The gun grabbers are turning up the heat: confidence or desperation?

[breakingcontact]

That is a common retort. If none of the politicians line up with their views 100% then they aren't worth voting for.

That's pretty small minded and short sighted.

[Cascade1911]

Well in the last Presidential election, we had the highest turnout since 1968 with an estimated 57.5% of the voting age population voting. That is pretty good, but still leaves a huge chunk of the population NOT voting.

I've never been an advocate of making voting or registration easier to increase the percentage of voter turnout. If people are to lazy to register or go to their polling place then you KNOW they are too lazy to educate themselves on the issues. We don't need more voters, we need more voters who understand what they are voting for.

[dajowi]

"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." Rahm Emanuel.

"If you want to know what's in it, you have to pass it." Nancy Pelosi.

Going after firearms is only part of their agenda.

[bikerbill]

As bad as it is to lose anything in this eternal battle with the Left, I'm wondering what the 14 Republicans, many with A and B ratings from the NRA, will do when they actually have to vote on the bill itself, whatever that may be, rather than just cloture ... Can we hope they will return to their 2A support of the past, or will they actually vote to support the bill?

I have to say I'm very pessimistic about the future of our gun rights. They won't get everything they want, but they'll get something ... and they have 3 1/2 years for another crisis -- another mass shooting -- to give them a chance to say, "see, if we'd just banned assault weapons or if we'd just been able to get rid of those blasted 15-round magazines or if only we'd taken guns away from anybody who's ever taken a prescription sleeping pill, none of this would have happened." With each disaster comes a little more control, a little less freedom ... And if Obama gets to replace a Supreme Court justice or two -- or Hillary is elected in '16, I think the gun freedoms we have enjoyed will be history ... and as somebody wiser than me once said, "freedom, once lost, is lost forever."

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Maine senator says she is voting for.

[Kimio]

I will bite back my comments in regards to those 14 republicans, lest I go off on an emotionally filled tangent, filled with adjectives and nouns that are not entirely appropriate for this board about what I think of our representatives.

In light of the latest CNN "news" article/report about "illegal" gun purchases that so conveniently lacked any reprecussions from LEO' against the reporters, I too find it extremely difficult to remain positive right now in regards to the future of our gun rights.

I've already sent another wave of messages to my senator, McCain and Flake, urging them to resist. Needless to say, "disappointed" doesn't even cover half of my feelings when I heard that the both of them voted against the filibuster.

I'll continue my usual campaign to try and urge them not to vote for the bill, but in the end, I feel it's falling on deaf ears.

[MLeake]

So far, Collins and McCain have gone to the dark side; this is not surprising. I will not be surprised if Lindsey Graham does the same.

Be prepared to put a lot of focus on reps in the House, as this flaming bag of poo may just pass the Senate - so the House may have to stomp it out.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The problem (I'm so insightful ) is the precedent. If the current A and B folks fold on this (and it looks like it) - I don't think the House is guaranteed to stand against it. Maybe the bill isn't that bad (you might think) - Gottlieb likes it - but it is a victory and sets a precedent for more. Given another EBR rampage and an AWB will already have the skids greased.

Since the SCOTUS has not used Heller and McDonald to expand rights (as predicted by some) in today's NY failure to take the case - don't expect them to move against the various draconian state laws. Don't expect a future court to move against a reasonable and common use AWB. I was wrong before that the Administration would just BS on gun control.

Unless, the gun world can convince the general and uninformed public about how banning such and such is unreasonable and why that is - expect more losses and the SCOTUS to go along.

[csmsss]

Well, at least you can't say not everyone's on board: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...u-s/?hpt=hp_t2

Probably not a factor in the current discussion, but a likely glimpse into things a little further down the road like the UN arms trade treaty. I think it quite likely that every gun control measure is going to be attended with its own full court press.

[MLeake]

Glenn,

I posted this in the "Do You Support Any Gun Control Laws?" thread in GD, but it seems to dovetail in with your comments in post 33:

In answer to "what could it hurt?"

Let's see....

1) Would expand power of an already bloated federal government;
2) Would chip away further at individual freedoms, in a country that was theoretically founded on the principle of maximizing individual liberties;
3) Would require additional manpower to run the expanded system, plus cost of hardware and software upgrades, office space, etc (IE it ain't free);
4) Would lend credibility to the antis' claims that guns are bad, and therefore require regulation of a type which is not seen against other potentially hazardous items, and which is definitely not seen against other Constitutionally protected rights;
5) Would lend credibility to the idea that Second Amendment protections should only fall under "Rational Basis," since we aren't even requiring antis to prove that what they suggest would be effective, let alone necessary or least intrusive.

You get the idea. This isn't harmless.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I'm afraid you are correct, MLeake.

Banning so many things can be made to seem sensible. I'm afraid we haven't been able to fight on those grounds very effectively. We've tried to hold the position with the available troops from the choir. That may not work anymore.

[breakingcontact]

Why aren't the people focused on, not the guns?

Is it because disabled people (mentally disturbed/disabled) are a protected class?

The real issue is the criminal justice and mental health system. I understand why the government doesn't focus on that, because they would have to admit that government has failed us, but why are the people on the left so up in arms (see you at the pun-off) regarding gun control.

Gun control is about people control. But the sane/law abiding people don't need to be controlled. It needs to be about protecting society from the disturbed and getting those people help if possible, if not, whatever restrictions on them are needed to keep us safe.

It's about people and society dammits not guns.

[MLeake]

breakingcontact, some reasons to ponder:

1) It is difficult to fix societal woes such as a broken education system; chronic unemployment; decreasing numbers of positive male role models; amazing levels of immaturity in today's adults. It is much easier to pass legislation than it is to correct serious flaws, and so the public flows to the path of least resistance.

2) Legislators don't get press if they don't legislate, aside from issues such as sequestration. They get PR by advancing bills; PR = voter recognition, and the ability to draw more funds for the next campaign.

3) Gun control is a guaranteed way to get the bases energized at both ends of the political spectrum; it is also a good way to distract those same bases from other areas where the respective parties might not be performing so well. Gun control is also one of those issues where the losing side can use a loss to build up more support from its base - "We tried, but those guys are just nuts!"

4) To those of us who mistrust large government, regardless of which party holds power, it's not hard to think that those who favor the Leviathan concept of government are a bit nervous about all those armed serfs - I mean citizens - who might resist seizures of property, etc.

[breakingcontact]

MLeake, I agree with most of your post.

What I'm getting at though, is why are the people OK with this?

Is the population that numb, mis-educated and distracted?

Now we have John Kerry telling us that foreign students are afraid to visit here, due to all the gun violence.

I suppose I feel that overall, the statists are just so much more organized and unified than those who seek and believe in liberty. And...why is that?

More questions, than answers I know. Shaking my head.

[MLeake]

The statists have deep pockets, for one thing. See Soros, Bloomberg, Peter Lewis, et al. (Failure to consider patrons such as these guys in the background has lulled a lot of pro-RKBA folks into false complacency, due to such things as low funding levels at BCAV... Brady doesn't need much money in the bank when Bloomberg is willing to spend $12M out of pocket for anti-gun ads this year.)

Also, people who believe in a strong government tend to be the types who want the team to handle everything; many of us who do not want a strong government may not be the best of team players, since we have a tendency to go our own way.

Those two things combine to make the statists very dangerous in the long term.