“If you were in a state such as West Virginia or North Dakota or Arkansas, which is a rural state and it’s mostly gone red in national elections, how would you approach that? Would you say, ‘I’m going to beat Joe Manchin up because he didn’t vote the way he should have?’ Or would you say, ‘I’m going to appeal to law-abding gun owners in the state,’ and give me enough support from my constituents that I don’t have to do hand-to-hand combat with?” – Joe Manchin in What Really Sank Gun Control: Distrust of Government [via theatlantic.com]

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

43 COMMENTS

  1. Does anyone have a Blithering Politician/English dictionary? What was he trying to say?

        • I think he said, and this is a guess,”Oh fvck, I’ve fvcked myself right out of a sweet job. Now I’m going to have to live by the same rules as the commoners.”

  2. Im am ashamed to call this coward my senator. All the talk about supporting our second amendment rights and commercials for his so called “pro gun campaign “. I feel like I’ve been stabbed in the back by this ass clown. All the phone calls and daily letters that I sent to this guy trying to make my voice heard was just a waste of time to him. If nobody from my home state of west virginia were I was born and raised enjoying my 2nd amendment rights hasn’t apologized for this douchebags behavior let me be the first I am sorry.

    • You want to see some gov officials to really be ashamed of look up haggz51 on youtube and watch the alexander roubian video. He’s testifying to the nj senate towards the end of the video the camrra turns toward the committee and these a holes are stairing at the wall or talking on their phones so utterly disrespectful.

    • Man’s a tool and I’m glad I voted against him, multiple times as a matter of fact. Hell now that I think about it I’ve never voted for the fool I’m happy to say.

  3. I’m so tired of this idea that law abiding gun owners support gun control, and any gun owner that doesn’t support whatever insane bit of legislation being forced on them is a criminal.

    You could propose the most rational and reasonable law at this point and I won’t listen to you because you’ve insulted and called me a criminal so much that I don’t care what you have to say anymore.

    • The Coburn Amendment (as reported on this site as well as elsewhere) was a very well written law that would be acceptable to everyone. But, as you stated, I will not stand for one iota of compromise at this point.

      • The Dems didn’t want to stand for it because it did not require the retention of the paper trail. This very point should make it crystal clear to anyone who is still on the fence about this issue. Coburn’s proposal is what a real background check should look like for every firearm purchase. The fact that the Dems obsess about tracking the sale of them lets me know exactly what their true motivations are.

      • The ultimate goal is confiscation. Every thing the Democrats do is designed to bring them one step closer to that goal. That is why there is no protection for privacy in their background check proposals. They want to create the databases that will make confiscation possible.

        The worst thing that could happen to their plans is for somebody to solve the “Gun Show Loophole” in a way that does not collect the data that can be used for universal registration. Because once universal background checks and the “Gun Show Loophole” are off the table, they will have no vehicle to create these new rules. The 90% will be satisfied, and will not support registration for registration’s sake.

        I am inclined to support the Coburn approach, which guarantees privacy to the gun owner, but I am also sympathetic to the position that every time we compromise, we get stabbed in the back, so we should be opposed to all compromise. Both are good arguments. I guess, at the end of the day, it all comes down to whether or not you trust the government to run a Coburn-type system without violating the built-in privacy protections, keeping in mind that they have given us very little reason to trust them.

        We need to advocate for protecting the privacy of the gun owning public, rather than against national registration and confiscation, because talking about confiscation makes us sound nutty. They just say “Nobody is coming for your guns”, and we have to admit that nobody is coming… today. The problem is, when they do come, it will be too late. We must stop them now, by protecting our privacy at every stage.

        Say “Confiscation”,
        And they call you paranoid.
        So say “Privacy”…

        • @Haiku Guy,

          What you describe in your first paragraph is exactly the approach the Democrats have been using and continue to use in CA. And DiFi’s and other grabbers’ (MAIG) finger prints are all over the legislation. These state legislators aren’t smart enough to come up with all these proposals on their own.

          The Dems effort here is providing the blueprint for the road to eventual confiscation elsewhere including the federal level.

          If confiscation isn’t outright, then it will be grandfathered in by prohibiting the sale or inheritance of one’s firearms.

          Your guns will then die with you.

    • @ REOIV,

      You nailed it.

      I’m in with you 100%.

      The grabber crowd can trot out as many NRA members in name only as they want (even grabbers can join the NRA) These phonys masquerading as devoted NRA members, who are in reality grabbers who either surreptitiously joined the NRA to try to add legitimacy to the grabbers effort, or who despite reasoned logic turned traitor and abandoned the cause, can all suck rocks.

      When I hear them spout their “I’m an NRA gunner and I support ‘common sense’ gun control” BS, coupled with all the other lies and rhetoric coming from the grabber crowd, it just strengthens my resolve and confirms the legitimacy of my distrust for ANY proposals that would tighten firearms control, period.

      Not one step back.

    • Martin Niemöller Revisited (Stolen from The Sacred Cow Slaughtrhouse):

      First they came for the blacks, and I spoke up because it was wrong, even though I’m not black.
      Then they came for the gays, and I spoke up, even though I’m not gay.
      Then they came for the Muslims, and I spoke up, because it was wrong, even though I’m not a Muslim.
      When they came for illegal aliens, I spoke up, even though I’m US born.
      Then they came for the pornographers, rebels and dissenters and their speech and flag burning, and I spoke up, because rights are not only for the establishment.
      Then they came for the gun owners, and you liberal turds threw me under the bus, even though I have done nothing wrong.
      So when they come to shove you into the cattle cars, don’t come crying to me.

  4. Yes, you beat up Joe Manchin. Shake him enough and maybe you can get a coherent sentence out of him,

    Jeez.

  6. Having read the article, I have to agree that the gun control bill failed because of a lack of trust. What he fails to come to grips with is how the gun control movement has created and fostered that lack of trust every step of the way with their dishonest tactics. Everybody knows that the Newtown shooter did not have to pass a background check, yet every time someone brings up a criticism of their pet project it’s Newtown this, and Newtown that, and “don’t you care about the children?” They claim it’s about background checks and not registration, but they rebuff every compromise that would give us the former without the latter.

    So yes, gun owners do not trust the gun control movement. We don’t trust them because they’ve been transparently deceptive at every turn – deceptive about their legislative agendas and goals, deceptive about their statistics and studies, deceptive about everything. If they want trust they’re going to have to come clean about that fact and start actually negotiating in good faith.

    • That would require admission that disarmament (and abrogation of the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution) is their desired end. The moment they admit that is the moment they accept defeat.

    • What he said. I mean, every word he just said. It’s like he pulled the swirling mass of thoughts out of my head, arranged them into a coherent, well thought out statement and shared it with the world.

    • When someone asks, “Why I don’t trust the government” I reply, neither did our founding fathers and that is why we have a Bill of Rights. The lesson that everyone forgets is that you cannot simply trust those whom you have put into to power because it is not always clear what their intetion is until it is too late. Many politicians have a very large ego and blood thirst for power and often believe they should be everyone’s parent.

      That, and the fact that they have demonized gun owners makes any discussion mute. Even if everyone today was the “good king”, there is no guarantee that the “next king” will be good and just consider what the other have done null and void.

      And, this is not just a gun issue, healthcare, entitlements, pork and the list goes on for waste, curruption and just plain stupid waste of money.

    • I agree that the bill failed because of a lack of trust.

      However, I am of the opinion that that lack of trust is well-justified. The Congress built that wall, one brick at a time, by stabbing us in the back, time after time. The sowed the wind, and will now reap the whirlwind.

      Witness the polls that say 90% of the people support background checks, while 60% of the people are happy with the way the votes in the Senate worked out. That means there are at least 50% of the people who support the supposed intent of Manchin/Toomey, but are happy the amendment was voted down because they don’t trust the Senate. This is a pretty damning statistic.

      Say “Confiscation”.
      And they call you paranoid.
      So say “Privacy”.

  7. I am sure those MAIG ads in Alaska and elsewhere will certainly help the cause of gun control. We all know Bloomberg wants to stop with banning everything background checks. oops, did i say that out loud?

  8. It’s obvious that Manchin is in over his head. He ran for the Senate seat under the premise of protecting the 2nd Amendment. His campaign ads were quite clear on this. After Newtown, he gets on television and questions why anyone needs a 30-round magazine. Rightly so, the people of West Virginia should feel betrayed. Now, Manchin’s caught up in the Democrat machine in Congress where you push the President’s agenda at all costs or face being ostracized by the Party. So, he’s taken to trying to straddle the line between his pro-2A beliefs and the will of the Democrats. Post-Sandy Hook, we have seen way too many of these types of politicians. Politicians who previously supported 2A, but have now opened it up to interpretation. These politicians need to be voted out of office. Gun rights advocates have drawn a very clear line in the sand. Support ANY further gun control and you have crossed that line. Cross the line, lose our support. It’s that simple.

    That being said Manchin’s actions have almost guaranteed a Republican Senator being voted in for WV in ’14. Also, Manchin as a a one-term Seantor is all but certain.

  10. That is one insane sh1tkicker right there. Say, I wonder how much Bloomberg money he’s counting on.

  11. Reading the Atlantic piece I think he is spot on. The gun control movement has displayed a severe lack of good faith throughout this process, so even if you honestly think, as I think Manchin does, that expanding the background check system can add value while protecting our rights it is hard to trust him because the Schumers of the world are lurking in the background.

    I was wondering recently if gun laws are so polarizing that good faith reform is impossible, even if it would be beneficial (because lets not kid ourselves that the mishmash of laws we have now are ideal), and I am afraid it is, for this very reason.

    • It is hard to trust someone when they stab you in the back. The Dems talk about common sense, but then they ram through the NYSafe Act, the CO boondoggle, and the CT laws. And now CA is proposing to outlaw ALL semi-automatics, even after Heller and McDonald. They must truly think we are complete marry-your-first-cousin-type of retards. What, you don’t think we know that’s the kind of laws you want to pass at the national level, and that the only obstacle is that you don’t have a majority. You had a majority and we got Obamacare. No thanks. Mike Vanderboegh is right. No more compromise. Unfortunately, at this point we are going to have to hope that the Supreme Court invalidates a state AWB.

      • While banning guns/mags is unconstitutional and bad I can see an argument for expanding background checks (with appropriate privacy safeguards) IF it is part of a broader rationalization of our gun laws to (among others):

        1. Change the scope of what disqualifies you from owning a gun from its pre-Heller punishment model to a more constitutionally consistent compelling and individualized public safety justification model.

        2. Take SBRs and Suppressors out of the NFA registration regime.

        3. Reopen the select fire list.

        4. Give a meaningful way for disqualified persons to show the disqualification is no longer justified.

        These combined would I think create a more logical and constitutional regime, but we will never have that conversation because the extreme grabbers have poisoned the well.

        • You are correct. We all know that disarmament is what they truly wish for. And if it’s not, then they need to distance themselves from Feinstein and Bloomberg. Until they do, we know where they stand. Heck, I thought Coburn’s background check bill was sensational. It should replace the 4473 system we currently have. Since it doesn’t track paperwork though, the Dems will never let something like that stand.

    • I agree that the “mishmash” of laws is a HUGE problem. We can, and should, do better by having reasonable, clear, easy to follow laws that don’t turn honest people into felons for not dotting an “i” or crossing a “t”.

      The problem is, they aren’t wiping the slate clean to start over, they’re just trying to pile more crap on top of that mishmash.

      • Exactly. I would welcome a dialog with guys like Manchin on, if we were to start over how should we do it. Maybe that includes expanded background checks with appropriate privacy safeguards, but we can’t have that conversation because extreme gun control proponents have poisoned the well.

        • I would welcome a dialog with guys like Manchin

          How can we dialog with a guy who can’t even monologue?

  12. When they prove to be so dishonest again and again why should we trust them? Referring to us in the passive as aggressive individuals that are completely crazed in order to create some excuse as to why they were defeated doesn’t help. Sounds like frustration.

  13. Well see, it was like this see, you f’d up bad see & now your worthless see, see what I mean joe? Randy

  14. Someone who is distrustful of the government isn’t paranoid, they’ve just been paying attention. Since 9/11, Congress and the President have been falling over themselves to shred the Constitution, and the courts have mostly been a-okay with it.

    Given all that, Manchin thinks we should be reassured because the government promises to punish itself if it’s bad. Oh yeah, that makes me feel a lot better.

  16. Bob Byrd held that seat for decades by spending money and general old-boy networking. This seat, like Teddy’s in Mass, is going to be flipped back and forth a few times until a proper spendaholic gets in and learns how to duck tough issues while creating highways to nowhere.

    I took a picture of the sign that says Robert c Byrd Memorial highway when I crossed into W Va. There are about 23 bridges and some 18 highways named for Bob. I don’t think Joe will get any landmarks to bear his name.

Comments are closed.