PDA

View Full Version : New gun control Strategy- Keep Vigilant!



downtownv
01-12-2015, 05:46 AM
The New Sneaky Tactic Gun Control Advocates Are EmbracingGenevieve Wood (http://dailysignal.com/author/gwood/)/ @genevievewood (http://twitter.com/genevievewood) / January 09, 2015 / 0 comments (http://dailysignal.com/2015/01/09/new-sneaky-tactic-gun-control-advocates-embracing/#comments)


146
0







http://dailysignal.com/wp-content/uploads/4906574171-1260x650.jpg
Photo: Getty Images/Thinkstock

COMMENTARY BYhttp://dailysignal.com/wp-content/uploads/Wood_Genevieve2_TDS-lo.jpg (http://dailysignal.com/author/gwood/)Genevieve Wood (http://dailysignal.com/author/gwood/)@genevievewood (http://twitter.com/genevievewood)
Genevieve Wood advances policy priorities of The Heritage Foundation as senior contributor to The Daily Signal. Send an email to Genevieve (genevieve.wood@dailysignal.com).


Gun control advocates are changing strategy.
If you can’t get legislation infringing upon the Second Amendment with President Obama sitting in the White House and Harry Reid, D-Nev., running the Senate, the chances of getting much done under the new Republican-controlled Congress are next to nil.
Add to that the fact that the majority of pro-gun control candidates who ran in the 2014 mid-term elections, including Rep. Ron Barber, D-Ariz., who was one wounded in the 2011 incident involving the shooting of then Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, lost.
So, taking a page from the same-sex marriage movement, gun control advocates are now embracing this strategy: What you can’t get done at the federal level, try to get done state by state.
Subscribe to updates and alertsJohn Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety, explained to the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/03/us/gun-control-groups-blocked-in-washington-turn-attention-to-states.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes&_r=1) that when advocates of same-sex marriage fought their battle at the federal level, they ended up with the opposite of what they wanted–the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as being between a man and a woman was passed. So, what to do? Feinblatt: “Then they went to the states and showed that if you can get the majority of the public on your side state by state, that will influence the courts and Congress in the end.”
Now, I take issue with Feinblatt’s statement that “the majority of the public” in individual states supports same-sex marriage. Just consider that in the 34 states (http://dailysignal.com/2014/10/06/states-voted-gay-marriage-now-forced-upon/) that have put it on the ballot, voters in 31 of those states voted to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Only three states went the opposite way. The redefinition of marriage is being forced on the public via judicial fiats, not voters at the ballot box.
But that aside, what all this means is the battle over gun rights and all the money from the Daddy Warbucks of the movement, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, could be coming to a state near you.
And it’s not just a state-level strategy that is new: The gun control lobby also has decided to ditch the “control” part of its name. That is so, well, controlling. It now prefers to be known as the gun safety movement.
Wonder if that has anything to do with the findings of a Pew poll (http://www.people-press.org/files/2014/12/12-10-14-Guns-topline-for-release.pdf) taken in December, in which 52 percent of Americans said it’s more important to “protect the right of Americans to own guns” than to “control gun ownership.” Hmmm.
The newly branded “gun safety” movement is now saying that banning assault weapons, a big push that has fallen flat in both Congress and the polls, will take a back seat to the push for expanding background checks–and that polls show Americans support this.
But polls (http://www.people-press.org/files/2014/12/12-10-14-Guns-topline-for-release.pdf) also show that 57 percent believe gun ownership does more to “protect people from becoming victims of crimes” and only 38 percent said it “put people’s safety at risk.”
Interestingly, when you compare those numbers to the same poll taken just two years ago, you see that all the movement in public opinion has been toward the belief that gun ownership protects people. In 2012, just 48 percent agreed with that statement, and 37 percent said it put people at risk. The 16 percent who said they didn’t know or refused to answer two years ago has now dropped to 5 percent, and the deciders have gone heavily towards the belief that gun ownership protects people.
As a conservative, I welcome most political battles being fought at the state level. The less that Washington is involved in our day-to-day lives the better.
But be forewarned, despite what gun control advocates call themselves or what strategy they use, their ultimate goal is an America where citizens don’t have the right to bear arms.

deadeye
01-12-2015, 09:09 AM
You are correct. This is the way they pushed their same sex marriage and the way they pushed anti smoking through. They gained nothing until they got Coop in as surgeon general. Then slowly but surely they got their way. Now they have Murthy in as SG. Here we go again. I will repeat I do not condone smoking but it was a personal liberty that went away one step at a time at the grass roots level. Holder said it very well. "We won't gain what we want until we brainwash the people." Heard on the news this morning that Missouri is sneaking a bill through that states if you have any mental problems they can take your guns. If you are even suspected of domestic violence the police can come to your house and take your guns. Yes. Stay vigilant!!!!

yqtszhj
01-12-2015, 10:20 AM
Looks to me like that sign says no browning hi-powers. That being the case i reckon my Kahr and 1911 is ok. Of course thats my interpretation. :rolleyes:

Longitude Zero
01-12-2015, 11:02 AM
Major gun control legislation on the National level is al but dead. The State Houses is where they are targeting.

ScottM
01-12-2015, 03:23 PM
Major gun control legislation on the National level is al but dead. The State Houses is where they are targeting.

Yea good luck with that if Ohio and Pennsylvania are any recent indication. But the OP is correct, we need to watch out at the state level. It's easier to sneak stuff in at the state level, in both directions.

muggsy
01-12-2015, 09:14 PM
State law doesn't supersede the U.S. Constitution. Trying to ban guns on the State level is an exercise in futility. Illinois was just forced to allow concealed carry. The only chance that the liberals have at banning guns is by stacking the Supreme court with liberals.

marshal kane
01-13-2015, 08:40 AM
. . . The only chance that the liberals have at banning guns is by stacking the Supreme court with liberals.[/QUOTE]
. . . and folks, just who decides on the nominees for the Supreme Court? Yes, you guessed it, the one who leads from behind and who has already put two lifetime justices in office with the help of Democrat Harry Reid. Folks, you just have to exercise your rights by voting. There are those of both parties who are out to get you so let's make sure they have a short stay in office.

JohnR
01-13-2015, 08:47 AM
In a way this is a good thing, as it sets up a group of free states and a group of Liberal PC states. That makes it easier to dissolve the union and remake two new ones, the Soviet Socialist States of Amerka, and the Free Republic of America.

That's the only solution I can see here.

ScottM
01-13-2015, 09:24 AM
Be careful JohnR - your dream is more likely to create a Corporate Republic of America. NEVER underestimate the power of money, especially large sums easily able to ride out financial turmoil of that huge a scale of sociopolitical change.

Longitude Zero
01-13-2015, 10:14 AM
In a way this is a good thing, as it sets up a group of free states and a group of Liberal PC states. That makes it easier to dissolve the union and remake two new ones, the Soviet Socialist States of Amerka, and the Free Republic of America.

That's the only solution I can see here.

It is nice to dream.....and then you woke up.

JohnR
01-13-2015, 11:06 AM
Be careful JohnR - your dream is more likely to create a Corporate Republic of America. NEVER underestimate the power of money, especially large sums easily able to ride out financial turmoil of that huge a scale of sociopolitical change.
I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean. Corporations love democrats as much as non-democrats. In my dream world, businesses won't need to influence lawmakers because there won't be an IRS, I'll probably implement the Fair Tax. It's the IRS and all the tax laws that make your big evil corporations go running to DC to get their way.

ScottM
01-13-2015, 11:23 AM
Don't forget the SEC - large corps don't mind regs that make it too expensive for the little guys. Same with large manufacturers and drug companies. Once you're big enough, you want to hold on to your market.

TheTman
01-13-2015, 06:22 PM
I doubt if the gun safety gets anywhere here in Kansas, it seems like any gun control measures being brought up, usually backfire, and end up with better laws, such as the one where the State laws override any local laws a city might try to pass.
I do worry about the mental health issue, as someone close to me had to do chemo therapy, and they always prescribe an anti-depressant to take while you are on the Chemo. And it does mess with your head some, but that goes away once you get all that poison out of your system. So if Big Brother gets those medical records, and shows a person was on an Anti-depressant, does that put them one the mentally unfit list? Even though they are ok now? And just because a woman pissed you off so bad, that you slapped her, and got arrested, I don't think that means a person is unfit for life to own a gun. I think anyone that's been married long enough has been tempted to knock some sense into their spouse at one point or another. A friends wife called the cops, and said her husband smacked her, yet he was the one with all the red spots on his face and claw marks on his arms from her smacking and clawing at him, and they took HER to jail :D Justice prevailed that night. Which seems kind of rare, as it seems like they automatically take the man into custody. I wonder how it works with a Lesbanese couple? Or with girlymen? Does the one that looks more manly go to jail?

ScottM
01-13-2015, 06:44 PM
Great points Tom, and don't forget how young children can turn adults into babbling zombies! Combine that with work stress, sick kids and an ailing parent to care for and it would be hard to blame anyone seeking an anti-depressant at some point in their lives. Sometimes that could mean they're about to crack, but 99 times out of 100, it's someone just going through a really rough "character-building" period in their life. Alas, it's hard to tell, just like it's hard to tell when a brown-skinned Muslim's about to go crazy or a pasty white Christian is about to go on a shooting spree. The human animal is a complex beast, and I doubt "Big Data" will get it right.