Shotgun Joe and more Gun Control plans

G

Glenn E. Meyer

New member
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/joe-biden-on-sidelines-in-gun-debate-98966.html?hp=f2

Basically says that Joe is irrelevant as the battle moves from the Congress to state legislative actions and trying to build PR networks.

A senior WH aide now meets with a slew of gun control advocates in an overarching group called the Gun Violence Table.

Big push planned for Dec. 14.

--- I wonder if Joe is also out of it because he sounds like an idiot.

Glenn
 
I think the President is really regretting his decision to put Uncle Joe on point for this one.

The interesting stuff is on the second page of the article:

Other strategies that have been discussed represent half-a-loaf options, like seeking legislation that would impact only gun shows, not other private sales; pushing for legislation to keep guns from people with domestic-violence convictions; and aiming for gun restrictions for the mentally ill.
Click to expand...

So, we need universal background checks to stop massacres like Sandy Hook, even though background checks had no effect, so we'll settle for a half-measure regulating gun shows, which had nothing to do with Sandy Hook, to save further children from killers who will find ways around the system. Got it.

We've already got a lifetime disqualifier for just about any act of DV, so where could they go on that?
 
One year anniversary of Sandy Hook/Newtown CT....

With the first anniversary of the Sandy Hook/Newtown CT school shooting coming up, Id expect a lot of political posturing & PR events in Dec.
Anti-gun forces & gun control groups will be all over the major media to demonize gun owners & the 2A supporters all across the US.
 
It’s classic politics that you never let a good crisis go to waste, so I suppose we may see a renewed push on the anniversary of this tragedy. However, being that we are entering an election year and many incumbents are tied to some other unpopular policies it’s difficult to believe there will be a big push in 2014, but stranger things have a happened.
 
it’s difficult to believe there will be a big push in 2014, but stranger things have a happened.
Click to expand...
There will be a push, and I've no doubt Bloomberg will be pouring money into it.

That said, the politics of the 2014 midterms are going to be bloody and toxic enough as it is. I don't see gun control being given much of a priority.

Americans really weren't as interested in gun control as the press claimed earlier this year, and the very tangible backlash in Colorado is going to give politicians on the fence pause.
 
That said, the politics of the 2014 midterms are going to be bloody and toxic enough as it is. I don't see gun control being given much of a priority.

Americans really weren't as interested in gun control as the press claimed earlier this year, and the very tangible backlash in Colorado is going to give politicians on the fence pause.
Click to expand...

Gallup concurs, albeit reluctantly, in their Oct 25 poll update.

From the article:
Public support for stricter gun laws is down from 58% in the days after the December 2012 Newtown shootings, and is lower than it was from 2000 through 2006, when, for the most part, solid majorities of Americans favored such laws.
...
Numerous mass shootings have occurred in the U.S. in the past decade. However, during this time, aside from the passing surge of support for stricter gun laws after the Newtown shootings, Americans' support for gun control has tapered.
Click to expand...
 
Public support for stricter gun laws is down from 58% in the days after the December 2012 Newtown shootings
Click to expand...
Weren't we told that was 90%? Yes. Yes, we were.

The problem with polling is that you can get the numbers you want by asking the questions in the right way. Actual support for gun control, as in "I'm going to write my legislator/governor about this" support, was probably in the single-digit percentages. I doubt it was ever nearly 58%.

That said, we've seen a small percentage do serious damage in Colorado, New York, and Maryland. Bloomberg's money isn't enough of a safety net as it once was, but it's still there.
 
The problem with polling is that you can get the numbers you want by asking the questions in the right way. Actual support for gun control, as in "I'm going to write my legislator/governor about this" support, was probably in the single-digit percentages. I doubt it was ever nearly 58%.
Click to expand...

Any data set, sufficiently tortured, can be made to say anything you want it to.
 
I wonder if Joe is also out of it because he sounds like an idiot.
Click to expand...
Walks like a duck quacks like a duck. :D;)


The problem with polling is that you can get the numbers you want by asking the questions in the right way.
Click to expand...
Always been my take. People who might say they would like to see a new gun law to cut down on violent gun crime have a different view of what the law whould actually look like once written.

With the first anniversary of the Sandy Hook/Newtown CT school shooting coming up, Id expect a lot of political posturing & PR events in Dec.
Anti-gun forces & gun control groups will be all over the major media to demonize gun owners & the 2A supporters all across the US.
Click to expand...
Maybe so but people don't react possitively to using tragedies like that for political purposes as much as one would think. For example Polls:http://reason.com/poll/2013/01/30/52-percent-of-americans-sa-sandy-hook-is and,
http://www.hstoday.us/focused-topic...weapons/611edfe31a561105abb6012df820d3bc.html
And how support fades quickly:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-backing-for-immigration-bill-strong/2103419/
 
A major push for an unwinnable position in the general populace is useful in raising funds from your committed followers.

All parties and organizations like to do this. It does increase political polarization to the detriment of the general public. It leads to extreme views running the parties and leaving the rational middle out of luck when it comes to useful societal discussions.
 
Always been my take. People who might say they would like to see a new gun law to cut down on violent gun crime have a different view of what the law whould actually look like once written.
Click to expand...

Some folks would consider increasing prison time for a criminal convicted of a crime while using a gun to be "more gun control". But that is a far cry from a ban on handguns or so-called "assault weapons", universal background checks, a national gun registry, etc. The anti gun forces are significantly "outgunned" by those of us who back personal liberty and responsibility. Thus, they need to take any minute piece of "data" which gives any small advocacy for more "gun control" and try to twist that data to make it appear that there is a general push amongst Americans for "more gun control".
 
I like poll questions that everyone supports based on faulty assumptions.

Would you support gun laws that would save the lives of innocent children?
Of course, if one ever exhisted.

Should criminals be prevented from buying guns?
Of course, if there were a way to do that.

Should mentally ill people be allowed to buy guns?
Define "mentally ill".

Do you support keeping assault weapons out of the hands of criminals?
Of course, just never heard of a plan that would do that.

Do you support longer sentences for gun crimes?
Maybe. Do you know what the current legal sentences are, and whether or not judges are imposing them?

Do you support affordable healthcare?
Of course, just wish somebody could figure out a way to make that happen.

Do you approve/disapprove of the job congress is doing?
There are 435 house members with differing views. Which one?

Do you support a government shutdown?
Did anybody?
 
So, we need universal background checks to stop massacres like Sandy Hook, even though background checks had no effect, so we'll settle for a half-measure regulating gun shows, which had nothing to do with Sandy Hook, to save further children from killers who will find ways around the system. Got it.

We've already got a lifetime disqualifier for just about any act of DV, so where could they go on that?
Click to expand...

Clueless anti-gun politicians looking to introduce new law that make zero sense to anyone with a lick of common sense
 
just the thing is, using a gun in a crime isnt the most descriptive thing. using a gun for self defence may not be legal in all areas if you dont meet super stringent requirements. one requirement may mean innocent of everything to at least negligent homicide, and if you somehow meet negligent homicide, why have an extra 5-10 tacked on because you used a gun to keep your kid from getting raped?


that concept is somewhat like a judge saying 'normally rape carried a prison term of 3 years, but because you used a condom well let you served 18 months, with 5 months already served while waiting trial"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top