Joe Manchin’s strong suit has never been the specifics.
Manchin wins on charm, passion, work ethic and the ability to carve out reasonably safe centrist positions.
He was well-suited as the state’s Governor. He ran the state as though he were the mayor of a medium sized city, with a hands-on approach to solving problems that was more about the exercise of power than adherence to any particular political philosophy.
Manchin was his own political party.
Washington, however, is a different beast, and one that appears to be a difficult adjustment for the Senator.
On Monday, three days after the Newtown massacre, Manchin appeared first on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” where he implied he was open to more gun control.
“I don’t know anyone in the hunting or sporting arena that goes out with an assault rifle,” Manchin said. “I don’t know anybody that needs 30 rounds in the clip to go hunting. These are things that need to be talked about.”
Manchin made similar comments later in the morning on my show, Metronews Talkline.
It became national news. Manchin, a conservative Democrat from a pro-gun state with an “A” rating from the NRA, was open to more gun laws. The Senator who famously shot a bullet into cap-and-trade legislation in a campaign ad was ready to talk about gun control.
The Senator’s comments earned him praise from many circles, especially liberal ones, but also produced howls of protest from conservative gun owners in his home state, of which there are tens of thousands.
“So the election’s over and the REAL Joe Manchin is coming out,” wrote one e-mailer. “If Manchin doesn’t know the people who own semi-automatic firearms, then he doesn’t know his constituents,” wrote another.
By Wednesday, Manchin was walking back his comments. On Talkline, he heaped praise on the NRA, said he opposed a renewal of the 1994 assault weapons ban, and indicated he had problems with Senator Diane Feinstein’s proposed gun control legislation.
What changed?
Manchin says nothing changed, although he did admit to being more “articulate” about his position on Wednesday than Monday. And he added that his goal all along has been to have a national dialog about all the contributors to gun violence.
“I’m not supporting a ban on anything,” Manchin told me. “I’m supporting a conversation on everything.”
I suspect Manchin did get stung by the negative reaction and is now trying to move back to a safer position. During his days as Governor, that would have been easy enough. He used the force of his personality to tamp down most controversies and missteps.
Washington is not nearly as forgiving. That city is driven more by rigid partisanship and crafted sound bites. Manchin would rather bring his style to Washington than bend to the beltway’s rules.
In Manchin’s world, all the interested parties get in a room and hammer out a deal. He practiced that as Governor—with him naturally occupying the biggest chair in the room–and he wants to do that in Washington, whether it’s on gun control, the budget or any other issue.
But as Manchin found out this week, just getting the conversation going in Washington, especially on a volatile issue, is rife with political risk.
49
Comments
CaptainQ
Hoppy, it's hard to blame MoJo for performing his patented 'political moonwalk' on this issue. Most West Virginians love their guns with the same level of passion that they love the WVU Mountaineer or Marshall Thundering Herd sports teams so even the slightest hint of mentioning 'gun control' is enough to cause SEVERE panic in the state. This is a state where Deer Season is still considered a MAJOR holiday time almost on the level of Christmas and Easter.
Joe Manchin pulled a SUPREME PR blunder here, though his motives were probably good. This is what happens when a horrible tragedy such as that in Connecticut inspires fast 'knee jerk' proclaimations. It is so strange that over a month after his reelection as Senator that NOW MoJo is fighting for his political life just because he hinted at gun control. It may take all of his vaunted 'political skills' to get himself out of this mess. If he's not successful, Joe could go down in WV history as the "Grinch Who Stole Our Guns."
Merry Christmas, Happy New Year to all!
December 21, 2012 at 6:38 am | Report comment
TD
The NRA is the only organization in the country that could truly lead and make something happen on this issue, but the leadership of the organization is out of touch with it's members. According to Frank Lutz's poll of NRA members, 74% favor a background check on ALL purchases of handguns(closing the gunshow loophole), 71% believe people on the terror watch list should not be allowed to purchase guns, etc... The NRA has become more extreme and even score representatives votes on things like taxes, what does that have to do with gun rights?
If the organization truly wants to be relevent it should follow the will of its members and help pass some sensible restrictions. As Ronald Reagan said on the 10th anniversary of his assassination attempt, "With the right to bear arms comes a great responsibility to use caution and common sense on handgun purchases. And it’s just plain common sense that there be a waiting period to allow local law-enforcement officials to conduct background checks on those who wish to purchase handguns."
Manchin needs to show some spine, the NRA can't defeat him in WV so do what's right.
December 21, 2012 at 7:11 am | Report comment
Wowbagger
An NRA member and instructor I know argues for a NICS check for all transactions just because it protects both parties from later legal action.
The term "gun show loophole" is a misnomer designed to inflame passions of the uninformed as you can't really buy or sell a gun in a private transaction at a gun show. The show's promoters will not allow it! There is never a gaggle of people in a corner of the parking lot trading guns between individuals.
The current penalty for a straw purchase (where someone buys a gun for someone who is not qualified) is ten years in Federal Prison by the way. This should be rigidly enforced and I am sure the NRA backs this penalty.
The "gun show loophole" issue is really about government inserting itself in a rural right of passage. A parent giving a son or daughter or possibly another family member a gun. Based on the the current tragedy one can argue that a parent shouldn't be able to gift a firearm to a child. Although Adam Lanza's mother displayed a fatal lack of judgement ultimately who is better at judging whether a child is responsible enough to own a firearm a parent or a contract employee at a call center looking up a name in the NICS database and a Federal fire arms licensee who is receiving a fee to perform the transfer?
December 21, 2012 at 9:54 am | Report comment
chad
So you've been to every gunshow across the U.S. and you know for a fact that promoters do not allow the loophole? Yeah, I somehow doubt that.
The NRA backs a ten year prison sentence for the sale of a gun to an unqualified person? Yeah right sure they do.
I can't wait to get my next "Dear Former Member We Need Your Support" letter from the NRA. It will be sent back with a not so pleasant message. Something that will rhyme with stuck sue.
December 21, 2012 at 4:25 pm | Report comment
Wowbagger
Son, an old tried and true principle is to follow the money. I have been to a lot of gun shows over a lot of years and this is the general rule these days. It makes sense as there is a lot of down side for the promoter and neither they nor their vendors make any money from private sales. They generally don't like loiterers on property they have rented for the event. Attendees have paid to attend the show inside and don't waste time hanging around in the parking lot.
As I stated above a straw purchase is a situation where someone who is qualified buys a gun for someone who is not qualified, not a direct sale to to an unqualified individual, although the NRA doesn't support direct sales to unqualified individuals either. All FFLs I know will refuse a sale to someone who they suspect is involved in a straw purchase and, of course it is illegal to accept payment before the purchaser passes a NICS check.
You know, your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired. Almost as bad as your spelling. Are you sure you are a history teacher? I'm not at all sure you could handle the wording of a Form 4473.
December 21, 2012 at 10:45 pm | Report comment
Tom
TD, there is currently an instant check system that allegedly accomplishes the "background check" suggested in your comment. I seriously question the accuracy of the alleged poll showing 74% favor closing the gun show loophole (fact: majority of gun shows already do so voluntarily by having a licensed dealer run the checks right at the show before any firearm is removed). None of these measures will resolve the kinds of events like those of Columbine, Aurora, or Newtown. They are clearly in violation of the 2nd Amendment - what part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand here? The guns used at Newtown were "provided" by an irresponsible parent who knowingly allowed access by a mentally unstable individual. Perhaps if we de-stigmatized mental illness and treated it the same was we do physical ailments, we would begin to see insurance coverage for it and more psychiatrists willing to commit patients that need to be committed instead of sweeping cases under the carpet in order to be politically correct. These are the measures that might put a dent in the violent mass killings. Gun control laws have been proven worthless in preventing anything but innocent people being defenseless against criminals and mental defectives.
December 22, 2012 at 7:08 am | Report comment
RM
You got it right Hoppy, "front row Joe" always wants too be out front. This time it got him in trouble. He's in a bigger pond now. Pay no attention to what he says, just watch what he does. If he does the wrong thing the people of West Virginia will not forget.
December 21, 2012 at 7:38 am | Report comment
wirerowe
Hoppy that is not the first time that the junior senator of today bumped into the junior senator of the past walking down the street. I think there was a natural knee jerk reaction that we have more fire power out there with the assault weapons and multiple clips than we need for our own good. I know that was my reaction . IMHO once the guns are on the street the cow is out of the barn. The gunshow loophole can be closed but it doens't matter. Most of these weapons that have been purchased in the mass killings of recent years have been legally purchased. Also I have heard pyschologists say that it is difficult to pick those with mental illness that are capable of doing such horrendous things out of a line up. I think any gun control legislation must target the manfuacturing of unacceptable weapons and possibly the sale of the weapons. The rub is targeting the ownership of the weapons. When that comes up all bets are off.
December 21, 2012 at 7:42 am | Report comment
TomZ
A little dissapointed in some of the comments here. "Good Motives"? How about a thorough lack of understanding of the main reason for the 2nd amendment, protection from a tyranical government.
The NRA should support disallowing people on the "so-called" terror watch list from owning firearms??? Have we considered the possibility that the people in our government adding to this list may have a much too convenient way to remove a persons rights without due process???
Target the manufacturing of "unacceptable" weapons???? Once again, an all-to-convenient way for the government to inhibit our right to effectively defend ourselves against out-of-control government. Besides, do we really want the government to determin what is "acceptable" (eg. use of suppressors for firearms)
December 21, 2012 at 8:48 am | Report comment
Donald Brady
The Obama Administration, as well as the progressive, liberal Democrat party, has already proven on more than one occasion that little is out of bounds when it comes to forcing their political will and agendas upon “We The People”—All this talk about “Terrorist Watch List” and “Mental Illness” when talking “gun control” will prove to be a slippery slope--- a slope the progressives will certainly welcome.. I’m sticking with the NRA, an organization I’ve never felt compelled to financially support in the past—but am supporting now!! And on “tell me it aint so, Joe”—Danny Jones said it best on Hoppy’s show —Did anyone really think Joe wouldn’t be co-opted by Schumer and Reid once he got there!!
December 22, 2012 at 6:37 am | Report comment
jeff
A reverse gear is a good thing....as is compromise. More should engage both in their Life.
As a hunter and gun owner for about 50 years, I would not retreat from the point that a hunter does not need a rifle sporting a 30, 20 or 10 round magazine.
Whether it is a person's right to own is another matter...but I am tired, as a hunter, of being forced by association into supporting the desire of some immature kid from 18 to 88 years in wanting to own one.
The perceived need to whack and stack intruders on one's front lawn from societal collapse, super volcanos or foreign armies is foolish...and that is a portion of what is driving the tinfoil ball lure of these rifles....along with the present day appeal of the military/SWATish actions & artfully created artificial violence....then add a dose of economic fear and frustration to the mix with a good helping of the propoganda of those profiteering off of the fear and frustration and, Bob's your uncle, as they say.
No, WE do not need 30 round mags.
Too many of the frustrated NRA sheep are blindly following the tooting of a fear-inducing horn rather than thinking clearly. They should grow up and then they might realize that one occassionally misspeaks in times of unimiginable tragedy and that rifles or handguns are never the main issue in these tragedys...they are just the tokens that each side uses to further their own agenda.
More sad that.
WE should be wiser.
December 21, 2012 at 8:20 am | Report comment
Shadow
Well spoken as a hunter. However, I would ask the you read the history of gun control and tyranny throughout the world. As I said before, I can't find "Hunting" in the Second Amendment". Hunting is a happy byproduct.
December 21, 2012 at 9:44 am | Report comment
Don Jr.
Shadow - You are right, this is not about hunting altogether. The price paid for our Constitution was too high for us to allow the rights provided therein to be taken away. First of all, everyone needs to listen to Wayne LaPierre's news conference in it's entirety. One thing that needs to be understood by the American public is that criminals are always going to have guns and their going to have the best ones that can be made. The drug runners of today even have submarines and FULLY Automatic weapons. It is extremely nieve to think that any kind of weapons ban is going to change this. Also, the hunters need to realize that the so called "assault weapons" ban is passed,t hey will then be defending the right for their hunting rifles next. Because they will be outnumbered by the anti hunting folks who just don't see a need for it. Manchin say's he only needs three rounds of ammo but there are others who will say they don't need any ammo so why have it available for you. Personnally, I do not own any of the so called "assault weapons", but I do understand that the constitution provides me, as a law abiding citizen, to obtain one for defense or any other legal use. I do not think it is wise for us as American citizens to give up this right. Has everyone forgotten that our own government has actually given weapons to the drug cartels in Mexico? If I lived in south Texas I would definately have one of these semi-autos that they are calling assault weapons quite handy, nearby. Once again I'll say that it is foolish to give up rights that were so hard to win. Besides the plain simple fact that it would not work for the purpose being presented.
December 21, 2012 at 8:56 pm | Report comment
ShinnstonGuy
I find it humorous that many commenters on here frequently dispel the idea that WV could ever be a two-party state, and bemoan the fact that we are stuck with a rigid state government bent on maintaining the status quo. However, when someone finally says, "Let's have an open conversation on everything," which is essentially what many have asked for (maybe no on gun control, but in other areas), suddenly they are freaking out and calling for his head. If you don't want my hunting rifle or my pistol, I don't care what else you ban. This isn't Syria after all and I see no uprising occurring anytime soon.
December 21, 2012 at 8:25 am | Report comment
Donald Brady
Are you sure?
December 22, 2012 at 6:42 am | Report comment
Tom
If you do not see an uprising coming soon, you are blind. What good is the 2nd Amendment going to be if Obama gets his "plan" approved that includes government permission for any gun purchase? All the government has to do is say "No" and you don't get any firearms. Period. The 2nd Amendment says that right "shall not be infringed." That is absolute and inflexible. Mandatory SHALL NOT be INFRINGED (interfered with in any manner). There is a process for changing the constitution. If, however, anyone thinks they can get 38 states to approve the removal of the 2nd Amendment, they are crazy. The only way it can be done away with is if we allow our legislators to do it illegally, and that is what is happening right now.
December 22, 2012 at 7:19 am | Report comment
mntnman
I suspect he'll run for governor in few years -- he wants to be the top dog, not a junior Senator with a back row seat. He craves the spotlight and control above all. He generally thinks he the smartest guy in the room -- and he doesn't like being just another Senator. Much like his comments on Obama election night -- they only played in WV -- he thought they would grab hold with the national media. In Washington, hes just another guy.
I take people at what they say -- he meant what he said the first time. He thinks we should ban assault rifles. But politically, in WV where he has to garner votes, he stepped on a land mine, so he is backtracking to maintain personal popularity.
Joe Manchin is for Joe Manchin and he'll do what he needs to to stay on top...regardless of what he really thinks. It was not an issue of articulation. Oops. Sorry folks, he said what he actually thought -- until it became a problem for him. Just another politician.
December 21, 2012 at 8:28 am | Report comment
hillbilly
And... when these weapons are outlawed and some deranged kid does this again with an "illegal" weapon, what are they going to scream about needing to outlaw????
Although have plenty of guns I have no need for assualt weapons.. either for protection or hunting.
December 21, 2012 at 8:41 am | Report comment
Tom
You will...just allow things to keep going in the direction we are headed. Read the Declaration of Independence. It happened then and it looks a lot like the same situation in recent years. You will either be slave or free. That's the choice.
December 22, 2012 at 7:22 am | Report comment
Mrs Rachel Beach
All groups should be brought to the table to address where regulation will or may be required to assist in minimizing the violent nature in this country. The only way I would support a revision to the 2nd amendment is if it applies to EVERYONE. Which means video games, TV or movies will be in violation of the federal law if they use the types of guns that are going to be regulated by the gov't. We know this will never happen because let's face it, the ENTERTAINMENT industry is the strongest lobbyist in DC - not the NRA -and greatest influence in this nation. People that gun didn't kill, the "knowledge" of what to do with it was the trajectory force in a weak mind programmed with images and results. So, are our producers, directors, actors and entertainers prepared to lower themselves to abide by the laws that we are required to obey? I am fully aware that there is a need to provide the reasonable citizens of this country a means to keep their firearms. This group of people if they are truly reasonable will concede that it is understandable why more may become required of them to use or own their firearms as deemed fit and why some will not be available to own. Look at prohibition, alcohol isn't good and when undisciplined people abuse this substance there are unwanted pregnancies, drunk driving, violence and death, all which led to the gov't outlawing alcohol. Did it work? Nope. Did we need to regulate it? Yes. We will always have visual media at our fingertips, but why can they not regulate the level of violence and sex that robs people of their innocent minds? This is just as dangerous too and requires regulation of what is available to the public. Playing violent video games have absolutely no positive outcomes at all, just like drugs. They are not a necessity to life, nor is television or movies. All the violent messages and simulated actions or vicarious living that society is addicted to via these forms of entertainment has proven to only hurt our country and not help it. If this federal gov't in all of their self-declared wisdom is going to address the issue, then they best address ALL the issues. That's right Hollywood you are not above the law, whatever you may believe.
December 21, 2012 at 8:47 am | Report comment
Hammer807
Hoppy:
Lets define "assault rifles." As a retired Marine, my definition of an assault rifle is a fully-automatic weapon. Rifles sold in gun shops are semi-automatic; meaning 1 trigger = 1 shot. As such, there's not much difference when compared to a semi-automatic deer rifle. This compared to a automatic weapon that can fire multiple times with a single trigger pull.
As for Jumpin' Joe Manchin, his backbone more closely resembles a strand of cooked linguini.
December 21, 2012 at 9:13 am | Report comment
GregG
I can remember when I was growing up that it was a "rite of passage" for a young boy to join the NRA. Most all the boys in my class sported an NRA cap and belt buckle. It was as if you wasn't a "real hunter" if you weren't an NRA memeber. I was in my mid 20's when I began to see that the NRA was becoming nothing more than a lobbyist group for gun and ammo manufactures instead of being a voice for the hunter. Like so many "things" over the course of my life, what started out as a good causes became nothing more than a ruse used to prepetuate greed and secure the profits of a certain business. Sadly, as wireowe said...."the cow is out of the barn". No form of "gun control" is going to miraculously take what some refer to as "assult weapons" off the streets. But once again just the mention of "gun control" has sent the profits of gun and ammo manufactures through the ceiling. People are running out and spending hundreds if not thousands of dollars on guns and ammo. Yet if someone dared mentioned increasing taxes by a few dollars a year to provide mental heathcare millions would rise up to raise hell. Makes me wonder if mental health issues isn't a bigger problem than we care to admit. We have become a nation that hands big business tax breaks and loopholes while our veterans live under bridges. We take no issue with a CEO getting a $20 million bonus while hundreds lose their jobs or are ask to take wage and benefit concessions. We turn a blind eye to the tax exempt organized religions political influence over our government while our elderly go cold and hungry. We allow college sports to become a billion dollar business while our children are being killed in the classroom. But we haven't got time to worry about things such as these, we got to place all our effort on ending Joe Manchin's political career because that SOB wants to take our 30 round clips! Pretty sad isn't it?
December 21, 2012 at 9:37 am | Report comment
Tom
This entire argument has NOTHING to do with hunting. It has to do with protection...against violent criminals as well as an overwhelming government that is denying more and more freedom to its citizens. There is no other means to protect against such things than to be provided the right to keep and bear arms. Hunting has nothing to do with it. The NRA is not about hunting, it is about protecting the 2nd Amendment - perhaps not by choice, but by necessity.
December 22, 2012 at 7:24 am | Report comment
DonaldH
Look, we don't "HAND ANYONE A TAX BREAK" --- it is their money to begin with!!! Do you think we should say "Thank you Mr. Government Man for letting me keep some of my money"-- And the NRA was once focused on just protecting "Hunting Guns" that much is true-- but that was only when they already had the many guns I can own today already ban. See how the liberals in government work-- they get my AR-15 banned today and tomorrow they come after my Remington BDL 742 30-06 deer rifle I've had since I was 14 years old...
December 26, 2012 at 6:28 am | Report comment
jethro
i have mixed feelings regarding ban on assault rifles. several questions come up, do we need that much firepower to protect our homes?
are we really that paranoid about tyranny in our government? should we be worried about tyranny in our government?
a paronoid thought..what if the syrian people didnt have assualt rifles? what if the eqyptian people didnt have assault rifles?
where would they be now?
December 21, 2012 at 9:52 am | Report comment
Shadow
Tyranny in our government! I can offer no more than the current example where the Democrats are wanting to spend us into bankruptcy, Sixteen Trillion in debt and wanting to increase that by one Trillion a year to a point where our taxes won't pay the interest debt. How about Executive Orders that bypass the Constitution? Friend, we are there. We can only hope for the best in the next four years, otherwise, chaos to follow.
December 21, 2012 at 12:25 pm | Report comment
chad
Jethro,
Don't worry bud. Our Milllitary is far superior to that of Syria and Egypt. A coupe million assalt rifles aren't gonna make any difference.
December 21, 2012 at 5:48 pm | Report comment
Don Jr.
No one is going to defeat the US Military at it's current capacity, no one. Who would want to??? The US military is the most honorable institution in the world today. The reason that individuals and communities need to maintain a certain element of defensive capability become clear when you see the crime waves that sweep through like happened after the hurricane sandy, for instance. Or, another example would be on the Mexican border. Our government refuses to secure this border and has actually supplied arms to the drug gangs that are working the border. American citizens killed with guns supplied by our own government. No one, to my knowledge went to jail for this action. Someone should have by all reason and logical accounts. The attorney general who authorized this arms transfer, still in power. Actually on the team that is trying to disarm us, the law abiding US citizen. I'm still trying to figure out if all this is intentional, or if people are actually this stupid.
December 21, 2012 at 11:31 pm | Report comment
Sampeer
A true statesman would have offered condolences to the family's of Sandy Hook and otherwise been silent. Senator Manchin, however, is no statesman. Like so many in Washington and Charleston, he has little concern about the families who lost loved ones. He just like the vast majority of politicians, democrat and republican alike, the next election is their only concern.
The really sad part about this whole thing is people keep voting for individuals like Manchin, Capito, Reckefeller, Tomblin, or a whole list of others. Then they complain about them. Yet again when the next election comes, they'll turn right around and vote for the same people again and then complain again. We actually have the people in government that we deserve.
December 21, 2012 at 10:00 am | Report comment
Wowbagger
Hoppy,
I think that there is a big lack of understanding about the National Rifle Association (NRA). The NRA was formed just after the Civil War by a group of Union Officers who realized that the soldiers recently in their commands were not the marksmen that the Confederate troops they were facing. The Confederate Troops were country boys who grew up with guns, while more of the Union Troops were city boys who had never learned those skills and found themselves desperately needing them. At its founding the NRA was charged with training and gun rights under the Second Amendment.
One early push by the NRA was encourage arming black veterans so they could protect their communities from the Ku Klux Klan. The KKK (mostly southern Democrats, by the way) decidedly did NOT want any blacks, particularly veterans who knew how to use firearms, armed for obvious reasons. The NRA acted to preserve the civil right of self protection of newly freed slaves in the south. The NRA, with many current black members is decidedly not the new KKK!
During the 50s and 60s with many World War II veterans who were comfortable with guns in the population the NRAs mission was mostly safety and training. As attempts to limit gun rights have developed they have appeared to become more radical, but the organization has just been fulfilling one of its original purposes.
If there is a push for more safety or marksmanship training for firearms owners now or in the future the NRA is one of the few organizations in the western world with the deep resources to accommodate the need in real time. In October the Boy Scouts of America sent out a nationwide call for NRA instructors for the 2013 Jamboree to be held in Fayette County, for example.
You will notice that, although many NRA members are hunters, hunter's rights is far from the only purpose of the organization.
Although much demonized and politically incorrect the NRA was actually one of America's original civil rights organizations.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation ironically headquartered in Newtown, Connecticut is the industry trade group NOT the NRA! NRA membership is only available to individuals and has no mechanism for corporate membership. Although primarily an American organization, the NRA has members worldwide.
December 21, 2012 at 10:59 am | Report comment
Shadow
Good Information. The lack of understanding of the NRA is by willful intent by those whose motives I don't understand. Their, the NRA, policies are clearly stated and their support of training for all members of Society is well known among those that take time to read their policies. The "Gun Control" freaks have a "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up" attitude. I sometimes think that their attitude is more ignorance than stupidity, but the issue is still open.
December 21, 2012 at 1:08 pm | Report comment
Jim
Most posters have either selective recall or short memories. To state that there is NO danger of the government confiscating our personal firearms, have is factualy wrong. Have you forgotten about Hurrican Katrina when New Orleans Police went door to door demanding that law-abiding residents turn over their firearms to police? Further, those that refused had their homes searched WITHOUT A SEARCH WARRANT and their firearms confiscated. They were left at the mercy of looters and criminals who still had their weapons and were prayed upon unarmed residents. How did this miscarraige of justice occur? Simple, the mayor directed the New Orleans' Police Force to do it! Could this happen throuhout the U.S.? Certainly! All would need to happen is for a governor or president to declare Marshal Law then, all constittional rights are suspended and you are at the mercy of the whims of misguided politicians. So, when posters state that firearm confiscation will never happen in America, remember Katrina and New Orleans. Whether one chooses to own firearms or not, it's a personal choice. However, I do not wish to live in a society that the only people with guns are the military and police!
December 21, 2012 at 11:41 am | Report comment