Quote of the Day: Down Low Edition

Let’s pass something . . . For the children(TM). (Sigh)

If I would have trademarked “For the children” back in Jan. I would be rich by now.

From the link

The vice president recalled the long struggle to enact the Brady Bill, which established a five-day waiting period to buy a gun. And he told them gun control would become his new campaign to end the Iraq war, according to two participants in the meeting, comparing it to the issue he devoted much of his energy to during President Obama’s first term. The pressure campaign is evidently already starting to take its toll, the vice president added, because several senators have confided to him that they are feeling the backlash from constituents.

Those senators, he added, told him that they needed to be assured there was adequate support for expanded gun control to pass because they did not want to take such a great political risk on something that was doomed to fail. And some of them are already beginning to ask about what tweaks gun control proponents might entertain that could make the bills more palatable, the vice president said.

“It’s not a question of really changing their minds for or against this policy,” one of the meeting’s participants said. “It’s demonstrating that it’s safe to do the right thing and politically unsafe not to.”

—

IF ANYONE, thinks its over, you are mistaken. We have to keep the phone calls and emails going because the anti-gun crowd is not stopping nor can we.

We have to make sure that come 2014/2016 that the traitors are remembered at the ballot boxes.

The article starts out with “gun control legislation are quietly under way on Capitol Hill ” — meaning, sh!t will happen behind our backs.

How does she even walk without hurting herself with such a lack or reasoning power. I guess what she really does is decide what she wants then builds a path to that conclusion. She is a very dangerous threat to liberty.

Typical liberal democrat; let’s sneak it through by calling it something else and hope no one notices.

I see no logic whatsoever in her statements. I’m not surprised. More and more lawmakers are falling down the emotional rabbit hole. She said “We need both…” right after she said that criminals don’t do background checks….

It used to be that only the fringe left and right used emotion to mobilize constituents. Now it’s everyone. The far left uses outrage, translated to anger. The far right, fear. Different emotions, but both tactically lead to the same result.

TO: All
RE: Another….

….’evil’ supporter of the UN effort to destroy US.

And these people voted for her?

Talk about self-inflicted wounds.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples’ liberty’s teeth. — George Washington]

The bleating is getting out of hand. I mean, if it were actual sheep we’d have euthanized them already.

I’ve said this one before too, and I’ll say it again. The ONLY thing we really need to do vis-a-vis private sales is allow the seller to access the NICS system to run the buyer’s name. That’s IT. Nothing else. What these bliss ninnies don’t seem to realize is that the more they turn the screws the EASIER they make it to buy/sell/trade illicitly, albeit at an increased (but still very low) legal risk. You simply can’t regulate private gun sales any more than any other consumer item such as alcohol, street drugs, cigarettes or any other ostensibly regulated item.

It would be an absurdly simple act to provide access to NICS, probably requiring all of 3 or 4 legal spaced pages at most and could be written in under an hour by most any competent attorney and maybe a little longer by a layperson. While not perfect in that different states have different background checks, it would provide a vast reduction in legal liability for private sellers and prevent the occasional unlawful sale as well. Certainly not as many as some of these sheep seem to think, though. But they don’t understand that perfect is often a pain in the ass and rarely works. In fact that’s probably the exact point of it.

One wonders, if the agenda were truly criminal use of firearms, why not enact legislation that penalizes the criminal with stiffer sentencing? The legislation proposed invariably attempts to criminalize ownership of particular firearms, lack of diligence in registration, or create hardships in transference of privately held firearms to those who overwhelmingly abide by current laws. Previous laws barring attempts to purchase firearms by felons have rarely been prosecuted, and when a criminal is arrested for a crime involving the use of a gun, charges are often lowered or thrown out to expedite the case, providing a revolving door for criminals. Furthermore if a criminal does get sentenced, it is rare that he actually serves the complete term imposed on him by the court. For a society that claims it wants to reduce firearm violence, maybe we should stop playing footsie with those who are actually responsible for the crimes and desist from harassing legitimate lawful gun owners.

Jeffrey W Peters at NYT got his OFA memo, and dutifully lined up to bleat the meme.

His bio says this about past reporting “2012 presidential election. His focus was on the ways campaigns and outside groups used advertising and other media to sell their candidates and ideologies.”

I wouldn’t walk across the street to piss on a NYT reporter if he were on fire.

I could get behind anti-trafficking bills, especially if we could get the information necessary to send Holder and top ATF officials to prison. At that point, we could defund the legislation because the cost to American taxpayers would no longer be worthwhile. That is the issue with much of this legislation: it’s costly, infringes upon freedom, and is selectively enforced. Given those realities, its hard to imagine how any rational thinker would support gun control.

And that fact that my response is probably stored on some government computer will not cause me to self-censor my 1st Amendment rights. Dear government computer: kiss my a$$.

No one has discussed the cost of conducting background checks. It aint cheap and presumes there is a willing dealer. How about making the cost of a NICS check a credit on one’s taxes? Then the libs can claim they did something and the right can take credit for killing off it slowly

Back in the day when Senator Gillebrand was Representative Gillebrand, she was a leader of the northern Blue Dogs and had an NRA “A” rating. She sure has learned a lot curled up under Chuck Schumer’s desk, hasn’t she? She’s a true wh0re.

interstate transfers already have to go through an FFL. this is purely a states rights issue. If they want a federal law then how about universal concealed carry, and a federal ovveride of draconian state laws.

We recently won the federal fight in restraining the gun-control push. Moving forward, what do you imagine is going to happen when 50%+ of the nations mayors, governors, state and federal reps and senators, half the supreme court and other judges, office of the president, etc, are held by women? The answer is that there will be far more extreme gun control legislation passed and other actions taken against gun rights, and your liberty.

More women, as a percentage of all gun owners will own guns or want to own guns, yet your rights to own the types of guns you want, the privacy from registration, and the conditions upon their use and storage etc will be very different than today.

You mean one of these people actually admited that background checks wont work but we still have to do them?

I sure hope they keep this up so EVERYONE here will remember this come 2014 elections

We started this fight with a AWB mag ban and a gun transfer ban. Funny no its just this bill and manchin Toomey bill. How low can gun banners go and be happy?

I think we can start the bill out by eliminating all criminal safe zones, then we will put in constitutional carry nationwide, finally we will lay in a good supply of duct tape for the bradys big mouths, yeah, that should work, Randy