Click here to see the NRA ad that led the Garden State Governor to destroy his chances of becoming President of the United States.Those are the words of Robert Farago, who apparently thinks himself quite the prescient political prognosticator.
Here's my comment responding to the commenters who, shockingly, were all in agreement:
You guys are crazy if you think that hurt his future politically. Only the fringiest among you refuse to get what he’s saying. That leaves the vast majority of gun owners and even NRA members agreeing.
The thing I don’t agree with is that the NRA has real issues to discuss. It doesn’t, hence the dirty tactics. Refusing to budge on background checks and gun availability issues puts them and you on the margins of the debate. You’re not nearly as numerous or as influential as you think.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
The fanaticism of the Pro-Gun movement will be it's demise. To their determent (and to the benefit of society) they undermine their credibility to the extent that they will soon cease to be viewed as a serious political voice. In the next few decades both parties will discuss "what is to be done" with regards to the "problem" of gun proliferation, as has been the case in similar societies. Perhaps this paradigm shift will occur within some of your lifetimes.
ReplyDeleteWe have no problem with gun proliferation. In fact, we're doing everything possible to proliferate as many guns to as many people as possible to keep people like you from getting your wishes fulfilled.
DeleteI don't believe that the proliferation of arms for civilian purposes causes social harm per se. Hence my use of quotations. I do however believe that a compelling need exists to disarm those who present a potential risk to society. Such can be achieved without greatly infringing on the "rights" of law abiding citizens.
DeleteDisarming those who pose an actual risk can be done right now with the laws that we already have--in fact, with fewer than the current list of laws. Everyone is a potential risk, so it's a dangerous idea to infringe on the rights of citizens because of potential.
DeleteNo, Greg, obviously it can't. Most of the mass shooters and many of the everyday ones are legal gun owners right up until the moment they act. This is a problem that needs to be addressed not just by improving mental health efforts and stiffer criminal sanctions, but by doing something about the gun availability too.
DeleteBut under the principle of American law, you can't punish someone until the person has committed a crime. You keep calling for punishments before the fact.
DeleteYou have to hang onto that little bit of manipulation, otherwise your whole position crumbles. Restrictions on gun rights are not punishments - unless you want to them that in order to build a fabricated base for your argument..
DeleteRights are taken away from people who have done wrong. That's a punishment and done in order to make society safer. Good citizens are presumed worthy of exercising their rights. The fact that you refuse to accept gun ownership and carry as a right is what keeps you from seeing your proposals as a punishment. You see guns as a privilege, something that we have to ask permission to enjoy. That's why no compromise will ever be possible with your kind.
DeleteThere was nothing wrong with the NRA ad. It certainly was not untruthful and it hit right at the heart of the matter. And who was it that trotted out kids from Newtown into the public eye before cameras and the international media for a signing of Executive Orders. Elitist Hypocrites!
ReplyDeleteorlin sellers
When public figures bring their own children or the children of others into the discussion, those children are fair game--as ideas, not the specifics of the private lives of the children.
ReplyDeleteThat's what the ad does. The president's children have protections that many in America do not. His children weren't named. Their pictures weren't used. The school wasn't identified.
Gun control freaks like Christie and Obama are finding out that the truth hurts. If they stop trying to control the lives of good citizens, we'll go easier on them.
Regarding Christie, haven't we been told that fat, white men have nothing to say worth hearing?
ReplyDeleteActually, Christie is being very smart. He's seen what wild extremism on the GOP side has done to its political fortunes. He's positioning himself as "reasonable" and "moderate" as opposed to the failed GOP tactic of just throwing bombs and yelping whatever stupid things come to mind.
ReplyDeleteOf course, he's too fat to be Prez.
You judge the ability of a leader on the basis of his (or her) waistline? Franklin Roosevelt and Richard Nixon where rather pudgy, when compared to Warren Harding or Jimmy Carter. Certainly they where better leaders.
DeleteI don't remember Warren Harding. How old are you, anyway?
DeleteTaft was our largest leader.
DeleteBut the point remains. The attitude expressed here by the gun control freaks is that any white man who's overweight can't be worth listening too. Of course, we've seen time and again that gun control freaks have no principles other than control.
FDR didn't have TV.
ReplyDeleteThat's a point you're missing. Of course, it would also be quite difficult for a disabled person to be elected today. Not saying that's good--just the way it is.
Besides, Christie is really fat.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMaybe Christie did blow his chances in one fell swoop. As 2012 showed us, you have to be pretty dickly to get the republican nod during the primaries when they are all trying to outhate and overextreme each other to prove that they are closer to the right-wing-heartless-Randian-libertarian ideal. But that's one of his strengths. He doesn't pull any punches and he's a straight-forward, straight-shooting, honest guy. After bucking the haters in favor of cooperating with the president on behalf of his constituency, he has already become something of a folk hero. This kinda cements the whole thing. He is a guy who thinks for himself and doesn't take shit off of anybody. The last moral republican? Perhaps so.
ReplyDeleteFour years is a long time. Gun nuts are a small minority. LaPierre is funded by the merchants of death that manufacture deadly weapons. Republican politicians run scared because they're just fucking stupid and they have no spine. We are going to see some real changes in the republican party and soon. Hopefully, their women will take over. Couldn't hurt one thing.
Liberal democrats all agree. Just quit fucking manufacturing these goddam weapons! End of story!!!!! I leave it up to you if we should recall them or buy them back. Personally, I don't favor house-to-house SS tactics. But, on the other hand, if a state opts to do just that... More power to them.
Too fat? Why? A presidency is not about glamour. He's young enough to serve two terms. People can lose weight.
Flying Junior, you're welcome to your opinions, right up the moment that you try to control my life. Then it's molon labe, hippie.
DeleteDo you truly fear a gun prohibition or recall? As far as I know, that's not what the president or congressional leaders are talking about. Like I intimated, such an action is more likely to come from the individual states. Still not very likely.
DeleteI confess my ignorance of the presidential executive orders I keep hearing everyone talk about. Time to look this up.
Here's a nice link to the 23 executive orders. They seem fairly middle-of-the-road and common sense to me. Nothing to threaten the lawful gun owner whatsoever.
Deletehttp://www.post-gazette.com/stories/news/us/23-executive-orders-to-reduce-gun-violence-670765/
But he wants an "assault" weapons ban. There are calls for registration and licensing. Those twenty-three executive orders are just what he can accomplish without Congress. And yes, a few states are trying for much more.
DeleteThe whole point of the gun control freaks is to lay the groundwork for future confiscation. First, they want a list of who has what and control over who can get more. Soon will come demands for types of guns to be turned in. Ultimately, legal ownership will be so difficult as to amount to a ban, whether there is one or not.
That's what happened in the U.K. and Australia. Even if you disagree about those two countries, you can't deny that the plan I laid out above is possible. Here's where the fact that we can't trust gun control freaks comes in. Ask a gun control freak what will be enough. You'll never get a solid answer. The lot of them refuse to be pinned down. I believe this is because they want all guns gone. There are other possible explanations, but mine is plausible.
Chris Christie is a swish just like Arlen Specter and Charlie Crist. None of these guys can stand on principle...they sway back and forth with the political wind.
ReplyDeleteIsn't "swish" a pejorative term for homosexual? Is that what you meant?
DeleteThat's not what I meant. Perhaps I should have used the more acceptable term...flip flopper.
ReplyDelete