 percent to $17.44, while shares of Sturm Ruger’s climbed 3 percent to $57.96. Sales at both companies also climbed in recent years after politicians called for gun control measures.

Two things: one, advocating the repeal of that legislation isn’t setting policy; it’s peddling porno.  Which is fine, but Hillary Clinton should just admit that she’s a political smut merchant and be done with it.  Second: do top-level Democrats all secretly own stock in firearms manufacturers? – Because they seem bound and determined to keep those companies nicely in the black.

The Daily Beast: Barack Obama, debate Wayne LaPierre!

I can’t tell if this is satire or not: “Barack Obama should challenge Wayne LaPierre, longtime leader of the National Rifle Association, to a one-hour primetime televised debate.” I mean, it sounds like your typical left-leaning argument, but come on. Barack Obama knows nothing about firearms, knows nothing about persuading people who don’t need to be persuaded*, and has the eternally-useful habit of thinking that he’s about twenty IQ points smarter than he actually is.  Wayne LaPierre, on the other hand, has been debating people under hostile conditions for quite a while; and I’m pretty sure that nobody in the NRA’s leadership sees any downside in smacking around Barack Obama in a debate. Quite the contrary, really.

So, yeah, sure: let’s have that debate.  Not that it will happen, of course. The President’s advisers would rather eat broken glass than let Barack Obama walk into that particular buzzsaw…

Moe Lane

*You may recall that Mitt Romney cleaned Barack Obama’s clock so thoroughly in the first debate that a moderator in the next one had to step in and blatantly intervene on Barack Obama’s behalf. Five bucks says that the NRA would be a lot less trusting of the moderator in any sort of hypothetical debate.