The “background chatter” (as the NSA calls it) on gun control is ramping up ahead of the one-year anniversary of the Newtown massacre. Despite the inevitable bloody shirt waving, the antis’ exploitation of the tragedy isn’t moving the needle on the post-Newtown push for civilian disarmament. On Tuesday, Vice President Joe “Double Barrel” Biden met with families of Sandy Hook victims to announce that Uncle Sam will channel $100m into mental health services to commemorate the killing [paraphrasing]. While lamenting the lack of federal “gun reform,” the mainstream media is consoling itself with the reaction on the state level. Example given: After Newtown, focus of U.S. gun control battle shifts to states. [Reuters] There’s some good news on that front too . . .
In response to the Newtown massacre and the 2012 shooting deaths of 12 people in an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater, about 1,500 pieces of gun legislation were introduced in U.S. state legislatures, according to the Institute For Money In State Politics in Helena, Montana.
Only about 10 percent of them were passed, with a slight edge – 74 to 66 – for gun-rights bills. They included making it easier in some states to get concealed-carry permits or removing information about gun or concealed-carry permits from the public record, the institute said.
Obviously, gun rights advocates would be ill-advised to become complacent about the ongoing attempts to strip them of their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. If nothing else, it’s only a matter of time before another spree killer takes the spotlight, providing more fuel for the gun control industry’s disarmament jihad.
Meanwhile, even the Washington Post has been forced to admit that gun rights are ascendant: In Ohio, momentum favors gun rights movement. Needless to say, even this piece doesn’t mention the explosive situation created by gun control legislation in New York or Connecticut, and ends on a hopeful note—for gun control advocates.
Toby Hoover, founder of the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence, said a lack of education on gun laws stands in the way of mobilizing support for restrictions. “They really don’t know what’s out there now, and so, therefore, they think everything’s been done that can be done,” she said.
But Hoover said she remains optimistic that federal gun-control legislation will continue to advance. “I’m still very hopeful that they will pick that back up in 2014,” she said.
Let’s hope not.
““They really don’t know what’s out there now…”
So rather than actually educate themselves and come to the realization that there is already a shit-ton of ineffective laws, let’s just propose some more crap to add to the pile, right?
Yeah, that part pissed me off as well.
What gets me about that statement is that they seem to think that when (or if ever) those uneducated people DO learn exactly what laws are out there, that they will agree that we need more. Nothing like being arrogant enough to believe everyone who isn’t informed about your point of view will fall down and worship it once they hear it.
If I have learned *anything* about “progressives” in my lifetime, it is this:
They will never, despite endless failure, nor under any circumstances, give up on ANY agenda item, whatsoever, regardless of how rediculous or destructive it is.
Carbon credits, Obamacare, compulsory union membership, punishing success, redistribution, school curricula, raising taxes, food stamps, you name it.
If it smells, tastes, feels, or looks like sh!t, they’ll want more of it.
And if it gets implemented and fails, it only failed because they didn’t spend enough or go far enough. Always.
And the fact that they continually push the same failed policies is why I refer to them as “regressives”.
“…I refer to them as “regressives”.
Gonna need to borrow that one from you, sir.
In a way it is a mental disorder as some say. They are not satiated until their feelings are met. All logic is thrown out the window, all other views are put aside because they believe their one view is the only view which can satisfy the feelings they are having regardless or logic, statistics or facts.
I look at the Newtown parents, and despite their calls to be left alone, they have been unable to keep themselves from falling all over Biden and talking to the press — all their efforts will not bring back their children nor will it stop the next school shooting in the future but they have an emotional need to feel that if they can control a group of people who did nothing wrong on that day, then their feelings will be met — the feeling of control where they really have none.
Which is why we must continue to fight, because their feelings should not be allowed to trump our rights.
“In a way it is a mental disorder as some say. They are not satiated until their feelings are met. All logic is thrown out the window, all other views are put aside because they believe their one view is the only view which can satisfy the feelings they are having regardless or logic, statistics or facts.”
I think that’s called Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. Or Being a Flaming Azzhole. I can’t decide which.
This “not one step back” doctrine of the left goes back at least to good old Joe Stalin.
If you want to see a progressive really lose it ask them why they believe what they do, what reasons they have. It truly confused them in my experience.
To be honest, I hope they revisit gun control in 2014. With a pair of scissors however, as opposed to a quill pen. We could see some good things happen after the dems get slaughtered in the elections.
Yep. +1
Yeah, but I hope they don’t swing full-goose bozo the other way and bring back censorship and escalate all the wars on everybody. The only reason they’re against NSA snooping is because the Dems are in power at the moment. For example, the thing the Repugs don’t like abut Common Core is that it’s mandating the “wrong” things. They’d be just fine with Common Core if it mandated right-wing pro-war propaganda.
I am all for gun control. I believe that anyone who owns or uses a gun should be able to control it and hit their target. In fact, I think we should push for greater gun control. With more practice, users would be more accurate.
So, honestly, what do we do about the irresponsible yahoos that refuse to train and practice, or leave their firearms around?? They figger that plinking from a lawn chair is all they need to do, and that a right is a right, without taking responsibility.
Darwinize them. >:->
For those who didnt get the sarcasm, “gun control” meaning “properly controlling the gun when in use”. It is a turn of phrase that I used on a progressive that nearly made his head explode.
Same can be said for our side. I’ve personally consoled more than one prospective gun owner in the slave-state I once lived in after that prospective owner saw all the bullcrap hoops, checks and fees that were required to enjoy the right.
Ignorance abounds. Which is why polls are so pointless. You have no way of knowing what the baseline is for the person you are asking.
I don’t fault non-gun owners for not knowing the laws, provided they just stay out of our “business” until they do understand them…
I don’t know much about quantum physics, but I’m not out there claiming that CERN built their Large Hadron Collider incorrectly and offering my ideas on how to fix it.
LOL! Education is gun control’s worst enemy. I’m sure she misspoke.
//“They really don’t know what’s out there now …”//
Indeed, few people do, especially outside their own State, but it is most educational to learn about the gun laws of the 50 States. I did that back in the 80’s, and discovered that there were actually free States out there – in contrast to the one I lived in – that somehow didn’t have blood flowing in the Streets. It changed my worldview.
Free states have become more free, which has improved the live of gun owners by just a little bit.
People in slave states have become more enslaved, which has damaged the life of all the people considerably, perhaps irreparably.
I don’t think it’s been an even trade.
This is the point I came to the comments to make. Overall, the country is becoming more and more polarized, and the new state gun laws are simply a reflection of this. If this trend continues, then increased focus on State’s rights could help ease tension for a while. If you want to big government, move to CA. If you want small government, move to TX. But that would mean going back to Federalism and a smaller central Government, which will be strongly opposed by the left. So a live-and-let-live approach might gain considerable support in the “red” states, it will never fly in “blue” states. And thus the civil cold war continues.
“Overall, the country is becoming more and more polarized,”
This is, in itself, one of the basic tactics of the Progressives. It has been used, and been terrifyingly efficient, all through history. The reason it works, unfortunately, is that they polarize the un-educated masses against the managers and then use the democratic process to take control, since the masses will always outnumber the managers.
Yeah, this “eat the rich” crap is effective. Here, they are also doing christian vs. (basically everyone else), black vs. white, whatever they think will stick. Again, part of me wishes we could have more power concentrated in the states. The jobs would start moving out of the “eat the rich” states (as they are already doing), and those in the “red” states who don’t believe in punishing success could just watch as NY, CA, NJ ect. turn into Detroit.
Funny that my “Free State” became a bigger slave state this year.
What I find interesting is the divide between the oft-touted 90% number and the lack of legislation passed, in part because of the vigorous opposition of the gun rights groups (and people).
They say “well, that’s just a few loud voices,” and maybe that’s true. But it’s a few loud voices that care. You can get 90% of people to agree to “more gun control” in random man-on-the-street interviews all you want, but if those people don’t actually care enough about the topic to make their feelings known to the legislators, then their opinions are completely irrelevant.
We’re winning because we have more people that care, and the facts and numbers are on our side. They can have a billion people who agree with them and they’ll still never win, as long as those people are ambivalent and say “Yeah, I guess so” and then never follow it up.
Pro-2A folks generally (and generously) put their money where their mouth is.
Anti-2A folks generally will only go so far to “like” something on Facebook and call it a day.
Yes, but in their mind “liking” or “sharing” something = support. Just look at all the dopes who change their profile picture for a day in ‘support’ of something, or make some kind of media campaign to raise “awareness”
Reminds me of…
http://www.theonion.com/articles/african-child-dies-despite-merlin-olsen-endorsemen,823/
True, that does equal “support” but last time I checked, State/Federal legislation and the lawyers who argue the cases don’t charge 450 “likes” per hour, so that by itself gets the anti’s nothing.
Good point. Also, even assuming the “90%” poll was valid, agreeing in principle to universal background checks isn’t the same thing as agreeing to a particular implementation. I’m sure many people who honestly think universal background checks are a good idea would be very displeased with much in the Toomey-Schumer-Manchin bill.
We are winning because Constitution of the United States.
I beleive Jan 30th is our date before the judge in CT to try to get this nonsense thrown out. I’m not holding my breath though.
Is it just me who pulled the $100M into mental health out of that?
If they had approached that issue a freakin year ago we probably wouldn’t be having this argument again. Still.
Doubtful. Because that $100 mil came from somewhere, and will probably be spent on studies and paint instead of more beds and better care.
Why is it when a nut goes on a shooting rampage, that I NEVER EVER read about the need to revamp our mental health laws and to provide proper funding for the mental health system??
The gun-grabbers euphemistically talk about reducing gun violence when all they really mean is reducing Constitutionally-guaranteed defensive capabilities for a law-abiding citizen.
Comments are closed.