Category: Anti-Gun Folks

They seem to be upset that even after Calderon’s speech before Congress, that Obama still doesn’t want to touch the assault weapons issue. There’s a great irony, also, in the photo Mother Jones chose for their article. The rifle appearing is a South Korean assault rifle made by Daewoo, which has never been lawful to import into the United States for civilian use. There is a semi-automatic variant called the DR-200, but they were made illegal for importation into the United States in 1997 because they were determined to be non-sporting under the Gun Control Act of 1968. There are very few of those in the country. Obama hasn’t reversed that determination. If you’re going to pick a firearm to illustrate the point that Obama won’t ban assault weapons, it’s probably best not to pick one that’s already banned, and still banned.

So says Rod Blagojevich on his radio show.

And so the mayor has a political tactic where he comes out there, starts screaming, gets red in the face, proposes gun control legislation to send to Springfield, and  doesn’t lift a finger to get that legislation passed.  He doesn’t used his political strength and muscle to pass the legislation. Just a bunch of baloney.

I don’t think he is either. That’s probably why we’ve never really had a gun control movement of any size in this country. Gun control is a political tool for big city politicians. Guns are a fantastic scapegoat for the crime and societal breakdown that happens in many of our inner cities. They give politicians an easy, convenient way of talking about the problem without having to level with people about nasty subjects like taking responsibility for yourself, your family and your communities, working with police to weed out bad apples, and rebuilding the good life. Those are difficult subjects, and politicians never want to tell people they can’t look for a solution to the problem of social breakdown in Government. There has to be a solution. There has to be an easy solution.

The great thing about gun control is you can never have too much of it. Chicago goes about as far as a city can go, but you can always blame it, in Daley’s case, on those intransigent downstaters and their insistence on not going farther. But the last thing Daley would want is for the state to actually pass something. At some point you run out of people to blame, just like in fiscal matters you eventually run out of other people’s money.

At some point the gig is going to be up. Pretty soon for Daley, Bloomberg, Nutter, Menino, and all the other big city mayors. Maybe they can switch to blaming the Supreme Court or the Constitution, but it doesn’t seem to me that’s quite the same tool they’ve been using. That’s probably why Daley is losing it. Heavens forbid he level with voters about having to make hard decisions to bring the city’s crime down.

I have no idea how the people of Chicago can keep re-electing this idiot. Aside from hoping something bad to happen to one of our Supreme Court justices, he offers to shove a recovered gun up a reporters backside.

How does it feel to be ruled by a clown Chicago? The only thing more amazing to me is that we elected a politicians who came from this toxic political culture President.

Apparently the Brady Campaign made made two big mistakes in the Amicus brief they filed yesterday, including not making sure their attorney was admitted to practice in the court. I guess when you’re getting pro-bono legal work, you don’t look a gift horse in the mouth, but this gift horse is looking a bit lame if you ask me.

It seems rather curious that the Bradys would insert themselves into what is almost certainly going to be a losing issue for us defending these Firearms Freedom Acts in federal court. What are they worried about?

My guess is their pocketbook. One of the disadvantages of the Brady approach to this issue is they have to be able to fundraise off their message, as opposed to MAIG who have a wealthy patron. I posit that Brady got involved because it’s a guaranteed win, they are getting the work pro bono, and it’ll be great for fundraising letters. They will be able to go to their donors and say they defeated the big bad “gun lobby” and their attempt to implement their “guns everywhere” philosophy.

Not that I blame them. Any group would be stupid not to do this. But I find it hard to believe the Bradys think this is going somewhere if they don’t help stop it.

Eugene Volokh notes it’s titled “1877: America’s Year of Living Violently.”, and notes its publisher mentioned:

1877 is also notable as the comeback book for a celebrated U.S. historian. Michael Bellesiles is perhaps most famous as the target of an infamous “swiftboating” campaign by the National Rifle Association, following the publication of his Bancroft Prize-winning book Arming America (Knopf, 2000) — “the best kind of non-fiction,” according to the Chicago Tribune — which made daring claims about gun ownership in early America.

How about made false claims about guns in early America, such that his Bancroft prize was rescinded once it came to light. There was no “swiftboating campaign by NRA”. Last I checked neither Clayton Cramer nor Jim Lindgren were all that cozy with NRA. To be sure, Clayton has been an active part of the RKBA movement, but he’s contributed most to the academic body of literature supporting the individual right theory, and certainly does not take orders from Fairfax.

This is already starting on a good honest footing isn’t it? No doubt his publisher would love some controversy to drum up book sales, but let’s hope knowledgeable folks go over the claims in his new book with a fine tooth comb.

Bill Clinton just loves Mayor Mike’s work on gun control.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dztcsYI3rzs[/youtube]

I’m sure the Bradys really miss him. Bill knows as much as anyone what the NRA can do to you, and has said as much, but he never gave up the fight to eviscerate the Second Amendment. I thought Obama’s administration would make Clinton look like Charlton Heston. I’m glad to have been wrong (so far).

Hat tip to Jacob for the video.

Wow, this is pretty amazing. They take a complete non-answer from Senator David Vitter as an indication he’s climbing on board with their “terror gap” legislation, and follow up with claiming that C-rated Mary Landrieu, who’s A -rated opponent NRA endorsed in the last election, is somehow “pro-gun”  I guess an NRA C-rating is pro-gun from the Brady point of view. If the Bradys really had something to brag about it would be that Vitter’s opponent in the race is on board with the legislation, but his comment was that he would “talk about this later.” You can see it all in this article here. I think characterizing this as building momentum is a lot of wishful thinking on the part of the Brady Campaign.