Gun-control converts in Congress could pave way to new laws
It’s not just congressmen who have reexamined their opinions, according to Rep. Tim Holden of Pennsylvania, a normally pro-gun Democrat whose campaign received a contribution from the NRA’s political arm during the 2012 cycle. “I was just talking to my brother a couple of hours ago, and he’s a much more avid hunter than I am; and he was like, something’s gotta happen here,” he said.
Holden, who lost his primary to a more liberal Democrat, said he would likely support reinstating a nationwide assault-weapons ban if he were still a congressman next year. Holden, in fact, voted for an assault-weapons ban in 1994, a vote many Democrats continue to believe helped fuel the GOP’s takeover of the House during that year’s midterm elections…
Rep. Mike Thompson, D-Calif., is familiar with the dilemma. The Vietnam War veteran and avid hunter, who supports reinstating the assault-weapons ban, was just named head of a House Democrats’ task force on gun violence. In an interview, he made clear the importance of assuring fellow citizens that the government doesn’t plan to take away their guns.
Asked how he can persuade his colleagues to support gun control, he responded succinctly: “Well, we can start by not calling it ‘gun control.’ ”









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Confiscation, then?
OldEnglish on January 2, 2013 at 9:24 PM
No Frackin’ Way!
After the most FBI checks in history took place in December…all those new gun owners aren’t going to be happy with anything like that.
Gawd help us all…
ProfShadow on January 2, 2013 at 9:24 PM
Democrats aren’t known for their intelligence.
Pork-Chop on January 2, 2013 at 9:25 PM
You can’t have them, a**holes.
single stack on January 2, 2013 at 9:25 PM
God damn them all into tyrannical Hades.
Schadenfreude on January 2, 2013 at 9:27 PM
Molon Labe
Schadenfreude on January 2, 2013 at 9:27 PM
Same difference.
rogerb on January 2, 2013 at 9:29 PM
You forgot to complete the concept, Congressman. Call it by its actual name: “Victim Disarmament.”
ShainS on January 2, 2013 at 9:29 PM
Treason?
sharrukin on January 2, 2013 at 9:33 PM
Right. Because a psychopath stole his mother’s improperly secured guns and went on a killing spree, we need to violate the rights of those who legally and responsibly own firearms.
There’s the problem.
Baerwulf on January 2, 2013 at 9:36 PM
it is non negotiable.
tom daschle concerned on January 2, 2013 at 9:38 PM
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Schadenfreude on January 2, 2013 at 9:40 PM
“gun balance”
“gun revenue”
“gun equality”
“gun safety”
I am sure they are going through the progressive dictionary of Orwellian words.
William Eaton on January 2, 2013 at 9:48 PM
And then there’s this beeeeatch..
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/m-senator_feinsteins_constitutional_end-run.html
wolly4321 on January 2, 2013 at 9:50 PM
Since gun control is what this about why call it something else..?
d1carter on January 2, 2013 at 9:51 PM
the guy lost his primary to a liberal Democrat as part of the blue dog purge – that is his only reason for tilting left on this issue.
Someone also needs to tell National Journal that support for gun rights is not just about hunting or personal self defense, read the Federalist Papers.
Daemonocracy on January 2, 2013 at 9:54 PM
FYI: “Gun safety” is the euphemism du jour. I’ve read quotes from two Dems giving it a test drive, including a TX legislator (does he WANT the Dems to be a permanent minority in Texas???).
I assume if this “framing” fails, they’ll try something else.
juliesa on January 2, 2013 at 10:00 PM
How come they all have a (D) and how come that isn’t reflected in the title. /rhetoricalquestion
deepdiver on January 2, 2013 at 10:04 PM
Oh, how about “Return Of Heavenly Peace That Only Monstrous ‘Baggers And Others Fit Only For Re-Education Could Find Objectionable”?
ddrintn on January 2, 2013 at 10:06 PM
Let’s call it “infringing on that which ‘shall not be infringed’”.
Left Coast Right Mind on January 2, 2013 at 10:15 PM
The possibility that the progressives will unleash an unimaginable horror upon our country in their arrogance and greed for power becomes clearer every day. They really seem to believe they can do no wrong. In their reasoning they are like little children, but in their speech and deeds they are like vile tyrrants.
claudius on January 2, 2013 at 10:27 PM
Of course you plan to disarm the populace. Do you think we are morons?
An assault weapons ban and high magazine capacity ban will have no effect on mass shootings. But it will be a nice step to confiscation by progressives.
iconoclast on January 2, 2013 at 11:30 PM
and arnold was like “OMG, really, I so know what you mean. Like WTF girlfriend?”
arnold ziffel on January 2, 2013 at 11:40 PM