"The question asked at the AGC forum had some faulty premises: it failed to note that federal law already requires criminal background checks for the sale of firearms by federally licensed firearm dealers. I support that law. This law does not apply to many sales at gun shows; I support closing this so-called 'gun show loophole,' as well as similar loopholes that currently allow kids and criminals to buy guns."
So why didn't he answer the question with a yes?
Because, he said, he didn't want to stop a father from "giving a hunting rifle to his son." He later told Maine Public Radio, "I believe there ought to be exceptions." What exceptions? "I support closing the gun show loophole . . . but I don't support a complete universal law."
Glad he cleared that up.
As for Poliquin, he quickly clarified his position, which had generated criticism from conservative members of the GOP, particularly after it was revealed he'd once donated to a national gun-control group. In a statement sent to Matthew Gagnon at the Pine Tree Politics Web site, Poliquin said, "It's natural to target someone who's out in front. They'll take words out of context, push conspiracy theories, and try to mislead others about your positions."
I see. He has the same opinion as Steve Rowe:
A spokesman for Poliquin's campaign later sent me an e-mail indicating his candidate opposed closing the gun show loophole. So, why did he say "Yes" at the forum? Because, "Bruce supports current law."
Some cynical observers (not me, other cynical observers) have suggested Rowe and Poliquin are trying to have it both ways on gun control. That might be the best explanation, since the alternatives are that they're stupid or inept.
It's time they took a real stand. Come on, guys, man up.
Wait. Is that like Man U?
Give me a yellow card by e-mailing firstname.lastname@example.org.