Archive for June 14th, 2009

Deal between NRA leadership and Democrats leaves most Republicans in the dark

June 14, 2009

McCarthy Bill Rammed Through The House

Sunday, 14 June 2009 00:00

— Deal between NRA leadership and Democrats leaves most Republicans in the dark

Wednesday started out as a routine day in the U.S. Congress, with Representatives attending congressional hearings, meeting with constituents, perhaps devising clever new ways to pick our pockets.

At 8:30 in the morning an email went out to House Republicans indicating that a gun control bill, recently introduced by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), was on the Suspension Calendar (normally reserved for “non-controversial” bills).

Many Representatives didn’t see that email until it was too late. Less than three hours later, the bill passed by a voice vote. The bill in question, H.R. 2640, is a massive expansion of the Brady Gun Control law, the subject of many previous alerts by Gun Owners of America.

Its passage in the House is a case study in backroom deal making, unholy alliances and deceit. A sausage factory in a third world country with no running water has nothing on today’s U.S. Congress.

The Washington Post reported earlier this week that a deal had been struck between the NRA leadership and Democrat leaders in the House. The headline read: “Democrats, NRA Reach Deal on Background-Check Bill.”

Red flags went up throughout the pro-gun community. Who was party to this “deal,” and how many of our rights were being used as bargaining chips?

The McCarthy bill, at the time, looked to be going nowhere. The general consensus among pro-gun Congressmen was that any gun bill offered by McCarthy was simply DOA.

After all, if there were such a thing as a single issue Member of Congress, it would have to be McCarthy. Rep. McCarthy ran for office to ban guns; Hollywood made a movie about her efforts to ban guns; and she is currently the lead sponsor of a bill that makes the old Clinton gun ban pale by comparison.

Even many Democrats wouldn’t go near a McCarthy gun bill. They have learned that supporting gun control is a losing issue. Enter Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), the so-called Dean of the House, having served since the Eisenhower administration. Dingell is also a former NRA Board member, and was in that capacity tapped to bring the NRA leadership to the table.

The end result of the negotiations was that this small clique among the NRA leadership gave this bill the support it needed to pass.

But why was it necessary to pass the bill in such an underhanded fashion? If this is such a victory for the Second Amendment, why all the secrecy? Why was a deal forged with the anti-gun Democrat House leadership, keeping most pro-gun representatives in the dark? Why was the bill rammed through on the Suspension Calendar with no recorded vote with which to identify those who are against us?

For starters, it would be a hard sell indeed for the NRA leadership to explain to its members what they would gain by working with McCarthy. If this legislation had gone before the NRA membership for a vote, it would have been rejected. For that matter, if it went through the House in the regular fashion, with committee hearings and recorded votes, it would have been defeated.

Consider also what the bill is: GUN CONTROL! The lead sentence in an Associated Press article accurately stated that, “The House Wednesday passed what could become the first major federal gun control law in over a decade.”

The bill’s supporters can talk all they want to the contrary, but forcing the states to hand over to the federal government millions of records of Americans for the purpose of conducting a background check is certainly an expansion of gun control.

This is a bill designed to make the gun control trains run on time. Problem is, the train’s on the wrong track. We don’t need greater efficiency enforcing laws that for years we have fought as being unconstitutional.

Sure, there are provisions in the bill by which a person who is on the prohibited persons list can get his name removed, but not before proving one’s innocence before a court, or convincing a psychiatrist that he should be able to own a gun (though most psychiatrists would be more likely to deem a person mentally defective for even wanting to own guns).

Sad thing is, this bill, which spends hundreds of millions of your dollars, will do nothing to make us safer. More gun control laws will not stop the next deranged madman. What will stop a killer is an armed law-abiding citizen. In the wake of the Virginia Tech tragedy, we should be considering removing barriers that prevent honest, decent people from carrying their lawfully possessed firearms.

We don’t know where the next shooting will occur; that’s something the killer decides. So whether it is in a school, a church, a shopping mall or a government building, we should urge our elected officials to repeal so-called gun free zones and oppose more gun control.

Instead, we end up with a bill supported by Handgun Control and Sarah Brady, Chuck Schumer, Teddy Kennedy, Carolyn McCarthy, and the rest of the Who’s Who of the anti-gun movement, and all the while the NRA leadership maintains that this is a win for gun owners.

This is a Faustian bargain, which will repeatedly haunt gun owners in the years to come.

But you should realize why they had to do it this way. Your activism has resulted in an avalanche of grassroots opposition against this bill. Gun owners have raised their voices of opposition loud-and-clear, and many congressmen have been feeling the heat.

The fight is not over. They still have to run this through the Senate. Already, there is a small cadre of pro-gun senators who are ready to slow this bill down and do everything they can to kill it. To be frank, a bill that has the support of all the anti-gun groups and the NRA will be tough to beat, but we will continue to fight every step of the way.

Although we’ve suffered a setback, we want to thank all of you for the hard work you’ve done. Your efforts derailed the McCarthy bill for the past five years and we would have prevailed again were it not for the developments described above.

Be looking for an upcoming alert to the U.S. Senate. GOA will give you the particulars of the bill that passed the House, and we will provide you suggested language for a pre-written letter to your two senators.

Stay tuned. There is more to come.

Link for citation broken

Here is a more general link

They just don’t get it, as usual…

June 14, 2009

“Some say Holocaust Memorial shooting signals a broader war.”

That’s the headline, and a more disingenuous article I may never have read before. It’s all about racism… It’s all about feeling displaced as power brokers, and it’s all about hating Israel and the Jewish people, further it’s all about taking guns away from people. That’s a summery of what the article says.

Of course logic tells us that simply cannot be true. There may be a combination of those factors that tend to set off a few unstable individuals. However, just like the DHS study that is noted in the story, and was reported on here, it lumps all sorts of people into the same profile.

Let’s go after the main points:

Racism; The article says that many whites are upset with things like affirmative action. Well, that’s racism, and or sexism period. Figure it out…

Illegal Immigration: This ties in with racism, and the so called fear of rising minority populations according to the article. Sorry folks, but it’s about obeying the rule of law and has nothing to do with race whatsoever.

Minority  Crime: Again, this ties in with the above issues. People, especially Blacks and Latinos, and a growing situation with Asians, suffer at the hands of criminals from minority groups at an alarming rate. So this is a “white” issue! Again, it’s not about race, it’s about crime and the rule of law, and that doesn’t matter one iota what color you skin is, or where your ancestors came from.

White Supremacy Groups, a.k.a  Nazi’s: If these groups are in fact growing it would be news to most conservative and libertarian types. As a group, we simply have no known dealings with people like that. The article lumps a lot of people of differing backgrounds with different morals and values together, and that in itself, is immoral. I suppose that Pam at Atlas Shrugged will be surprised that she hates Israel…

Multiculturalism: This failed ethical theory has been being shoved down peoples throats for quite some time now. It’s fine and dandy to be proud of ones heritage. Having said that, it’s not fine to shove that down other peoples throats. There is no room in America for hyphens, you are an American period. You may see yourself as I do as an American of Irish decent, and that’s fine. But to call yourself an “Irish American” disavows all that is America. For those that were not so lucky to be from Irish stock? Well, just insert the name of your own heritage in place of Irish. Further, Multiculturalism requires that none judge another person or peoples  background or morals. That folk’s is just plain wrong. I need not give any support to groups that still practice slavery, such as Islam for example. Nor, again using Islam as an example, need I support killing other people because they refuse to submit to my religion or political persuasion. Further, this failed theory finds that reparations for the actions of people that died centuries ago are appropriate. Nope, try applying a real ethical methodology to that, and it comes up pretty short. Let’s address it that way here.  Can this be understood by the common man? Answer; no, the common person cannot understand or agree with being held responsible for something that he had no part in doing. Therefore, this could never become universal law, and so fails the test of ethical reasoning.

Gun Control (Really weapon control.): The article treats this as an also ran, that people are worried about because of the current administrations position. Those people are, once again, concerned about law, as in the Constitution and more importantly, the Bill of Rights. The authors seem to be fearful that all gun owners are lunatics and are ready to overthrow the government. Which brings us too…

If the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are of such inconsequential value, then why even continue to have a United States of America? Answer, because all the people that the article points to as threats, other than the noted racist’s and insane types, are in fact Americans that love the United States of America, with all it’s warts, and believe that this kind of nation offers the best hope for freedom and liberty for all people now, and forever.

God Bless America, and those that love her!