This op-ed in the NY Times needs additional commentary, “Democrats Welcome the Gun Debate to the Campaign“:
“After 15 years of a virtual gag order on guns in presidential politics, Democrats are talking again. President Barack Obama is considering more executive action on gun control …”
More like a handful of the nuttiest Democrats are talking about gun control. Most know it is a political stinker, especially for their party. If the majority of them in Congress were hot about it Obama would have a lot more political leverage on the issue and put up more than the lame effort he is right now.
“… At the Democrats’ first debate in the presidential season, candidates jockeyed for bragging rights over who had the lowest rating from the National Rifle Association …”
“… Democrats say support for new gun laws is broader now and the politics of the issue have shifted enough to make the push for tougher measures a political winner, even if there remains almost no chance for success in Congress …”
The only broad support for gun control is coming from crap media outlets like the Times. If there was genuine support among the general public Congress would take note of it.
“… Republicans are eager for Democrats to test the theory. They watched the Democratic debate and saw fodder for advertising aimed at rural voters and gun owners still firmly opposed to putting more restrictions on gun purchases. Those voters have tended to retain their passion on the issue and have been motivated to vote, long after a shooting recedes from the headlines …”
Which is true. Where is the energy and passion from the antis?
“… The White House has been upfront that it plans to keep attention on the issue …”
Probably true in so far as it draws attention away from more serious issues like the fact that Vladimir Putin thinks Obama is a joke.
“… “You see such strong support all across the country for proposals like closing the gun show loophole,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said, urging Congress to act. “There’s ample public data to indicate that even a majority of gun owners support something like this.” …”
This is more baloney Bloomberg bought and paid for. The general public is most certainly not urging Congress to act.
“… It was hard to imagine Democrats picking a fight with the NRA in past presidential contests. Democrats’ electoral losses after the 1994 passage of the ban on assault-type weapons had a chilling effect on the debate. President Bill Clinton posited that Vice President Al Gore lost the 2000 election because of opposition to Gore’s gun stance … Democrats have since all but taken the issue off the table in national campaigns …”
Why would they do that if indeed what Josh Earnest said were true?
“… Advocates of tighter gun laws are heartened by the fact the debate even exists …”
Even if it largely exists only in their own minds.
It’s not possible for we gunnies to defeat the freedom-hating antis here in New York, but we also would be quick to imagine that it’s not possible for an ordinary man to slash through the equivalent of a case of beer with a sword. In both cases, far too much resistance for it to be possible. Simply unimaginable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8UrvkPnY8s
Well, uh, ya know, uh, maybe we can? Maybe?
BTW, Beatles in the background didn’t cut it, it took Motorhead to get the job done.
We had pretty much defeated them until ’12 when Bloomberg gave them a money dump. NYAGV was headed towards bankruptcy and the agenda was all but dead in Albany. The money gave them a temporary new life at a cost of Cuomo’s national standing. We can do it again and win by attrition.
Trouble is the dynamics of demographics. We are dying off, and these kids are comming up who, unlike us, have been indoctrinated to be good little commies from pre-K thru grad school. Their parents were dummies who could tell u every batting average of every major league player but did not know what the speaker of the house does. Last election, the dear leader said (in the last debate) that he would outlaw “assault weapons” and he still won. Different than just 4 years before. Also, all they have to do is get thru once, ie NY. Then it is very difficult to ever reverse it. The courts are all but gone, and in NY, it is irreversible in the legislature. 2nd circuit, at this point, I must believe is playing some game. Dont know what.
Possibly, they are waiting for the high court to turn? I fear it will and may already have with the present players, but they dont know that (and neither do we). They do not have to repeal 2A to destroy it, and that would still be pretty hard for them to do. Their strategy would be to wait until the high court gets even just 1 more of their frauds on it, and then they over turn Heller and McDonald. That is the disaster that we dread. That would be the effective repeal / death of 2A. Guys, I cannot emphasize enough, send money to NRA cause they need it.