Don’t cut it, abolish it

The Washington Post writes, “ATF fears budget cuts would imperil gun-trafficking fight at Mexico border“:

“… the White House budget office proposed steep cuts for the agency charged with enforcing federal gun laws … When officials at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives saw the proposal, they concluded it would effectively eliminate a major initiative in the fight against firearms trafficking on the Mexican border …”

The Brady Bunch isn’t happy:

“… “Any cuts to the already under-staffed and under-funded ATF would be a setback,” said Brady Center President Paul Helmke, “but the kinds of cuts that are rumored would be devastating to the ATF’s ability to interrupt the flow of illegal guns across America and Mexico … These laws would be more effective and efficient because they offer a pro-active means — instead of a reactive one — to stemming the flow of guns to Mexican drug cartels and to criminals and gangs on America’s streets …” …”

They’re still trying to keep the Mexican drug/gun canard alive.  People ain’t buying it.  The notion that drug cartels are coming across the border to buy guns legally, or even illegally, from mom & pop shops in Texas and Arizona is ludicrous.

“… “ATF is the ugly stepchild of every administration,” said James Cavanaugh, a former senior ATF official …”

Why is that?  Shouldn’t the WaPo reporters have asked for an explanation for that answer because to me that is an awfully odd thing to say?  I don’t recall ever hearing an employee of another government agency say that.

Perhaps it is because the agency’s sole purpose is to restrict the freedoms of average Americans.  ATF should be a convenience store, not a government agency.  Alcohol prohibition was a public policy disaster, all tobacco regulation has done is driven up the cost, while gun control policies have cost who knows how many decent people their lives.  If the White House and Congress are serious about cutting spending, they should abolish the ATF entirely.

Keep your finger off the trigger

Eric Adams is one of the louder antigun voices in the State Senate. He’s pushing a new antigun campaign and has produced this video.

Talking about parental responsibility is good. However, he seems to have forgotten basic firearms safety as he appears to have his finger on the trigger at the 4:05 mark when he’s pointing the revolver at his own face …

Wishful thinking

Lots of wishful thinking on the part of Paul Helmke.  The only resurgence of support for gun control is coming from crap media outlets and kook politicians like Carolyn McCarthy.  Even the New York Times admitted a couple of weeks ago that “Support for Gun Control Has Dropped in Recent Years.”

Trying to intimidate Hayworth

The Journal News is trying to intimidate newly elected Congresswoman Nan Hayworth into backing Carolyn McCarthy’s magazine bill:

“… Will our region’s new congresswoman, Rep. Nan Hayworth, R-Mount Kisco, have the guts to do what is right, or will she cave to the will of the NRA?”

The question should be will she have the guts to do what is right, or will she cave to the will of the JN’s editors?

Legislative Report #3

Legislative Report #3 is now online.

Bloomberg’s B.S.

There’s much B.S. in here from Mayor Bloomberg and MSNBC talking head Lawrence O’Donnell.

NRA-ILA in Albany

Bring it on

The Christian Science Monitor is trying to encourage Congress to take up gun control:

“In the wake of the Tucson shootings, reasonable gun control legislation has made an appearance on Capitol Hill. It can survive and become law, but only if lawmakers find the courage to back it. One proposal – introduced in both the House and Senate – would ban high-capacity ammunition clips that hold more than 10 bullets … Another proposal, introduced this week in the Senate, would close the “gun show loophole” … gun-control advocates are not particularly hopeful … There is no way to test the waters but to wade into them …”

Bring it on.

Antigun effort underway?

Newsweek reports that Obama intends to unveil some sort of gun control effort in the coming weeks:

“… in the next two weeks, the White House will unveil a new gun-control effort in which it will urge Congress to strengthen current laws …”

This sounds awfully vague and is most definitely is not what the antis want.

“… The White House said that to avoid being accused of capitalizing on the Arizona shootings for political gain, Obama will address the gun issue in a separate speech …”

The antis are all about capitalizing on tragedy.  They have no facts to back up their arguments and their policies are a proven failure at enhancing public safety.  All they can do is lie and shriek and whine and hope they can intimidate their opposition into silence.

Obama has been pretty clear with his other far-left policies and right now this just sounds like a lame effort to placate some of his base.

No guns in SOTU speech

Obama didn’t mention guns in his State of the Union speech.

Carolyn McCarthy is not happy:

“… I’m disappointed that President Obama did not urge us to look at our nation’s gun laws …”

Neither is Anthony Weiner:

“… In a speech that seemed to strive for common ground, he missed a chance for common sense on guns …”

Obama knows gun control is loser of an issue so why should he put effort into it?  The electorate is already upset with him and it would just piss more people off if he starts talking it up.

Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com