Warning: Undefined array key "rbname" in /data/rantburg.com/www/rantburg/pgrecentorg.php on line 14
Hello !

Home Front: Politix

Conservatives and "That shoulder thing that goes up"

2014-01-16

By Chris Covert Rantburg.com I don't have to tell very many folks at Rantburg.com, what New york Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy was talking about, and it wasn't a barrel shroud. It was a folding stock, not that any newly found revelation would damper her enthusiasm for her fascist US federal legislative proposals. Maybe not having a clue about the basic parts of your standard semiautomatic rifle should disqualify you for even proposing legislation, but if you favor the 2nd Amendment argument shouldn't you have a clue about the basic impediment in gun sales from gun dealers who hold a Federal Firearms License? What if it were a conservative politician or writer who made that remark? Would you be as sneering as I was or would you simply be stunned into wondering what was really going on? Would you be confident that any writer protesting his commitment to the US Constitution including the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA) would be able to hold up to the searing and oftentimes unfair arguments and red herrings media and the favorites place at their doorstep? I would argue unless you own a gun or have attempted to buy a gun through the federal firearms transfer system, you have no business advocating for RKBA. What if I told you that several of the top bloggers at Ace O-Spades had not one clue what was really on the ATF Form 4473, including a question about drug use and addiction? Would you wonder what was really going on? Last week on one of the podcasts of Ace O'Spades, that is what several of the bloggers admitted: that they did not know was on the Form 4473, the central issue in every gun transfer in the United States done in the federal firearms transfer system. That is but one question of several on the form, but this particular question became a topic because of Colorado's staggering into legalization of recreational use of marijuana. Think about that revelation. Half of those writers, including at least one lawyer on that program did not know the basic information which should be at issue every time a leftist brings up gun control as either legislation, or in one of those teary eyed written protests presented in leftist media about the evils of EBRs (Evil Black Rifle). Sure, they know the basics: the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, included in that right is ammunition and the private sales of firearms. But what isn't apparent that they, and I would wager half of all the other conservative bloggers and likely 80 percent of paid writers for conservative publications have less than zero clue about the basic problem, the basic attack on the 2nd Amendment: Form 4473. What if those conservatives were asked? Do you think, many of them living at or near the schwerpunkt of American federal power on the east coast, would admit the truth, or would they lie about it? Would it matter if they lied, as long as they pushed for RKBA issues? Would you be confident that those writers knew that every mistake going back from the day were became an adult are an issue in preventing firearms transfers, and that those prohibitions are for the remainder of your natural life? This goes to the heart of American politics. We are seeing politics transformed because so much money goes to leftist media institutions which as a collective want to change America into their own weird ideation in which only cops and soldiers have guns, and the citizens have protection from criminals and hostile political opponents based solely on political whims. We see this stuff blasted out at outlets such as Salon and Huffington Post several times a week. What do we get from conservatives in the same battle space and at the same time? Bupkis. You may remember last year when it was revealed that several writers, including Ben Domenech from Redstate.com has been induced to write nice things about Malayasia for a large amount of money, at a time which happened to coincide with the 2012 elections. If you recall, when it was found they failed to register as an foreign agent, suddenly the US government -- which at the time was a harassing TEA Party startups for their views -- was accommodating, and understanding and let them backdate their application to conform with the law. Really, nice of them don't you think? And if it were me, I would by now be fending off advances in the inmate shower room. The point in all this is that unless conservatives know whereof they speak, unless they experience first hand the joys and the utter failure of attempting to gain a firearm lawfully, the Second Amendment stands no chance in the next two years and even beyond. Maybe we as commenters and regulars should start asking the uncomfortable questions to advocates: do you have a firearm, or at least will you try to buy one through the federal system, just once, just to see what it's like, just to see of some little niggling mistake from your distant past has finally caught up with you. Maybe then those conservatives can start to change their own views and the views of readers. Chris Covert writes Mexican Drug War and national political news for Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com He can be reached at grurkka@gmail.com

Link

Home Front: Politix

Obama will 'evaluate' bill to ban online munition sales

2012-07-31

[Washington Times] White House front man Josh Earnest said Monday that President B.O. will "evaluate" a new bill that would ban online ammunition sales in the wake of the shooting massacre in Aurora, Colo. That left 12 dead and dozens more injured. During the daily press briefing, Mr. Earnest was asked whether Mr. Obama supports the measure, which aims to end sales of unlimited amounts of ammunition on the Internet and other mail orders. The bill also would force ammunition dealers to report large sales of bullets and other munitions to law enforcement authorities At first Mr. Earnest said he didn't know if Mr. Obama was aware of a bill sponsored by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, Democrat from New Jersey, and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, a Democrat from New York. He later amended this remarks to say the White House would evaluate the measure. "The president's view that have been relayed quite frequently over the last few days, you know, is that he believes in the Second Amendment of the Constitution, in the right to bear arms but he also believes that we should take robust steps within existing law to ensure that guns don't fall in the hands of criminals or others [who] shouldn't have them," he said, referring to gun-control comments Mr. Obama made during at speech at the National Urban League. The news hound followed up by asking whether the president's push for enforcing existing law would prevent him from supporting the bill banning online munition sales. "Well, like I said, I haven't seen the specific piece of legislation that has been offered up today. But as those -- as that and other pieces of legislation make their way through the legislative process, you know, we'll consider -- we'll evaluate them as they make their way through the process," he noted.

Link

Home Front: Politix

Carolyn McCarthy readies gun control bill. But we're not supposed to get upset.

2011-01-10

One of the fiercest gun-control advocates in Congress, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), pounced on the shooting massacre in Tucson Sunday, promising to introduce legislation as soon as Monday targeting the high-capacity ammunition the gunman used. McCarthy ran for Congress after her husband was gunned down and her son seriously injured in a shooting in 1993 on a Long Island commuter train. I feel for her, but she's not so upset that she forgets to try to take advantage of the situation, which she is politicizing. We've all heard Sheriff Dumkopf's opinion about how we are supposed to all be less vitriolic. Now I'd like to hear Sheriff Dumkopf's take on this sort of behavior.

Link

Home Front: Culture Wars

The Blue State Blues

2010-08-04

Taxing the rich, except in my district. AKA: The Nads of Nadler One irony of the tax increase that arrives on January 1 is that the it will hit residents of high-income, Democratic-leaning states like California, Connecticut, New Jersey and New York the hardest. This is a problem for pro-tax Democrats. Enter New York Representative Jerrold Nadler, who wants to exempt his own six-figure constituents from the tax hike he supports. Mr. Nadler's bill would "require the IRS to adjust tax brackets proportionally in regions where the average cost of living is higher than the national average." In other words, the various tax brackets would apply to residents in certain regions at higher income levels versus other parts of the country. A family with an income of $50,000 or even $1 million in Manhattan would pay less federal income tax than a family with the same earnings in Omaha. The bill is called the Tax Equity Act, but a more accurate title would be the Blue State Tax Preference Act. "The basic costs of life in the New York region are much steeper than in most parts the country," says Mr. Nadler. "The reality is that a dollar in New York isn't worth nearly as much as a dollar in Spokane or Knoxville or Topeka. It's time for our tax code to take reality into account when assessing someone's tax liability." That point about "reality" and the tax code could certainly use some fleshing out, but leave that aside. A big reason the cost of living is so high in Boston, Manhattan and San Francisco is because of high state and local taxes, union work rules, and heavy business regulation that make it more expensive to produce, sell and buy things. Why should someone in Spokane or Knoxville or Topeka be penalized because New York and California impose destructive policies? Mr. Nadler also conveniently forgets that the federal tax code already subsidizes high-cost states through the deductibility of state and local income and property taxes. An all-star line-up of liberal class warriors has nonetheless endorsed Mr. Nadler's effort to raise taxes on the rich everywhere but in their own districts. New York House Members Tim Bishop, Steve Israel, Nita Lowey, Carolyn Maloney and Carolyn McCarthy are cosponsors. Ms. Lowey, who has voted to tax anything that moves, now says that "When it comes to the tax code, one size just doesn't fit all" and laments that New York has "some of the highest property taxes in the country." But whose fault is that? So welcome to the brave new world of "tax equity." If you live in a state that voted for Barack Obama, you get a tax cut.

Link

Home Front: Politix

Intrepid Lawmakers to Brave the Alpine Front

2009-02-13

Hurry, hurry, hurry. Congress will begin its 2009 travel season in earnest this weekend with two spectacular codels -- trips for House congressional delegations -- that are not to be missed. On Saturday, Rep. John Tanner (D-Tenn.), chairman of the House delegation to NATO's parliamentary assembly, and his wife will lead a delegation of 13 lawmakers -- plus 10 spouses -- on a fine nine-day jaunt starting at NATO's headquarters in Brussels. Before you start scoffing about how this hardly compares to Tanner's post-election delegation to Valencia and Rome in November, we would point out that the next stop is, yes, the City of Lights, Paris, where one could have a nice late Valentine's Day moment. From there we move on to Vienna for a little Sacher torte and then to review NATO's strategy to defend the Bavarian Alps, stopping in the lovely ski center of Garmisch-Partenkirchen, with its breathtaking views. The huge number of members, spouses and staffers, plus military escorts, will require taking one of the bigger military jets, but we're told these trips are an important use of taxpayer money. The delegation is scheduled to include Democratic Reps. Ben Chandler (Ky.); Bart Gordon (Tenn.); Baron P. Hill (Ind.) Carolyn McCarthy (N.Y.); Kendrick B. Meek (Fla.); Charlie Melancon (La.); Dennis Moore (Kan.) Mike Ross (Ark.) and David Scott (Ga.). Republican Reps. John Boozman (Ark.); Jo Ann Emerson (Mo.) and Jeff Miller (Fla.) are also scheduled to be going. If working on NATO matters is not for you, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is leading a delegation to Europe next week for some important meetings in -- where else? -- the Eternal City, Rome. Details are sketchy so far, but we're hearing that there's a meeting with Pope Benedict himself. (Hey, ask him about that Holocaust-denier guy if you get a chance.) Pelosi is apparently going to get an award from an Italian legislative group -- she's huge over there -- and then maybe do just a bit of NATO stuff. There may be some other stops.

Link

Home Front: Politix

Patterson Picks Gillibrand as Liberal Dems Howl

2009-01-23

I know we've already got two, but this is some of the reaction... ALBANY - Gov. Paterson, defying the liberal wing of his Democratic Party, has chosen little-known, NRA-backed, upstate Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand to succeed Hillary Rodham Clinton as New York's junior senator, it was learned last night. The surprising - and, for many Democrats shocking - decision to pick the conservative Gillibrand, 42, from Hudson in Columbia County, was disclosed by the governor in calls to party officials and some members of the state's congressional delegation, many of whom said they were unhappy with the selection, sources said. Gillibrand, a mother of two occasionally resented by colleagues for being an aggressive self-promoter, was strongly backed for the post by Charles Schumer, the state's senior senator, who said a woman and an upstater was needed on next year's ticket. Paterson's decision - to be officially announced today at noon at the state Capitol - was made just 24 hours after Caroline Kennedy took herself out of the running. The decision was a major rebuff to some of the state's best-known Democrats interested in Clinton's seat, including Attorney General and former federal Housing Secretary Andrew Cuomo, for whom Gillibrand once worked as a junior lawyer; Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi, and Reps. Carolyn Maloney of Manhattan and Steve Israel of Suffolk County. Sources said "at least five" members of the state's Democratic congressional delegation called Paterson to protest the possibility of Gillibrand's selection. One, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy of Nassau County, even threatened a primary challenge. Gillibrand faces a special election in 2010. Democratic activists predicted that Cuomo, son of former Gov. Mario Cuomo, would also "seriously consider" challenging Paterson in a primary next year. Calls were made from Paterson's office to leading Democrats and Republicans throughout the afternoon, inviting them to a special meeting room attached to the Capitol for "a major announcement." The inclusion of several prominent Republicans among the invitees was an early sign to insiders that Paterson planned to pick an upstate Democrat. Gillibrand has won two successive elections in one of the heaviest GOP districts in the state, first upsetting incumbent Rep. John Sweeney and, in November, defeating former state GOP chairman and multimillionaire Alexander Treadwell, in one of the most expensive races in the nation. Liberal Democrats have been wary of her because she ran for re-election with the backing of the National Rifle Association, opposed the federal TARP program to rescue banks, and has been less than enthusiastic about gay marriage.

Link

Home Front: Politix

Doctor Approved Gun Control

2007-06-22

The House of Representatives has fast-tracked new legislation to "improve" the National Instant Criminal Background Check System by allowing doctors to now decide who can own firearms. The proposal, H.R. 2640, was sponsored by U.S. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., in the wake of the April tragedy at Virginia Tech, when a gunman shot and killed more than 30 people, then killed himself. McCarthy, whose own husband was killed in a random shooting on a commuter train in New York City in 1993, introduced the "NICS Improvement Act," which sailed through the House in three days. The plan is the first congressional effort to curtail gun ownership rights in a decade, but by being put on the fast track was exempted from the ordinary committee hearings and public scrutiny most proposals are sent through. "Millions of criminal records are not accessible by NICS and millions others are missing critical data," said McCarthy. "Each year, tens of thousands of barred individuals slip through the cracks of the system and gain access to firearms. Simply put, the NICS system must be updated on both the state and federal level." If the Act passes in the Senate, it would provide grants so states can add the names of criminals to the NICS system, which would label them as unable to own firearms, but it also flags those with medical or psychological issues as unfit to possess a gun. The plan allows names to be entered into the NICS system based solely on a physician's diagnosis or prescription of a medication: adults who have taken Ritalin and soldiers with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder would be classified as mentally ill and given the same opportunity to own firearms as convicted felons: None. Gun Owners of America is one of only a few organizations alerting consumers to the implications. "Under this bill, based solely on a diagnosis of a psychiatrist, an American's name could be dumped into the National Criminal Instant Check (NICS) system," said GOA Executive Director Larry Pratt, who called the plan "conviction by diagnosis." And it wouldn't take long to be hijacked by trial lawyers. The very first time a depressed person used a gun, they'd go after the psychiatrist -- "Doctor, why didn't you put your patient on the list?" And that would be it. The organization, which launched a campaign to lobby the Senate to reject the plan, said the McCarthy plan "dramatically" expands the "dragnet" used to disqualify law-abiding gun buyers. "So much so, that hundreds of thousands of honest citizens who want to buy a gun will one day walk into a gun store and be shocked when they're told they're a prohibited purchaser, having been lumped into the same category as murderers and rapists," the organization said in a statement on its website. The legislation requires states to better share records that would disqualify individuals deemed unfit for gun ownership by inputting those names into the FBI’s Instant Criminal Background Check System. "This underscores the problems that have existed all along with the Brady Law. At the time it was passed, some people foolishly thought, 'No big deal. I'm not a bad guy. This law won't affect me.' But what happens when good guys' names get thrown into the bad guys' list? That is exactly what has happened, and no one should think that the attempts to expand the gun control noose are going to end with the McCarthy bill," the gun owners group continued. "Speaking to the CNN audience on June 13, head of the Brady Campaign, Paul Helmke, stated that, 'We're hopeful that now that the NRA has come around to our point of view in terms of strengthening the Brady background checks, that now we can take the next step after this bill passes [to impose additional gun control],'" said the gun owners. "Get it? The McCarthy bill is just a first step," the group said. The Act is a response to the Virginia Tech tragedy. Tech student Seung-Hui Cho was not flagged when he purchased guns, although the state of Virginia knew Cho had been ordered to undergo mental health treatment. No evidence indicates that Cho could have been stopped from opening fire on classmates had the new changes been in place at the time of the shooting. The National Rifle Association has endorsed the plan as a way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally unstable. And how easy is it to get off the list once you are on it? Who says you'd ever get off the list?

Link

Home Front: Politix

House Blocks Seizure of Legal Guns

2006-07-26

The House voted Tuesday to prevent law enforcement officers from confiscating legally owned guns during a national disaster or emergency. Republican Rep. Bobby Jindal, the Louisiana lawmaker who sponsored the bill, said firearms seizures after Hurricane Katrina left residents unable to defend themselves. "Many of them were sitting in their homes without power, without water, without communication," he said. "It was literally impossible to pick up a phone and call 911." The House voted 322-99 in support of the bill. Senators voted 84-16 earlier this month to include a similar prohibition in a homeland security funding bill. The limitation would apply to federal law enforcement or military officers, along with local police that receive federal funds. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, Dimmicrat-N.Y., repeatedly called the bill "insane." He and some Democrats said the bill might satisfy the gun lobby, but it would put people into more danger during already perilous disasters. "The streets of an American city immediately after a disaster are no place to abandon common sense," said Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, Dimmicrat-N.Y. I suppose that makes sense in a Dhimmicratic sort of way ... The Fraternal Order of Police endorsed the measure. In a letter to Jindal, National President Chuck Canterbury said law enforcement officials concentrate on search and rescue during major disasters, and breakdowns in communications and transportation can lengthen police response times to calls. "A law-abiding citizen who possesses a firearm lawfully represents no danger to law enforcement officers or any other first responder," Canterbury wrote. The National Rifle Association also supported the bill and has been asking police chiefs and mayors to pledge they will not forcibly disarm law-abiding citizens.

Link

Home Front: Culture Wars

Patrick Kennedy Says Resistance to Gun Ban is 'Insanity'

2005-02-09

U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy (Dummycrat) implied Tuesday that congressional colleagues who do not share his support for a failed gun ban being reintroduced in the House are mentally ill. After all, he's Teddy's son, he knows mentally ill. The Rhode Island Democrat also accused lawmakers who oppose the anti-gun legislation of not caring about police safety. Kennedy is the son of U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) and the nephew of the late President John F. Kennedy and U.S. Sen. Robert Kennedy, both of whom were shot to death. The younger Kennedy made the comments at a Capitol Hill press conference to promote the reintroduction of the "50 Caliber Sniper Rifle Reduction Act." The bill, introduced by U.S. Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.), would ban the manufacture of such rifles and severely limit the sale or transfer of existing .50 BMG rifles except for those owned by the military or civilian law enforcement agencies. "Any policy maker who, on the one hand, says that they are for combating terrorism but, on the other hand, will not back this legislation, backed by Representative Moran, to me has a lot of explaining to do," Kennedy said "In fact, I think it would be the definition of insanity to say that." In addition to challenging his opponents' mental stability, Kennedy also questioned whether his fellow lawmakers could claim to support police while opposing the gun ban. "If we don't pass this legislation, this Congress, implicitly, is saying that they do not care about the welfare of our law enforcement community," Kennedy said. John Burtt - chairman of the Fifty Caliber Institute, the education and advocacy arm of the Fifty Caliber Shooters Association - told Cybercast News Service that Moran, Kennedy and their colleagues are trying to create "backdoor legislation to ban all firearms in this country. "What they're doing is using hyperbole to create anxiety on the part of the uninformed public that these guns are dangerous, that they are a threat to national security," Burtt said, "but they are not." Burtt said there has not been a single instance of terrorists using the .50 BMG in an attack on U.S. soil. A handout provided to the media at Moran's press conference listed 12 instances in which a .50 caliber rifle was used, threatened or intended for use in a criminal act. But Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, reviewed the list and questioned the nature of the examples. "It's usually people who were prohibited from owning any kind of firearm to begin with and, as a result, should have been prohibited from owning a .50 caliber already," Gottlieb said. "There's no need to have a new law. They ought to just enforce the existing laws." Democrats aren't interested in enforcing gun laws, they just want to ban guns. Except for their bodyguards, of course. Moran believes, however, that there is no legitimate reason for civilians to own the rifles. "It serves no purpose for hunting, whatsoever," Moran claimed. "If you went hunting with this, you would not have any trophy. All you'd have left would be some pieces of fur and hoof." "Besides, hunting is icky!" Burtt refuted Moran's assertion. "I know a lot of people who hunt with the .50 BMG," Burtt said, noting that many people pursue elk, bear and other large game animals with the rifles. "When a .50 caliber round hits a large animal like that, it has tremendous knock-down power. But, it does nothing more than put a half-inch hole into the animal and knock it down. This is just somebody who, obviously, has no knowledge, whatsoever, about the hunting capabilities of these firearms making statements that are completely inaccurate," Burtt added. Well, that's never stopped them before U.S. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), whose husband was murdered and son wounded by a gunman on a Long Island commuter train in 1993, contributed to Moran's "no legitimate use" argument. "This has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. This has nothing to do with taking away the right of someone to have a gun to protect themselves [sic]," McCarthy said. Gottlieb disagreed. "As far as Carolyn McCarthy is concerned, the Second Amendment doesn't protect any firearm," Gottlieb said. "If she had her wishes, she'd classify every firearm under a foot long as a 'Saturday Night Special,' and ban it, and characterize every gun over a foot long as an 'assault weapon,' and ban it also." McCarthy and her anti-gun colleagues are using a "divide and conquer" strategy, according to Gottlieb, to disarm law-abiding Americans. "If you pick on one type of gun at a time and say, 'the Second Amendment doesn't protect it,' most gun owners who don't own that kind of gun won't get upset and she might get her legislation passed," Gottlieb explained. "Then, lo and behold, she'll come back for another gun the next time and another gun the next time until there are no guns left." Yup, witness the Saturday Night Special outrage, then on to Plastic Guns, Assault Rifles, large capacity magazines, the so-called Gun Show Loophole, etc, etc.. McCarthy's comments seemed to support Gottlieb's assessment as she attempted to further demonize the .50 caliber. "Look at this thing," McCarthy urged. "Do you want this in your home? Do you want your children to play with this?" No, that's Daddy's toy Burtt said McCarthy's comment betrays her ignorance of firearms and their safe handling. "I don't want any children 'playing' with firearms, and they shouldn't even be touching them without the supervision of an adult," Burtt said. "I can't believe a representative of our Congress would make a statement like that." Gottlieb, however, said he was not surprised by McCarthy's comments. "Nobody said that the opponents of gun ownership are intellectually honest," Gottlieb said. "As far as these members of Congress are concerned, there's no such thing as a good gun."

Link

Warning: Undefined property: stdClass::$T in /data/rantburg.com/www/rantburg/pgrecentorg.php on line 132
-9 More