Words of Advice:

"If Something Seems To Be Too Good To Be True, It's Best To Shoot It, Just In Case." -- Fiona Glenanne

"Flying the Airplane is More Important than Radioing Your Plight to a Person on the Ground
Who is Incapable of Understanding or Doing Anything About It." -- Unknown

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level
and then beat you with experience.” -- Mark Twain

"John Wick didn't kill all those people because they broke his toaster." -MickAK

"Everything is easy if somebody else is the one doing it." -- Me

"What the hell is an `Aluminum Falcon'?" -- Emperor Palpatine

"Eck!" -- George the Cat

Monday, January 21, 2013

Bill Clinton Has a Clue; Few Others Do.

While some polls show that the public by-and-large supports several proposals for increased gun control, Clinton said that it’s not the public support that matters — it’s how strongly people feel about the issue.

“All these polls that you see saying the public is for us on all these issues — they are meaningless if they’re not voting issues,” Clinton said.
“Do not be self-congratulatory about how brave you [are] for being for this” gun control push, he said. “The only brave people are the people who are going to lose their jobs if they vote with you.”
Exactly right. Look at all of the blue states in the South and West where there will be senatorial elections next year. Every incumbent in those states (except WV, where Rockefeller is retiring) knows that standing with this Administration on gun control will likely cost them their job, presuming that the Republicans can nominate less batshit-crazy candidates than Christine O'Donnell, Sharon Angle, Todd Akin or Richard Mourdock.


CenterPuke88 said...

It's certainly true that the West and the South are much more pro-gun rights than pro-gun safety (I like these two "catagories", it isn't tossing any offensive stereotypes out on the groups...and yes, I know there are those that the stereotypes fit in both groups), but I do suspect that the current Tea-Party type candidates might have a little more trouble than expected in a number of these sates because people tend to look at House Delegations rather than popular vote totals to estimate party support in most states.

Given the Republican success in gerrymandering Congressional Districts, the House delegation in most of these states is more Red than the state as a whole. However, I do suspect that anything more than some background checks and some cosmetic limits (assault weapons type limits, and I know the term is crap) is not likely to pass nationally yet.

If it wasn't for the number of colorful toy guns out there, the idea of making all AR-15's Barbie pink is kinda appealing thou!

w3ski said...

As a lifetime shooter and gun owner I am torn by the current hubub. Personally I feel restrained because I don't have the auto-sear (key part to go full auto) for my EBR and access to silencers for all my weapons.
On the other hand I can understand the frustration of having errant bullets travel thru your domain. Much more the rampant and senseless killings each new day.
I have never shot anyone, never had to. Don't even know anyone except for a Nam Vet or two and one Sand Vet, that did.
I am sure that I would not give up all my weapons, not really willing to allow someone else's fears to make me give up any of my weapons.
I met a woman once who was afraid of my dog. Deathly afraid. I would never have given up my dog because of her fear. I don't feel their fear and will not respond to it.
I believe in our Democracy, as did my Dad, as did his parents who came here from Russia to be Free back in Ellis Island days.
Kinda don't know what an "answer" is going to be, about freedom and guns.
I am willing to listen to others, but not if they speak in Fear or anger, only in reasoning.
Ever hear of the 'study' where they put too many rats in a box and eventually they began to kill each other?
I think that may be us, now.

Comrade Misfit said...

In recent days, I've seen calls to bean .50 caliber rifles, because they are "scary sniper rifles". The evidence for that contention is that one was used in the movie "Shooter". Nobody can point to any crime spree done with such rifles (or hardly any crimes at all), but that one was used in a movie is enough for them.

We are not dealing with rational people.

CenterPuke88 said...

Comrade, the real problem is that there are irrational people on BOTH sides. There are very valid concerns on both sides, and with democracy it is likely that some accommodation will finally be reached that addresses as many real concerns as possible.

w3ski, I think we cannot dismiss those who talk in fear...either for or against guns, as they are an integral part of our democracy. While we do not have to act to the extent that they would demand, we also have to understand their fears in order to find the ultimate middle ground that protects those who wish to own guns and those who wish to be safe from those guns.

w3ski said...

What part of my dog should I have given up to help manage her fear?
MY guns are less of a danger to most people than my dog.
Awfull hard to negotiate with someone's fear.

CenterPuke88 said...

w3ski, absolutely it's difficult...but failing to deal with it in any meaningful way opens the potential to more drastic action if that person can get people to agree with her, even in a ,limited fashion. You shouldn't have to give-up your dog, but some people are made to (see the pit bull chain of events).

You have a right to have your dog outside your residence, but you have a responsibility to ensure the dog is properly behaved and doesn't threaten or harm others. The lady in question has a right to also be outside her residence and also to be afraid of your dog. The magic is in the accommodation we reach in society.

The extreme pro-gun side would be like you insisting your dog can go anywhere with you regardless of how others feel, while the extreme pro-control crowd would insist you not be allowed to have a dog. That's the unfortunate position that both sides are suggesting the other is focused on. The reality is that most people think both these sides are too extreme, but extremes get the press coverage because people on camera ranting about conspiracies make good ratings.

YOU believe your guns are less of a danger...

That's the problem, you believe but cannot prove (not an attack, just an observation of semantic truth)...she believed your dog was a threat to her, but she couldn't prove it either. Fear is not rational, but in the big picture the people that have to reach the consensus on this topic are not the irrationally fearful (either of government confiscation or guns can never be safe).

Comrade Misfit said...

And so we get into reasonable time, manner, and place restrictions. You have the right to freedom of expression, but that does not extend to driving a sound truck through a residential area at 0300. You have the right to publish your opinion, but don't count on setting up a printing plant next to a McMansion.

On the other hand, Congress has eviscerated almost all local restrictions on religion, so if you want to build a mega-church in a residential subdivision, have at it.

Look, I am not against reasonable controls. I don't object to the notion that guns shouldn't be left out where children can easily get them (though that was common practice when I was a child and I don't recall anyone taking their daddy's M-1 carbine into school and shooting up the lunchroom).

But if I am going to be asked to give up something, I want to get something in return. We can begin with a formal statement by the board of the Brady Campaign which sets out what firearms are legal to own and then let's negotiate from there.

Until the anti-gun side does that, we are in a realm of 'what's mine is mine, what's yours is negotiable." And to that, I say: "Hell fucking no. Молон Лаве!"

w3ski said...

Not to belabor the point, but there was a solid but screened door between my dog and the scared person. That was not enough for the person. If she had her way, there would be No dogs where I lived and her fears made her unable to negotiate. She was just afraid of all dogs.
My dog is a 60 pound 'CattleDog' mix and is 'hand trained' she needs no leash, I carry a leash when we walk to placate others. The scared woman had no idea that my dog was trying to get her to move away from the home. My dog was protecting the home, and my small arsenal from people who don't belong. Good thing the scared woman didn't know I had firearms also. I can only imagine the reaction.
As to "believing" my guns are less of a threat...
My dog has occasionally nipped people and bit other dogs when roughhousing or protecting me from other dogs, she once drove off an attacking German Shepard twice her size. I have never shot any human to date. Lots of hunting but No people.
I basically don't believe that scared people are capable of negotiation.
What kind of guarantee can anyone give that it won't be my revolver, that makes someone scared tomorrow?

CenterPuke88 said...

w3ski, just to clarify I'm not contending your guns are a danger. Simply that, as always, the perspective of the writer is not necessarily the perspective of others...neither right nor wrong. On the dog and leash, in some places you would be breaking the law by having your dog free...kinda like in some places some guns are illegal, etc. As for fear of dogs, I fully understand that due to some trauma when I was young. Now I simply avoid the problem...but I'm rational.