Saturday, July 21, 2012

Some Sour Grapes.

Glenn Reynolds notes an article by Jim Merlino a former policy director (2003) for the Colorado Senate Democratic Party.

It's entitled: Post Aurora: Don’t expect new gun laws

Reynolds quips: What a whining Civil Rights Campaign Looks Like.

Well, let's unpack why Merlino thinks such a thing wont' happen.

But if you now think that meaningful gun control can emerge in Colorado – you’re dreaming. In a state where large mammals occasionally make a meal out of their smaller, two-legged brethren, gun control discussions take on a more primitive and decidedly less academic turn. In fact, if you think reasonable gun control is the entire solution to the now too-familiar occurrences of mass shootings, you are naive.

It almost sounds like he realizes self defense is a legitimate goal and that gun control can acutally do diddly. Oh wait... he doesn't think "gun control is the entire solution".

But does this mean we should surrender discussions about gun control, funding for mental health treatment and the role of government to radical activists and others who insist that government is playing an outsize role in our lives?

You see, it's radical anti-government types that are getting in the way of "reasonable gun laws". Yes, he uses that phrase later on.

But the question remains: What is reasonable legislation that would help stem the rising tide of mass shootings. And why is this discussion always propelled by the fringes rather than the middle?

To begin with, mass shootings can be as much about mental illness and the lack of a community as they are about unrestricted access to weapons. We can see that spending on treatment and screening for mental illness is finally becoming a bipartisan goal.

So why not reach a bipartisan consensus on reasonable gun laws aimed at curtailing gun violence? Would limitations on access to automatic high powered weapons like the AK and automatic hand guns make mass shootings less likely?

Here we see why he thinks gun control is only part of his "solution".

And why he turns around and bleats "But WHHHYYY can't you rednecks come around to our side and be common sense? Stop thinking we're trying to take your guns away! We just want access limitations! Totally different."

Look at his hat trick of lies: high powered, automatic hand gun, AK. None of the weapons used in Aurora were automatic, and none of them were a Kalashnikov or even Kalashnikov patterned.

And automatic weapons already fall under the NFA and are all pre '86 and cost over ten thousand of dollars. You want more restrictions than that bucko?

Are you so arrogant and ignorant that you don't know what automatic weapons are don't know the current regulatory state of them, and are too lazy to bother looking it up.

Or do you actually know about such things and are deliberately lying because automatic weapons sounds scarier? Which is it Jimbo?

Well he follows with:

I’m no firearms expert, but it is time for those who are to make modest gun regulation proposals based on facts and statistics — rather than nonsense like international conspiracies to take away grandma’s hand gun.

You don't have to be an expert to use wikipedia or a search engine, genius. And the Arms Trade Treaty isn't exactly a conspiracy, the UN is rather open with it's goals.

Gotta love how he has an equivalence between the "fringe" of gun rights people and the "fringe" that murders people.

Also you're the one that wants to "limit access to" "automatic hand guns". Unless you're talking about the plague of Glock 18's on the streets. Then yes, yes you do want to take away grandma's hand gun.


I do love that even the antis are forced to go "No no, we're not going after grandma's guns."
Hey Jimmy, that handgun grandma has that you swear you're not going to take away. You think she hunts many ducks with that?

This is why the anti's are so openly mocked and are not compromised with. We know they're lying. We know that there is no negotiating in good faith with them.

As Weerd points out this is a common thing that the anti-gun people do.

Ron Starts off with saying “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”, then immediately contradicting this point by talking about how much guns kill people. Further he states that the “Constitutional Right to Firearms has never been threatened, and never will”….well except for the fact that in recent memory Heller v DC, and McDonald v. Chicago struck down some unconstitutional gun laws that had been in effect for generations. The Federal Assault Weapons ban was also fairly recent.

He’s either totally stupid, or he doesn’t even remotely believe the words he’s saying. So why is he saying it? Simple, he wants to appear more moderate on the gun control issue so that he can garner more support.

And this is not helping the antis. As can be seen here.

Gun tragedies used to draw widespread calls from lawmakers to toughen the nation’s firearms laws.

But over the past two decades, the type of Democrats who might have rushed to embrace new restrictions have been beaten in elections, worn down by the National Rifle Association and now stampede in the opposite direction of gun control.

Poor babies. Your blood-dancing isn't getting the results it used to.

“It’s a tough sell in Washington,” said McCarthy. “A lot of members in their hearts, they do believe and support common-sense gun-safety laws … but many members are definitely afraid of the NRA.”

And gun-control advocates noted that not even a Democrat in the White House and a Democratic-led House and Senate did much for their cause.

“We had that,” Dan Gross, the president for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said of a Democratic-controlled Washington. “Democrats had that, and nothing happened. Again, the political calculus was that health care reform was a priority but part of it is the … power of the gun lobby.”

Awww. They really, really wanna infringe on our rights, but they can't do it!
And more sad clown from Dan Gross.

Now Politco acutally does point out why the NRA has such power and clout, even if the gun grabbers don't:

An October 2011 Gallup Poll found that 73 percent of Americans would not support a ban on owning handguns except by law enforcement – the highest level of opposition since in more than 50 years. The National Rifle Association also enjoys considerable public backing, with 68 percent of Americans holding favorable views of the gun group, according to an April Reuters/Ipsos poll.

Oh yeah. That.

Meanwhile the Window-Licking Antis are also blaming Batman. See Bats. Decades of being staunchly anti-gun and what does it get you you?

They need you right now. But when they don't, they'll cast you out, like a leper. See, their morals, their code... it's a bad joke. Dropped at the first sign of trouble.

No comments: