First take this overwrought article: Can Anyone Beat the NRA?
In it Roger Simon (no relation to PJM's Roger L Simon) cries about the power of the Mean Old NRA. And how the gun grabbers might only get their Universal Registration but at the cost of "privacy provisions to keep the press and public from knowing the names of gun owners."
Now don't get complacent since the "Great Gun Control Comeback" is built into the end of the piece. The answer to the title question should be obvious. Obama and Biden need to save the US from the NRA.
Which is why you need to keep contacting your Senators. As we can wear them down. And time is on our side, but only if we keep the pressure up.
Take this article: "Maybe Washington waited too long to push gun control" (Note the title change, and the whole Obama's not a part of "Washington" and theme of Obama needs to ride to the rescue, again)
Oh as a bonus see the praise for how the Patriot Act was passed.
And there's no slippery slope: "Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy said that after the next mass shooting incident, members of Congress will be forced to explain why they did not act."
Related there's this piece where someone wonders if Bloomberg really is such a good standard bearer for Gun Control.
Now here's where I'll have to give it to Wayne LaPierre.
From the third article:
"Bloomberg "can’t spend enough of his $27 billion to try to impose his will on the American public,” LaPierre said on NBC’s Meet the Press. “They don’t want him in their restaurants, they don’t want him in their homes, they don’t want him telling what food to eat. They sure don’t want him telling what self-defense firearms to own. He can’t buy America.”
Fresh off a court setback in his controversial ban on large soda drinks in New York City, a move that has been mocked by conservatives, a bruised Bloomberg might not be the best person to carry the mantel for gun-control advocates. The blunt-spoken billionaire mayor may be popular in Washington and New York, but that popularity might not extend to other areas of the country."
And from the first article:
But to LaPierre “calm and reasonable” is the same as “weak.” Bloomberg “can’t spend enough of his $27 billion to try to impose his will on the American public,” LaPierre sneered on “Meet the Press” on Sunday. “They don’t want him telling them what food to eat; they sure don’t want him telling them what self-defense firearms to own. And he can’t buy America!”
All anyone really has to buy, however, is Congress. LaPierre knows how to intimidate senators.
Is some great copy. It's popped up in a lot of articles, notably ones written by gun grabbers.
Even people like the linked Mr. Simon, who call him a vampire responsible for the "slaughter of thousands of innocent men, women and children in this country" use that quote of Wayne's.
It shows that Bloomberg being a plutocratic controlling nanny is a very strong meme.
It also shows that Roger Simon is a disturbing ghoul who is disappointed that the blood of children couldn't be better exploited.
"Does all this seem like somewhat of a letdown after the terrible tragedy at Newtown? Weren’t we expecting more from our lawmakers?"
And really why would anyone want to wait before signing onto gun control?
Well.. turns out laws past in haste end up being very stupid:
“The governor thought the limit on the size of [gun] magazines would only apply to assault-style rifles, not to handguns,’’ said the source.
“That’s why there’s the big problem now with handguns, among other things in the statute.’’
The legal sale of virtually all semiautomatic handguns will soon be impossible because Cuomo’s law limits the size of bullet-holding magazines to seven shots, virtually none of which are manufactured for sale.
“Much of what’s in the law was drafted by people connected to Mayor Bloomberg and the Brady Center, not by the governor’s staff,” the source said. “That’s why there are so many problems with it.''
Geee... maybe you shouldn't have suspended the legislative waiting period Governor?
Maybe you should have read the damn bill before you signed it?
But gotta love his proposed "solution". You can own ten round magazines but you can't load them beyond seven rounds. Well you might be allowed to if you're at the range.
Get that? In a state where you need a CCW to even *own* a handgun he wants to make it so you can have more firepower when training or entertaining yourself, but not if you have to defend your life.
And that doesn't get into the question of enforcement. Or why there's a limit on how many rounds a mag "could" hold if he merely wants to ban how many you "can" put in it.
Naturally, criminals will fall into line with this law.