Feeds:
Posts
Comments

On Friday, in my role as VSSA Legislative Director, I had the opportunity to speak with Cam Edwards on NRANews’ Cam and Company about Terry McAuliffe’s latest anti-gun changes to legislation passed by the 2014 General Assembly, as well as Internet troll Mike Dickinson.

 

I was out running errands during lunch and heard an anti-Eric Cantor ad on WRVA during Rush Limbaugh.

The ad is paid for by Virginia Vision Action PAC and attacks Cantor for going to Florida this weekend to appear at a fund raiser for The Republican Main Street Partnership PAC, a newly formed “Super PAC” thats aim is to support incumbents or other “mainstream” candidates being opposed by Tea Party aligned candidates. Cantor was originally scheduled to appear with Speaker of the House John Boehner but Boehner backed out at the last-minute.   At the end of the ad, it encourages people to vote for Dave Brat for Congress, a Randolph Macon College economics professor who is challenging Cantor in the June 10th,  7th District Republican Primary.

Brat is likely going to need the help of outside groups because as of the end of April, Cantor had $1.5 million in the bank.  A quick check of the FEC only shows Brat’s candidate filing and no April Quarterly fundraising report.  It doesn’t hurt to have this ad running on the 50,000 watt blow torch WRVA, the largest and most listened to talk station in the 7th Congressional District.  WRVA airs Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity in addition to Michael Savage.  It is the 7th District’s conservative voice on radio.

NRAPVF endorsements have not been posted for the 7th District primary yet but it’s a safe bet that Cantor will get the endorsement because he has a long record of supporting the rights of Virginia gun owners.  NRA has an incumbent-friendly policy that dictates support for pro-gun incumbents seeking re-election regardless of party.  Cantor received an “A+” rating from the NRA Political Victory Fund in 2012 and has done nothing to change that rating in the last two years.  NRA is a single issue organization so no matter what one’s gripes are with Cantor’s voting record on other issues, he is good on guns.

As an aside, while I may not be completely happy with all of Cantor’s votes of late, to call him a RINO is not accurate either.  John McCain is a RINO.  Chuck Hagel is a RINO.  Eric Cantor is no RINO.

You can hear the ad below.

 

 

 

The Washington Post has this story on so called “Smart Guns.” The interesting point in the story is that one of the gun control group that you would think would be in favor of this , the Violence Policy Center, seems to be adamently opposed to the idea – not because it won’t work, but because it might work so well it will encourage more people to become gun owners:

Policy Center officials argue that the new technology is unlikely to stem gun homicides, which often occur between people who know each other, and that personalization will have no effect on the more than 300 million guns in circulation. The organization also questions whether the technology would deter the nearly 350,000 incidents of firearm theft per year, though some of the proposed technologies are add-ons that can be installed on existing guns.

And perhaps most important, the Violence Policy Center worries that smart guns will increase the number of firearm owners, because marketing that touts safety could sway those previously opposed to guns to make their first purchase.

Can’t have anything that creates more gun owners can we.

I remain skeptical.  My reason can best be summed up in this quote from the story:

The chief concern for potential buyers is reliability, with 44 percent of those polled by the National Shooting Sports Foundation saying the technology would not be reliable at all. A commenter in an online Glock forum explained the concern this way: “They can’t even make a cellphone that works reliably when you need it, and some dumbass thinks he can make a reliable techno-gadget gun that is supposed to safeguard you in dire circumstances?”

 

The Hill has this story on how gun control advocates are touting “gains” in the states while the push for federal gun control stalled.  The thing is, with the exception of Colorado, all of those “gains” came in states that were already unfriendly to the rights of law abiding gun owners.

In the year following last December’s deadly shooting spree in Newtown, Conn., that state — along with California, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey and New York — enacted major reforms, the groups said.

That’s what Brady Campaign’s President, Dan Gross, called a “year of tremendous growth and momentum.”

And worse, for the gun ban groups to be crowing so loud about the gains they have made, the Brady Center’s new document grading the states on gun control note that only 10 states have an “A” or “B” grade based on their gun control laws.  Thirteen states get passing ( 7 Cs, 6 D ) grades – but Brady certainly can’t be happy with the laws in most of those states. Over half of the states have a Brady failing grade , meaning they are truely firearm friendly states (Virginia is one of the states with a “D”).

So, with Terry McAuliffe running openly supporting more gun control, is it likely Virginia will join the states that passed gun control in 2013?  Not if the House of Delegates has anything to do with it.

For the last year, at least at the federal level, the target of the gun ban lobby has been so-called “assault weapons.”  But everyone knows that most crime is committed with handguns so why the focus on rifles? Only those who have been truely honest have pointed out that fact. Michael B. Greene, a developmental psychologist and senior fellow at the Rutgers School of Criminal Justice has finally stepped up to the plate and mentioned what the gun ban lobby surely thinks, but is too timid to propose.  From NJ.com:

First, based on the facts, we need to refocus on handguns rather than assault weapons. Second, we need to focus on strategies to reduce straw purchases.

His strategy?  National handgun rationing – i.e. a national one handgun a month law.  And, he even went a step further:

We need to place restrictions (yes, there’s that evil word again) on the purchase of ammunition for handguns, the perishables in the gun business. We can restrict the purchase of ammunition to those who are licensed or eligible to purchase guns (as Connecticut has done). We can also impose a limit on the number of handgun bullets that can be purchased at any one time. And we can impose high taxes on ammunition. Such taxes could be used to implement effective violence-reduction strategies — strategies that are needed to supplement efforts to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

Greene believes the recent Supreme Court rulings of Heller and McDonald allow for such infringements on our rights.  Greene points out, Connecticut has already passed limits on ammunition access.  And, it has already had a negative impact on hunters.  So much for “we won’t do anything to your hunting guns.”

Hat tip to The Gun Wire.

What’s the Point?

That’s my reaction to this story in the Politico about Gabby Giffords setting up another gun control PAC called Rights and Responsibilities PAC.  She already has one, that she set up earlier this year.  The new one is where she is transferring her money from her old congressional account which she has closed.  Why not just put the funds in the original PAC?

Colion Noir responds to the NFL declining a Super Bowl Ad from Daniel Defense.

Please note, the NFL is a business and can approve and deny ads as it sees fit.  But, considering some of the other things it condones and ads it allows to run, and the fact that Daniel Defense sells items in addition to firearms sand therefore meets the NFL’s criteria for advertising, the NFL’s decision is just a little hypocritical in my humble opinion.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.