Enthusiasm Gap Doomed Gun Control, Too

The president and his supporters in the media were quick to blame all the usual suspects for the flaming wreckage of their gun control dreams last week. Yawn. There’s plenty of blame to go around, but most of it on the civilian disarmers’ side of the issue. Still, another reason why the Gun Control Industrial Complex couldn’t even manage to muster all of the Senate Dems to their side may have been because of what they’ve been hearing from their constituents. And guess which side has shown a marked lack of fervor for new legislation . . .

Both of them. Despite that 90% number BHO and his Senatorial supporters love to toss around, nothing that politicians, the gun control orgs or their friends in the media said resulted in any real fervor for more gun control laws out in America where people actually live.

First we got news from gunssavelife’s John Boch. When it came time to support tougher gun laws and resist concealed carry in Illinois – yes, Illinois – all the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence could manage were what looks like 50 people or so to storm the steps of the Land of Lincoln capitol building. Awe inspiring, no?

That pathetic effort was dwarfed by the throngs who showed up to support concealed carry:

Then Chucky Schumer managed to cobble together a rousing crowd of almost 100 dedicated anti-gunners in Manhattan. If that doesn’t send a Matthewsian tingle down your leg, nothing will, no?

But the gun rights deniers had what they figured was going to be a sure-fire success on their hands over the weekend when Organizing for Action, the White House-directed group whose sole purpose is to push the president’s agenda, targeted eloquent pro-2A Senator Ted Cruz’s Dallas office. Somehow, though, local Tea Partiers got wind of it and organized their own group to bring a little balance to the festivities.

Just one problem. The Tea Partiers went a little overboard and outnumbered the opposing OFAers by about three to one. The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence posted a strategically cropped shot of their dozen or so bedraggled supporters. Somehow, though, the rest of the attendees were inadvertently left out of the photo.

courtesy breitbart.com

So maybe it’s not cowardice or gun industry cash that kept all those Senators from voting for Manchin-Toomey and DiFi’s AWB last week. It’s possible they were just listening to their constituents.

comments

  1. avatar jwm says:

    I think kapo bloomberg provides enough cash to the grabbers to offset any funds raised by us. honestly, I think the lack of enthusiasm on the part of the people owes more to do with the internet than anything else. The Msm no longer controls the info.

    1. avatar Snjohnson says:

      If we have so much political momentum as is, why don’t we just push legislation that doesn’t allow for the limitation of firearms? You know, like a “shall not be infringed for real this time guys” type of deal.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        We should. After this stupidity is over, we need to push for a complete or at least partial repeal of the NFA. I think that the controls on SBRs, SBSs, and Suppressors we can win. In addition, I think we can win an opening of the machinegun registry.

        1. avatar J says:

          I’m with you on the repeal against SBRs and SBSs. I think one of the easiest ways to do that is to invoke Canada. In Canada it is legal to own a rifle or shotgun with a barrel length less than 18 inches IF it was originally manufactured with a short barrel. And since Canada outlawed carrying of handguns, 14″ shotguns have become popular for Bear defense. If we argue smart, we can probably end the NFA requirements for OEM barrel lengths (if you buy a 12″ AR15 upper it’s legal, you just can’t cut it youself) as a solid first step.

  2. avatar Pwrserge says:

    I’d like to know where they think they will get the force necessary to enforce the law if it does pass. I for one, am looking forward to striding around downtown Chicago with my Walther on my hip come mid-June.

    1. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

      It would be cool, but they don’t have state mandate so local cities like Chicago could and would pass blatant laws banning carry.

      1. avatar Pwrserge says:

        They can try… The problem is that the closer June gets, the more likely we are to get what we want. The gun grabbers have hosed themselves by voting down then carry bill last week. All we have to do is to go to the court with a no exemption shall issue carry bill and since the legislature will be in contempt of court, that is what we will get as the law. Wonderful, is it not?

        1. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

          Yup.. Well state wide it is a mandate they need to have something. Having a local city say no, while it could be done would be clearly shot down from a state level, since well the “State” has to have it.

      2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        I disagree. Remember the lawsuit complained that every possible form of carry was illegal statewide: open carry, may-issue concealed carry, and shall-issue concealed carry. Further, the judgement made it sound like any carry law that the state passed could not be de-facto no-issue.

        So if Chicago suddenly wants to ban all forms of carry, they are nevertheless within the state of Illinois and citizens are entitle to something, no matter where they happen to be standing in the state. As far as I am concerned, neither cities nor counties can violate the court order.

        Note: I am not an attorney. I simply try to read things and them at face value in plain English — kind of like our U.S. Constitution!

        1. avatar Pwrserge says:

          It’s why I moved about 0.25 miles outside of Cook County. So I can stand on the border with my AR and mock them. Since my county will be under “shall issue”, my permit will still be valid in Chicago. I just hope it allows both open and concealed cary…

        2. avatar Dave says:

          Will it be valid in Chicago? In New York upstate permits are not valid in NYC.

        3. avatar Dave says:

          OK, some article I ran into said that what they are thinking of doing is that the State Police would issue carry permits on a “shall issue” basis, but that they would require endorsement from Cook County/Chicago authorities to be valid for carrying in those jurisdictions.

  3. avatar Aharon says:

    Good job everyone. Now don’t get _ocky since the long-term war is far from won. In fact, because of the upcoming and increasing changes in demographics and governance in America I think there will be a future curtailing or limiting of gun rights as we know them today within the next 10-20-30 years.

    1. avatar Dave says:

      25 years ago I expected a lot more restrictions than we actually have right now, and concealed carry has gotten much better. The public is still largely pro-self defense and thus pro-gun at least to a degree. There may be a growing appetite among the public for screening and/or licensing of some sort, and that will likely happen, but depending on how it’s done, it may not be the end of guns in America by a long shot. The key is being smart about managing the process – I still worry whether sinking Manchin-Toomey was the right choice.

      1. avatar Aharon says:

        Good reply. I don’t see the future as an end to guns in America. I do see more regulations, possible licensing, guns ownership more easily and quickly revoked, possibly laws requiring locked storage, NRA type safety classes, etc. New laws requiring gun and ammo related taxes, fees, insurance regs will probably exist. I also see the right to guns such as ARs, .50 cal “sniper rifles”, and gear such as high capacity mags being targeted again.

        There will come a time when the demographic make-up to include the sex and thus the values of the people in Congress, in SCOTUS, etc will be very different than today.

  4. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

    hhmmm. Well yup that is about what we are seeing even here in California. We were outnumbering the Mom’s Demand Action and bussed in medical students by about 3 to 1. Admittedly by 9:00 PM after 12 hours, most if not all people had headed out, but we still have 40 or so dedicated folks who hung around, compared to 1. Yup 1 anti. It might not have changed events for the committee hearing but believe me, when the other folks in the legislature hear about it, it will stick.

  5. avatar Silver says:

    Leftists are wonderful at being loud. It fits their personalities: they’re petulant children, compensating with volume what they lack in actual reason. They whine and complain and scream about their selfish desire to control others and the media loves it. Because their argument is based on personal emotional and intellectual dishonesty and instability, they don’t actually feel their cause deeply. It’s just a method of coping with their deep issues

    Those on the pro-liberty side, however, are quietly confident and truly believe in their stance. They have reason, logic, and facts. There’s no need to scream because the arguments speak for themselves. They welcome opposing arguments because the opposition is so ludicrous, they damn themselves with their own words. Most of all, they feel the true righteousness of their cause and are thus willing to show up to defend it.

    Leftists can be as loud as they want, they’ll ultimately be outnumbered by passion. I’d be interested to see if their willingness to take my rights will stay strong to such lengths as my willingness to defend my rights.

    Ultimately, it will be demographics that destroy this country. The “melting pot” will bubble over and drown us.

    1. avatar Roscoe says:

      Agreed!

      AAA+++

      1. avatar Roscoe says:

        And CA is a perfect example of that migration.

    2. avatar CarlosT says:

      Why preemptively admit defeat? Why write those demographics as a lost cause? The long term solution is to figure out how to make the case to them. Self defense applies to everyone, and actually more so to many who are our opponents today. They can’t all be converted, of course, but if we can win over a decent proportion then there is reason to be optimistic about gun rights.

  6. avatar Ed says:

    I think the BS local laws with dumb inclusions helped fire up gun owners, and kill what many may be able to justify as a reasonable compromise. I know CO’s dumb local laws and the blatant disregard local officials had to my view pushed me from middle of the road to a hardcore 2A preacher.

  7. avatar Randy Drescher says:

    Maybe next time o the grabbers will listen harder when Wayne(don’t f with me Lapiere) tells them, you are 10 seconds away from the most embarrasing moment of your lives, Randy

  8. avatar B says:

    Those facebook comments are bat shit crazy. Still pulling that 90% number out of their @ss when there crowds are just pitiful. NAMBLA has bigger crowds, and less children.

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      FEWER children!!!

      1. avatar Duzt says:

        WTF! why the language lessons? no ones writing a book here. even kerouac wrote as he spoke leave poeple be.

      2. avatar Nobody says:

        Thanks for the grammar lesson. While you are correct, and some grammar issues are frustrating…
        their not going to listen to you’re corrections. your being a bit of a pain always correcting they’re grammar. there only going to get upset with you’re hounding.

        Yes, that was on porpoise.

  9. avatar Mark N. says:

    I may have missed (or forgotten) it along the way, but where is the evidence deconstructing the 90% figure? Was it one of those surveys that asked terribly slanted questions? Or simply vague and open ended questions? One of the things I’ve noticed in these debates is all of the people who are in favor of greater background checks have no idea what either Schumer’s bill or the M-T compromise actually said. We lawyers know that the devil is in the details, but it seems most people vote on the slogan, not the substance.

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      The evidence to “deconstruct” it is the fact that they can’t offer one shred of evidence to back up the 90% figure.

      IOW, it’s a talking point, not a fact.

    2. avatar Alex Peters says:

      It was a Quinnipiac poll (April 4th). The question was “Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?” Results: 91% support, 8% oppose, 1% don’t know. They’re weren’t exactly asking specifics about universal background checks. I wonder what the response would’ve been to the question, “Do you support or oppose a background check for family members who gift firearms to one another?”

      Actually, in that same April 4th Quinnipiac poll, they also asked, “Do you believe that if there are background checks for all gun purchases the government will or will not use that information in the future to confiscate legally-owned guns?” Results: 48% confiscate, 38% will not confiscate, 14% don’t know. Funny how Obama and company fail to ever cite this poll.

      BTW, the demographics of those 1,711 people polled were 26% Republican, 34% Democrats, 32% Independent, and 7% don’t know. Take that for what it’s worth.

    3. avatar k4R-15 says:

      The 90% figure is from survey results from the year: scroll down to the Quinnipiac March 21-April 13 results here

      Possible Weaknesses of the poll:
      The question is asked in a way that oversimplifies the issue- “do you support background checks for all gun buyers?” vs. “do you support background checks for all buyers to help the Fed establish a national gun database or registry?” That’s a more accurate summary of the issue that voted on in Congress.

      The sample size is <2000 people. How randomized was the sample? Is it large enough? Is every region of the US accurately represented?

    4. avatar Azimuth says:

      “…but it seems most people vote on the slogan, not the substance.”

      How right you are. But it’s worse. It’s how we primates are wired.
      This behavior is our primal mind guiding us as we do our daily
      talking monkey business. If a call of WARNING is made, everyone
      in the troop reacts immediately, instinctively, and mimics the call.
      We react the same way to warning. That’s why everything is a crisis to the liberal, and must be dealt with IMMEDIATELY!, before peoplehave a chance to think about what it is, or if it even demands a warning. If you want to be really skeered, read Gustav Le Bon’s “The Crowd”. I can guaran-damn-tee you, Saul Alinsky and devoted Marxist agitator, Barack Obama, have. They’re playing to the animal brain in all of us, the one that reacts, rather than reasons. What they’re doing is yelling “FIRE!” in a crowded Aurora movie theater, and profiting from the chaos. How much more anti-human can one be?

      1. avatar Leo338 says:

        Odd that you never hear them talk about the latest gallup poll that says only 4% of Americans list gun control as a priority. Also, according to the poll the one thing people care about is the one thing Obama and the dems want to distract us from, the economy and jobs.

  10. avatar TheConcernedCitizen says:

    The tide has been held back by one important thing: many people have been coerced into actually reading what The Second Amendment says.

    …and once you read it something happens! You suddenly realize that EVERY LAW RESTRICTING GUNS IS OUTRIGHT UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

    If, according to some law, you “HAVE” to do something to keep, get, use, carry, have, shoot, clean, look at or hold a gun or any part of a gun (including ammunition), that “law” is void. The limiting or requirement of any limit on Length, caliber, capacity and possession limits OF ANY TYPE or ANY ARMS in ANY PLACE at ANY TIME is not allowed. Every arms restriction ever written is null and void. Yes! I’m talking explosives too. They try to brainwash us but we are coming out of the stupor.

    How can you say there are any restrictions allowed by law after reading The Second Amendment? No one with at least a sixth grade education and a reasonable amount of reading comprehension would disagree with me. If you do disagree, you need to read it again until you understand what the founders meant!

    “A well organized militia being necessary for the security of a free state the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    (People argue about the capitalization in versions, etc. I left them out, as I did the commas that get argued about, also. It doesn’t matter. It can’t change it.)

    Restrict my right to have arms of any time in any configuration and you are violating my 2nd Amendment protected rights.

    READ IT AND WEEP, POLITICIANS. PASS ANY LAW YOU WANT. WE WILL NOT COMPLY. YOU TELL US “THE LAW IS THE LAW’ AND I SAY, “WELL, YES IT IS!”

  11. avatar Lance says:

    The gun grabber shot there bolts no pun intended. Instead of looking a a small Manchin-Toomey bill from day 1 in December they want full DiFi and wanted the BIG gun bans and registration so they got us awake and fighting. Liberals outside of a few in NY and CA never are gun banners really at all. They vote for taxes to go up and the destruction of marriage so they were not interested in a Clintonisc gun grab. This made very good point thanks Dan for the post.

  12. avatar Ing says:

    “It’s possible they were just listening to their constituents.”

    No. No, it’s not. I have it on good authority that the only reason this federal gun control push failed was the Evil NRA. The *only* reason.

    I’m not an NRA member and I don’t care what they say, so my letters obviously didn’t reach my congresspeople. I didn’t calmly explain the truth about guns to everyone I know. I didn’t tell anyone to contact their lawmakers. And I wasn’t really at that one protest/rally I attended (apparently it was just a really busy day at the city park…for people with guns…and flags…and microphones).

  13. avatar UnapologeticallyAmerican says:

    The reason it failed is because Americans contacted their Senators and let them know how they felt. When it comes down to it, it is about job security for Senators. A citizen who goes out of their way to contact their legislator about an issue will probably vote for the other guy/gal if you don’t follow what they desired. If a Senator has an overwhelming majority of constituents contact them for gun rights they know where the voting base will be in 1 1/2 or 3 1/2 years from now. If guns were banned they would still be banned come next election and would ensure those Senators were not reelected.

    The challenge now is to remember what they did. Those who voted for gun control and those who stood for the Constitution/ 2nd Amendment. Remember and vote, or it will rear its ugly head again 2 years from now when the bill is brought up again due to a proceedural vote by the sponsor. The battle is over but the war is still going.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email