Gun Grabbers: Striking While the Iron is Hot

By Tim Harmsen

I recently published a video that addressed the issue of gun control in the wake of the horrible events at Sandy Hook Elementary school. In this video I mentioned how it disgusted me that advocates of gun control quickly moved to capitalize on the deaths of children to push their political agendas forward. 

A recent CNN article confirms that this is, in fact, exactly the strategy anti-gun forces are using. Mark Glaze, director of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, made the following comments in an interview with CNN.

Look, when this kind of thing happens, we have to make the case in that very short window — what went wrong, why it went wrong, how you can fix it — in a way that motivates Congress to do what it should.  With something as terrible as this is, involving children, the window is open a little wider than it has been before.  I think my back of the envelope is usually about a month.  But after the series of mass shootings and the gravity of this one, I think we may have a little more time.

Anti-gun forces know they have to strike while emotions are high to capitalize on the horror and irrational thought driven by the events and the media. They know that once the hysteria subsides and cooler heads prevail, people won’t be as willing to surrender their Constitutional freedoms. This is why you see people like Dianne Feinstein racing to the first camera she can find to promote her most recent gun grabbing proposal.

“Never let a good crisis go to waste.” Those were the words of former Obama administration Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. He was alluding to using the nation’s economic crisis to justify huge expansion in the federal government at the time, but the principal still holds true.

It’s this desire to quickly capitalize politically on the carnage that has motivated President Obama to make Joe Biden responsible for creating a proposal in the next 30 days that outlines what gun control measures he believes can be pushed through Congress. It’s no coincidence that President Obama has chosen such a short window. He knows that to successfully pull off a gun grab he has to act quickly while emotions are high.

It takes 30 days to get a light bulb replaced in the White House due to government inefficiency, yet we’re going to see a committee formed and a recommendation made in the next 2-4 weeks regarding our Constitutional rights. I don’t really get a warm fuzzy feeling from that. You?

Some have criticized my comments that anti-gunners “almost look forward to such events.” Given the comments and subsequent actions of anti-gun forces in the last few days, I’m confident that what I said hit the proverbial nail on the head. They clearly look forward to these events and are set to capitalize on them by executing plans of action they’ve given considerable thought to.

What can we do? Write your Congressmen and Senators. We have to act swiftly to prevent our government from passing sweeping anti-gun laws. They feel they have the numbers on their side right now to go so far as confiscation of semi-auto rifles and magazines that hold over 10 rounds of ammunition. We need to remind them that if they pass another 1994 style anti-gun law — or worse — we’ll once again vote them out of office just as we did after the Clinton AWB. Act now or forever lose your Constitutional rights.

Tim Harmsen produces the Military Arms Channel videos.

18 Responses to Gun Grabbers: Striking While the Iron is Hot

  1. avatarsdog says:

    Tim, excellent synopsis of the current situation, your writing is as good as the presentations on your awesome MAC on youtube, bravo!

  2. avatarJoke & Dagger says:

    I expect nothing less. The Progressives have shown nothing but zeal in playing hardball on their issues, no matter the collateral damage.

  3. avatarRoll says:

    Piers Morgan is a stupid whiny brat. That video of him arguing with thet GOA president is evidence of that.

  4. avatarAnonymousReef says:

    http://ireport.cnn.com/topics/898502/commented#stories <-This CNN iReport seems to be blowing up with progun sentiment. Has anybody contributed from TTAG?

  5. avatarbecca says:

    Stats show that the gun grabbers are most likely to shoot themselves, or another family member. The evil Lanzas being the most recent example. Dawin knew what he was talking about.

    • avatarIn Memphis says:

      “… the gun grabbers are most likely to shoot themselves…”

      Did you see the pic in another TTAG thread of DiFi holding an AK, drum magazine in, finger on the trigger, safety most likley off (couldnt tell). I wouldnt be surprised if she was covering someone because the muzzle was pointing off camera away from where she was looking.

      She broke all the rules in one publicity picture. A priceless argument for anyone who has the slightest clue about what being a responsible gun owner is.

      I say let the grabbers shoot themselves just leave the guns at the door for us on the way out.

  6. avatarLance says:

    Show you how gun grabbers are morgue chasers like Lawyer are ambulance chaser. I think if we keep pressure on our pro gun reps they will beat the ban.

  7. avatarTed says:

    Tim,

    Thanks for all your Youtube videos and this commentary.

  8. avatarLow Budget Dave says:

    There are about 80 people killed with guns each day. The only time people get sick of the hardball tactics of the NRA is when it happens in a single zip code, or when the victims are children.

    The rest of the time, the gun nuts sit around and complain that people shouldn’t get all emotional. Just because little children are getting shot.

    On this website and hundreds of others, gun nuts suggested within hours that we need more guns. “We need to arm teachers, we need to arm volunteer cops”, and so on. But when anyone suggests that maybe we need to regulate assault rifles, the gun nuts screech that “gun grabbers” are trying politicize a tragedy.

    It is just as predictable as it is disgusting. And it will happen again and again. As soon as this news cycle dies down, there will be another. And the NRA will have to trot out the same apologists to tell us not to listen to our emotions, not to listen to our common sense, but only to listen to paid lobbyists from the NRA.

    • avatarMike in NC says:

      “And the NRA will have to trot out the same apologists to tell us not to listen to our emotions, not to listen to our common sense, but only to listen to paid lobbyists from the NRA.”

      I think I see the key to understanding the difference between the sides of this debate within this statement. Those who demand additional restrictions on firearms have their ‘emotions’ and ‘common sense’ in agreement pushing them to extremes; whereas those favoring fewer, or at least no new restrictions, have their ‘emotions’ and ‘common sense’ acting in opposition and providing balance.

      A quote from Instapundit on the 18th: “NOTE: When people say things like “don’t let this moment pass without acting on gun control,” what they’re really saying is our arguments are so unpersuasive that they can only succeed when people aren’t thinking clearly.

    • avatargringito says:

      Low Budget Dave wrote:
      “On this website and hundreds of others, gun nuts suggested within hours that we need more guns. “We need to arm teachers, we need to arm volunteer cops”, and so on”

      Gringito says:
      Why do people always think about “MORE” guns when somebody argues that it might be a good solution to arm teachers, etc?!

      What they should think about is: utilizing the guns we have for PROTECTION! An armed teacher carrying HIS gun or parents carrying THEIR gun means PROTECTION.

    • avataruncommon_sense says:

      Low Budget Dave,

      First of all, about 50 of those “80 people a day” kill themselves (suicide) with guns. People who are determined to kill themselves will succeed. Japan has virtually no guns in civilians’ hands and their suicide rate is way higher than the U.S. And of the remaining 30 people a day who are murder victims, about 80% to 90% of those are criminal-on-criminal attacks related to gangs or drugs. While any death is regrettable, I am not willing to sacrifice any of my rights for a criminals or people who choose to end their own lives.

      More importantly, banning or regulating guns will not stop determined people from attacking schools. They can just as easily drive a car onto the sidewalk when school gets out or toss a two gallon container of gasoline and a match into a classroom.

      I reject your course of action because it will not stop attacks, it will not reduce the death-toll of attacks, and it infringes on my right to possess and carry any mechanical contraption of my choosing.

  9. avatarPCnotPC says:

    I’m surprised that some conspiracy theorists haven’t suggested that the anti-gunners set this whole situation up just to create an agreeable atmosphere for a gun grab.

    Just sayin’.

  10. avatarGreg says:

    Tim, and all the other writers and 2nd amendment supporters, the massacre at Sandy Hook was a murder, not a “shooting”. Why do you continue to allow the gun grabbers to hijack the tragedy for their cause?
    He was not a shooter, he was a crazed killer. If he had not have chosen a firearm for his purpose he would have found something else, like a bomb, or a car, or a machete.
    Please stay away from terms like shooter, fired on, shot, weapon. Focus on what really happened, murdered, killed, psychotic, etc. Focusing on the method, instead of the purpose, provides fuel for the enemies of the 2nd amendment.

  11. avatarJerryboy says:

    “Gun Grabbers: Striking While the Iron is Hot” more like striking while the bodies are still warm >:(

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.