Posted: 4/17/2007 9:56:34 PM EDT
|
Okay so I just got off the phone with a frantic friend who hears on (very good account) that the Dems are having a meeting with Bush tomorrow to discuss the ban, sounds a little chicken little but could be true. Now we know Bush would sign a ban that was put before him if he was given one, he has so stated from what I have read. Here is my prediction, I am wondering how many of you will agree, and how many of you will say that I am just being optimistic. From what I am reading and hearing I predict that for the next three months we will see a lot of grand standing about guns from the left. We will hear the liberal senator’s rattling their sabers about saving the children, BUT I think that the lessons learned from the first AWB that they passed will prevent them from doing anything until at least 2008. Most of the candidates are in campaign mode and they know that nothing brings out the opposition like 2nd amendment issues. I think that they will ride this for what they can and then dump it only brining it up when it’s politically expedient to do so. I believe this because they Dems blame the 94 ban for their defeat until 06 I don’t think they will chance the possibility of losing an election in 08 over something that won’t mean money in their pockets or power in their corner. Now that being said I don’t think that this means we should let our guard down or be unaware of the issues that could possibly face us. If this HR1022 looks like it will make it up to the House or the Senate I think we should pounce with every thing we have, in every possible way, with every possible financial and grass roots means available. I think we should still be calling and writing our senators, not emailing cause I think that’s a waste and never gets answered or paid attention to. But I am just curious if others see it going the way I have described. Edit; I also wonder if this will spurn a whole bunch of state bans, and mags bans instead of a national ban? Just a possiblility, remember americans have a short term memory they will be onto something new in six months, just my take on it |
|
I'm sure that politicians are "feeling it out" right now, I wouldn't doubt that its a topic of discussion on the hill and in the oval office. Honestly I don't know what to think. The situation is fragile IMHO. I do think certain things go in our favor: 1. Non white shooter who doesn't "fit the profile" that anti-gunners always promote. Remember the "Beltway Snipers" of a few years ago, the media was going nuts about it, updates every hour, but as soon as it was discovered they were African American and one guy was named "Mohammed" the media dropped the story almost completely. In fact, they aren't bringing it up again even now as they compare mass murders (irresponsible, they make it sound like a competition of some kind). If it had been a white guy from Arkansas with a "The South Shall Rise Again" bumpersticker on the back of his Ford truck, the media treatment would have been completely different. 2."Assault weapons" were used by the good guys, not the bad guy. In fact the bad guy used the most popular police-issue gun, a Glock. Rhetoric that "these guns are only used by criminals, their only purpose is to kill innocent people" isn't going to get very far this time. His other gun was a .22. A ban on AR15s or AK47s doesn't naturally follow from these facts. In fact the AR15 got showcased as a "good guy" gun because the police response had them in abundance. 3. The shooter bought the guns legally, then defaced them. Despite the defacing the sale of the guns was immediately traced. This shows that the NICS system works as it is, since there was no law against him owning guns when he bought them and the guns were tracked back to the dealer immediately. The only law I can imagine being passed that would prevent people like him from legally obtaining guns would be a law denying the 2nd amendment to non-citizens in general, and this isn't the direction that I see them going in. On the other hand, he defaced the guns so we still have the argument that "criminals don't follow gun laws anyway". 4. Most of the media focus isn't on gun rights at all, but on the concept that there were warning signs that were ignored regarding this particular person. One professor went to the police and to campus authorities about the extreme nature of his writings, and nothing was done. Another professor has gone on the record saying when she heard there was a shooting she would have been "shocked" if it had been anyone BUT him. Other students are saying they were afraid of him. The media loves stuff like this and is focusing on it, making gun control really a secondary issue in terms of their coverage. These are the good things I can come up with. But nevertheless I ordered five high-caps for my P226 and as soon as I get the money I think I'm going to order that AR15 betamag I've been putting off for years. Just in case. |
|
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/17/schneider.gun.control/index.html Gun control unlikely to get on agenda despite shootings POSTED: 6:35 p.m. EDT, April 17, 2007 Story Highlights• Last major gun laws were 1993 Brady bill and 1994 assault weapons ban • Those who oppose gun control vote based on that issue • Those in favor don't vote the issue, so politicians stay away from it By Bill Schneider CNN Senior Political Analyst Adjust font size: WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Is the Virginia Tech tragedy likely to put gun control on the political agenda? Don't bet on it. In recent years, gun control has been an issue most politicians prefer to stay away from. The last significant gun control measures to make it through Congress were the Brady bill in 1993 and the assault weapons ban in 1994. And what happened? Democrats lost control of Congress for 12 years. President Clinton said the gun lobby had a lot to do with his party's defeat. Democrats have been gun-shy ever since. Then-Vice President Al Gore rarely talked about gun control during the 2000 presidential campaign. Gore even went so far as to say he wouldn't restrict sportsmen or hunters, "None of my proposals would have any effect on hunters or sportsmen or people who use rifles." Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the Democrats' 2004 presidential candidate, went hunting during his campaign. He defended 2nd Amendment rights said during a campaign debate, saying, "I will protect the Second Amendment. I always have and I always will." Nevertheless, the National Rifle Association ran an ad railing against Kerry and Gore's stance on gun rights. "John Kerry, you are not fooling America's gun owners," the ad stated. "They know you voted against their gun rights for 20 years. So now you're running away from your record, just like Al Gore did." This year, former New York City mayor and current Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, a longtime supporter of gun control, says the matter should be left to the states. Polls show the public supports gun control. Why don't the politicians get with the people? Support for gun control dropping Public support for stricter gun laws has been declining since the 1990s, according to the Gallup Poll. In January 2007, the number of people who supported stricter gun laws was at 49 percent, less than a majority for the first time since at least 1990. Why such a decline? It seems related to the steady drop in the nation's violent crime rate since 1994. After a shocking incident like the one at Virginia Tech, public anger over gun violence rises. So does support for gun control measures. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, issued a statement saying, "I believe this will re-ignite the dormant effort to pass common-sense gun regulations in this nation.'' But public anger is not usually sustained very long, whereas gun owners remember every gun control vote as a threat to their rights. Gun owners vote the issue. Supporters of gun control typically don't. So politicians believe they will pay a price at the polls if they support new guns laws, even when most voters agree with them. When it comes to public opinion, intensity matters. Not just numbers. Tools: Save | Print | E-mail | Most Popular Next story in Politics Politics |
