Finally! Someone throws Fast and Furious into gun control debate (Ted Nugent vs. Erin Burnett)

Regular visitors to this blog know that I've been calling for gun rights advocates to go on a counter-offensive with the gun grabbers, instead of playing defense all the time. The best way to do that is to contrast the exploitation of Sandy Hook by the Obama administration with how it handled Operation Fast and Furious.

Practically every point, argument, and position taken by Obama's media ventriloquist dummies can be responded to with a Fast and Furious reference.

Selling guns to bad guys: You want to talk selling guns to bad guys? In Fast and Furious, Obama's ATF didn't allow gun store owners to sell to bad guys; they ORDERED them to.

Background checks: You want to talk background checks? How about the gun store owners who didn't want to sell to straw purchasers they knew were going to walk guns into Mexico? It was Obama's ATF that insisted those gun store owners make the sales despite background checks that told them not to.

Murder: You want to talk about guns being used to murder people? How about the straw purchasers mentioned above, giving those guns to Mexican drug cartels who have used those guns to murder hundreds of Mexicans and at least one American border patrol agent? All with the approval and mandate of the ATF.

Banning assault weapons: You want to talk about banning assault weapons? Why did the ATF allow thousands of assault weapons (AK-47s and .50 Cal.) to be placed into the hands of the most violent cartels on earth?

Shutting down gun stores: You want to talk about shutting down operations? How about leaving the responsible gun store owners, who didn't want to sell weapons to bad guys, alone and shutting down the ATF, which mandated those gun store owners sell those weapons to bad guys?

Gun Trafficking: You want to talk about gun trafficking? How about the ATF - after mandating that gun store owners sell to bad guys - looking the other way as those bad guys not only trafficked weapons out of the country but gave them to hardened criminals whom they knew would murder innocent people with them.

In this clip below (fast forward to the 6:18 mark), Nugent hits Burnett with a question about stopping gun traffickers. Burnett, predictably agrees right before Nugent asks her if she thinks Attorney General Eric Holder should be arrested for... gun trafficking.

Burnett's reaction tells the whole story. She was rendered speechless.

If the gun rights crowd wants to win this debate, it must make these arguments. Hopefully, this is the first instance of many.



h/t GWP

Will John Boehner Betray his nation on Second Amendment and Immigration?

It looks like House Speaker John Boehner may be paving the way for two of his biggest caves - on gun control and on immigration. If he does, it will mean that he will essentially be throwing in with the Democrats at the expense of a majority of his own caucus. It will be a colossal betrayal. We're talking Benedict Arnold type betrayal.

It would also make him a bald-faced busted... liar.

The 'Hastert Rule', named after Boehner's Republican predecessor Dennis Hastert, says that no bill will get a vote unless it has the support of a majority of the caucus. The Toomey-Manchin gun control legislation would not garner a majority of the caucus, which should make it DOA because Boehner has supported the Hastert Rule, though only when it seems to suit him, which doesn't seem to apply with the Toomey-Manchin bill.

Via the Washington Post (h/t Hot Air):

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) signaled Thursday that he may continue to bypass a House Republican rule that has required any legislation being voted upon to have the support of a majority of the GOP conference.

Boehner has flouted the so-called “Hastert Rule” — named for former GOP House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) — on a few pieces of key legislation so far this year, which hasn’t sat well with some conservatives.

He said at a news conference Thursday that he will continue to try and follow it in spirit, but also suggested he might well violate it for upcoming votes on guns, immigration and the budget.

“Listen: It was never a rule to begin with,” Boehner said. “And certainly my prerogative – my intention is to always pass bills with strong Republican support.”

Boehner in early March sought to reassure his conference that the rule would continue to be regular practice, but he broke it again earlier this week.

A common theme - demonstrated by Toomey - is that Republicans are incapable of presenting a united front on important matters. There always seems to be just the right number of votes from their caucus to give the Democrats what they want. In this case, if Boehner breaks the Hastert Rule on gun control, it will mean he knows the legislation will pass with a Democratic minority, coupled with a few Republican peel-aways. It will make Boehner a traitor to his party but more important, a traitor to the Constitution in general and its second amendment in particular.

On another huge issue to conservatives, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) more than just slightly rankled the right wing of his party when he became one of the 'gang of eight' and joined with the likes of Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Bob Menendez (D-NJ), John McCain (R-AZ), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) on immigration reform (amnesty). The left will display photos of Rubio standing with them at a podium for years to come.

What Rubio didn't seem to understand or care about was that nothing - absolutely nothing - good could come out of his joining with those Senators.

Now, Boehner is hinting that he will betray conservatives on another promise. That promise is that he would honor regular order, which in the case of the monstrosity that is the immigration bill, is all that more important. Like the 2009 stimulus bill and the 2010 Obamacare bill, page numbers end with four digits.

Via Breitbart:

According to a recent Politico report, Boehner is seriously considering abandoning regular order to rush through immigration reform. Regular orders is the process by which a bill is supposed to come up through the respective committees of jurisdiction and allow members of those committees to offer amendments, an open and transparent process that then is supposed to continue on the House floor.

“The GOP is also mulling skipping the committee process and instead having lengthy discussions among Republicans to work out the legislation’s kinks,” Politico’s Jake Sherman wrote in the report. “This would allow leading conservatives who are crafting the deal with Democrats to explain the policy. That seems to be the preferred path, according to conversations with several GOP aides.”

Ain't that something. With that as a potential reality, it would mean that Boehner only feigned outrage when he slammed down the 1100 page Stimulus bill in 2009 because, for one thing, it was being rammed through without consideration for... wait for it... regular order:



Ah, the tale of two Boehners. First, the tough-talking Boehner can adequately express outrage when he has no power. Since becoming Speaker, he's rarely expressed even a modicum of that kind of indignation. Now that Boehner is in the majority and holding the gavel, he's just might be willing to do with a 1500 page immigration bill what he was so adamantly against being done with an 1100 page stimulus bill.

This would make him a liar in addition to being a weak leader. Apparently, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) agrees.

Democratic politicians should be recognized for one thing; they hardly ever break ranks. United fronts abound. Perhaps one of the best examples is the Senate vote on Bill Clinton's impeachment. Not one Democrat voted to remove him from office. It worked for them then and it's a strategy they've replicated many times over since.

Republicans, on the other hand, are behaving as if they want to lose the 2014 mid-terms because - as a group - they're incapable of standing on principle and are walking all over themselves to hand the Democrats victory after victory.

Pat Toomey and Bart Stupak now share something in common

In 2010, the Obamacare debacle was crammed down the throats of the American people but not before an alleged 'pro-life' Democratic congressman named Bart Stupack (D-MI) sold out. If you remember, the House version of the bill had a provisions in it that prohibited funding for abortion. That provision did not pass in the Senate's version.

The final vote was extremely contentious and arm-twisting was in no short supply. Even then, the Stupak dozen was the only thing that stood in the way of passage. Then, Stupak caved and settled for a meaningless Executive Order from Barack Obama that guaranteed no funding for abortion in the bill. In short, Stupak sold out to Obama.

Pro-life Democrats had been "Stupaked" and Obamacare became law.

In 2010, Stupak resigned; he did not seek reelection; The Tea Party helped get a Republican to replace him. Something else happened in 2010. The Tea Party got behind Pat Toomey to replace RINO Senator Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania. By all accounts, Toomey was a true conservative and had an "A" rating from the NRA. The Tea Party wave swept Toomey into office after Specter was so far behind in the polls that he switched over to the Democratic Party, where he thought he had a better chance of winning.

In 2012, Stupak expressed regret for what honest people would say was a betrayal.

Toomey apparently didn't learn the right lesson from Stupak because he has betrayed the gun rights crowd. Period.

Here in 2013, less than six months after the Sandy Hook shootings, several conservative Republican Senators had threatened to filibuster any bill that came to the floor. It would be Rand Paul times ten. Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX), Mike Lee (R-UT), and others pledged to join in. For once, it appeared that Republicans were going to stand united and go to the mat with the Democrats on something important.

All they had to do was stick to their principles and stand united. In fact, during such a filibuster, one of the Senators would likely stumble upon the contrast between how the Obama administration handled operation Fast and Furious and how it is exploiting Sandy Hook. It would be a tremendous opportunity to expose the administration. Perhaps that is why a filibuster would be so undesired by the Obama.

This is where Toomey appears to have channeled Bart Stupak. He came to a deal with Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV), a supposed pro-second amendment Democrat, on expanding background checks. A consequence of this deal is that the filibuster may be prevented. That Manchin caved to pressure is not surprising. That Toomey did very much is. He's not only a Republican. He was supposed to be a conservative Tea Party Republican who took a lot of money from the NRA in 2010 to get elected, in much the same way that Stupak accepted the support of pro-life Democrats

How do we know Toomey caved? Very simple.

Obama congratulated him and so did Michael Bloomberg.

The NRA is also not satisfied with the Toomey / Manchin bill.

Larry Pratt, the Executive Director at Gun Owners of America (GOA) says Toomey has "betrayed" (Stupaked) his constituents. Pratt is now calling for Toomey to be primaried:



By the way, for those who don't see expanded background checks as a big step toward confiscation, check out this firsthand account about what happened in Canada: