Skip to comments.Gun Controllers: Wide of the Mark: Advocates were fooling themselves from the beginning.
Posted on 04/18/2013 6:30:11 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The gun bill is dead, but for the shouting. That will come now, thick and fast. Shame on you, political cowards! its crestfallen supporters will say, and then they will lash out at the NRA, the Republican party, and, very probably, the Senate itself. This will no doubt be cathartic. But those who indulge such temptations will have drawn the wrong conclusion. With a toxic combination of wishful thinking and mistaken reading of polls, the advocates of stricter control had managed to convince themselves that America was changing in their favor. As recently as last week, Eleanor Clift prophesied on The McLaughlin Group that the culture of guns is beginning to go through a transformation in this country. Clift, who appears to be stuck in a bubble, had not yet caught up to reality.
After the abomination at Newtown, Alaska senator Mark Begich, a Democrat, warned of a sea change. This conceit was picked up by the media and propagated without criticism or thought and, within a few days, it became conventional wisdom. The president went around the country insisting that it is clear that the American people want action and repeating his ever-present conviction that now is the time. Fearing a backlash, the investment group Cerberus pulled out of the gun business altogether, arguing that the Sandy Hook tragedy was a watershed event. The Washington Posts Greg Sargent, in his hourly columns, alternated between genuine belief that there was momentum in favor of change, poor attempts to divine such momentum from the silence, and open advocacy leaving his readers unhappily unsure as to which was which.
National polls, cited as if they were argument-winners, are irrelevant especially when it comes to the Senate. There is a touch of Pauline Kael about todays progressive indignation. The population centers in California, Illinois, and New York may still be up in arms your friends, too but most other states probably do not have pro-gun-control majorities and, when it comes to regulating firearms, most Americans appear to err on the side of caution. Take a look at the Brady Campaigns scorecard, which tracks the severity of gun laws across America:
Geography aside, the gun-control movement has another problem: Gun-rights advocates are just infinitely more interested in this issue than the average American. Bill Clinton warned Democrats about this in January, urging them to remember that these polls that you see saying the public is for us on all these issues they are meaningless if theyre not voting issues. Message: Gun owners are engaged; most people are not. Mother Joness Kevin Drum put his finger on this this morning:
How did this happen even though, as liberals remind us endlessly, 90 percent of the American public supports background checks? Because about 80 percent of those Americans think it sounds like a reasonable idea but dont really care much. I doubt that one single senator will suffer at the polls in 2014 for voting against Manchin-Toomey.
As they regroup, gun restrictionists might look at their tactics. The shiny new Gun-Control Thesaurus, in which gun control was seamlessly replaced by gun safety, gun-violence prevention, and gun responsibility, did nothing much to help their cause. Likewise, supplanting the already misleading term assault weapon with weapon of war, military weapon, or combat weapon. Advocates penchant for the wider culture war led them to vilify gun-rights advocates as ridiculous or paranoid and to cast basic liberties as antithetical to the interests of the nations children, turning potential allies off and leading to 52 percent of Americans disapproving of how the president dealt with the issue.
The public quickly switched off. Try as they might, nobody on the restrictionists side could get past the fact that laws banning assault weapons, limiting magazine size, and forcing background checks upon all gun transfers would do nothing to stop maniacs. They could not present ploys such as if it can save one life . . . without looking manipulative and desperate. People can tell when their representatives dont know what theyre talking about, and they know when theyre being played. Gallups revelation in March that only 4 percent of Americans considered guns to be the most important issue facing the country instructed us that Senator Begichs warning of real changes being imminent was wrong his sea change a mirage. How do I know? Today, he too voted against it.
Charles C. W. Cooke is an editorial associate at National Review.
I thought the old hag would go away at some point in time. Is she even still alive?
Maybe Joe Manchin, Pat Toomey, Gabby Giffords, Dianne Feinstein and Bronco ‘Bama can find some more dead kids to climb on and give it another whirl.
Talk about living in a bubble. They ignored the frenzy of purchases of arms and ammo.
Leftists have no idea what is going on in the country, and this is their profound weakness going into the future.
It’s dangerous to everyone that the left underestimates the resistance they would/will face.
The underlying bill is still alive, and the senate is having votes on two more amendments to it, around noon today. I think the gun grabbers are keeping options open for at least the weekend. Watch what the press says for hints as to whether the gun grabbers are going to go away quietly (for a little while), or not.
Toomey yesterday told a local newspaper that he’ll deal with a primary challenge “if I decide to run again”.
What’s a six-letter word for “toast”?
No they weren't... they were trying to fool 96% of the public.
That’s exactly why the GOP needs to stop playing defense and go on the offense and start pushing repeal of unconstitutional gun laws.
Most people are not against reasonable restrictions. But they know underneath all the talk by leftist Dems about not wanting to take their guns, they do want to take their guns.
Yeah I know. I just couldn’t help it. It was something to celebrate for a change. Obama getting mad and Biden pouting.
Someday when the banners feel the time is right, they WILL come for your guns. Hopefully less engaged gun owners have had a wake-up call. I'd like to see the NRA at 5-6 million members or more, but unfortunately I doubt that will happen.
“Eleanor Clift prophesied on The McLaughlin Group that ‘the culture of guns is beginning to go through a transformation in this country.’
After all, everyone SHE talks to is now against guns. So it must be the same everywhere!!!
It is fun seeing those closed-mind bullies throw a temper tantrum.
Upon reading her name that was my very first thought.
“Leftists have no idea what is going on in the country, and this is their profound weakness going into the future.”
Truer words were never spoken. When ballots no longer can save freedom in this country, they will be shocked at the inevitable result.
It's just as dangerous to underestimate the left on this issue; the bill is not dead.
I am writing key senators who voted against it and stroking them, while at the same time acknowledging they will be faced with revisiting the issue again soon, and that I expect them to "stick to their guns".
Much as I wish we could declare it dead and replenish our ammo stocks... it's not going to happen until the 2014 elections cleanses Washington - if it does.
This is right from the Brady Bunch. There are no "reasonable restrictions" If you restrict a right it is no longer a right, and the last time I read the constitution it said the RIGHT to bear arms should not be infringed
The only restrictions on the exercise of rights is when they impinge upon other people’s rights.
Me walking around with a sidearm with a 30 rd mag (absurd example) doesn’t impinge upon anyone’s rights.
The moment I make a threat with that weapon, then I’m in need of “restrictin’”.
You gotta give it to the ‘rats, though. They will still vote for more ‘rats come election time, regardless. They are lockstep in their collectivism despite their other issues. They stick together while the conservatives eat their own and commit fratricide.
But those that voted for it will!
“Ding Dong! The bill is dead.
Which old bill?
The Wicked bill!
Ding Dong! The Wicked bill is dead.”
I'd like to see the NRA publicly repudiate the bastard ... he clearly showed that he did NOT deserve the NRA "A" rating and NRA endorsement he received in 2012. Likewise Toomey the Traitor, and probably some others as well.
“...That’s the real danger of compulsive lying. They begin to believe themselves and then can’t cope with reality when it kicks them in the teeth.....”
Chronic mentally diseased. Liberalism rots out the brain. It is essentially the same as communism. They will get us all killed with that progressive crap if we don’t watch it.
Agreed. Anti-gunners cannot be bargained with. This is why the very concept of "compromise" with anti-gunners is meaningless. They have nothing to offer in return. All they want is to take your rights and give you nothing in return because there isn't anything that they CAN give you. A typical "compromise" is: "give us A, B, and C now and we won't ask for D." Of course then they immediately start talking about the "D loophole" They're relentless, they never stop, ever. Zero boy and his accomplices and the jackasses who support him will never be satisfied until they have a society "where only the police and the military are armed" to quote the late and unlamented former mayor of Atlanta Mainturd Jackasson - a black democrat and a member of the HCI board of directors.
How many people are in favor of background checks before they're allowed to print something? The right to keep and bear arms really is protected in the same place, so why the fanatical effort on the left to get rid of it?
“I’d like to see the NRA at 5-6 million members or more, but unfortunately I doubt that will happen.”
It surprises me that there are as many members as there are based on their lack of interest until things get desperate, and their grading of politicians.
No democrat should receive any kind of rating other than F.
That would be based on the present party policy. Only democrats are more than willing to go after parts of the Constitution with which they disagree with the intent of total destruction when they have sworn a sacred oath of support.
That kind of stuff in a Republic needs to be clearly labeled as Treasonous and the appropriate punishment is you are pure and simple anti-gun, just as you are anti-life. There is no room for compromise. Maybe they could join the independent party, and as soon as their votes are leaning more dem than conservative Republican you are back in the bad box. The NRA is entirely too leniant with MY God given rights and until they get really serious about the fight I will send my money elswhere.
GOA, NAGR, and SDGOA as examples. I like the fact the NRA has been in existance for every infringement of the Second Amendment since it’s inception in 1871. I’ll cut them some ealy slack, but 1968 and 1986 were horrible rights killing bills and they were seemingly powerless to do anything, which means a whole lot more than what appears on the surface.
“Its dangerous to everyone that the left underestimates the resistance they would/will face.”
Allow the Left to become more underestimating, and determined that THEY believe that THEY know, what they do not.
Not if, but when the resistance, if you will, does occur, how much more quickly will their hearts and minds, chip and shatter? How much more quickly will ‘the dog piles’ occur, in their efforts to find the cockroach-comfortable corners, only to have those corners refused? How quickly will their self-made resilience wither, in the face of self-determined free Americans?
Clift is alive and still screeching. Her voice is a cross between a cat caught in a wringer and a moving car with four wheels locked by brakes. You have to be a PBS viewer to tolerate it.
this is NOT a popularity contest- it’s a Second Amerndment issue- period- We were given the RIGHT to own guns for protection- what the hell doesn’t the left udnersftand abotu htat?
Faulty reasoning. You have the right to free speech, but not in every situation. All rights come with a certain amount of resrictions. Including gun rights. And I own guns. But I don’t get to do everything with them I’d like to do...like shoot them in my backyard.
I am disgusted that the Senate even wasted time on the issue. The 2nd Amendment is not difficult to understand. Every Senator and politician that pushed this agenda forward needs to be voted out, or legally removed, at the earliest opportunity. If they can’t be trusted with standing up for the Bill of Rights, they can’t be trusted with anything.
I don’t care what some celebrity, poll, media hack, or politician “feels” or says, freedom is not up for debate.
Bill Clinton warned Democrats about this in January, urging them to remember that these polls that you see saying the public is for us on all these issues they are meaningless if theyre not voting issues.
For a large plurality if not an outright majority of Americans, this issue is a direct challenge to their most fundamental rights. This is not simply a voting matter, it is a killing matter. This isn't highway funding or midnight basketball, it's life or death. We don't need to be dragged down that road by the ideologically blindered.
**** Shame on you, political cowards! its crestfallen supporters will say, and then they will lash out at the NRA,***
Reminds me of the petulant dancer in BLAZING SADDLES who “beats” up on Slim Pickens in “the French Mistake” segment of the movie.
Not at all. Your statement All rights come with a certain amount of resrictions. Including gun rights is pure Brady Stuff right from the the HCI handbook. You're deliberately confusing abuse of firearms (shooting in your backyard) with restrictions on ownership (prior restraint.)
I reiterate if you have to ask the government's permission to do it, then it isn't a right. You don't have to ask permission to exercise a right.
And I own guns.
Why is it that every anti-gun type always has something like this in their screeds
Why don't you come out with the tried and true favorite "You can't shout fire in a crowded theater" as another false straw man?
Just to make my position clear I oppose ALL background checks on firearms purchases as needless and useless infringements on our right to keep and bear arms.
My thanks for posting the excellent urinal target
You’re welcome. LOL!
....From the article:
“With a toxic combination of wishful thinking and mistaken reading of polls, the advocates of stricter control had managed to convince themselves that America was changing in their favor.”
They won the election, however they did it, but they did NOT win the people....not yet.
That’s right pal, you can’t shoot your gun in a crowded theater, and I can’t shoot my gun where innocent people might get killed. How is the prevention of abuse of firearms (shooting in your backyard) not a restriction? There have been restrictions on fully automatic weapons i.e. machine guns for decades. Laws are there reasons. You have the right to own a gun(s), but you don’t get to own a tactical nuclear missile.
Yes and the fact that there are restrictions doesn't mean that they make sense, that they're constitutional, or that they are not a step to tyranny. OR to put it another way decades ago there were no restrictions on machine guns. In either case the fact that there are or aren't restrictions doesn't logically justify the imposition of additional restrictions.
Laws are there reasons.
I assume you meant "laws are there for reasons." Yes but the reasons that make sense to 0 and his accomplices might not make sense to a person who would like to live in freedom. Pol Pot had reasons for murdering 20% of the population of Cambodia. Having a reason is not the same as justifying something.
How is the prevention of abuse of firearms (shooting in your backyard) not a restriction
I explained this once. Apparently I wasn't clear enough. All of the current gun control laws say NOTHING about how you use your firearm. You obviously break the law if you go shoot someone. But this isn't what gun control is about. Gun control is about prior restraint. ie punishing someone for something that they MIGHT do.
Another silly straw man right from the Brady playbook. Curiosity - where do you draw the line? Is it OK to own a 5.56 mm but not a 20mm? What about a 12.7mm, a 14.5mm, a 23mm? Are you sure you're in the right forum?
Oh and I'm not your pal. I may argue with people who are in favor of gun control, but I don't count them as friends.
Yeah, that’s right...you found me out...I want to take away all your guns. Listen amigo, I didn’t say I wanted a whole slew of new restrictions, I basically don’t see the need for any new restrictions. I’d like more people to be armed and have a gun. But to say every right doesn’t have a certain amount of restrictions is more than a little ridiculous. Have a nice day.