From two Instapundit links hours apart.
Both used the same argument in favor of new gun control law - stopping violence in Mexico.
Obviously they both got the memo. That there was one basically ensures this will become part of a larger theme and the WH hopes to act on it eventually.


Hmm. Baghdad is safer than Daley's Chicago now or Waco or Ruby Ridge on Holders last job with DOJ.
Who is fooling Who here. I can connect the dots too easy here.
Posted by: Old Trooper | Wednesday, February 25, 2009 at 10:38 PM
I was reading that the govt is thinking about stopping the importation of some types of ammo into this country. That'll do it for the 2nd amendment.
Posted by: Lala | Wednesday, February 25, 2009 at 11:31 PM
"--- I was reading that the govt is thinking about stopping the importation of some types of ammo into this country. That'll do it for the 2nd amendment. ---"
I've always said that the secret to shredding the 2nd amendment by stealth was never "gun control" but "bullet control".
And here in NY, we have several bills floating about that call for the registration of ammo and the mandatory implementation of serially RFID tagged bullets (with unmarked bullets to be destroyed at some future date).
Indeed, we are now marching down the path to tyranny and genocide.
Posted by: seekeronos | Thursday, February 26, 2009 at 08:34 AM
The Mexican government is responsible for controlling crime in Mexico, not the U.S. government. This new argument to subvert the 2nd Amendment is transparently false. Just like the Left. They never tell the truth about anything they want to do. They disguise their intentions with orwellian language: affirmative action, employee free choice act, peace corps, etc., etc. Holder wants a Self-Defense Illegal Act. Holder must go.
Posted by: Fred Beloit | Thursday, February 26, 2009 at 09:43 AM
You bitter clingers need to relax. President Obama's said time and again that he won't ban guns. Now, in the times of this economic crisis, he might need to ban them just a teensy little bit, but that's only to save Mexico from certain destruction and the resulting end of the world, which really you should be blaming on Deregulation and the Failed Policies of George W. Bush(tm).
Rest assured, as President Obama has said in the past, he is committed to giving the Second Amendment every bit as much love and attention as he will be giving to the First and Tenth Amendments.
Trust me.
Posted by: wells | Thursday, February 26, 2009 at 09:50 AM
Actually Baghdad is as safe as DC now. I have seen both after dark.
The RFID on ammunition business does not work. Neither does micro stamping. Bullet control?
Easy they will just tax it at a prohibitive rate, same for firearms.
They are sneaky but We are not stupid. Some of us saw that coming.
If the past administration had effectively sealed the Border what happens in Mexico would STAY in Mexico.
How do you know when Holder or Daley are lying?
Their lips move.
Posted by: Old Trooper | Thursday, February 26, 2009 at 10:04 AM
Wells:
Can you ship me some of that Kool-aid you are drinking?
Posted by: bbernard | Thursday, February 26, 2009 at 10:07 AM
Hey wells!
Maybe you should listen to what he said on the campaign trail.
When asked about it, he said he could do anything because he didn't have the votes in Congress (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/09/05/obama-im-not-going-to-take-your-guns-away/ ).
Let's see now... he's got 58 Democrats in the Senate plus 3 RINOs (Specter, Snowe and Collins). Yup, there's a filibuster-proof Senate. And there's 233 out of 435 Representatives that are Democrats; that's more than 50% and they don't have filibuster/cloture provision in the House.
Looks like the President has his votes in Congress.
Anyway, he can still do it through the backdoor by restricting ammunition. And he still has the votes in Congress.
Posted by: David in San Diego | Thursday, February 26, 2009 at 10:30 AM
Um guys, I really thing Wells was being just the slightest bit facetious, don't you?
Posted by: AlanC | Thursday, February 26, 2009 at 10:37 AM
AlanC,
He didn't write at the end of his post.
Posted by: David in San Diego | Thursday, February 26, 2009 at 10:42 AM
Let's try this again.
He didn't write /sarcasm at the end of his post.
Posted by: David in San Diego | Thursday, February 26, 2009 at 10:43 AM
As I posted at PP during the campaign, the first step will be a ban on importation of all military-caliber ammor: .308, .30-06, 7.62x39, .223, .45acp, 9mm, etc.
The next step would be increased taxation to pay for the health-care costs of gun-violence (it's all for the children, after all).
Posted by: AD | Thursday, February 26, 2009 at 01:16 PM
Wells didn't put a sarcasm marker at the end, but one would think that the tm at the end of the "failed policies" comment would have been a clue. Having said that, I've certainly missed the facetiousness on occasion because sometimes the parody is pitch perfect.
Posted by: RR Ryan | Thursday, February 26, 2009 at 02:01 PM
And to add insult to injury from Holder:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1
but then again:
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pelosi-tosses-cold-water-on-reviving-assault-weapon-ban-2009-02-26.html
Posted by: David in San Diego | Thursday, February 26, 2009 at 02:22 PM