It's a shame that anti-gunners can't just be concerned about yet another assassination attempt on the President of the United States of America. They've got to try and leverage it for gun control.
Unfortunately for them, they shouldn't expect help from the Bondi-less DOJ.
Her temporary replacement as the chief law enforcement officer of the country has already said what he thinks about the suggestions, and he's not wrong.
Tightening gun laws isn't the right response to Saturday night's shooting at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said on Sunday.Why it matters: Blanche's firm position stands in stark contrast to three months ago, when Republican officials suggested restricting gun rights in the wake of a deadly ICE shooting in Minneapolis....
- The backlash to that position, especially from within President Trump's base, quickly became a serious political problem for the White House.
What they're saying: "Look, this isn't about, in my mind, changing the law or making the laws more restrictive around possession of firearms," he told CBS's "Face the Nation."
- "I don't think the narrative here is about changing laws or changing — making, making our laws more restrictive."
This isn't a "now isn't the time" for gun control thing. This is more of a "we don't need to change the laws."
That's completely accurate. I'm not crazy about his references to narratives, mostly because I've seen too many to accept that as a valid explanation as to why we shouldn't be enacting new gun control regulations, but I'll grant a little grace here because he's not speaking from prepared remarks. This is mostly in response to a question, and terms creep in at times like that when you'd rather they didn't.
So I'll cut him some slack there.
That said, he's right that this isn't about changing the gun laws. This was a guy who bought his guns some time ago, which means waiting periods would be useless. He underwent background checks, which means universal background checks would have been useless, too. No so-called assault weapon, either.
There does seem to be some confusion as to how this jackwagon traveled--Blanche suggests he may have traveled by train to more easily transport his firearms--but at the end of the day, literally nothing that's been proposed in recent years would have made a bit of difference in preventing this attack.
What might help is if the left would stop framing everything Trump does in the most nefarious way humanly possible. It's clear from this guy's manifesto that he bought into every leftist talking point hook, line, and sinker. He bought their framing of everything, from "executing fishermen" when referring to cartel drug runners, to claims that Trump bombs little kids, rather than it being a case of munitions not landing a perfect strike that had unfortunate consequences.
No, he bought it, and he makes it clear that he's acting because of that.
Ultimately, he's the one responsible for what happened, but the Democrats who are now trying to leverage this for gun control need to stop pretending that their hands are clean in this mess.
Gun control, while also something they desperately want, is also something many of these folks hope will keep the media occupied rather than replaying their greatest hits so everyone knows what an inspiration they really are...to would-be assassins.
We don't need it. We don't need restrictions on our gun rights. What we need is for the president's opposition to merely be opposition, not outright enemies, with everything that entails.
I've quipped that politics is a blood sport, but it was metaphorical. These jokers are trying to make it literal, and I don't think they really understand what will happen if both sides start playing by those rules.
