The Countertop Chronicles

As you know, I’ve been on something of an Anti Gun Owners of America kick for some time. Frankly, I find them to be one of the least credible organizations around and would more likely trust a press release from the Violence Policy Center than I would them.

Nevertheless, they remain a pesky foe. Between their Ron Paul loving supporters (and really, isn’t the only thing you need to know about them the fact that they just love Ron Paul??) to their efforts to undermine allies left and right who don’t toe their line (or worse, toe GOA’s arch enemy the NRA’s line).

Anyway, Kim du Toit had a post up about how much he hated John McCain yesterday. One of his commentators pointed out that McCain was rated F on gun control by GOA and that no one should trust him.

I don’t know where some come away believing that McCain is friendly to the Second Amendment, because, quite frankly, he is not. Check out what GOA has to say about his record when it comes to the SA.

http://gunowners.org/pres08/mccain.htm
http://www.gunowners.org/mccaintb.htm

And then, of course, there’s this:
GOA Ratings For John McCain
2000: C–
2002: C–
2004: F–
2006: F–

Regardless of what you think of the GOA, these are all simply a matter of public record on McCain’s perpetual battle against gun owners.

There’s much more for those who bother to check out the links above.

The “lesser of two evils” is still evil. There is nothing on the face of this planet that would result in my voting for McCain. Absolutely nothing. I’m sorry, but I don’t need to eat rat poison to know that it will hurt me. If this means a Dem in the oval office again, so be it.

It’s much better to know who your enemy is rather than find that he whom you believed to be your ally was not.

Well, that about sent me over the top (as does any argument that cites the Gun Owners of America (or Ron Paul)). I decided to actually see what GOA stated and try to figure out what all the blogosphere fuss was about.

Here’s my comment (well, I cleaned up a couple of typos) that pretty much sums up what I found and my thoughts overall on the whole idea that John McCain isn’t friendly to the 2nd Amendment.

In the same vein, I’ll be exploring some of the other issues that the right constantly attacks him over in the coming weeks.

Bottom line, the credibility of the Gun Owners of America (and by implication Larry Pratt) isn’t worth the paper I just used to wipe my ass.

As far as I’m concerned, the GOA lost any shred of credibility a long time ago (if they ever had any to begin with). You implore us to look at their meaningless rankings of John McCain? Then lets do so.

John McCain’s Voting Record On Gun-Related Issues
109th Congress: Lock Up Your Safety
108th Congress: McCain Puts Gun Shows In Peril
107th Congress: Incumbent Protection Muzzles Gun Owners
106th Congress: Anti-gun Amendments Abound

109th Congress: Lock Up Your Safety

Trigger Lock Requirement. On July 28, 2005, the Senate passed legislation requiring gun dealers to include the sale of a lock-up-your-safety device with every handgun sold. The amendment, offered by Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI), passed by a vote of 70-30. The provision amended the gun makers’ protection act (S. 397).

So, McCain voted, along with a huge majority of the Senate, to require gun locks to be included with the sale of guns AS PART OF THE PROTECTION OF LAWFUL COMMERCE IN ARMS ACT. Note that this didn’t require gun locks to be used, only that they merely be included in the sale of a gun (something 99+% of gun manufacturers were already doing). And remember, it was because of this essentially meaningless compromise amendment passing that the Senate was able to defeat a filibuster and pass the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. So McCain had two choices. He could vote for some amendment that had zero practical impact other than giving one of his Senate colleagues cover to protect the manufacture of firearms. Or he could let the urban mayors like Michael Bloomberg and the Brady Campaign to Eliminate Gun Ownership to sue firearm manufacturers out of business.

The pro second amendment choice seems pretty simple to me, but the highly credible Gun Owners of America can call this an Anti Gun vote if they want.

108th Congress: McCain Puts Gun Shows In Peril

These votes are ALL ON AMENDMENTS ATTACHED TO THE LAWFUL COMMERCE IN ARMS ACT – which as I explained above was designed to protect the firearms industry against lawsuits filed by urban mayors and the Brady Campaign to Disarm America, and which was heavily challenged by trial lawyers and the Democrats (in addition to gun bigots like those at the Gun Owners of America).

1. Ammunition Restriction Study. Senators Larry Craig (R-ID) and Bill Frist (R-TN) offered this amendment to S. 1805. Among other things, the language of this provision would commission the Attorney General to determine whether the ban on so-called “cop killer” ammunition should include superior performance bullets in popular hunting calibers such as the 30-06. The amendment passed the Senate 85-12 on March 2, 2004.

So, let me get this straight. We are facing significant pressure from Chappaquidick Ted, who looks like he is going to be able to tie the bill’s passage up with a filibuster related to his .30 Caliber Cop Killer Bullet ban. Yet, John McCain joins his Senate colleagues in defeating the Chapster by offering up a compromise approach. This compromise requires further study on the legitimacy of Swimmer Ted’s claim that .30 caliber ammunition (like the .30-30 round I shoot out of my Marlin 336 lever action deer gun) has no legitimate use and is only sold on the market as a “cop killer” bullet. Seriously?? Something offered by Larry Craig – perhaps as pure a gun rights advocate as your going to find anywhere (tapping foot irrelevant), that actually protects our rights, by offering the opportunity to embarrass the other side and expose their lies for all to see?? The Gun Owners of America think thats bad?? An anti gun vote??? Something McCain should be run out of town because???? Well, I’m not the one who claims to support their agenda.

2. McCain Gun Show Ban. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) offered a gun show amendment (to S. 1805) on March 2, 2004. His language would outlaw the private sale of firearms at gun shows, unless the buyer agrees to submit to a background registration check. Also, it could effectively eliminate gun shows because every member of an organization sponsoring a gun show could be imprisoned if the organization fails to notify each and every “person who attends the special firearms event of the requirements [under the Brady Law].” Thus, if the person responsible for handing out “Brady pamphlets” took a break to go to the bathroom, everyone responsible for the event could be sent to prison. The McCain amendment passed the Senate by a vote of 53-47.

Before I launched into this little rant, this was the one thing I was concerned about.

But I got to tell you, after reading the clearly-over-the-top-designed-to-embarrass-and-misinform-Gun-Owners-of-America’s description of his gun show amendment, I just don’t find it THAT unreasonable. Sure, I’d rather he not have to offer it, but really, its not that bad.

You see, we hear lots of bad things about this (and incidentally, its not the law) but as the Gun Owners of America clearly indicate, it doesn’t ban or restrict most private sales. McCain just wants private sales that take place at gun shows to go through the NICS (and he will set up a system to take care of that – largely by the promoter). Sure its a nuisance, and I’m not about to claim its anything but poorly considered policy, but that doesn’t make it anything other than a mere blip on his overwhelmingly pro gun record. Furthermore, from his position, he was trying to come up with some compromise (in Washington, if you don’t compromise with the other side, you might as well forget about accomplishing anything – though that seems what many on the right want to do) that was as fair as he could probably be to gun owners and still win enough votes to effectively remove the one complaint our opponents get any traction with these days. By their description of his amendment (I haven’t read the amendment in a few years but I suspect if it actually did ban private sales, the Gun Owners of America would point that out) it sure seems to me that GOA is more concerned with the guy in the ticket both walking away to take a leak than they are with the fact that a background check is actually going to remove anyone’s 2nd Amendment rights.

Whatever.

3. Feinstein Semi-auto Ban. On March 2, 2004, the Senate voted 52-47 in favor of the amendment offered by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). This amendment would extend the ban that was signed into law by President Clinton in 1994—a ban which outlaws certain magazines and more than 180 semi-automatic firearms. Without this legislative extension, the ban would sunset in September 2004. The Feinstein amendment passed as an amendment to S. 1805.

Oh Lordy, you list the Assault Weapons ban here, but guess what MCCAIN ACTUALLY VOTED AGAINST THE ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN AND WITH THE 2ND AMENDMENT (which, if you go to the bottom of the page GOA acknowledges – their veracity is striking)

4. Lock Up Your Safety Requirement .This amendment, offered by Senator Herb Kohl (D-WI) on February 26, 2004, passed the Senate 70-27. This amendment would require all handgun purchasers to pay an implicit “gun tax” by requiring them to buy a trigger lock when they purchase their handgun, irrespective of need. In addition, the amendment would create a broad and implicit cause of action against gun owners who fail to actually use the storage device to lock up their firearms. Of course, a locked gun then becomes unavailable for self-defense. The Kohl amendment passed as an amendment to S. 1805.

I already dealt with this fraud of a GOA issue. Gun Tax? Please.

GOA Vote Report For Sen. John McCain—107th Congress

1. McCain’s Incumbent Protection. By 59 to 41 (Vote No. 64), the Senate passed S. 27, to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to provide so-called “campaign finance reform.” The bill severely curtails the ability of outside groups such as GOA to communicate the actions of incumbent politicians to members and supporters prior to an election.

2. Incumbent Protection (Campaign Finance). This was the key vote in the Senate regarding the odious Incumbent Protection bill (H.R. 2356). The blatantly unconstitutional legislation squelches the voice of groups like Gun Owners of America in the final days before an election. By making it difficult, if not impossible, for groups to criticize the anti-gun actions of legislators prior to an election, incumbents are able to duck accountability for those actions. The filibuster was broken on a vote of 68-32. A vote against cloture (that is, to continue the filibuster) is rated as a “+”.

Well, this is another potential problem with McCain but here’s a thought:

Its not a gun related issue (directly) and the bigger problem is with Congress and all politicians on this one.

Blaming McCain for this – especially in the context of guns – is ludicrous.

Blame the Supreme Court. Blame Shrub. Blame Congress. Blame the American People.

But it strikes me as odd to single John McCain out for special blame (and to have a non gun issue count against his pro gun record – but of course if your a credible organization like GOA you need to constantly stir up the Ron Paul fans and drive more donations into Larry Pratt’s wallet).

GOA Vote Report For Sen. John McCain—106th Congress

1. Ending the Smith filibuster. On July 28, the Senate ended a filibuster led by Senator Bob Smith (I-NH)—a filibuster intended to keep anti-gun crime legislation from progressing any further. After the 77-22 vote, the Senate moved to send the language of the anti-gun Senate crime bill (S. 254) to a House-Senate conference committee. A vote against ending the filibuster is rated as a “+”.

2. Anti-gun juvenile crime bill. The Senate passed the gun control laden juvenile crime bill by a 73-25 vote on May 20, 1999. Besides the several provisions related to punishing juveniles who commit crimes, S. 254 contained several gun control amendments (see vote numbers 115, 116, 118, 122, 133 and 134 for details on these anti-gun provisions). [NOTE: On vote #118, all language pertaining to background registration checks at gun shows was superseded by the Lautenberg amendment in vote number 134.] A vote against S. 254 is rated as a “+”.

3. Banning private sales of firearms at gun shows. After a series of votes on provisions relating to gun shows, this amendment offered by Sen. Lautenberg of New Jersey gained the ascendancy. This amendment would ban private sales at gun shows– sales between two PRIVATE individuals– unless the buyer first submits to a background registration check. (Private firearms sales must be routed through a licensed dealer, and the purchase of more than one handgun by an individual will result in that information being sent to the BATF.) Even displaying a firearm at a gun show, and subsequently transferring that gun to a non-licensee (if it is displayed with a notice that it is for sale), will result in a two-year prison sentence– five years for the second violation. This amendment would also impose a series of restrictions and requirements upon gun show promoters. Finally, this provision grants BATF open-ended inspection authority to harass vendors at gun shows, and explicitly gives BATF the right to keep a gun owner registration list for up to 90 days. On May 20, 1999, this amendment passed 51-50, with Vice President Al Gore breaking the tie. A vote against this amendment is rated as a “+”.

4. Background registration checks. On May 20, 1999, Republican Senators Gordon Smith (OR) and James Jeffords (VT) offered up more restrictions on the sale of firearms. Their amendment subjects pawn shop and repair shop transactions to the same registration and background check requirements as purchases from dealers. A vote against the amendment, which passed 79-21, is rated as a “+”.

5. Hatch-Kohl. On May 18, 1999, the Senate passed an amendment introduced by Senators Orrin Hatch (R) and Herb Kohl (D). This amendment forces gun sellers to include trigger locks with every handgun sold. A vote against the amendment is rated as a “+”.

6. Internet firearms sales. On May 14, 1999, the Senate tabled (or defeated) an amendment introduced by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) that would regulate the transfer of firearms over the Internet. The Senate voted to kill the amendment 50-43. A vote to table the amendment is rated a “+”.

7. Hatch-Craig Gun Control. On May 14, 1999, the Senate passed the Hatch-Craig gun control amendment by a 48-47 vote. [NOTE: Many anti-gun Senators voted against this amendment because they favored more stringent gun controls which would later be offered by Sen. Lautenberg.] The Hatch-Craig amendment would impose several 2nd Amendment restrictions. It would ban ANY private sale at a gun show that does not first go through a background registration check. In addition, the Hatch-Craig amendment would assign one U.S. attorney in every district exclusively to harass gun owners. And of the $50,000,000 allocated towards this purpose, a full $40 million of it will go to increasing the presence of the BATF– not to investigate murders, violent felonies, or crimes of violence, but to pursue “firearms” offenses (most of which will be recordkeeping and other innocuous errors by law-abiding Americans). The Hatch-Craig provision would also impose a lifetime gun ban for juveniles committing youthful indiscretions at a very young age; extend the arcane and confusing juvenile handgun ban to semi-autos; and increase penalties for violating the almost incomprehensible regulations governing the circumstances under which one may legally take one’ssss child hunting or target shooting with a handgun or semi-auto. A vote against the Hatch-Craig amendment is rated as a “+”.

8. Defeating Hatch-Craig Gun Control. On May 13, 1999, a majority of Senators defeated a motion to table (or kill) an anti-gun amendment introduced by Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Larry Craig (R-UT). This amendment was offered as an alternative to gun control proposals being pushed by Sen. Frank Lautenberg. [For specifics of the amendment, see vote # 118.] The amendment survived 94-3. A vote to table (or kill) the amendment is rated as a “+”.

9. Defeating a medium-capacity magazine ban. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) pushed an amendment through the Senate on May 13, 1999. The provision would ban the importation of any magazine that can hold over 10 rounds– no matter when the magazine was manufactured. The Senate passed the amendment on a voice vote after Senator Bob Smith (R-NH) put forth a motion to table (or kill) the amendment. His attempt to stop the amendment failed by a vote of 59-39. A vote to support Sen. Smith in tabling (or killing) the amendment is rated as a “+”.

10. Young adult gun ban. This ban could severely punish parents who allow their kids to even touch a so-called semi-automatic “assault weapon.” While the amendment allows for certain exemptions, there are some imponderable questions which NO senator could answer, but which a parent would have to answer in order to avoid incarceration. For example: What is a “semiautomatic assault weapon”? The definition, plus exemptions, takes up six pages of fine print in the U.S. Code. Second, a child can handle a banned semi-auto if he is in the “immediate and supervisory presence” of a parent or if he possess a written permission slip from the parent. But what happens when, during a target practice session, the parent walks to the car to retrieve his lunch and the juvenile is no longer in the parent’sss “immediate” presence and does not have a permission slip? A parent can receive jail time for this infraction. The Senate passed this amendment, which was introduced by Senator John Ashcroft (R-MO), by a 96-2 vote on May 13, 1999. A vote against this provision is rated as a “+”.

11. Stopping the gun show ban. On May 12, 1999, the Senate tabled (defeated) an amendment introduced by anti-gun Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) on a vote of 51-47. The provision would have banned the private sales of firearms at gun shows unless buyers submitted to background registration checks. Draconian restrictions would have also been imposed on gun show promoters. A vote to defeat (table) the Lautenberg amendment is rated as a “+”. Praising Gun Control Moms On May 17, 2000 Senator Tom Daschle (D-SD) offered a resolution praising the marchers at the so-called Million Mom March, and calling on Congress to pass the anti-gun juvenile crime bill by Memorial Day. The non-binding resolution narrowly passed 50-49. A vote against the amendment is rated as a “+”.

12. Non-binding Senate instructions. On Thursday, April 6, 2000, the Senate attached a non-binding gun amendment to the budget bill for 2001. The Senate voted 53-47 in favor of an amendment offered by Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI)– a non-binding provision that asks the House-Senate conferees to get the juvenile anti-gun bill to the floor of each house by April 20. A vote against the amendment is rated as a “+”.

13. Non-binding Senate instructions. On March 1, 2000, Sen. Barbara Boxer failed in her attempt to instruct House-Senate conferees to finish its work on the anti-gun juvenile crime bill. After attacking Gun Owners of America for its refusal to compromise and for opposing firearms restrictions, Boxer saw her non-binding resolution fail on a 49-49 tie. A vote against the Boxer amendment (to S. 1134) is rated as a “+”.

14. Sink the gun makers. On February 2, 2000, Senators Carl Levin (D-MI) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) offered an anti-gun amendment to S. 625 in an effort to help the cities bringing frivolous suits against gun makers. Specifically, the Levin amendment prevents gun makers from declaring legitimate bankruptcy, and thus, discharging any enormous judgments that result from frivolous lawsuits. A vote against the amendment, which failed 68-29, is rated as a “+”.

Well, I simply don’t have time to go through all these votes (I do have to work for a living) and you can actually follow the link and read the votes your self. But permit me a couple of thoughts.

One, you’ll see that over time he actually worked for drastically reducing the impact of gun show legislation.
Two, he AGAIN VOTED AGAINST THE ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN!!!

Ya see, when you actually dig around over at GOA, you quickly discover that they really aren’t anything but a fraud. I often wonder if Larry Pratt is some counter agent for Rosie O’Donnell, his antics, actions, and lies seemingly designed to remove any credibility from the gun community.

UPDATE

Sebastian links and points out

I would note, though, that NRA also dinged McCain’s grade because of McCain-Feingold. Last time he ran with a NRA grade of C+, if I recall.

To my mind, McCain’s worst sin against gun owners is huckstering for AHSA speaking in favor of banning private sales at gun shows. His worst sin against the constitution is McCain-Feingold

And I would disagree with the NRA holding that against him – in regard to his record on guns. Now, the fact is, McCain-Feingold had holes big enough to drive a Mac truck through, and people did. Sure its a problem, but its not a gun problem. And its not a John McCain problem, rather its evil derives from something systemic in government.

But I’m not getting into that here. I’ll have a separate, more thought out, post on McCain-Feingold later.

UPDATE

Nothing better than the GOA/Ron Paul loons getting all McLovin on me and making my point.

From Kim du Toit’s

Boo Hoo Hoo. I love reading all of this crying about John McPain and how we should vote for him because of Hillary. All of you could have supported Ron Paul, the most SECOND AMENDMENT friendly candidate ever to run. You people laughed at him and mocked him, and supported statist idiots like

Fraud Thompson. Well, now you’re going to get Hillary, like it or not. No one is going to vote for a fake demo rat when they can vote for the real thing.

When the guns go in the shredder, I hope all of your guns are the first ones.