Drudge - OBAMA TO GO FOR GUNS IN 2013 'THERE WILL BE RESISTANCE'

[XDHusker]

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/274881-obama-hopes-to-enact-new-gun-control-measures-in-2013

Not that it's any big surprise.  Personally, I'm kind of glad they're going for "everything" all at once because the likelihood of it passing are that much more remote.

If they came in and just asked for one thing like magazine size restrictions or something like that they'd likely get it passed.

[nightraider717]

.

[RLMoeller]

Personally, I view it like one would a mediation process in civil litigation.  They start with something ridiculous, and negotiate towards a more "reasonable" goal.

That's what I'm seeing.  It appears that there isn't support from the public on this, and I hope that enough politicians end up realizing that supporting bans would be political suicide.  That's why the senator from WV is backtracking already.

The one thing I have seen in the polls with much support is increased background checks.  If they get anything, I'm willing to bet that they will find a way to shut down private party sales.  I hope that once everything gets stripped down to something "reasonable" to debate, that an overwhelming volume of opposition will persuade most senators to vote against it.

By "reasonable", I mean watered down from what is being discussed now.  Don't think I believe that ANY additional restrictions are acceptable.  They are not, and I will do everything in my power to fight them.

[nightraider717]

.

[GreyGeek]

It's just a repeat of the Left's attempt to gain total gun bans.  We've seen it all before, time and time again.   In another post I link to an excellent article by Larry  Correia, who writes:

The Media

Every time there is a mass shooting event, the vultures launch. I find it absolutely fascinating. A bunch of people get murdered, and the same usual suspects show up with the same tired proposals that we’ve either tried before or logic tells us simply will not work. They strike while the iron is hot, trying to push through legislation before there can be coherent thought. We’ve seen this over and over and over again. We saw it succeed in England. We saw it succeed in Australia. We’ve seen it succeed here before.

Yet when anyone from my side responds, then we are shouted at that we are blood thirsty and how dare we speak in this moment of tragedy, and we should just shut our stupid mouths out of respect for the dead, while they are free to promote policies which will simply lead to more dead… If the NRA says something they are bloodthirsty monsters, and if they don’t say something then their silence is damning guilt. It is hypocritical in the extreme, and when I speak out against this I am called every name in the book, I want dead children, I’m a cold hearted monster (the death threats are actually hilarious). If I become angry because they are promoting policies which are tactically flawed and which will do the exact opposite of the stated goals, then I am a horrible person for being angry. Perhaps I shouldn’t be allowed to own guns at all.

But that’s not why I want to talk about the media. I want to talk about the media’s effect on the shooters.

Put yourself in the shoes of one of these killers. One nice thing about playing the villain and being a punching bag for cops, soldiers, and permit holders is that you need to learn about how the bad guys think and operate. And most of the mass shooters fit a similar profile.

The vast majority (last I saw it was over 80%) are on some form of psychotropic drug and has been for many years. They have been on Zoloft or some serotonin inhibitor through their formative years, and their decision making process is often flawed. They are usually disaffected, have been bullied, pushed around, and have a lot of emotional problems. They are delusional. They see themselves as victims, and they are usually striking back at their peer group.

These people want to make a statement. They want to show the world that they aren’t losers. They want to make us understand their pain. They want to make their peer group realize that they are powerful. They’ll show us. The solution is easy. It’s right there in front of your nose.

If you can kill enough people at one time, you’ll be on the news, 24/7, round the clock coverage. You will become the most famous person in the world. Everyone will know your name. You become a celebrity. Experts will try to understand what you were thinking. Hell, the President of the United States, the most important man in the world, will drop whatever he is doing and hold a press conference to talk about your actions, and he’ll even shed a single manly tear.

You are a star.

Strangely enough, this is one of the only topics I actually agree with Roger Ebert on. He didn’t think that the news should cover the shooters or mention their names on the front page of the paper. So whenever the press isn’t talking about guns, or violent movies, or violent video games, or any other thing that hundreds of millions of people participated in yesterday without murdering anybody, they’ll keep showing the killer’s picture in the background while telling the world all about him and his struggles.
And then the cycle repeats, as the next disaffected angry loner takes notes.

They should not be glamorized. They should be hated, despised, and forgotten. They are not victims. They are not powerful. They are murdering scum, and the only time their names should be remembered is when people like me are studying the tactics of how to neutralize them faster.

[bullit]

Has anyone seen a link or evidence of this now oft quoted 74% of NRA member support some sort of gun reform laws/control?  Heard it again yesterday by some media schmuck

[GreyGeek]

Has anyone seen a link or evidence of this now oft quoted 74% of NRA member support some sort of gun reform laws/control?  Heard it again yesterday by some media schmuck

74% of all statistics are made up  on the spot 87% of the time.

http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/pr006-12.shtml

Notice who sponsored this  poll.   Another poll, linked to  on that URL  to support the contentions made  in this poll, obviously, were broken so one can't check on the previous poll.   This  is typical  of generated statistics using push or pull techniques to get a desired outcome.  It was done months ago and kept in readiness for the next tragedy.   No information is giving showing how the poll was conducted or exactly what questions were asked and in what context they were posed.    It's classic Saul D Alinsky ("Rules For Radicals" -- you must read it)  disinformation designed to spread descension among opponents. 

The survey, conducted by Republican pollster Frank Luntz for the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns, was carried out in May but was released on Tuesday in the aftermath of the Colorado movie theater shooting that killed 12 people last week.

The shootings in the Denver suburb of Aurora early on Friday have renewed the debate over gun control in a nation whose Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. Authorities have said the man arrested in the shootings was armed with an AR-15 assault rifle, a 12-gauge shotgun and a Glock .40-caliber handgun. All of the guns were purchased legally.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire backer of the mayors group, has said the incident should wake up the country to the need for tough restrictions on gun ownership.

Luntz said he polled 945 gun owners nationwide - half of whom were gun owners who were current or former members of the NRA, a gun rights group that takes a hard line against most firearms control measures, and half of whom were not affiliated with the NRA.

The survey had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. The survey did not provide results looking only at the responses by current NRA members.

Seventy-four percent of the current and former NRA members and 87 percent of the other gun owners supported criminal background checks of anyone purchasing a gun, according to the poll.