Archive for the ‘gun control’ Category

Murder in Northwest DC


By John Feehery

View from The Cairo - facing northwest.jpg

“View from The Cairo – facing northwest” by Carol M. Highsmith –  Licensed under Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons.

In Hollywood, it seems like it is always Bulgarian mafia thugs who take a family hostage and demand a ransom.

Of course, in Hollywood, those bad guys are messing with Liam Neeson.   You don’t want to mess with Liam Neeson.

In the real world, it’s not Bulgarian thugs who do the dirty work.

It’s usually knuckleheads who come up with the bright idea that invading some rich person’s home is the ticket to wealth. (more…)

Where Is Obama on Chicago’s Gun Violence?


By John Feehery

SIG Pro by Augustas Didzgalvis.jpg

“SIG Pro by Augustas Didzgalvis” by Augustas Didžgalvis – Own work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons.

Originally posted in the WSJ

Sixteen Americans were killed and more than 60 were wounded in three days of violence. (more…)

A Missed Opportunity


By John Feehery


Sens. Chuck Schumer and Joe Manchin speak to reporters after a meeting on gun control.

I actually don’t blame some Members of the Senate for threatening to filibuster the still-mysterious gun bill.

Who knows what they have come up with in the back halls of the Congress and who know what they will end up with once this bill gets to the floor.

Mitch McConnell had it exactly right when he held out the right to support a filibuster until he actually got a glimpse of the bill.

I think the whole process has pretty much stunk.

The President has moved too quickly to pass old ideas that wouldn’t have prevented the Newtown tragedy.   He has done it because he doesn’t want people to forget “Newtown”.

I will never forget Newtown.  Nor have I forgotten Columbine.  Or the mass murder at Virginia Tech.

What I haven’t seen, though, is a comprehensive, careful and methodical approach to dealing with these mass shootings.

What I have seen is impatient politicians trying to do their best to best minimal legislation that won’t fix the problem.

The idea that makes the most sense to many Americans is one put forward by the National Rifle Association:  Put armed guards in schools.

This is already being done in most urban public school districts.  You need armed guards in those schools because violence is such an everyday part of life.

What we need is the same kind of report that went into the 9/11 Commission.

That Commission took a long and deep leak into the security lapses that the terrorists exploited to commit the horrific attacks on September 11th.   The Commission angered a lot of people and it made a lot of recommendations that may or may not have been exactly the right thing to do.

But the fact is that we passed those recommendations and we haven’t had a major terrorist attack on our soil since that time.  There may or may not be a causal effect, but it doesn’t matter to most voters.

Congress worked.   It worked because it had a check-list and it had public pressure put on it by a group of dedicated activists who didn’t have a partisan agenda, just an agenda to make the country safer.

And there were a lot of good, innovative ideas in the Commission report and many of those ideas made into law.

This has not been the case with current debate.

The President pushed for an assault weapons ban, but even if the President had tightened up the ban that had expired years ago, there would be so many loopholes as to make it essentially meaningless.

Reconstituting that ban never was seriously considered by the Senate Majority Leader.  And now the Senate is considering a very weak  background check that would have done nothing to either Columbine or Newtown.

Instead of being deliberative, smart, innovative or creative, the Senate has been predictable, partisan and largely ineffective.

This gun debate is a real mess and a real missed opportunity to get something good done for the American people.

Topic: gun control

Let’s Focus on the right “War”


By John Feehery


I have a bright idea.  Let’s end the war on drugs and then let’s launch a new war against illegal guns.

The war on drugs, much like Prohibition in the 1920’s, makes our country more violent and gives criminals the ability to corner the market on the recreational drug industry.

Most people in our prisons (which are over-capacity, by the way) are there because of a connection to the illegal drug trade.

Drugs are not good for you.  They make you act stupid (much like alcohol).  They are bad for your body (much like cigarettes).  They are bad for your brain (much like high-cholesterol foods).

But still people want to use them.  If they didn’t, why do we have so many people getting killed or getting thrown in prison just for the honor of selling them?   If there wasn’t a huge marketplace for drugs, there wouldn’t be a huge demand to get in the business of making money off of their sales.

Governments, by and large, are much more successful at managing marketplaces than they are at banning them.  The government should manage this marketplace, and from the increased tax revenue they would get from such a marketplace, they could do three things.

First, they could pay down some debt.  I don’t know if you realize this, but we have a debt problem in this country.  We could get a bunch of money from the legal sale of drugs.

Second, we could pay for drug treatment facilities.  The fact of the matter is that drugs are bad for you.  I hate them.  I don’t do them.  But some people do and if we legalize drugs, more people will need help to get off of them.  Some of the  tax revenue could go to pay for those costs.

Third, it could help pay for a new war on illegal guns.

I am fine with normal law-abiding citizens people owning guns legally.  And in some cases, I strongly suggest it.   I think there should be a universal background check, and if you are crazy, have a criminal record, or if you are under 25, you shouldn’t have access to guns in the civilian world.

There are too many guns in the hands of too many criminals.  And we need to have the government sweep in and take those guns away.  And I believe those gun should be destroyed that have been owned illegally.

We should raise the standards of gun ownership.  We should require that gun owners take a course in gun safety and gun storage that is certified and administered by the National Rifle Association.

And we should put gun sellers on notice.  If one of your guns falls in the hands of a criminal, and you didn’t report it stolen, you will be legally liable for what the criminal did with the gun.

It should be harder to own a gun than it is to get a driver’s license.  And illegal aliens should not be allowed to own a gun.  Period.   If you are in this country illegally, you don’t get to have a gun and if you are caught with one, you will immediately be kicked out of the country.

We need to be hard-asses on gun ownership.  We need to make sure that good citizens have them, and we need to take them away from the bad guys.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that if you are crazy or criminal or an illegal alien, you have a right to own a gun and use it to knock-off a liquor store, or kill your classmates, or shoot at a border patrol agent or use it in a gang fight.

Drugs might kill people but that is a self-inflicted death.   Guns in the wrong hands kill way too many innocent victims.  Let’s take away guns from criminals.  And let’s end the stupid war on drugs.

Topic: gun control



By John Feehery


John Boehner might be right.  The President may very well want to annihilate the Republican Party.  But if that is true it is going to take far longer than Mr. Obama thinks.

Obama’s speech on Monday and his efforts to force gun control on an unwilling Senate served two invaluable purposes for the GOP.  First, it unified them to an extent that they haven’t been unified in a long while.  Second, it made it awfully hard for Harry Reid to keep control of the Senate.

The House is going to stay in Republican hands for the next decade.  I am pretty sure of that fact.  Mitt Romney won more than 220 of the districts won by House Republicans, making the House majority one big safe seat.

There are about 8 Congressional districts that Romney won that are still held by Democrats, putting the Republicans on the offense for next election in the House.

As we know, Republicans in the Obama era do a lot better in midterm elections than they do in Presidential elections.  That spells trouble for Senate Democrats in Alaska, Arkansas, North Carolina, West Virginia, New Hampshire, South Dakota and Louisiana.

I don’t know if you know this but they really love their guns in those States.    The more Obama pushes gun control, the lower the odds that Harry Reid (who is an NRA supporter himself) keeps control of the upper chamber.

Obama’s vigorous defense of left-wing liberalism played very well with his political base, but it fell flat with anybody living in Red State America.

Has Obama portrayed himself as a centrist, Republicans would have been screwed.  They have been so hopelessly divided against themselves, that most conservative organizations get more energy attacking big business and other Republicans than do from attacking Obama.

But with his speech on Monday, Obama made it far easier for conservatives and Republicans to join together in opposing his policies.

The problem for Republicans is that the more they are unified in opposing Obama, the less they will be preoccupied in rebuilding the party for the long-term.

They will fall into the trap, if they are not careful, of being a House party and not a Presidential party.

The Republicans can survive by controlling the House for the next decade, but if they don’t reverse the demographic trends that became evident in the last Presidential election, they will not win the White House for forty years.

The problem with being really satisfied with an oppositional strategy is that it makes it awfully hard to be for something.   And if you are not for something, you will never get on offense.  And if you never get on offense, you can’t build out your coalition.  And if the GOP can’t build out its coalition, than it won’t be able to compete for the White House.

It is entirely possible that Barack Obama understands all of this.   And it is entirely possible that the President has been needlessly partisan not because he wants to accomplish anything, but rather because he wants to keep the Republicans on the defensive so that he can destroy them for the long-term.

For Republicans, that means that they have to take some risks.  They have to be willing to go beyond their base on issues which helps them to build a long-term coalition.  Fighting the debt is not much a risk and it is not much of a political strategy, because nobody votes on debt even though everybody is against it.

Taking risks means putting immigration reform behind them, embracing Obama’s position on same-sex marriage (or at least not fighting it), ending the war on drugs, offering a real anti-poverty agenda, and fighting for real campaign reform.

It means not being content to let Obama and his party fall on their collective swords in the 2014 election, but boldly putting together ideas that attract new voters to the party.

The Republicans won’t lose in opposing Obama in the short-term.  But they won’t win if they don’t come up with a positive agenda to attract new voters in the long-term.

Topic: gun control

Sign up for The Feehery Theory mailing list and receive an email each time a blog is posted.

  • Quotable, up-to-the-minute opinions.
  • Insider perspective of a Capitol Hill veteran and Republican pundit.
  • Never miss a post.

Subscribe now for theories on all things, but mostly politics.