Pity the poor gun nut: Nobody to hate.

Wow, cold last night, cold this morning, so I’m pondering the warm thought that people who hate the idea of their guns being taken away are frustrated at the thought that — this is cute — nobody wants to take them away.

Rick Egan at the NYTimes says it very nicely here (click.) Bottom line: Despite predictions to the contrary, President Obama hasn’t done squat to restrict guns, either their ¬†use or access. This has hurt the NRA, which needs an enemy to boost donations.

So, naturally, the claim now is that his silence, his failure to be their enemy, is a surer sign that he is their enemy?

Yeah, sure.

Share
This entry was posted in Blogging the Rambler. Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Pity the poor gun nut: Nobody to hate.

  1. Owain says:

    Nice try, Charles. I think President Obama simply doesn’t want to make the same mistake Al Gore made.

    Elsewhere in the Obama Administration, Attorney General Eric Holder has always been a strong advocate of gun control, which is ironic, since with the Fast and Furious debacle
    , the United States Justice Department is now the number one supplier of illegal weapons to Mexican drug cartels, resulting in thousands of deaths in Mexico, and the death of US Border Agent
    Brian Terry.

    Why on earth would the Justice Department and the ATF do that? Perhaps so that Holder could call for more restrictions on gun owernership and access.

    I think the best thing we could do to limit the illegal distribution of fire arms is demand demand the immediate resignation, of Eric Holder, and get the US Justice Department out of the Mexican Drug Cartel Gun Running business.

    The title to Charles’ post should have been “Pity the poor enthusiasts seeking to preserve their Second Amendment rights”, but certainly not for the foolish reasons asserted by Charles.

  2. Charles Trentelman says:

    Did you even read the article? All your claims have been debunked, and the bit about the ATF being the number one supplier of guns to drug cartels?

    Oh please. They can, and do, buy all the guns they want at gun shops in the US on a regular basis. Attempts to slow that flow are always met with furious resistance by the NRA, which doesn’t even want known terrorists prohibited from buying guns.

    I only approved your comment to show how, even when shown the argument is not supported by the facts, you continue to spout the ame arguement. The NRA desperately needs an enemy to use to raise funds — lacking a real one, it invents one.

    Sort of like when Gorbachev took down the Soviet Union — “We are going to do the worst thing possible to you,” he said. “We are going to take away your enemy.”

    But, that’s ok, the military industrial complex found another one, and so will the NRA.

    • efialtis says:

      “Oh please. They can, and do, buy all the guns they want at gun shops in the US on a regular basis.”

      Only if they are US Citizens and pass a NICS check. In other words, if they haven’t done anything wrong, they can buy a gun.

  3. Owain says:

    I did read the article Charles, but I’m missing how Egan debunks anything. Give me a specific, and we can discuss it.

  4. Charles Trentelman says:

    Your claim that the ATF is now the chief supplier of guns to the cartels is yours to validate, not mine to disprove.

    Egan makes the point that the program to sell guns and follow them down was begun under Bush, not Obama, and not by the AG in any event, so it’s not part of some Obama plot, the existence of which is apparently proved by the fact that Obama hasn’t done squat to legislate guns, so he must be up to something, that clever little boy.

    The rest of the business — this is all a plot by Holder et al to provide ammunition to gun restriction advocates — is pure surmise based on paranoia which, I freely admit, is impossible to debunk, just as I can’t debunk allegations that the moon landings were faked or kennedy was a secret kgb agent — how do you debunk paranoia?

    What Holder may or may not want is irrelevant. What has been proposed is nil, and that’s a huge problem for the NRA, which needs active anti-gun legislation to use as a fund raising foil. When obama was elected I’d ask gun people “why? he hasn’t proposed anything” and they’d wink and say “You just wait.” I’m still waiting.

    For the Brady group to give Obama an F is a huge problem for the NRA.

    I’ve always said the NRA loves it when they are condemned and hates to be ignored. If Obama wants to destroy the NRA he should strap on a pair of 6-guns. He’d lose some gun control votes but most Liberals, who are into nuance, would get the joke, and i suspect the political costs would be worth the price of castrating a massive national lobbying group.

  5. Owain says:

    “Your claim that the ATF is now the chief supplier of guns to the cartels is yours to validate, not mine to disprove.”

    I said the Department of Justice, not the ATF, but to be accurate, I probably should have said that between the Department of Justice, the State Department, and the Department of Defense, the U.S Government under the Obama administration may be the chief suppliers of weapons to the cartels, so I will grant you that.

    With respect to Operation Wide Receiver under President Bush, there are significant differences between that and Fast and Furious under Obama.

    Wide Receiver was fully coordinated with the Mexican Government so that both governments could coordinate the tracking of weapons. Some weapons in Wide Receiver were fitted with electronic tracking devices to make tracking easier. The program was discontinued, however, since once the weapons made it over the border, the Mexican government was ineffective in it efforts to track the weapons. Further, there were technical problems with the transmitters, and the gun runners discovered that if they waited for tracking helicopters to run low on fuel, could dash across the border unobserved while the aircraft were refueling. It is estimated that 450 weapons were lost before the program was discontinued.

    Contrast this with Fast and Furious. “Fast and Furious used neither tracking devices nor aircraft, ran interference for smugglers with local law enforcement on multiple occasions, and federal agents were not allowed to interdict weapons.” At least 2000 weapons are known to have made it over the border, with no effort being made to track or interdict those weapons.

    What possible law enforcement goal was being served by Fast and Furious? There are only a limited number of possibilities.

    1. Malfeasance.
    2. Incompetance.
    3. Malice.

    If you can’t offer an alternative, which option would you choose?

    Even so, your argument that President Obama isn’t interested in expanded gun control is unconvincing. If you don’t believe me, just ask those rabid Republicans over at that hotbed of conservative thought, The Huffington Post.

  6. Charles Trentelman says:

    The idea that fast and furious, or any gun program in Mexico, is meant to incite gun controls here is purely speculative and paranoia driven. You have not shown me anything that says otherwise except more speculation.

    I didn’t say obama was uninterested. He may well be. So what? I said he hasn’t proposed anything.

    Rather large difference. If he has, please cite chapter and verse. Otherwise, I’m not sure what you are arguing about.

  7. Yours is a waste of breath, Owain. I have argued with citizen disarmament advocates for twenty years now and no reason or logic, of law, history, fact, will penetrate. This is about worldviews — one collectivist, the other small “l” libertarian — about who shall serve whom, the government or the people. They trust the government, we trust the individual under a system of constitutional rule of law, which enunciates, but does not originate, our God-given and inalienable rights to liberty and property.

    It boils down to this: I was once asked by a citizen disarmament advocate what I thought of “gun control.” When I began to answer, he cut me off, insisting, “Give me the short answer.” I thought for a moment and said, “Okay. If you try to take our firearms we will kill you.”

    Such people interpolate from their own cowardice, knowing that if they were ordered by the federal government to do something, anything, contrary to what they wanted to do at the threat to their own life that they would do, their miserable lives being the most important thing to them. They cannot conceive of people who are willing to die for what they believe, and, by, extension, thus willing to kill in defense of their beliefs as well.

    Unfortunately for them, we do exist.

    In so far as arguing whether or not Obama seeks further citizen disarmament, it is only necessary to refer to Mrs. Brady, who related that the President told her that he was working for further gun control “under the radar.” This was an answer that she believed. I think the name that has been assigned to this effort is the Gunwalker Scandal.

    But save your breath, and buy more ammo.

    It is the only practical answer to people who would use government force to compel their own opinions on us with deadly consequences.

    Mike Vanderboegh

    • Owain says:

      Mike, since you have expressed an interest, I have an additional post citing numerous proposals for gun control made by President Obama that is awaiting moderation by Charles. Since he has seen fit not to grant that approval, it would seem he is unwilling to share posts that refute his position. Since he replied to you after I submitted my post, it is unlikely that he is unaware it. Such is the state of discourse on Blogging the Rambler.

      Cheers.

  8. Charles Trentelman says:

    disarmament?

    oh, right, because you know the REAL agenda.

    clever. i knew we couldn’t fool you. We’ve still got you flummoxed on that moon landing thing, though.

  9. Ed Brady says:

    Charles, with the gun nuts, you can NEVER win an argument, because they refuse to argue any facts. Always been so, always will.

    • Owain says:

      Ed, I presented plenty of facts. If Charles releases my last response to him from moderation (moderated because it contains numerous links), you can see more facts. Maybe you’ll have a chance to respond to them, if you wish.

      Maybe if you ask him nice, he’ll let you see them. :-)

      • Charles Trentelman says:

        Moderation requests are sent to my work email and that email is at work and some of us have lives, Owain.

        Quit putting multiple links in your posts we won’t have this problem.

        So you are saying you have proposed legislation? Not some rule change to regulate to whom guns are sold in border states (trying to keep guns from cartels!) which is what comes up when i google as you indicate, but an actual proposed law that changes what guns can be sold?

        I would hope someone is trying to limit what guns go across the border. Surely you don’t oppose at least that.

        • Owain says:

          Charles, in case you missed it in whatever civics course you may have taken in at some point in your life, Obama cannot draft legislation. That is the duty of the Congress. Obama can suggest legislation (which he has), but he cannot draft that legislation. Congress has chosen to ignore his proposals, but that doesn’t mean he hasn’t made any proposals, which is in direct conflict with your original fact deficient post.

          Given this fundamental misunderstanding regarding how our government works, perhaps you never attended a civics class after all. That would explain much.

          And as far as links go. You should try to use more of them. If you were to perform at least minimal research before throwing up such nonsense on your blog, it would eliminate the need for me to post links that demonstrate that you so very frequently wrong.

  10. Elmer says:

    Owain, Ef, and Mike: Excellent responses to Trentelman. You make me proud to be an American!

  11. willbike says:

    Maybe Obama took your post.

  12. roberta says:

    Isn’t it true ( I read it in an article somewhere, soon as I find the link, I’ll share it) that for many men a gun is an extension of their penis? That’s why all this fear of gun control makes sense!

  13. Owain says:

    Charles said, “The idea that fast and furious, or any gun program in Mexico, is meant to incite gun controls here is purely speculative and paranoia driven. You have not shown me anything that says otherwise except more speculation.”

    Update: CBS News uncovers internal ATF emails discussing using sales from the covert “Fast and Furious” gunrunning operation to Mexican drug cartels to argue for controversial new rules about gun sales.

    You were saying, Charles?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>