While the nation’s liberals are suffering from a stinging defeat – losing Capitol Hill and the White House – they are hardly throwing in the towel on one important tenet of their agenda by celebrating gun control wins in Nevada, California and Washington, and pressing for more.
In the Evergreen State particularly, the anti-gun Seattle Times is trumpeting passage of the so-called “Extreme Risk Protection Order” initiative and almost reflexively quickly demanding additional restrictions. The newspaper now wants to push for a ban on so-called “assault weapons and large-capacity magazines.”
However, Seattle Times readers are largely unimpressed with the newspaper’s reasoning, and they’re saying so.
Nevada voters narrowly passed a measure similar to Washington’s Initiative 594, adopted in 2014 but a demonstrable failure at preventing a single violent crime, while Maine voters by a less narrow margin rejected a clone in that state. California voters passed a measure to require background checks for ammunition purchases.
The Seattle Times editorial board calls a ban on semi-auto sport utility rifles “common sense gun safety.” Their arguments underscore the very reason why gun owners resist gun control: Anti-gunners are never satisfied, and no matter how much they erode the right to keep and bear arms, it is never enough.
The editorial complains that “existing laws set too high a bar for immediate action” when someone desires to disarm somebody. Should there not be a high bar for stripping someone of their property and constitutionally delineated rights? Even the ACLU of Washington had a problem with Initiative 1491, as spelled out earlier here.
However, gun prohibitionists have lost a crucial advantage with the stunning grassroots election of Donald Trump – made possible in large part by what appears to have been a heavy turnout of gun owners in key battleground states. Trump made it clear during the campaign that he will fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia with someone who may share his perspective on the Second Amendment. With a majority in the Senate, he should have a good chance to do that.
Likewise, federal court vacancies might be filled with constitutional, rather than activist, judges.
Trump’s victory amounts to a repudiation of Barack Obama’s policies, and a final rejection of the Clinton clan.
Now some questions: Will the House investigation of Operation Fast and Furious be revived and re-energized? How long will it take Congress to repeal and replace Obamacare? Will there be an investigation of how the Clinton e-mail scandal has been handled by the Justice Department?
These and other questions will be on the minds of voters who just handed Trump the keys to the People’s House, and they may want answers soon after he takes office Jan. 20, 2017.
- Timely reminder from Rasmussen: Majority says U.S. on wrong track
- GoFundMe pages advocate murdering Donald Trump
- NY Times columnist goes elitist on Trump voters: ‘less educated’
- Clinton supporters burn U.S. flag in response to Trump victory
And if you’re as concerned about Facebook censorship as we are, go here and order this new book: