.jpg)
AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais
I received an email last night from the Republican National Committee. In it was much talk of the recent announcement by the Obama administration's Attorney General Eric Holder, that a new, permanent--and probably greatly expanded--ban of so-called "assault weapons" is part of the new administration's agenda.
The Obama Administration has revealed its intention to reinstate the so-called "assault" gun ban -- Step One of their plan to repeal the 2nd Amendment.
Having already taken advantage of our country's current economic woes to speed the largest, most pork-laden spending spree in history through the Democrat-controlled Congress, the Obama team is again using fear tactics to impose bad policy.
Attorney General Eric Holder announced his desire to once again deny law abiding Americans their 2nd Amendment rights, using the ongoing violence in Mexico as justification.
OK--so far, so good. I am indeed deeply concerned about the possibility of a new ban of so-called "assault weapons," and I have no doubt that such a ban is a favored component of the Obama administation agenda--they make little secret of it, after all.
Actually, I'm on board with just about everything in the email except the signature.
.jpg){kind=small}
Why does that bother me?
Because I can't figure out how to reconcile it with this, that's why.
Q: Should people have access to buy assault weapons?
A: Society should draw lines. What do you need an assault weapon for, if you're going hunting? That's overkill. But I don't think that means you go to a total ban for those who want to use gun for skeet shooting or hunting or things like that But what's the point of passing gun laws if we're not going to enforce them? If you want to talk about gun control, that's where you need to start. We've got 300 gun laws on the books right now. At the end of the day, it's about how we enforce the law.
Chairman Steele seems to be criticizing Attorney General Holder for advocating a position essentially similar to the one that Steele himself has held.
There are few human failings I find more contemptible than hypocrisy. I guess the GOP is a bit more . . . flexible on that than I am.
----------
For those who may have missed my update yesterday, Milwaukee Gun Rights Examiner Candace Dainty is back. Please give her latest a look.
- Austin: Gun control, Eric Holder, and racism
- Charlotte: Baiting liberals for fun and profit!
- Cleveland: Banning competition firearms
- DC: Federal law suit filed after DC refuses to
register handgun because it’s the wrong color - Denver: Let's get guns on campus....in the right
hands - Los Angeles: The gun lobby outvotes D.C.? Not
quite. - Milwaukee: David Olofson- now what?
- Minneapolis: The first thing you do is drag him
inside - National: Tyranny is counting on ignorance
- Seattle: Democrats still don’t get it on gun rights,
says Rasmussen poll
Comments
Kurt, you always know how to pick apart the fine print. Thanks!
Kurt,
Would you have preferred he stuck with his old position? I for one am glad to see his position evolve and recognize that gun control/bans don't work. You should be thanking him for changing his position. Instead you'd rather criticize him.
Mike, if he had come out and actually repudiated his "old" position (assuming it IS an old position), and acknowledged that he had been wrong, and has now "seen the light"--sure, I'd have some inclination to give him a pass.
Instead, it seems he would rather sweep his "overkill for hunting" statement under the rug.
His "changed" position smacks of expediency.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!