Maddow loses credibility in critical gun discussion

Caught the Rachel Maddow Show the other Monday. Her guest was Gavin Newsom, Lt. Gov. of and candidate for Governor of California. He was explaining his proposal for background checks for ammunition, in California. He said he was going to put it as a referendum, as the legislature wouldn’t pass this measure. He and Rachel agreed that the NRA would block it.

I always admired Rachel, as she has been an intelligent and good journalist. Mr. Newsom added to his laundry list of the other tacked-on measures items like limiting magazine capacity — and the always “Other.” He then stated that there were over 10,000 convicted felons in the State of California with “ILLEGAL” guns. So I waited for Rachel to state that a background check on ammunition was impossible, and the 10,000 convicted felons with illegal guns was the most outrageous lie she had ever heard. She then looked at him, with doe eyes, and not only agreed with him, but said she wished other states would follow suit and bypass their elected representatives, and put it up to a vote, by state voters. She didn’t realize that Mr. Newsom, being a smart man, knew that his proposal could not and would not pass, and was only using it to emotionally excite the voters. He was using the accidental gun deaths of toddlers as his hook.

I thought for a minute that Rachel had joined the Fox News Team, where lies and misrepresentation is the “news.” She quit being a journalist and became an illogical woman, wishing to prevent child deaths caused by hand guns. Rachel can be forgiven for letting the background check proposal slide, as she doesn’t know anything about guns or ammunition. Rachel, here is why it can’t — and won’t — work.

California is surrounded by Arizona, Nevada and Oregon, states that do not now, or will ever have ANY gun control legislation, let alone something as silly as ammo background checks. My son and my friends reload, so background checks would be necessary for every box of primers, bullets, and can of powder, do-able but insane. There is no way to register ammunition; a number on every bullet or shotgun shell won’t be done, and I never have less than a thousand rounds of ammunition, at any given time — not unusual for Idaho.

One brick of .22, (500) rounds, and 308, 223, 9mm, and my Thompson can eat up 100 rounds in less than a minute. So, if I lived in California, I would phone or internet order 300 rounds of 308, ball ammunition. In three days it would be on my front porch. If the California police can’t keep over 10,000 convicted felons from having illegal weapons, how are they going to monitor my ammo purchases?

My only concern is that Rachel betrayed all journalistic ethics, and I can no longer trust her. The referendum won’t pass, and Mr. Newsom can unpack, as he is not going to the Governor’s Mansion. We won’t let it pass because we, the obstinate NRA, won’t let it, and he will lose his election bid. If he was as smart as he pretends to be, he should take a look at the Tom Foley playbook. Never had a seated House Majority leader been defeated in a re-election bid, but Foley endorsed a small piece of anti-gun legislation and we beat him, soundly. The NRA did it, and every politician knew of it immediately. After it happened, we went from a force to be courted, to a force to be feared.

Other lobbyists call their representatives and ask for their vote. The NRA, calls and tells our representatives how to vote, and we have a lot of them. If you are from a western state or Texas, regardless of your party, if you don’t have an A or B grade from us, you won’t get elected, period.

Rachel, look at the 60 Minutes story on Safe Guns. 60 minutes thought that Safe Guns were a good idea, but gave a fair amount of time for the objections. The reporting was fair, factual, ie., no lies, and once again set the bar very high for all journalists. I will still watch your show; I just won’t trust you, and neither should anyone else.

Terrance Wolferman is a Coeur d’Alene resident.