Anti-Gun Deception On The Senate Floor

Did we mention that our opponents are deliberately deceptive?

What--you mean they'll still give an A-rating to someone who votes for Eric Holder?

I want you to take a few minutes and read what NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox has to say about Holder, naturally under the "Vote Freedom First" header. Among other things:

...Holder's history of aggressive anti-gun activism is even worse than Emanuel's record of media-focused PR stunts.

Holder has always been among the first in front of the cameras to exploit tragedy for political gain. From Columbine to the September 11 attacks, there was no event in which Holder couldn't find some inspiration for gun bans, gun registration, gun rationing and more. Just weeks after terrorists used box cutters to turn airplanes into guided missiles, Holder wrote in the Washington Post, "One measure that is an essential part of any plan is the need to tighten our nation's gun laws, which allow the easy and legal sale of firearms to terrorists and criminals."

Holder claimed, mistakenly, "No court has ever said that the Second Amendment actually says that. I think, if you look at it, it talks about bearing guns in a well-regulated militia. And I don't think anywhere it talks about an individual." Holder most recently signed a brief...in the Heller case that "The Second Amendment does not protect firearm possession or use that is unrelated to participation in a well-regulated militia."

But if senators don't "Vote Freedom First," well, anybody who has a problem with that just doesn't understand how politics works.

And forget talking filibuster. With the betrayal by all those A-rated republicans on the Judiciary Committee, we're told we just don't have the numbers. And why did they feel comfortable with betrayal again? Where was the NRA-ILA Alert leading a concerted effort to oppose Holder from Day One, to write, call and email senators, to publicly, loudly and repeatedly make it known that "Vote Tyranny First" would not be cost-free?

Right. After what Cox just told us, we're supposed to turn around and accept that this is just not important enough to expend political capital on? Besides, activist gun owners would be so worn out from making a few phone calls and sending a few letters that they'd just be totally spent when AWB2 comes around. What, you think we can walk now and chew gun six months later?

Which I guess means a vote for cloture if someone does strap 'em on to filibuster won't be held against them, either. Or against any of those A-rated and endorsed "pro-gun" democrats:

If the assumption is "all the current Democratic senators," what can we expect from our new shining "pro-gun Democrat" star? Or we might ask where our "true champion of Second Amendment freedoms" Max Baucus stands...or Tim Johnson...or...

There is one point where I agree with the Lairds of Fairfax. There is anti-gun deception on the Senate floor. And it is deliberate.