Fewer than half of Americans are unhappy about the Senate vote on background checks. But expect the Democrats (and Obama) to continue to lie about it.
And as I wrote recently somewhere, know what no one in Boston was saying or thinking on Friday? “I sure wish I had a smaller magazine.”
In fact, about 70% of American voters wanted a gun.
[Update early afternoon]
Play with numbers all you like, but the fact remains: After an actual bill was written, after there was an actual vote on that bill, after a concerted and well covered gun control campaign that lasted for months, and after Obama’s nationally televised Rose Garden Grand Remonstrance, only 47 percent of people were annoyed that nothing had been done.
This, suffice it to say, is not good for the Left. Bottom line: Even after a national horror, they can’t get 50 percent for a minor gun control bill. Republicans must be praying daily that Harry Reid follows through on his threat to reintroduce something into the Senate or, even better, that Michael Bloomberg decides to go into the likes of Montana and South Dakota and kick up a fuss in 2014. That will not end well.
Well, it could end well for the good guys.
I wonder if you read the 2nd article you linked:
“82 percent of voters favor expanding background checks. Almost all non-gun owner households favor doing so (89 percent), and it’s even the consensus among those in gun-owning households (77 percent).
Almost all Democrats (89 percent) support an expansion of checks for guns, as do most independents (84 percent) and Republicans (72 percent).
and earlier in the article:
Some 61 percent say they would be less likely to support a candidate who voted against expanding background checks. That’s far greater than the 23 percent who are more likely to support such a candidate.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/23/fox-news-poll-during-manhunt-6-percent-voters-want-gun/#ixzz2ROcgEyKp
It doesn’t matter, Bob:
That’s the grim political reality for those who want to deprive us of our fundamental rights.
Sure, it doesn’t matter. Also, Sigivald, below, is basically right about consensus vs principle. But your ridicule of the 90% claim is weakened by the very article you linked, and that was good for a chuckle.
But expect the Democrats (and Obama) to continue to lie about it.
LOL, Rand’s right.
On second thought, that’s sort of like predicting the sun rising in the east.
I don’t care about “90% support” for something when I keep seeing people telling me “internet sales don’t need a background check”.
When gun control advocates keep telling people lies about the state of things, they also can’t expect me to take the opinions those lies generate as serious or binding.
(Much as no level of support would justify, say, throwing out the First Amendment.
And it would be interesting to see what level of support, say, the Japanese internment had. “But that’s different”, right? No.)
(Much as no level of support would justify, say, throwing out the First Amendment.
But the Democrats are proclaiming (From Obama down) that “Corporations are not people!” With the implication (and sometimes outright statement) that this means they do not receive the protections of the Bill of Rights. Specifically, the First.
This is not a mild “Stiffen donation requirements.” but a wild clamor “Corporations actually deserve -nothing-, so they should take what they get and like it!”
And … when I make the counter argument “But if they’re not protected by the Bill of Rights, what stops ignoring the Fifth and just seizing their property?”
Seattilites reply: “Oh! Good idea! Hey, and they can’t use the courts to sue! Too excellent.”
I’m waiting for the second article to be spun as “69% of Bostonians have vigilante hero fantasies and wish they could have taken out the bad guy themselves,” since that’s the boogeyman most frequently raised by those who are against Concealed-Carry and Open-Carry measures.
It is beyond belief. Which is why I think we’re all in an Outer Limits, Alien Zoo episode. Anytime now, the narrators voice will be heard explaining where we all went wrong.
Wasn’t the 90% poll based on people saying they agree with current background checks and not the “universal” (whatever that means) ones that Obama is pushing?
“I don’t care about “90% support” for something when I keep seeing people telling me “internet sales don’t need a background check”. ”
How many internet gun sales are there as a percentage of total gun sales?
How many guns bought over the internet resulted in criminal injuries and death last year? How many were used in crimes last year?
How many guns obtained via internet sales of guns were used by law abiding citizens to successfully defend themselves against all crime?
Hello? Sigisvald???? Hello????
how many?
………….crickets…………..
I’m not sure you correctly interpretted Sigivald’s position. Although, I must admit that I’m not sure exactly what he meant by the part you quoted.
Leland,
I think you might be right.
Sigivald if I misinterpreted your position, in the above post my apologies.
I really want to know: what part of “shall not be infringed” is so difficult to understand? Are there not already a myriad of laws on the books which do? Furthermore, are there not already laws covering every possible dangerous or unsafe or murderous use of arms?
Considering the number and scope of existing laws, what is the marginal gain to the safety of society with one additional law? And what is the marginal loss in individual rights?
Obviously the gains in public safety have diminishing marginal returns; laws which did the most to enhance public safety were the low-hanging fruit. Each new law infringing upon the second amendment undermines the right to keep and bear arms, just a little bit. Those little bits add up, though, and do not follow that same diminishing-returns curve.