I see Nancy Pelosi has now taken up the NRA's "enforce existing gun laws" mantra.
“On that score, I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now,” Pelosi said at her weekly news conference. “I think it's clear the Bush administration didn’t do that.”Isn't that sweet--and Pelosi and LaPierre would look so good together, too.
Outside of the dig at the recent Republican president, that phrase is the stock line of those who don’t want to pass new gun control laws, such as the National Rifle Association.
I hope no one in the gun rights advocacy committee thinks Pelosi's lack of public enthusiasm for a hard push for a new AWB is any more than a timing issue, as David points out.
Actually, I have to kind of wonder about what Pelosi meant about the Bush administration not enforcing gun laws. It reminds me that Congressman Eliot Engel is claiming that an import ban on so-called "assault weapons" is an "existing gun law" that isn't being enforced.
Was she just telling Holder to get on that, while they wait for the right time to strike on domestic "assault weapons"?
Stumble it!
20 comments:
"enforce existing gun laws" mantra. “On that score, I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now,” Pelosi said at her weekly news conference. “I think it's clear the Bush administration didn’t do that.”
Hell has just frozen over.
C'mon, comparing NRA to Pelosi in that manner is blatantly disingenuous. I get it, you don't like the NRA, but this is simply ridiculous.
C'mon, comparing NRA to Pelosi in that manner is blatantly disingenuous. I get it, you don't like the NRA, but this is simply ridiculous.
"Enforce existing gun laws"="Enforce existing gun laws"
When they switch to rhetoric that's less supportive of gun laws than her quote indicates she is, I'll acknowledge that. In the meantime, I'm stickin' to my guns.
I've always thought the "enforce existing gun laws" had a strategic flaw. It concedes that existing gun laws are in fact useful, proper and constitutional. And I don't concede this point. Enhanced sentencing for use of a firearm in a crime is tempting, but if the base crime is properly punished, why enhance? And of course "use" gets stretched to carrying, or having in the next room. Losing the right to bear arms after a felony conviction gets stretched to a domestic violence misdeamenor, or even an unproven allegation in some states. And the NRA is in no position to argue.
And I don't think we can afford to only hold the line at no new laws. The gun-grabbers can always come back an election cycle or even a generation later, taking the status quo as the new baseline that needs regulated. That's what happened in 1934: the US Attorney General admitted to Congress that a ban on machine guns might be unconstitutional, but a $200 tax was within their power. It took a couple of generations, but a a general ban on machine guns is now the law of the land and presumed constitutional by many on our side, and even the majority of supreme court justices in DC vs. Heller. Unless we can actually repeal existing laws when the time is right, we're going to lose, just over a longer time period than if we hadn't fought delaying actions.
Very well stated, Dave R.
I agree, Dave R, I think you need to interpret that as ---
"look folks, with the the recent SC ruling we need to hang onto what gun laws we have"
We, on the other hand, need to take down as many of the existing laws as we can. Too bad we don't have a real ACLU in the USA.
I think the NRA win in San Francisco was too close to home for Nanny.
Damn, Kurt. Dave R, is a valuable resource. I hope to hear more from him.
You attract only the best kind of people. Perhaps me excluded.
I hadn't known Dave R., but judging from his comment, your endorsement of him seems well given.
As to you being excluded, any group where you're not welcome holds no interest for me.
Thanks for the kind words, though possibly undeserved. I could kiss your whole face,and I'm not even turned that way.
Oh wait, strike that, you believe in armed self-defense. :)
How many municipalities has Nancy Pelosi sued to successfully overturn their gun bans? 0
How many wrong accused gun owners has Nancy Pelosi defended in court? 0
I hadn't been keeping count of Pelosi's court actions on behalf of private gun ownership, but I'll take your word for it, and acknowledge that the NRA has the edge in that department.
That doesn't change the fact that--like Pelosi--they call for enforcement, rather than repeal, of existing gun laws.
I'm going on record as not being in the NRA/Pelosi camp on that one.
hang.....abt!
ain't almost ALL "gun laws" un-constitutional ANY-way?
i thought that the wording of the "Second" was: Congress shall make NO law..... &c ?!?
correct me if i'm wrong!
(in the light of which, the ex-judicio comments in Heller referring to "reasonable laws" was clearly wrong....and...also....those comments, though, apparently, not being a part of the central judgement are being used by the gun-grabbing fraternity as if they WERE!....time for Heller II, Heller III and, if necessary, Heller IV !)
i thought that the wording of the "Second" was: Congress shall make NO law..... &c ?!?
Jimbo, it's the First Amendment that starts that way.
The fact remains, though, that "shall not be infringed" is pretty tough to reconcile with "enforce existing infringements--oops, I mean 'enforce existing gun laws.'"
I like to look on the bright side. Let's send her an NRA membership application.
WV = "theride"; This summer...get ready...for the RIDE of your life...one man...one Federal Reserve Bank...rampant inflation!
"I like to look on the bright side. Let's send her an NRA membership application."
Do one better and buy Pelosi a one year gift membership. Any current NRA member can sign Pelosi up for $20 and have her mebership card mailed to her office.
Just another instance of NRADS, in the flesh.
Unfortunately, Kurt, no matter how you cut it, and no matter how much you stand by it, your headline is blatantly dishonest, and nothing more than symptomatic of your overarching desire to demonize and diminish the NRA at every possible opportunity.
No, the organization certainly is not perfect, and there is a lot of things they could change/do better. But equating them to Pelosi is just stupid, even for you.
Now, Kurt, you are usually more sensitive to the deficiencies of others than I. What happened this time?
Look some people never get over their need for "Daddy". They will even embrace an abusive and neglectful daddy, rather than be without one and rely on their own mental and moral resources.
For some, NRA is that daddy. Just as Brady Campaign is daddy for others. At least these daddies are closely related. Perhaps that explains the kinship amongst the "children".
Guess I seem to have less patience, and less tolerance for fools, as I get older, SA.
Maybe it's that I noticed how much fun you seem to have dealing with these clowns ;-).
LaPierre is a known homosexual. I don't reckon he'd go for Pelosi.
http://www.bartcop.com/1650.htm
“Subject: Wayne LaPierre
I don’t care where a person’s compass may point them. But, it does bother me when someone is a hypocrite in the political arena…Wayne Lapierre is endorsing Jerry Kilgore for governor of Virginia in media ads saying Kilgore stands for the same family values that Wayne had as a child growing up in Roanoke.
Well, while Wayne Lapierre was in high school in Roanoke (Patrick Henry High class of ‘67) he was my brother’s lover. Their affair lasted past graduation and on during the anti Vietnam war protest marches they attended in 1969. Not only is Wayne Lapierre gay (not that there’s anything wrong with that) but he protested the Vietnam war. Now he’s touting his high ground morality and family values. That I have a problem with. -Archie in Roanoke”
Well, I don't know anything about all that, and don't really want to know.
Post a Comment