Mission statement:

Armed and Safe is a gun rights advocacy blog, with the mission of debunking the "logic" of the enemies of the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

I can be reached at 45superman@gmail.com.You can follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/45superman.

Monday, July 14, 2008

Has anyone asked McCain about this?

I'm sure this has been talked about in the gun blogosphere already, but I haven't seen it--and I sure as hell doubt it was mentioned in Louisville. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act passed, you'll remember, in 2005. That wasn't, however, the first attempt to secure that kind of protection for gun manufacturers (and retailers, and ammo manufacturers, etc.) from predatory lawsuits. In 2004, there was S. 1805, introduced by Senator Larry Craig (R-ID), for the same purpose.

McCain's well known desire to close the mythical "gun show loophole" is far from new, and in fact he introduced Senate Amendment 2636 to S. 1805 to do just that. The Senate approved McCain's amendment with a 53-46 vote, with McCain one of only eight Republicans voting for it.

As I mentioned, though, McCain's support for the poking of Big Brother's nose into gun shows is well known. But then another amendment was introduced, Senator Feinstein's Senate Amendment 2637, to extend by ten years the soon-to-expire ban on so-called "assault weapons." This amendment was also approved (with a 52-47 vote).

McCain did vote against that amendment. However, with the amendment having been approved anyway, S. 1805 had become much more of an attack on gun rights than a protection of them. A vote for this bill had now become a vote for the "assault weapons" ban (not to mention the fact that it would also be a vote for a federal law against private sales at gun shows)--something only a rabid advocate of forcible citizen disarmament could love. As such, only three Republicans voted for it.

McCain was one of them--I guess he was just being a "maverick" again.

I'm not denying that Obama is an enemy of private gun ownership--his recent expression of support for an individual right to own firearms notwithstanding. I'm just pointing out that the "pragmatists" who urge gun owners to vote for McCain are trying to give the White House to one of only three Republicans in the Senate to vote for the extension of the ban on so-called "assault weapons."

Screw pragmatism--I'll stick to tilting at windmills.

10 comments:

straightarrow said...

"Screw pragmatism"-Kurt

and the pragmatists.

45superman said...

"Screw pragmatism"-Kurt

and the pragmatists.


Shh! What are you trying to do, wreck my "big tent" for gun owners ;-)?

Sebastian said...

Actually, that's new to me. I didn't realize he voted for the passage of the eventual bill after the amendments were attached.

But I can't say it changes what I'm doing in November. I don't have any good cards this hand, so I have to play with what crap got doled out of the deck. Hopefully the next hand will be better.

Jay S. said...

Eh, "big tent" is a myth... can't happen, because one needs to think not only of how politics SHOULD work, but also how it DOES work.

But in all seriousness, it goes like this: We are going to have a democrat majority in congress. It will be close to a supermajority.

There's two things to think about if we have a McCain presidency:

1. We have a conservative VP. That means that if there's a tie in Senate, the tie-breaker votes for us. What are McCain's top VP picks? Well, they're all a far cry more "republican" than he is. If it's Bobby Jindal or Sarah Palin for example, they can exert enough pressure on McCain and exert enough pressure in Senate to help thwart negative change.

2. While McCain (as a senator) didn't show himself to be the best friend of gun owners, McCain is unlikely to pressure congress to pass anti-gun bills. This is for the simple fact of priorities of the republican party and its conservative constituencies.

On the other hand, with an Obama presidency, we have a heavily liberal tie-breaker (Janet Napolitano? *shudder*), as well as a president who may pressude congress to pass anti-gun bills.

So let's go over the options again:
1. A president that will press for restrictions on civilian firearm rights and a anti-gun tiebreaker in Senate (all of this coupled with anti-gun sentiments from their constituency)

2. A president that won't press for restrictions on civilian firearm rights and a pro-gun or at worst a "non anti-gun" tiebreaker in Senate (all of this coupled with pro-gun sentiments from their constituency)

I'll take #2. (FWIW, I don't believe McCain will ever press for ban-style legislation, because we haven't seen him introduce such legislation in Senate.)

No, I don't like McCain, but he IS the better option. He's not a good option. I said he's the better option. If you disagree now, I'll ask again when Obama wins (and believe me, he will - McCain's campaign is so hosed up, I personally believe he doesn't have a chance). Obama/Politburo '08! Wooooo!

Jindal/Palin 2008!

PS. Right back at ya, straightarrow.

PPS. Pardon the typos, writing hurriedly from work.

45superman said...

Hopefully the next hand will be better.

But if "Republicans" like McCain can count on the support of gun owners merely by being somewhat less egregious than Obama for gun ownership, what incentive are we giving the Republican Party to provide us a "better hand" next time?

. . . I'll ask again when Obama wins (and believe me, he will - McCain's campaign is so hosed up, I personally believe he doesn't have a chance).

I think you're right, which gives me just one more reason not to bother with the "pragmatic" route--it being a near-certain loser anyway (and I live in Illinois, where Obama is absolutely certain to have my state's share of the electoral vote, no matter whom I vote for).

The way I see it, it's time to write off this election, and try to send the message to the GOP that they can either resume being Republicans, or go the way of the Whigs.

They seem rather resistant to that message, but in fairness, we haven't exactly been sending it with one loud, clear voice.

And thus we get the government we deserve.

Countertop said...

eer, Politics 101. He knew it was going down - so no harm no foul especially after he got his amendment attached.

45superman said...

eer, Politics 101. He knew it was going down - so no harm no foul especially after he got his amendment attached.

If you say so. To me, a doesn't-have-a-snowball's-chance vote for an "assault weapons" ban is still a vote for an "assault weapons" ban, and is still inexcusable--especially since at least part of the reason he was willing to vote for it was to support his "gun show loophole" closure amendment.

straightarrow said...

Sorry Jay, I'm unavailable at the moment. Couldn't you just hire it done, as usual?

As for all your pragmatic reaoning, let's boil it down. You have two armed thieves in your house. You confront them, one tells you he wants everything. The other says he'll leave your tv.

As a pragmatist, you go with number two and give him your support?

Yeah, I can see the sense in that.

Melancton Smith said...

I think it is more like this scenario: two armed thieves in your house, one wants your TV, the other wants your daughter.

You go with the TV guy and watch as he gets a hernia lugging out your 60" plasma.

Anonymous said...

there are two armed thieves in your house. they are dead. you're not sure what they wanted. they didn't have time to ask.

one dollar gas: vote libertarian.