Previous Post
Next Post

The base of each of America’s two main political parties is typically the most active of voting blocks during mid-term elections. 2010 is a dramatic exception. In both national and internal polls, the independent “likely to vote” block is polling strongly to the right. According to the latest polls, it doesn’t matter if Democrats make commercials firing shotguns or say “Nancy who?” during their stump speeches. Blue Dog Democrats are going down. On the right, the Tea Party is helping to take out what “moderate” Republicans it can, with more to follow in 2012, should the GOP continue its practice of pork-barrel politics. Bottom line: neither the Democratic nor the Republican base will be interested in “reaching across the aisle.”

All of which will leave a traditionally anti-Second Amendment party (the Democrats) looking down the barrel of becoming a bitter minority, with only its most extreme members remaining. A minority that must stir up their base for 2012.

Much like communists, die-hard liberals do not want an armed civilian population. (It makes them nervous and throws off their Chi as they listen to John Lennon’s “Imagine” again and again in their offices.) Before their long march into the political wilderness, Democrats will attempt to “limit” the firearms freedoms we currently enjoy. With control of both Houses and the Presidency, they have nothing to lose and everything to gain by pursuing new gun control measures.

While most Americans support the right to own firearms, polling shows that many voters across the political spectrum are not comfortable with the idea of their neighbor sporting an AR-15. The guns look too menacing. These ugly, seemingly military weapons are a soft-target. Expect the “debate” over “assault weapons” to re-ignite.

Next, the so-called “gun show loophole.” Democrats have been hot to stop private firearms sales for some time. They will step-up claim that gun shows are a place where illegal guns are bought and sold, and introduce legislation to force all firearms sales through a federally licensed gun dealer (FFL), where they can be recorded and, most importantly, taxed.

Yes you can own a weapon, perhaps sell firearms (through an FFL) and certainly you might even be able to carry it concealed. But with budget deficits and all . . . the outgoing feds will increase the fees. Dramatically. The democrats can claim a new spirit of fiscal responsibility even as they reduce firearm sales through high taxes. The package of “reasonable” gun laws enacted in Chicago after the Supreme Court’s McDonald decision is the template.

Lastly, yes you may have weapon or a concealed weapon license, but why so near a school, a Wal-Mart or a mosque? At the least, expect new restrictions surrounding federal buildings—or buildings whose inhabitants receive federal funding.

Lame duck liberals will have their “Last Hurrah.” They will nibble away at our gun rights. Will a conservative Capitol Hill restore them? Let’s hope so.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. The lack of talk of new gun control legislation makes me suspicious. I think for it not to be political suicide in the current climate they would require a spark to change current feelings on gun laws. I.e. another shooting that uses 'assault weapons' or guns purchased through the 'gun show loophole'. I wonder if the rash of mexican drug shootings will push the latter to come to the forefront soon.

  2. Uh…it took Clinton using the bully pulpit of the White House to push the last big gun control bills through Congress. Without that push from the top (and a willing media to help them out) I don't see any future gun control measures having much of a chance. And Obama is much more interested in staying in power than he is in pushing an issue that he doesn't seem to care much about. Clinton, OTOH, seemed to have a real woody for gun control, all through his administration.

Comments are closed.