Bizarro World Smokey Robinson:
 |
| But when it comes down to fooling you, honey that's quite a different subject |
We've seen this crap before, of course:
 |
| So if you want to know, how I really feel/Get the cameras rolling, get the action going |
And it's bipartisan:
 |
| Now I taught the weeping willow how to cry |
Will the Leader of the Free World's latest proposals move the needle on guns? Not really, but it does give an especially intrusive federal agency (BAFTE) a pretext to add staffing, which is always a goal in Washington.
If you like your kabuki moistened with tears, you can keep your kabuki moistened with tears.
13 comments:
i dont get this guy's unhealthy fetish against the 2A. he knows the public is against him. why doesnt he work to bring manufacturing back to our shores, or something to improve the overall lives of the working class?
he will spend the rest of his life surrounded by the safety of armed men, and he did NOTHING about the running of assualt weapons to criminal cartels... i take it he loves guns, he just doesnt want his own citizens to enjoy them.
He's never had any interest in improving the overall lives of the working class. He doesn't give a damn about the working class. He just wants to rule, because he's Barack Obama and Barack Obama ought to run things.
Of course, I know you know all that.
I'm thinking this is along the lines of Obama withholding his long form birth certificate until 2011. Useful sideshow to distract from what he's really doing.
Missed one.
http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/circus-clown-emmett-kelly-wipes-away-the-tears-and-a-news-photo/97260266
Actually, I do not think the public is against him as the latest polls do not prove that out. The polls show it about 50-50 for those favoring gun control over non-gun control. Regarding the question of "Would you support or oppose a law requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows or online?", it is 89% of those IN FAVOR. And about 60% want an assault rifle ban. Also, in the late 1960's the amount of households that were gun owners was about 50% and now it is 33% with the concentration being in certain areas in the U.S. At the same time there are enough guns owned in the U.S. for every man, woman and child. Now we just need to have one for our pets!
Three points, CB:
• Rights aren't subject to public opinion polling. I assume you know that.
• The Supreme Court has been consistently supporting the 2A in recent decisions, so Obama won't get too far. It's the reason his executive action is so feeble — he knows he'd get slapped down.
• If gun control measures were truly popular with the voting public (a crucial distinction), you'd see more politicians on the bandwagon. If you study the matter, you'll see that just about any lawmaker who supports gun control measures is based in a blue district. In other words, DFLers like Keith Ellison and Betty McCollum can be for gun control, but you'll never see Collin Peterson voting for gun control.
Chuckwagon Boy, keep in mind that the results of a poll depend strongly on how the question is asked. Imagine, for example, if you asked the assault weapon question with the admission that they're rarely used in crimes. I'd bet you'd get a lot less than 60% in favor then.
Plus, you've got the issue of not only likely voters versus all adults, but also voters motivated by a few key issues they won't compromise. If a politician stands for funding of abortion or gun registration, I will tend to vote against them unless their opponent is a regular Hitler, for example. These things are in my view so obvious that if someone gets them wrong, everything else they say really doesn't matter.
So, I think you are missing the point, gentlemen. I was answering Gino's statement "he knows the public is against him" by giving some stats to prove he was not correct. I was not offering a constitutional analysis of it, but simply stating that what I saw was not in favor of Gino's point. I am not sure if you meant your comment, Mr. D, about whether I knew about rights not being subject to public opinion to be smart-ass, but it sure seemed that way.
My points were that I am challenging that position that Americans think Obama is wrong. I know that polls are not always accurate and it could be the way the question is asked, but as I have looked at this subject the data across different polls seems to be consistent that people share the points I mentioned.
Re: whether favoring gun control is favored in Red Districts I believe it is more to do with people's view on the more important issues of the economy, terrorism and healthcare, the way the many states have drawn the districts and most importantly, the money flowing to the candidates from the NRA and other groups than it speaks to politicians listening to the people on gun-control.
No, I'm not missing the point, CB. I'm rejecting it. And Bubba explained quite well the limits of public opinion polling and why intensity of viewpoint matters in these discussions. And yes, I will cop to being a smartass, but again, as long as Second Amendment jurisprudence stands as it is, all the public opinion polling in the world isn't going to change things.
It's a tiresome discussion that the Leader of the Free World wants right now because he'd rather not talk about other issues. The vast majority of deaths by gun in this country are suicides. From where I sit as I write this, I can see 4-5 things I could use to kill myself if I were so inclined (and I should hasten to add that I am not), and not one of these items is a gun.
Gun dealers need a license to operate and they all perform background checks. If we are to have universal background checks on every gun transaction, how would we do that? If I choose to buy a gun and then give it to my son, the dealer would have a background check done on me, but once that transaction is complete should I have a federal background check done on my son? And how would I go about doing that?
Again, I am being a smartass about this because it's a tiresome discussion. China is having a meltdown and our financial markets are shaking. North Korea is exploding nuclear weapons of some sort. There's trouble all over the world and the Leader of the Free World is spending time pushing an agenda that won't go anywhere.
and in CA, we are trying to pass background checks for ammo purchases. for real, i'm not joking.
How about this way of asking the background checks question; given that the federal government illegally maintained a registry of background checks when the Brady check system was started for several years, and given that Chicago, New York City, and California have used gun registrations to confiscate firearms, do you favor a universal background check system that would enable government to create a firearm registry and confiscate firearms?
Because that is exactly what is in play. I have personally done background checks on church nursery and Sunday school workers. I believe in them. But I don't want government using them to get a registry of gun owners and guns owned.
My proposal; allow employers, churches, and the like to use the Brady check system to screen workers and totally eliminate the ability of the government to identify gun owners.
Appreciate the comments, Bike Bubba. I am not sure what the best solution is, but I do know the system is broken and if anything, the initial proposals that Obama presented, at face value anyway, seem to make logical sense. The system does not have to be draconian, but we give something a try and see what happens. We have checks and balances and if the court strikes it down, so be it. Or maybe they do not strike it down, then so be it. But at least we tried something.
Mr D, thank you for your comments and we will move on to other topics.
Chuckwagon, the way to reduce gun crimes is not through gun control laws. It is to recognize that what drives murder in general is the "children of unwed parents", and realize that the government has been subsidizing unwed parenting since the sixties. You want to fix the murder rate, you've got to encourage dad to be in the home, and mom to pick a good dad to be in that home.
Relative risk is a factor of about ten, really. Not quite as clear as the correlation of smoking to lung cancer (40x if I remember right), but it's close.
Post a Comment