Saturday, May 04, 2013

The Narrative

The gun-banners have their feelings hurt.  Their one bright opportunity to pass a restrictive bill has passed and it failed miserably in the US Senate at the hands of their party representatives.  And like a scorned lover who finds out that they've been rejected and marginalized, they're lashing out in anger.  They're hurt and they cast invective at the target they think has injured them.   It's easy to pick out the narrative, but one example might be this editorial by  Mr. Dave Perry, of the Aurora Sentinel.
No more due process in the clear-cut case of insidious terrorism. When the facts are so clearly before all Americans, for the whole world to see, why bother with this country’s odious and cumbersome system of justice? Send the guilty monsters directly to Guantanamo Bay for all eternity and let them rot in their own mental squalor.
No, no, no. Not the wannabe sick kid who blew up the Boston marathon or the freak that’s mailing ricin-laced letters to the president. I’m talking about the real terrorist threat here in America: the National Rifle Association.
There's a metaphor here.  Imagine, if you will, the classic case of the scorned lover.  We've all seen it.  The happy couple live in bliss until the day that the denouement happens.  One lover, let's say it's a woman, goes to the man.  "I'm leaving you."  The man is distraught,  "Is it another man?"  Tears and recriminations.  The woman leaves, moves into an apartment.  Only later does the man find out, no, it's not another man.  He's been left for a woman.  The genders could be easily reversed in this story, but the pain, anguish, and betrayal is the same.

That's what the left-leaning gun-banners are feeling now.  After being lied to, being told that 90% of Americans supported expanded background checks, after thinking that two horrific tragedies had finally made their pipe-dream of defanging the 2nd Amendment a practical reality, they learn that they've been scorned and betrayed, not by their political enemies, but by the very people they thought were their allies.  And, the folks that did it to them were not the ones that they suspected all along, it was another group entirely.
President Obama, according to his own telling, would have passed a gun control bill supported by nearly every American, but the National Rifle Association drove in trucks full of money and lobbyists, buying off senators.

Obama's story isn't true. The NRA doesn't work like the lobbies Obama is coziest with. And the NRA also wasn't the tip of the spear in the gun-rights fight this month. Here is the way things really went down:

The gun-rights resistance on Capitol Hill began in late March with two first-term Tea Party senators declaring they would filibuster consideration of the gun-control bill. Sens. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Ted Cruz, R-Texas, wrote a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid explaining they would oppose invoking cloture on the "motion to proceed" to the bill. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., soon joined them.
As they say, go read the whole thing. While the NRA was helping to hold the line, the main lobbying group behind the defeat of Toomey-Manchin was not the NRA, it was Gun Owners of America, and the Tea Party.  Sure, the NRA helped by promising Senators that they would score all the votes in the debate, but the Tea Party was the one drawing the line on the floor of the Senate.  In the final analysis, the Democratic controlled Senate couldn't draw enough support to pass gun control, even in the highly-charged emotional debate.  Never mind that the bill was a non-starter in the House of Representatives.  It wasn't going anywhere.  The Democrats couldn't even pass it in the Senate, and their majority leader, Harry Reid, voted against it.

Now, the banners are distraught.  Their best efforts have failed.  Their party didn't toe the line.  They were defeated, miserably.  They're lashing out in anger, and the target of their despair is not the one that harmed them.  They're beating the wrong goat, but the NRA can take it.

However, this is not the time to be complacent.  Even my own Senator, Mary Landrieu voted for the bill, to her eternal shame.  I intend to make her remember her vote when I get an opportunity to cast my own in 2014. She is despicable for supporting Toomey-Manchin and I intend to remind her of that fact at every opportunity.

Let Freedom Ring!


Rivrdog said...

It's up to the States now. A quartet of restrictive billis are in the Oregon Senate, and the most anti-gun of the local media, NBC affiliate KGW-TV, is beating the drum for the restrictions by doing a complete "in-depth" rehash of the Clackamas Town Center shooting (read: nothing new except the many 911 calls). Interesting in their rehash: they are glossing over the fact that the SIGHT of a pistol in the hands of a concealed carry licensee drove the shooter to run off and kill himself before much damage was done (fired less than 20 rounds, 17 of which hit no one).

Next up, the same TeeVee station is going to do an "expose" on the use of Tannerite for reactive targets. Never mind that tannerite has never killed anyone in anger, only set a few fires when improperly used, they are doing the full PSH treatment on it this coming Monday. The next, obvious, target: black powder.

Shift focus, people. New target: libloon legislators in State legislatures. These idiots must now be made to feel the heat that worked so well in the US Senate.

Anonymous said...

PawPaw lets not forget the RINO's here in Louisiana like millionair Donald Bollinger who is backing proud mary for re-election. I think he should be tared and feathered and run out of the Republican party that crap. It not about the United State and keeping our freedom and rights its about him get more million dollar contracts from her sluttly hands. He is worse than she is. Just my thoughts.

Anonymous said...

Excellent Blog PawPaw!

Rivrdog said...

It got by me the first read: "Insidious Terrorism". So who died and left this jerk the title of Giver of Laws? There is no such law on any of our codes as "Insidious Terrorism". There is no such Culpable Mental State as "Insidious". This term seems tailor-made for some wannabe dictator to use to try to re-define existing Federal Law.

Personally, I think that this assclown is a traitor, but hey, that's just my opinion, and I'm not trying to force it down anyone's throat or up their hoo-hoo like he is.