GOP Takes House But Second Amendment Battle is Far From Over

GOP Takes House But Second Amendment Battle is Far From Over

Battle of Lexington and Concord
GOP Takes House But Second Amendment Battle is Far From Over
FirearmsTruth.com
FirearmsTruth.com

Michigan –-(Ammoland.com)- We are happy to see that the Republicans have taken control of the House of Representatives as the Grand Old Party as it is known tends to be friendlier to gun related issues.

The people have spoken and this wasn’t the result of some nefarious plot by the insidious gun lobby – which is how the National Rifle Association and other pro-gun organizations are painted in the mainstream media – to take control of the country.

This was the will of the people, which includes hunters, shooters, gun collectors and just every day citizens that believe in the Second Amendment.

But the writing is on the wall, and we’re not out of the woods yet. Nor is it the time however to let down our guard.

The Senate will still include a rogue’s gallery of anti-gun zealots including two Republicans: Senator-Elect Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), a co-sponsor in the U.S. House of Representatives of legislation to close the so-called gun show loophole, and Senator-Elect Dan Coast in Indiana had previously served in the U.S. Senate, voting for the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban.

Key anti-gun Democrats retained their seats in the U.S. Senate as well, and these include Senators Chuck Schumer of New York and Senator Barbara Boxer of California. New York was also a special case as Kirsten Gillibrand was finally “elected” to the Senate (she had been appointed to fill Hillary Clinton’s seat, which she will now hold for two more years).

Both Schumer and Gillibrand have been foes to gun owners, while Boxer has also been a supporter of gun control. The NRA-endorsed Christine O’Donnell was also defeated by Democrat candidate Chris Coons in Delaware, while Senator Michael Bennet (D-Colorado), who was appointed to finish the term of former Senator Ken Salazar, was elected to a full term. He has co-sponsored gun show loophole legislation.

We happy that Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) was defeated in his re-election bid, as Feingold has had at what best can be described as a mixed record on gun related issues, including voting in favor of background checks at gun shows.

But now is the time to think to the future, but to be on guard today. Only this year the EPA attempted to ban lead ammunition, while the State Department stopped efforts to allow the importation of American M1 made rifles from South Korea. These are both back door gun bans, and while the same mainstream media that sees the NRA as a cabal of evildoers bent on turning America into a Wild West, turn a blind eye to these efforts. Instead the media tries to say that the Democrats and President Obama have done nothing to impose new restrictions.

Except for the attempt to ban lead ammo, the blocked importation of those M1 rifles and the appointment of two fiercely anti-gun rights Supreme Court Justices.

So while this is a time to celebrate our wins with the House, we should be remain on guard.

Peter Suciu is executive editor of FirearmsTruth.com, a website that tracks and monitors media bias against guns and our Second Amendment rights. Visit: FirearmsTruth.com

  • 2 thoughts on “GOP Takes House But Second Amendment Battle is Far From Over

    1. I would hope that Coats and Mark Kirk will realize that the AWB was useless legislation that was mercifully allowed to sunset. I cant see them voting for the CIFTA Treaty either.

      I never thought that gun control was "taken off the table" as an issue, after SCOTUS" ruling in McDonald.We must be vigilant more than ever now, even with a GOP majority in the next Congress.

      Didn't Patrick Henry say something like: "Guard jealously the crown jewel of liberty; suspect all who come near it"?

      As appropriate today as in his time.

      The Second Amendment – now more than ever.

    2. Would Dan Coast support the reinstatement of the Assault Weapons Ban? To me that is more important than is voting for it 26 years ago. A "yes" is a response for anything but common sense. I urge anyone who has made a decision based on the title of the bill to go read the bill. Look at what it actually did then research the rediculous "reasons" why it should be reinstated. They don't match logically, only politically.

    Comments are closed.