Quote of the Day: Hope for No Change Edition

“Experts say it is unlikely new gun control legislation will pass Congress.” – Recent shootings shine spotlight on assault rifle [via usatoday.com]

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

54 Responses to Quote of the Day: Hope for No Change Edition

  1. avatarStephen-KY says:

    Then we’ll see an Executive Order

    • avatarTotenglocke says:

      An illegal Executive Order that either A) results in impeachment or B) results in civil war.

      • avatarPascal says:

        a) What is an illegal executive order?
        b) LOL! most people cannot even bother to vote!

        this is why the otherside considers gun rights activists nut jobs.

        • avatarrosignol says:

          Nah. If they really thought we were dangerous nuts who were looking for an excuse to go off, they wouldn’t rattle our cage so much. This is overbearing paternalism (‘children shouldn’t have dangerous things’).

    • avatartdiinva says:

      If Obama thought he had the authority to issue an EO he would have already have done it.

      It is a simple matter of reading the NFA to see how much discretion is built into the bill. Machine gun is defined in the act and I think it involves devices that shoot multiple rounds per trigger pull.

      If DiFi thought the President had the authority to accomplish her objective through an EO she would be working with the White House and avoid going through the messy legislative process where the House would kill her bill anyway.

      • avatarLance says:

        I agree this EO is pushing it. But Hey look our allies are coming out Sen Graham says no to a new AWB on Wednesday call him and say thanks and join NRA and back our allies we can win this.

  2. avatarjacquejet says:

    They said that about ObamaCare also.

    • avatarRob says:

      Indeed.

    • avatarHazzard Bagg says:

      Obamacare passed when the Dems held both houses (albeit with the tiniest of margins).

    • avatarKory says:

      And about the NDAA, but don’t worry Obama won’t sign it, but don’t worry he won’t use it, but don’t worry they will leave it in there because they may have a potential use for it. Don’t believe this crap for a moment, hit your representatives with mail and hit them hard.

    • avatarSoccerchainsaw says:

      “They said that about ObamaCare also.”

      I agree 110%. Our rights are in serious jeapardy now. Lawmakers that were on our side may be reconsidering their position. We have got to flood their mailboxes and inboxes with letters and emails to bolster their backbones. Even the anti’s like Pelosi, we need to schew their “for/against” statistics. Now is not the time to be silent!

  3. avatargreat unknown says:

    Anonymous Experts, LLC

  4. avatarAnmut says:

    These are the same experts that said ObamaCare would never pass, that Romney was up in the polls and was a shoe-in to win and that Obama had no intention of going after our guns in a second term, right? These “experts” can pound sand.

    • avatartdiinva says:

      The Democrats controled both Houses of Congress when Obamacare passed. Maybe you missed that.

      • avatarAnmut says:

        I did not – the “experts” obviously did though.

        • avatartdiinva says:

          So you think if the Republicans controled the House or had 41 Senators the bill would have passed anyway?

        • avatarLance says:

          No it wouldn’t like the 94 AWB and this Obamacare it barely passed a Democratic Congress. With the GOP in control or one and has a filibuster in the Senate they can kill this.

        • avatarJay Dunn says:

          If it actually makes it to the full senate Mitch McConnell may kill it with a filibuster. He won’t lose a single vote in Kentucky and the media can’t possibly hate him any more than they do now.

          Might be better to let it come to a vote and let the dems. from the south, midwest, pacific northwest, either break ranks or commit political suicide.

  5. avatarThomas Paine says:

    “Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau.” — Irving Fisher, Professor of Economics, Yale University, 1929.

    • avatarPascal says:

      Ah yes, the same university who told us that cars would never go faster than 35mph and screwed up the design of many northeastern roads.

      • avatarAaronW says:

        And then there are the jackoffs who flog their sporty cars to unsafe speeds and weave in and out of traffic on the Saw Mill, BRP and Hutch…

  6. avatarPascal says:

    @RF — you should have included the piece before that line you posted. This really tells the story

    “If the public interest in the issue remains high, we have a good chance of passing it,” said Senate Assistant Majority Leader Richard Durbin, D-Ill. “But if someone moves us to another issue and the intensity level supporting that ban does not continue, then we have an uphill battle.”

    All these guys in Washington do is sway with the wind of public opnion — none of these guys actually lead.

  7. avatarfreeport56 says:

    I never will have anything nice to say about Harry Reid. That being said, Harry has never delivered an Anti-gun bill to the Senate floor for a vote. He works tirelessly for the shooting sports in NV, and carries a concealed weapon…everywhere.

    • avatarPascal says:

      In the past Harry Reid was not the majoriy leader. He would have to go counter his whole party and the president. We will see. I bet it goes forward for a vote or at least debate.

      • avatarJon says:

        This is not true. Nancy Pelosi claims that the House didn’t push forward with gun legislation under her leadership because Harry Reid made it clear he wouldn’t support it in the Senate.

        Reid has been the majority leader since 2007.

    • avatarSaul Feldstein says:

      Harry Reid would undoubtedly throw “assault rifles” under the bus, like so many mock conservatives have also done lately.

      After all, the Founders never contemplated these type of guns, so technically we should only be allowed to own muskets.

      • avatarTotenglocke says:

        Yea, it’s not like they already knew of semi-auto rifles that held 22 rounds in a magazine when they wrote the Constitution. Oh wait…. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_Air_Rifle

      • avatargloomhound says:

        Harry Reid is not a “mock conservative.” He is not a conservative of any flavor, he is a Democrat and he will tow the party line.

        As an aside it never fails to amaze me (but it should by now) that when a progressive, liberal or Democrat (one and the same these days) does something to impinge our liberties one of you cats starts to try and drag the Republicans in on it like they are at fault. It’s almost like you are trying to change the subject or something.

      • avatarDyspeptic Gunsmith says:

        Reid isn’t a conservative, mock or otherwise. He is a Jack Mormon, but that’s an issue which most people on TTAG don’t know about and won’t care about.

        Unlike most people here on TTAG, I’ve actually met Harry, in person, and talked with him, in person, more than once. Harry is a political opportunist, and in Nevada, political opportunity doesn’t favor those who are anti-gun. More than that, Harry has something of a political family in Nevada, and he knows that if he stinks up the Reid name too badly, then the political careers of his sons and daughters go bye-bye in Nevada as well.

  8. avatarMatt in FL says:

    USAToday has never been a bastion of investigative journalism, and I don’t think that’s changed in this case.

    • avatarBarstow Cowboy says:

      You can say that again. For anyone who read that turd of an article all the way to the bottom, there was an infographic deal that attempted to define what an assault weapon was by naming the characteristics of an assault weapon. They didn’t say anything about a shoulder thingie that goes up, but they did manage to confuse the issue by mixing rifle assault weapon characteristics with pistol assault weapon characteristics and putting it all on one image. Instead of naming the characteristics for rifles and the characteristics for pistols separately, they just grabbed a few characteristics from each and put it all over the silhouette of an AR-15. According to their “research”, there are now 6 characteristics that can make a rifle an assault weapon, two of which are a threaded barrel and a barrel shroud (those only apply to pistols under the 1994 act), and one of which is NOT the dreaded grenade launcher, so I guess we’re all good to go for that M-203 conversion kit (good luck finding ammo for THAT at Bass Pro Shops). Does it really make a huge difference to the story? No, it really doesn’t, but you’d figure if they were going to try to, you know, EDUCATE people about something they might spend more than 10 or 11 seconds educating themselves before they assume the role of experts. It makes me wonder what else they’ve goofed up in the past. I think it also highlights how convoluted and useless the AWB was and will again be if it’s brought back.

      • avatarIn Memphis says:

        I have only on a couple of occasions now heard grenade launcher and ban in the same sentence. Please enlighten me, do they mean an ACTUAL REAL grenade launcher or the taper in some AR barrels meant to accept a launcher mount? Or are they referring to thoes fancy flare guns made to look like grenade launchers (M79′s and M293′s)?

        • avatarIn Memphis says:

          **M203′s**

        • avatarMD Matt says:

          Yes, they mean an actual grenade launcher. The original 1994 law banned grenade launchers as one of the features of an assault weapon even though they are classified as a destructive device under the ATF and can’t be owned by private citizens.
          Di Fi’s current draft, as viewed in previous posts here, ups the bidding to include rocket launchers as well. Guess I’m going to have to shelve my dream of owning a javelin to decisively deal with my neighbor’s power wheels once and for all.

  9. avatarBilly says:

    How many people thought it wouldn’t pass in the early 90s? How many people thought there was no way Obama could get re-elected?

  10. avatarAccur81 says:

    I don’t see AWB 2.0 passing in its current form, but I can definitely see a ban for magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

    • avatarPascal says:

      anything is possible but the brady bunch has stumped hard over the last year for the “gun show loophole” This “loophole” seems to be the bigger boggie man

      • avatarrosignol says:

        In the eyes of the Brady Bunch, yeah…. but the shooter didn’t get any of his weapons at a gunshow, so they aren’t going to be able to use Newtown to push that goal.

    • avatarjwm says:

      Honestly, I don[t see this passing. What I see it doing is setting back the fight for civil rights in places like California and New Jersey. And we can forget about constitutional carry or reciprocity for the forseeable future.

      • avatarBarstow Cowboy says:

        Yeah, remember back on December 12th or whatever it was when we were all doing the happy dance about the ruling that Illinois was going to become a Shall Issue state? What ever happened to that? Anyone care anymore? Shall we invent a conspiracy that Newtown was a false flag in response to Obama’s home state being declared a gun free FREE zone?

        • avatarIn Memphis says:

          “Shall we invent a conspiracy that Newtown was a false flag in response to Obama’s home state being declared a gun free FREE zone?”

          As much as our second amendment is important to me, Im more interested in the conspiracy that Hillary Clinton suffered a blood clot when she was supposed to be answering questions about Benghazi. Sadly, thoes men will die in vain.

        • avatarBarstow Cowboy says:

          I think it’s hilarious (or Hillaryarious) that she started off with a stomach virus, parlayed that into a concussion caused by a fall that was caused by dehydration that was caused by diarrhea that was caused by the stomach virus, and NOW she’s on death’s doorstep with a blood clot caused by a fall that was caused by dehydration that was caused by diarrhea that was caused by the stomach virus. What next? Don’t get too busted up about the CIA types who died in Behghazi, I’m sure they didn’t just bumble into those jobs, I’m sure they had to beat out a bunch of other guys who wanted those jobs, and I’m sure they knew the dangers of their chosen professions and that the danger was exactly what attracted them to that job.

  11. avatarRalph says:

    Experts said that the curveball was an optical illusion.

  12. avatarLance says:

    I hope these professors are right. I agree a GOP house will not pass a massive and BIGGER AWB with registration for every semi-auto rifle and handgun in the nation Obama and the Kaliforian Hag want now. If anything has a chance of being successfully pushed gun show checks and more info being pumped in to NICS would be lick;ly to pass not a AWB.

    Again join NRA and or GOA and wright to your Sen and Reps and flood emails and call saying kill the ban!!!!!

  13. avatarkarl hungus says:

    ….. keep emailing and calling your representatives. get that work done. thats the only way to be sure.

  14. avatarWilliam says:

    I have a real problem with ideas like this: the “Voices of Reason”; what they REALLY should be called: “Professional Calmer-Downers”. Only the last word turns out to be accurate!!!

  15. avatarDyspeptic Gunsmith says:

    OK, here’s why I see the chances for Feinstein and McCarthy getting their legislation through as slim:

    The number of supposedly “pro-gun” Democrats who would be wiped out in the ensuing election fury of 2014 would put the Senate into GOP hands and give the House a 1994-style level of majority.

    In back rooms and on phone calls, I’m sure that Rahm Emanuel is reminding the Democrats how and why they took the majority away from the GOP in 2006: Rahm told the DNC and the Democrats to STFU about guns. He was that blunt, and perhaps event literally said this (given his notorious behavior about getting directly into people’s faces on issues). Rahm hammered this home – that if the urban Jewish members of the Congress who obsess about guns would shut up about guns long enough to give the rural, southern and western Democrat candidates a chance to campaign on something other than guns, maybe they’d get elected and the DNC could take the Congress.

    It turned out that Rahm was correct.

    The #1 thing that will make the DNC go wobbly in the knees here is to start the campaign season early against those Democrats who are supposedly “pro-gun” in rural and southern/western districts/states. Never mind that we just finished an election. Start now. There isn’t a moment of a single day when the people in Congress aren’t thinking about the next election. Many of them have to raise money nearly every day of their term in office.

    Join the NRA, GOA and other national organizations – they’re going to fight the clowns in DC right now. Then start talking to your neighbors, start finding someone who is pro-gun who might be interested in running against the incumbent, start raising money in your states and in your districts for pro-gun candidates. As soon as word gets out in your district that some new blood is raising money for a challenge, trust me, the people in office learn about it.

  16. avatarMD Matt says:

    Got to say that I’m getting tired of hearing about how the house or some other branch of government won’t pass anything that will restrict gun rights.
    I’m one of those people who said Obama wouldn’t go for a gun grab, and had there not been two high-profile mass shootings in less than 90 days, I don’t think we’d be seeing the push that we are now.
    That said, I think that relying on the republican majority in the house or the senate majority leader to block restrictive legislation is wishful thinking.
    There are currently lots of issues that need to be dealt with, all of which are going to have to pass both halls of congress. While we don’t see many compromises now a days, there’s enough precedent for such things that nobody should feel comfortable. The health care bill, the budget agreement, even the rider that allowed for concealed carry in national parks, all came with a little give and take. The sad truth is that our current politicians are creatures of convenience. Nobody wants to be the first to blink, but when national default is on the table or a $2,000 average tax hike on most households is in the offing, anything’s possible. If nothing else, the last 4 years has shown us that our government representatives may be divided along party lines, but everyone has their price. Ideology aside, enough public outcry coupled with the right incentive can get either side to agree to things that nobody would otherwise believe possible. It’s specifically the degree of media fostered public outcry that we should worry about. Take our guns? Probably not. Limit magazine capacity…”something had to be done.”
    National health care? Never happen…and if it did, the Supreme Court would never let it stand.
    Panic driven hysteria is one thing. But reasonable concern based on historical precedent is just common sense.

  17. avatarBarstow Cowboy says:

    Someone in that USA Today article called AR15′s “snarky”. Can an inanimate object be “snarky”? Is there an English major in the house?

Leave a Reply

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