Oh they are going to start demonizing the NRA now...
On a side note, I'm still yet to see anyone championing gun control so much as mention the new felony crimes their background checks make. If it is so "common Usense" and "reasonable", why can't they talk about throwing people in jail for selling a gun without a government sanctioned dealer conducting the transaction? They'll still have 93% support, won't they?
You sound exactly like a segregationist--What do those uppity people want, anyway? You are so convinced that you understand who we are that you can't see the reality. That's good for my side.
Oh, yes, We're single issue people who only ever talk about guns. All the things said on here about the NSA scandal, the IRS scandal, and every other bit of government overreach is really just said by you and your cohort of the defenders of liberty.
Thank God you guys are so enlightened and guarding all of our liberties while we only vote on guns!
...
Wait, aren't we the ones also complaining about these other issues, and you're the one who keeps offering excuses for why various abuses aren't abuses, and are actually good things.
That's not what Matthews says--the whole idea that they're not reasonable in this is that they're nuts who never thing of anything other than their guns, much less vote based on other things. His comments are a caricature.
I'm not terribly suprised at the slant of the video since your title gave it away. And again, they were able to throw in the 90% figure and suggest some sort of racial bias in there for anyone who would disagree with the President. Currently, President Obama is juggling more scandals than ever. We have the IRS, NSA, and of course Fast and Furious. Should it be a big suprise issue that there might be some trust issues there? Mayor Bloomberg is willing to be in any party as long as it's the winning one. Its rather comical for him to spout about the dreaded NRA when he now seems to be trying to emulate them in a big way. And he seems to take political manipulation to a new level. How else can you get a law passed that the city needs to control how much pop you can buy with your food. They also seem to draw the lines pretty distinctly in the debate. There is the 90% of "reasonable" people who want universal background checks and the 10% of obsessed single issue voters. The math seems to leave out much of a middle ground. Do we get to question other single issue voters then? Stuff like gay rights, reproductive rights, immigration reform? Isnt a similar "obsession" just as bad? In a previous post Baldr seems quite confident that the political tide in favor of strict gun laws will come about in the upcoming elections. We've been reading of the recall elections in Colorado as being an indicator of the future, though here is another possible piece of data. "Pro-gun Republican wins vacated Democrat seat in Connecticut" "For those gauging the impact of the gun issue, Belsito “said he would have voted against the recent gun control legislation.” Importantly, his opponent, Democrat Anthony Horn, felt the same way."
"I would have voted 'no','' Horn told The Hartford Courant, adding "Even though they say it is just registration, I don't think that's the end of it." http://www.examiner.com/article/pro-gun-republican-wins-vacated-democrat-seat-connecticut?utm_source=feedly
If the split is really 90/10, why is it that gun control goes down to defeat just about everywhere--whether it's a gun-control supporting candidate or a law to enact gun control? The nefarious NRA can't be powerful enough to overcome 90% of the voters.
Oh they are going to start demonizing the NRA now...
ReplyDeleteOn a side note, I'm still yet to see anyone championing gun control so much as mention the new felony crimes their background checks make. If it is so "common Usense" and "reasonable", why can't they talk about throwing people in jail for selling a gun without a government sanctioned dealer conducting the transaction? They'll still have 93% support, won't they?
Once again, we see that the control freaks have no idea of the people who oppose them. But do keep being a bigot, Mikeb, et al. It only helps my side.
ReplyDeleteBigot? You mean against the poor persecuted gun owners?
DeleteYou sound exactly like a segregationist--What do those uppity people want, anyway? You are so convinced that you understand who we are that you can't see the reality. That's good for my side.
DeleteOh, yes, We're single issue people who only ever talk about guns. All the things said on here about the NSA scandal, the IRS scandal, and every other bit of government overreach is really just said by you and your cohort of the defenders of liberty.
ReplyDeleteThank God you guys are so enlightened and guarding all of our liberties while we only vote on guns!
...
Wait, aren't we the ones also complaining about these other issues, and you're the one who keeps offering excuses for why various abuses aren't abuses, and are actually good things.
Gun rights advocates are single issue voters who accasionally think about other things.
DeleteThat's not what Matthews says--the whole idea that they're not reasonable in this is that they're nuts who never thing of anything other than their guns, much less vote based on other things. His comments are a caricature.
DeleteMikeb, are you telling me that I'm not a gun-rights advocate?
DeleteI'm not terribly suprised at the slant of the video since your title gave it away. And again, they were able to throw in the 90% figure and suggest some sort of racial bias in there for anyone who would disagree with the President.
ReplyDeleteCurrently, President Obama is juggling more scandals than ever. We have the IRS, NSA, and of course Fast and Furious. Should it be a big suprise issue that there might be some trust issues there?
Mayor Bloomberg is willing to be in any party as long as it's the winning one. Its rather comical for him to spout about the dreaded NRA when he now seems to be trying to emulate them in a big way. And he seems to take political manipulation to a new level. How else can you get a law passed that the city needs to control how much pop you can buy with your food.
They also seem to draw the lines pretty distinctly in the debate. There is the 90% of "reasonable" people who want universal background checks and the 10% of obsessed single issue voters. The math seems to leave out much of a middle ground.
Do we get to question other single issue voters then? Stuff like gay rights, reproductive rights, immigration reform? Isnt a similar "obsession" just as bad?
In a previous post Baldr seems quite confident that the political tide in favor of strict gun laws will come about in the upcoming elections. We've been reading of the recall elections in Colorado as being an indicator of the future, though here is another possible piece of data.
"Pro-gun Republican wins vacated Democrat seat in Connecticut"
"For those gauging the impact of the gun issue, Belsito “said he would have voted against the recent gun control legislation.” Importantly, his opponent, Democrat Anthony Horn, felt the same way."
"I would have voted 'no','' Horn told The Hartford Courant, adding "Even though they say it is just registration, I don't think that's the end of it."
http://www.examiner.com/article/pro-gun-republican-wins-vacated-democrat-seat-connecticut?utm_source=feedly
If the split is really 90/10, why is it that gun control goes down to defeat just about everywhere--whether it's a gun-control supporting candidate or a law to enact gun control? The nefarious NRA can't be powerful enough to overcome 90% of the voters.
DeleteChris Matthews wouldn't know a "reasonable person" if one sent a "furrowing up his leg."
ReplyDelete