ChrisWeigant.com

Monday Punt

[ Posted Monday, February 4th, 2013 – 17:42 PST ]

It is the Monday after the Super Bowl, so to use an apt football metaphor, I am going to punt on today's column.

For most of the day, I was having computer problems, which will (I assure you) hasten the day when I make the big leap to a new machine. I guess this is also apt, since even the Super Bowl couldn't manage to keep the lights on for the whole game.

Today, had all gone well, would have been "Obama Poll Watch" day, where we examine President Obama's job approval ratings for the past month. This will have to be postponed until Tuesday or Wednesday. Quick overview: Obama held onto the gains he made, and his numbers held steady, not moving much in any direction. More later, of course.

How about those Ravens, eh? Happy times in Baltimore... while I must confess a certain bias on my part, I've always liked the Ravens for the sole reason that the Raven is (to the best of my knowledge) the only sports mascot in any professional league to be named after a literary character. Edgar Allan Poe was a Baltimore resident for much of his professional life, and was buried there. Other cities have literary luminaries, though, but none of them have named a football team after a character in a poem. You've got to love the Ravens a little bit, just on that fact alone.

Other than post-Super Bowl hangovers, though, one bit of news did jump to my attention, so that's where we'll end this sorry excuse for a column, today. A little over a week ago, I wrote an article handicapping President Obama's second term agenda. In it, I wrote:

While the Newtown massacre did indeed shift public opinion dramatically on the overall issue, the biggest initiative is not likely to become law. An assault rifle ban is very important to some Democrats, but the way I read it is that this was included to have something to "trade away" in the negotiations. If Obama gets most of the other gun control initiatives -- closing loopholes on background checks, much better tracking of weapons, and all the other "small bore" (sorry about that pun) ideas -- then he will at least be able to say he accomplished something at the end of the day. Perhaps this is pessimistic, but the mechanics of banning "assault weapons" become very tricky, when you have to actually define what they are in legal language. And such a ban may not get universal Democratic backing anyway, so I fully expect this will be shelved at some point in exchange for support for all the other initiatives. Without such a ban, the prospects for other meaningful gun control legislation get a lot better, though, and I think that a bill will eventually pass.

I fully expected this to happen, but I have to admit I didn't expect it to happen quite so fast. Today, Huffington Post ran an article titled "Assault Weapons Ban Likely to Die So That Broader Gun Policy Legislation Can Live" which starts out with:

Barring an unexpected turn of legislative affairs, a ban on military-style semi-automatic assault weapons will not make it into law, top Hill aides and gun policy advocates say.

The ban will get a vote. But the purpose of that vote will be in part to facilitate its demise. The expectation is that there won't be 60 members of the upper chamber to support the bill's inclusion in the final legislative language.

As I said, I expected this to happen, but not this fast. This could mean that: (1) the Democrats are just backing down on the issue, and won't even use it to trade for other legislation; (2) such horse-trading is already happening somewhat behind the scenes, and the news story today was made public because the deal has already been struck, and/or (3) the rest of the gun legislation is moving along very quickly, and we could see votes in Congress some time in the next few weeks. All of that, I fully admit, is nothing but speculation on my part, so take it with a grain of salt, for now.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

36 Comments on “Monday Punt”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    Knowing how the Obama/Biden administration operates, I suspect you'll see significant anti-gun violence legislation this year (regardless of how useful and/or effective it actually can be), along with comprehensive immigration reform.

    And, then, could we please ... finally ... have them put some lazer beam focus on the rest of the world, for God's sake!!!

    Sorry, but I've had about all of the domestic US policy I can take for one lifetime. :)

  2. [2] 
    Sandy wrote:

    I offer a humble thought on immigration from the previous post.

    For over a decade I had a business that served between 800 and 1,000 customers a day. I employed between 50 and 60 people. The seven managers worked with me for over 10 years, and the average employee was with us for an average of seven years. We were an extended family, all trying daily and hourly to do our best to extend our love, joy and passion for the business, and share it with our customers.

    We did not think in terms of republicans or demarcates, what was experienced was a powerful and oppressive, federal, state, and local government. Each one with inspectors, regulators, auditors, verifying, checking, inspecting that were often in conflict with each other. With over 30 different licenses required, enforcing thousands on top of thousands of regulations, laws, codes, rules, and collecting (extorting) 10’s of thousands of dollars for fees, licensing and regulatory charges annually.

    This is the face of tyranny ruling by fear with a big stick confusion is the environment in which illegal immigration is intentionally perpetuated on the country. Just like Fast and Furious, Bengasi, the 2000+ page health care tax that no one could read till after it was passed, gun control, and countless other actions all for the purpose of extorting trillions from you and I.
    The in your face hypocrisy of these rulers is stunning !!!!!! Try to put the president into E-Verify yourself, I have he doesn’t pass for employment. So let me ponder that fact for a moment.

    I Sandy am currently employing the resident in the white house who does not clear the federal governments guidelines for employment.

    Hmmm ???? Maybe I should be fined or punished (which is really just a greater form of extortion)
    What do you think?

    Shouldn’t I have to pay more?

    I’m rich I have $32.00 in my wallet this morning.
    It might even solve the problem. Right?

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW

    As I said, I expected this to happen, but not this fast. This could mean that: (1) the Democrats are just backing down on the issue, and won't even use it to trade for other legislation; (2) such horse-trading is already happening somewhat behind the scenes, and the news story today was made public because the deal has already been struck, and/or (3) the rest of the gun legislation is moving along very quickly, and we could see votes in Congress some time in the next few weeks. All of that, I fully admit, is nothing but speculation on my part, so take it with a grain of salt, for now.

    Once again, Democrats misread their "mandate" and/or mis-assume they even HAVE a mandate..

    The vast majority of Americans don't want gun bans.. ANY gun bans...

    The SCOTUS has ruled that an "assault" rifle ban is unconstitutional.

    It's documented fact that more people are killed by knives, by hands and feet and by clubs/bats than are killed by "assault" rifles..

    Or ANY rifles...

    While the polls do show an interest in background checks, I think when the nuts and bolts of checks are revealed, Americans won't want those either.. Because background checks only target those who are law abiding in the first place..

    Criminals and psychotics will always find ways to avoid or pass background checks.

    The ONE thing that would help is a national database of criminals and psychos..

    But Democrats are utterly against such a thing..

    It's typical that the Left is against things that actually WORK, things that actually WOULD make a difference, things that would actually PREVENT the violence they claim they are opposed to..

    Liz,

    And, then, could we please ... finally ... have them put some lazer beam focus on the rest of the world, for God's sake!!!

    It's rather ironic that, more often than not, the US is being castigated for sticking it's nose into the affairs of the rest of the world..

    It's refreshing to see someone say, "Why can't the US pay more attention to the rest of the world!?"

    :D

    Michale

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    The ONE thing that would help is a national database of criminals and psychos..

    And profiling...

    But Democrats would strip a gear if profiling was introduced.....

    Michale

  5. [5] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Because I know how much you enjoy All in the Family, Michale, I present the best editorial on gun control ever ...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lDb0Dn8OXE

    :)

    -David

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    But Democrats would strip a gear if profiling was introduced.....

    Which is ironic, because that is EXACTLY what the Left is doing with gun owners..

    Profiling them as psychotic fanatics ready to cut loose with their not needed "assault" rifles...

    Michale

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    Because I know how much you enjoy All in the Family, Michale, I present the best editorial on gun control ever ...

    A very wise man, that Archie... :D

    Michale

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fqCS7Y_kME

    Archie on Democrats with a pinch of Global Warming.. :D

    Gods, I miss the good old days.. :D

    Michale....

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    Here is something I don't understand and I hope you can explain it to me..

    The vast majority of Americans are against any kind of gun bans, as evidenced by the massive amounts of gun sales..

    The majority of Americans are with the NRA on this issue, as evidenced by the huge increase in NRA membership.

    The SCOTUS has ruled that gun bans are unconstitutional up to AND including "assault" rifles...

    In 1994 when Democrats pushed thru a successful "assault" rifle ban, they were decimated in the following elections..

    In 2004 when Democrats attempted to re-instate the expired 1994 "assault" rifle ban, they were again decimated in the following elections...

    Given all these facts, HOW on earth could some Democrat think-wig come up with the idea that, "Hay! Going after guns is a political winner for us!!!"

    Can you explain the logic?

    Because it sure escapes me..

    Michale

  10. [10] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Michale,

    Complete utter nonsense as usual. A majority of Americans support an assault weapons ban.

    Even your socialist President God supported it back in 1994 "While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons"

    EVERY SINGLE POLL shows that Americans support an assault weapons ban. You can read them all here if you like http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

    But I expect you to ignore this fact as usual and continue with your non-fact based nonsense...

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Complete utter nonsense as usual. A majority of Americans support an assault weapons ban.

    Prove it...

    Your link is meaningless because it uses "scare" words that have absolutely NO meaning in reality..

    Define "Banning military style assault weapons"..

    You can't because such a nomenclature does not exist...

    Further, according to your own poll, people favor police presence at schools over gun bans...

    Once again, even your OWN stats and polls destroy your argument...

    If the majority of Americans are for a rifle ban, how do you explain the gun sales that are thru the roof??

    One or two guys hitting WalMarts all over the country and buying up rifles??

    Even your socialist President God supported it back in 1994

    And Democrats were trounced in the following election...

    This is a losing debate for you... The facts and the law are against you...

    But, forget that for the moment..

    What *I* want to know is, given the above FACTS, WHY would Democrats think that this is a winning issue??

    That's the question put forward...

    Michale

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    EVERY SINGLE POLL shows that Americans support an assault weapons ban. You can read them all here if you like http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

    Stats and Polls are useless because for every poll/stat that you can find that "proves" your position, I can find an EQUALLY accurate poll/stat that "proves" my position...

    So, unless you have logical and rational COMMON SENSE arguments (as I do) then you ain't got squat...

    Michale

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is a losing debate for you... The facts and the law are against you...

    Not to mention a little thing called the United States Constitution...

    Michale

  14. [14] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Lol nope. You cannot find polls that support your position. Because every single poll shows that Americans support a ban on assault weapons. The site I gave you is a collection of every single poll from recent months.

    But yawn. Skirt the issue and deny as usual. I'm not in the mood today. Later.

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Lol nope. You cannot find polls that support your position.

    Really???

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/26/gun-rights-assault-weapons-newtown-shooting/1791827/

    That's just after a 2 second quickie GOOGLE search. If I really cared to, I am sure I could come up with even better polling..

    Because every single poll shows that Americans support a ban on assault weapons

    There is no such thing as an "assault weapon"...

    So asking Americans what they think of banning them is a moronic stance from the get-go..

    It's like asking Americans if they think that Black-Eyed Hairy Fang-Toothed-Dripping-Poison Troglodytes should be banned..

    People will say YES just based on the Prejudicial (yet totally meaningless) label...

    "She doesn't even have Sega. She's such a troglodyte!"

    "Cruel. But good word usage"
    -Jurassic Park II

    :D

    But, as usual, you are avoiding the question...

    Let's take a page from your book and take a visit to MichaleLand...

    In MichaleLand (as in the here and now) everyone of those facts I mentioned are true and valid facts...

    Now, in MichaleLand, WHY would Democrats think that a gun ban is a "winning" issue for them, politically speaking..

    Jesus! I am hard pressed to know what scares ya'all more...

    Disagreeing with Democrats..

    Or agreeing with Michale.....

    Michale

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let's at least TRY to face reality here...

    The ONLY way that ANY gun regulations will have ANY effect is to take guns that are already in circulation OUT of circulation..

    Can we all at least agree on that??

    And THAT will simply NEVER happen here in the U S of A...

    IT.... WILL... NOT.... HAPPEN...

    So, any type of extraneous regulations will simply do more harm than good...

    Michale

  17. [17] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    The ONLY way that ANY gun regulations will have ANY effect is to take guns that are already in circulation OUT of circulation..

    i don't think i agree with that. universal background check combined with jail time for trafficking will almost certainly make access more difficult for criminals and the mentally ill, at least in the long run. i don't think it will do much good to ban any specific make or type, because folks will just find ways to engineer around the law.

  18. [18] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Sandy -

    First off, welcome to the site.

    Your first post was held for moderation, but you should now be able to post and have them apply immediately (as long as you only post one link per comment -- multilink comments are automatically held to cut down on comment "spam"). And sorry for the delay...

    Good point about eVerify. I remember when the first immigration reform (under Reagan, in the 1980s) happened, and all of a sudden you had to show a passport (or other IDs) whenever you were hired, to prove citizenship. Since then, though, I haven't had any direct exposure to the e-Verify system, and have always wondered how well it worked.

    Obviously, fixing this system so that it does work should indeed be a part of any comprehensive reform. But again, I haven't looked into what works and what doesn't about the system myself.

    Anyway, like I said, welcome to the site, and sorry for the delay.

    -CW

  19. [19] 
    LewDan wrote:

    "There is no such thing as an "assault weapon"..."

    Not true. The problem, though, with the public and especially with polls, is that the general public doesn't know what an assault weapon is.

    All firearms are not created equal. Essentially any firearm has the capability to kill human beings, at short range. Most firearms, though, aren't really designed for killing other human beings. Those that are are generally called "assault weapons."

    The public seems to think automatic weapons are assault weapons, presumably, because they view the military as needing to kill massive numbers of people which is what, obviously to them, these weapons are for. And any semi-automatic weapon doesn't seem to be considered much different than assault weapons.

    Those assumptions are untrue. Mass assaults, requiring massive firepower in response, haven't been a military tactic since WWI. It still happens, on occasion, but mostly by accident. High rates of fire and the attendant high-capacity magazines primarily exist in weapons for two reasons. One, to engage moving targets, where its necessary to fire ahead of a target and let the target travel into the path of fire. Because trying to aim at a moving target directs your fire to where they were not where they are. And, two, because most handguns hitting most locations on humans require more than one hit to immediately render a target so disabled they're harmless; unless the shooter has an extraordinary amount of skill, and, at least, a reasonable amount of luck.

    It should be noted that both of those concerns are particularly applicable to self-defense. It should further be noted that the military uses such weapons because the military sees its hand weapons as defensive. (Though, militaries also operate on the belief the best defense is a strong offense.) They therefor employ the best defensive hand weapons They can acquire. Weapons designed and built for the purpose. Weapons known as "assault weapons."

    Much of the general public, however, believes there is no civilian use for assault weapons, even self-defense. In fact, assault weapons, unlike essentially all other weapons, are designed for the purpose of being used for self-defense, and are the weapon of choice for self-defense.

    For most households, assuming low to moderate skill, assault shotguns are probably the best choice for home defense. The public seems unaware that there even are shotguns that are assault weapons. The military tends to prefer carbines because they're effective at longer ranges and no one wants to get any closer to an enemy than they have to. Unfortunately civilian self-defense situations are almost invariably at close quarters, so pistols and shotguns predominate.

    Polls regarding assault weapons, IMHO, tend to be meaningless because no one has any idea what respondents are referring to as assault weapons when the questions are answered. Nor do respondents seem to have sufficient knowledge on the subject to make intelligent choices.

  20. [20] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    The vast majority of Americans are in favor of assault weapon bans. Increased weapon sales do not begin to approach numbers that would indicate a majority of Americans are purchasing.

    The majority of Americans despise the NRA, including a significant percentage of gun owners. Again, increases in NRA membership don't come any where near numbers that would indicate the support of the general public!

    SCOTUS has held that limiting weapons ownership, or making it conditional, is constitutional. The only ones talking bans of all weapons, are extremists claiming the 2nd amendment is "outdated," and the hysterical Right.

    Democrats are promoting conditions and restrictions because outside of Wingnutistan the American people are in favor them. Your right-wing media view is as in tune with the pulse of America as it was regarding Romney's chances for winning the Presidency.

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    don't think i agree with that. universal background check combined with jail time for trafficking will almost certainly make access more difficult for criminals and the mentally ill, at least in the long run.

    I agree. "In the long run."

    But to make a dent in the 300+ million guns that are presently in the wild, that "long run" is measured in centuries..

    LD,

    Polls regarding assault weapons, IMHO, tend to be meaningless because no one has any idea what respondents are referring to as assault weapons when the questions are answered. Nor do respondents seem to have sufficient knowledge on the subject to make intelligent choices.

    Again, I completely agree.. It's like my post above to Michty..

    People are responding to the labeling and NOT to their actual thoughts.

    I am willing to wager ten thousand quatloos that if the terminology of the poll were to use the accurate term "sport rifles" or (even MORE accurate) merely "rifles" the poll numbers would be a LOT different..

    The majority of Americans despise the NRA, including a significant percentage of gun owners. Again, increases in NRA membership don't come any where near numbers that would indicate the support of the general public!

    I disagree.. A quarter of a million NEW members in a single month??

    That indicates an acceptance amongst the general population heretofore unseen..

    SCOTUS has held that limiting weapons ownership, or making it conditional, is constitutional. The only ones talking bans of all weapons, are extremists claiming the 2nd amendment is "outdated," and the hysterical Right.

    Then there seems to be a LOT of Lefties who are "extremists"... :D

    What's your opinion on DiFi's legislation that would exempt government officials and their employees from gun bans??

    Democrats are promoting conditions and restrictions because outside of Wingnutistan the American people are in favor them.

    Again, the facts do not show this..

    If it were true, the massive increase in gun sales would not exist and the huge increase in NRA membership would not exist..

    Michale

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    If it were true, the massive increase in gun sales would not exist and the huge increase in NRA membership would not exist..

    No matter HOW ya'all spin things the simple fact is that this is a LOSING battle for Democrats..

    The facts, the American people AND historical precedence ALL indicate that pushing gun control will hurt the Democrats and hurt them bad...

    It's ALREADY happening. As we have seen, Democrats are falling all over themselves to jettison the "Assault" rifle ban as fast as humanely possible..

    Which brings me back to my original question.

    WHY are Democrats pushing this..

    Michale

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    WHY are Democrats pushing this..

    I can only think of two reasons..

    1. Democrats are tired of governing so badly and want to be voted out of office.

    B. Democrats are completely mis-reading the American people (much as they did with ObamaCare) and actually believe their own press releases that the American people are completely behind Gun Control.

    "Logically speaking, there are only two possibilities. They are unable to respond. They are unwilling to respond."
    -Spock, STAR TREK II The Wrath Of Kahn

    :D

    Michale

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    LD,

    Just let me say, for the record, that I am impressed....

    "And I don't impress easily. WOW!!! A BLUE CAR!!!"
    -Homer Simpson

    :D

    .... with your knowledge of firearms.

    You obviously know what you are talking about and most of your analysis is spot on..

    My only beef with the term "assault rifle" is that it is a prejudicial term that is designed solely and completely to incite fear rather than to accurately assess the nomenclature of the weapon in question.

    Many rifles that the Gun Control Fanatics point to as "assault rifles" have the lethality of a wet noodle.

    I have a Remington Riot Control Shotgun w/ combat load next to my bedside. In the vernacular of the Gun Control Fanatics, it's an "assault rifle" because it has a pistol grip. Matter of fact, I was going to have to endure the 5-day waiting period and background check BECAUSE of that pistol grip. Til I showed my ID, that is. :D

    But that's my beef with the current fear-mongering round from the GCFs. The legislation being proposed is useless, it won't prevent or even impact Sandy Hook style tragedies and is designed solely and completely to further a POLITICAL agenda...

    The logical determining factor for the viability of any legislation SHOULD be, 'would it have had ANY impact on the tragedy that prompted it'..

    In this case, the answer is CLEARLY a resounding and unequivocal "NO".

    Michale

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    Many rifles that the Gun Control Fanatics point to as "assault rifles" have the lethality of a wet noodle.

    I have a Remington Riot Control Shotgun w/ combat load next to my bedside. In the vernacular of the Gun Control Fanatics, it's an "assault rifle" because it has a pistol grip.

    Which is NOT to say that my weapon has the lethality of a "wet noodle".. :D

    Michale

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Obama's Gun Control hypocrisy in a nutshell..

    http://sjfm.us/temp/gcf1.jpg

    Michale

  27. [27] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    The logical determining factor for the viability of any legislation SHOULD be, 'would it have had ANY impact on the tragedy that prompted it'..

    in the case of the sandy hook shooter, it's unlikely that any law whatsoever, no matter how well-written or from what ideological perspective, would have prevented what happened. i would say a better test would be, will it be likely to help prevent similar events in the FUTURE.

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    i would say a better test would be, will it be likely to help prevent similar events in the FUTURE.

    If it wouldn't help the prompting incident with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, then it surely won't help future incidents that doesn't have the advantage of 20/20 hindsight...

    To give you an example, it would be as if the government mandated building an earthquake early warning system in response to Hurricane Sandy..

    While it might prevent *A* tragedy in the distant future, it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the tragedy that prompted the legislation...

    Michale

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    in the case of the sandy hook shooter, it's unlikely that any law whatsoever, no matter how well-written or from what ideological perspective, would have prevented what happened.

    Ahhh, not so fast..

    Passing legislation mandating weapons training for teachers and allowing them to conceal carry WOULD have likely had a positive impact on the Sandy Hook shooting...

    Would have likely ended the massacre with very few, if any, fatalities..

    With the benefit of hindsight, of course...

    Michale

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    Because, as we have seen, the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun...

    Or a ninja.... :D

    Michale

  31. [31] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    My "assault weapon" nomenclature derives from the military. In the Air Force an "X" prefix means "experimental," as in X15, "C" means "cargo" as C131, "A" means "attack", "B" means "bomber," "F" means "fighter," "R" means "reconnaissance." In the Army weapons prefixed with "A" means "assault."

    Assault weapons are not "sport rifles." Assault weapons are weapons designed to kill people. Target guns are designed to "kill" targets. Bird guns are designed to kill birds. Elephant guns are designed to kill elephants. Hunting guns are designed to kill game animals. Varmint guns are designed to kill varmints. There are no "people guns." Guns designed to kill people are called "assault weapons."

    The civilian version of assault weapons sold as sport guns are not designed to kill people. They are designed for sport. The features they lack are the features specifically incorporated to make a weapon designed to kill people. While the weapons are largely the same "sport rifle" and "assault rifle" are not interchangeable.

    And while "assault weapon" is pejorative, do largely to public ignorance, I believe in combating the ignorance, not changing the nomenclature.

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    The civilian version of assault weapons sold as sport guns are not designed to kill people. They are designed for sport. The features they lack are the features specifically incorporated to make a weapon designed to kill people. While the weapons are largely the same "sport rifle" and "assault rifle" are not interchangeable.

    Exactly.. Many of the weapons that the GCFs want to ban are pea shooters compared to REAL military weapons..

    The GCFs play on the fear of bad-assed looking weapons without ANY consideration for the actual lethality of the weapon itself..

    And while "assault weapon" is pejorative, do largely to public ignorance, I believe in combating the ignorance, not changing the nomenclature.

    And I have to admit, yer doing a damn good job of it! :D

    Another aspect of this issue is the idea of hi-capacity magazines..

    It's moronic and dangerous to limit magazines to 10-rounds...

    I can attest to with complete expertise that 5 10-round magazines are INFINITELY more lethal than any number of 100-round magazines, even in the hands of an amateur...

    Michale

  33. [33] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    It's refreshing to see someone say, "Why can't the US pay more attention to the rest of the world!?"

    Funny that would come from someone like me, you know, from the rest of the world, eh? Heh.

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    Funny that would come from someone like me, you know, from the rest of the world, eh? Heh.

    Yes, because usually the Left side of the spectrum is slamming the US of A for sticking it's nose in the world's problems "where it doesn't belong"

    But it's kind of in keeping with the idea that the Left wants the US to be the world's welfare agency, but balks at the US being the world's police force...

    Michale

  35. [35] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale -

    Did you read the article?

    I mean, what it says is that Democrats realized early on that an assault weapons ban was not politically feasable, and are backing off it. They are allowing those who feel strongly about it (DiFi and others) to bring a bill up for a vote in the Senate, which will fail. This is nothing short of political theater, with a foregone conclusion.

    Democrats are doing exactly the opposite of what you say they're doing. They are not "pushing" this bill, they are allowing it to quietly die so they can push other, much more popular, gun control legislation.

    So what's your beef? To reiterate:

    1. Obama "taking guns away" from people -- never going to happen.

    2. Assault weapons ban -- not going to happen this year.

    3. Other, more popular laws -- possibly going to happen.

    The discussion has shifted. Everyone, other than the reactionary right, has realized that 1 & 2 aren't worth talking about. So why the obsession with things that just aren't going to happen?

    -CW

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    The discussion has shifted. Everyone, other than the reactionary right, has realized that 1 & 2 aren't worth talking about. So why the obsession with things that just aren't going to happen?

    Because Democrats are allowing the myth that something WILL happen, even though they KNOW nothing substantial will happen..

    Here's a really REALLY radical idea..

    Why don't we, as Americans, demand that our politicians be HONEST with us and take up ideas that DO work??

    I know, whatta concept, eh??

    No more placebos... No more empty promises..

    Give us what works or just shut the frak up about it...

    THAT is *my* position...

    Michale....

Comments for this article are closed.
[Powered by WordPress]