The left demonizes and blames the NRA for shootings but they zealously demand and then defend our government fund Planned Parenthoods — an organization that actually kills children as their agenda.
“To the ayatollahs of Iran and every terrorist you enable: Listen up.
You might have met our fresh-faced flower child president and his weak-kneed, Ivy League friends.
But you haven’t met America.” — Charlie Daniels
Thursday, May 21, 2015
The NRA recently re-stated its longstanding support for the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), a program that was originally mandated by the Brady Bill in 1993.
In a statement directed at the North Carolina Sherriff Association last week, the NRA said:
“[North Carolina’s] antiquated and inefficient system has been in place for nearly a century and was enacted long before the age of computers and computerized records. Unfortunately, the [North Carolina Sherriff’s Association] has determined it would like to continue to use discretion to deny permits to purchase handguns, rather than simply use the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) utilized by the majority of other states.”
The NRA has publicly supported NICS for years, arguing it should be “improved” and “limited” rather than completely eradicated.
The reasons for this are almost certainly political. As The Truth About Guns pointed out recently, the NRA would take a serious hit with lawmakers and the public if it came out against any and all criminal background checks.
But this “compromise” approach gives the enemy a permanent foundation to expand gun control.
Just yesterday, New York Rep. Carolyn Maloney introduced a bill that would require anyone buying or selling firearms to undergo a NICS background check, and further require that every gun transfer be reported to the United States Attorney General.
Maloney’s bill has no chance of passing, but it won’t be the last. For as long as NICS is around, the anti-gun crowd will keep using it as a foundation for laws that limit our rights.
By continuing to publicly support an unconstitutional system, the NRA is playing with fire.
H/T via Mississippi Rebel
The only reason I mention this piece is it’s a provocative thought. (which was his objective) And these are his words — Rev Jim Wallis, one who Obama confides in.
I was putting my 9-year-old to bed a few nights ago. He said, “Dad I heard you talking on the phone about guns and the press conference you’re talking at tomorrow. ”
“What do you think about it Jack? What do you think about it Jack?” I asked him.
And here’s what Jack said:
“I think that they ought to let people who, like licensed hunters, have guns if they use them to hunt. And people who need guns — who need guns for their job like policemen and army. But I don’t think that we should just let anybody have any kind of gun and any kind of bullets that they want. That’s pretty crazy.”
I agree with Jack.
– Jim Wallis
(copy paste link -www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-wallis/the-nras-dangerous-theolo_b_2505401.html)
The rest of the article was a type of lecture attacking NRA’s president and others on morality and theology. But he says he agrees with that statement of his 9-year old.
It is a statement from a 9-year old, just like those “letters” of children Obama used in his performance the other day in signing Executive Orders. They are still statements of children. We cannot really criticize the statements of children. (whatever inspired them) Maybe that is the political value of them to the left. They also portray the very innocence the left abandoned long ago.(think Roe v Wade)
But they do represent children’s thinking!
Call me crazy, I also don’t think children should be making the laws or policies, even though at times they might do a better job. Come on. Yea, who wants to argue with or against a 9-year old? Who wants a nation ruled by 9 or 14 year olds? Though I wonder what their view on abortion policy might be?
We are adults and should be a little more intelligent than that. The irony is he criticized Wayne LaPierre for simply suggesting a good person with a gun versus a bad one – or “good” and “bad” persons. Wallis lectured how that is not morally or theologically correct. But then look how a child thinks in his/her naïve innocence, he uses that as his example.
In the 60s you would have been hard pressed to find children who did not want to get rid of “the bomb” or war. Even though doing so does not guarantee a pristine society.
It is idealism on steroids to think just ridding us of guns will rid us of problems, dangers, or dangerous streets. Maybe, as a child might fantasize, we just need a law to outlaw bad and evil. Too bad we didn’t think of that.
No, not to knock any 9-year old’s thinking or idealism, we appreciate it. But they need parents to protect them, a society that doesn’t see them as expendable, and politicians or others who don’t want to extort them or their innocence for political gain either. So let’s put the children in proper perspective. Don’t confuse politics with childhood.
Since he came to office, Obama has been using children to make his case on one policy after another. But the left goes into hysteria when the NRA mentions children in an ad.
Are there any adults in the room?
Maybe someone should notify Piers Morgan that the first rule in journalism is not to become the story. Anyway, he hasn’t learned it.
So he brought Alex Jones on to attack because he is leading a petition to get Piers deported. Piers did what he always does, wait till they leave and then call them names, question their sanity, and do the typical character attack he is so famous for. Yes, but after Jones made a world class azzhole out of him.
When a guy from England wants to rewrite the Constitution, he deserves to be attacked for it. What Piers wants is to spout all his rhetoric without anyone complaining. In fact, he wants accolades for it. And he believes he’s leading a movement as he demonizes the NRA and singles out anyone who supports the 2nd amendment.
So Piers made himself into a victim to promote his anti-gun agenda. Jones used the worrd red coat, which is about the best thing you can call Piers. Who does he think he is?
I’ve been searching for ways to talk about the unspeakable horror in Newtown, Ct. It’s tough to come to this point. Churchill said “Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing…after they have exhausted all other possibilities.”
In this case, the point may not be exhausting all other avenues but finding the words to express it. We’re told that it is important to talk about feelings. Liberals banter that philosophy around a lot. However, I don’t think it is important to talk about every little or large feeling one may have. Some of them may be better kept private between him/her and God.
But I’ll say that, on something like this matter, thoughts should not be kept personal. On that I’d agree with liberals, though it doesn’t mean I agree with their methodology or conclusions. It was a horrible event causing personal and mass sadness. I’m offended by evil. I grieve for the victims, families and children. “Tragedy” does not do it justice.
Somewhere on the web I saw this thought:
The time when all the politicians tell you “Today is not the day” is EXACTLY the day to start talking. You talk when the armies of lobbyists haven’t got their ground game down, you talk before the talking points are distributed, you talk when the public eye is focused like a laser onto those in power whose only goal should be making our lives better and our children safer but do neither in a quest for more personal gain. To not hold them accountable and do anything less is dereliction of duty. — unknown
Mourners gather for a vigil service for victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, at the St. Rose of Lima Roman Catholic Church in Newtown, Conn. Friday, Dec. 14, 2012.
Are we all talking about the same world? One where a video critical of Islam results in burning embassies; and a world where Liberals advocate sharing every feeling one has? Yet they slam you if you dare offend persons of a certain persuasion, while advocating attacks on their own political enemies. That world, in which liberals are judge and jury on free speech.
I found my voice and apparently so has the NRA in issuing a press statement that its several days of silence was “out of respect for the families, and as a matter of common decency.” Don’t count on mutual “respect” from media or the left. MSNBC went into political-mode almost immediately. Then Ibama, hijacking the memorial service to further politicize it, stepped it up.
Sorry about the rambling but there is a central theme to it all. It’s the same world where progressives want to make all the rules, “rules of the road”. Now they claim that everyone should be so offended by this event in Newtown that it should bring about “meaningful action and change”– defined by the left, of course. Obama says it calls for action. But their idea of action is one thing, what is truly called for is another.
Conservatives have long railed about the coarsening of culture, or the sickness of it. That criticism gets dismissed whenever they bring it up. Oh, the glories of enlightenment. But we have something like this happen and they clamour for action and legislation. Would they want to crack down on violent video games and movies? No, they just want to blame guns for causing this horror. The gun didn’t pull the trigger, a madman did. Yet when we blame the culture and misplaced values it gets dismissed. “Sit down and shut up.”
They don’t want to deal with that aspect. Just do a few photo ops with clergy and family, then run to Washington asap to pass new laws and regulations. It doesn’t matter if they are right or not, just hurry up and do something to satisfy their feelings – the quicker the better. Strike while the iron is hot is their motto. Emotions rule.
In fact, they really don’t want to discuss” the issue, they want immediate action. Remember Pelosi saying “we have to pass a bill before you can find out what is in it”. That pretty much sums up their rush to legislate philosophy. Then we get a Casablanca moment, “shocked”. Don’t listen to their disingenuous, dishonest talk and calls for dialogue, look at what they do. Now, despite the tough reelection, Obama now claims another mandate for his arsenal — to legislate guns.
But cry out about government inaction over fast and furious or Libya? Not so much. They’ll drag their feet till the cows come home on those issues. And Obama will use executive power to halt the inquiry into F&F. Congress will stage a walkout. Mr. Zero-accountability will hide his failures behind executive privilege. But he’s right on point when it comes to attacking the 2nd amendment, and Congress can’t move fast enough for him to legislate. “Never let a crisis go to waste.”
They don’t want to merely act, they want to legislate by emotion. That’s nothing new for liberals, it’s what they do, even if bureaucrats are still writing it. Emotions rule, from Roe to the bench to the purse. When anyone mentions the coarsening culture of death, they don’t want to hear it. They staged a phony “war on women” and started a “war on religion” to create their self-fulfilling prophecy. They mocked any talk of “death panels” in ObamaCare, they ridicule pro-lifers, and defend murdering babies as a right. But the biggest problem is guns.(culture is giving that a run for their money) They don’t even want to recognize evil for what it is when staring it right in the face, or in the mirror.
There is as much potential harm in the legislative pen or executive order, as there is any gun. Both must be used responsibly.
There are two bodies in Congress, the Senate is known as the cooling saucer. But in this case — and never mind that the leader of the Senate is waging nuclear war on the filibuster — the Senate is moving at breakneck speed to get out a bill on gun control. The man who couldn’t get a budget through will suddenly find all kinds of ways to move this. Plus Obama has the executive pen which he promised to use in other circumstances. A scary thought when you think the second amendment is on the chopping block.
Especially considering if they sense support for more legislative controls, they will go as far as they can like they always do. If they have one chance, then grab as much as they possibly can while they can — just like with ObamaCare, the stimulus and the rest. “Take it to the limit”. Feinstein wants incremental controls, and then make it illegal to possess certain guns to top it off. And they will smile all the way to the scrap yards. That’s their plan and they’re sticking to it. They have useful MSM idiots who will push the issue.
So Manchin and Warner go wobbley on guns. Really, who would have predicted that? A Democrat turn coat. Remember Bart Stupak, Democrats for life and ObamaCare? That was the illusion of dissent. Then we saw DNC’s convention against God and Israel? — there was the real dissent.
Newtown lost its innocence and was violated. And innocence was lost in the public square… quite some time ago.
After news broke about the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, White House spokesman Jay Carney said that renewing the federal assault weapons ban “does remain a commitment of” the president’s. However, he continued, “What I said is that today is not the day to, I believe, as a father a day to engage in the usual Washington policy debates. I think that that day will come, but today is not that day.”
Gun Control Advocates Predict Tougher Response to Shootings
By JONATHAN WEISMAN — NYT’s blog
Official Washington’s response to the Connecticut school massacre Friday came along predictable lines, with Republicans and many moderate Democrats expressing their condolences and horror while silent on a legislative response to gun violence, and liberal Democrats saying it is time to move forward with serious gun legislation.
But advocates of gun control say the shootings at an elementary school in Newtown might be different for two reasons: the victims were children, eliciting a gut-wrenching response across the country, and the National Rifle Association proved to be a political paper tiger in the 2012 election.
“The political atmosphere has clearly changed because now we have solid evidence that the N.R.A. just was not effective in the last election cycle,” said Kristen Rand, legislative director for the Violence Policy Center, a gun-control advocacy group. “This just has a feel that they won’t get away with doing nothing this time.”
More at: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/14/gun-control-advocates-predict-tougher-response-to-shootings/
Obama’s statements: (emotional speech as its been called)
We’ve endured too many of these tragedies in the past few years. And each time I learn the news I react not as a President, but as anybody else would–as a parent.
As a country, we have been through this too many times. Whether it’s an elementary school in Newtown, or a shopping mall in Oregon, or a temple in Wisconsin, or a movie theater in Aurora, or a street corner in Chicago–these neighborhoods are our neighborhoods, and these children are our children.
And we’re going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics.
By 8 o’clock in the evening Ed Schultz was asking if this was the event that would usher in real change — meaning gun control. Asking “is this is a game-changer?” … saying we are “hiding behind the second amendment”. Congressman Nadler says the “NRA is the enabler of mass murder”. Rep. Keith Ellison called others “2nd amendment extremists”.
Mayor Bloomberg rushes to offer statements and support for gun control.
“President Obama rightly sent his heartfelt condolences to the families in Newtown. But the country needs him to send a bill to Congress to fix this problem … Calling for ‘meaningful action’ is not enough. We need immediate action. We have heard all the rhetoric before. What we have not seen is leadership—not from the White House and not from Congress.”
“With all the carnage from gun violence in our country, it’s still almost impossible to believe that a mass shooting in a kindergarten class could happen. It has come to that. Not even kindergarteners learning their ABC’s are safe. We heard after Columbine that it was too soon to talk about gun laws. We heard it after Virginia Tech. After Tucson and Aurora and Oak Creek. And now we are hearing it again. For every day we wait, 34 more people are murdered with guns. Today, many of them were five-year olds. President Obama rightly sent his heartfelt condolences to the families in Newtown. But the country needs him to send a bill to Congress to fix this problem. Calling for ‘meaningful action’ is not enough. We need immediate action. We have heard all the rhetoric before. What we have not seen is leadership – not from the White House and not from Congress. That must end today. This is a national tragedy and it demands a national response. My deepest sympathies are with the families of all those affected, and my determination to stop this madness is stronger than ever.”
That’s right, the same man who said police should stand down from protecting the public untill they pass gun control. Let’s presume if they did such a thing, the police might never have responded to this scene. Ridiculous or what?
And all that by the 12 hour mark. So its never too early to call for gun control.
But they thought “fast and furious” was a “manufactured scandal” by Republicans.
‘What’s a little gun control amongst friends? Now a word from our sponsor.’
Despite the knee-jerk reaction of the mainstream media to focus on gun control to swing public opinion for legislation, even liberal-leaning polls show ‘no change’ in public appetite for gun control. Of course, that never stopped them from trying before and it won’t now. So if they are trying that hard and the public is resistent to be moved, it should indicate how strongly the public feels about gun rights. I mean it is not for lack of trying… and trying, and trying.
It almost seems they relish each opportunity to push the issue. And it seems the more they want to politicize it, the more people refuse to play their game. In recent interviews with victims, media wasted no time pressing the issue. But no bites that I’m aware of. If they got one victim or family member to go along they would make him/her into a poster child for their gun control agenda. That is evidently what they are fishing for.(even they must be rare)
The result, as pointed out in this NBC article:
Shootings don’t shift views on gun control
“News events and disruptions in the media don’t do a lot to shift those opinions,” Shah told NBC News. “Those shifts tend to be more gradual.”
Other recent major shootings also had little effect on public opinion about gun laws. According to Pew surveys, there was no significant change in the balance of opinion about gun rights and gun control after the January 2011 shooting in Tucson, Ariz., in which U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was injured. Nor was there a spike in support for gun control following the shooting at Virginia Tech University in April 2007.
The article also goes on to say that
“Rather, 67 percent said that shootings like this are isolated acts perpetrated by troubled individuals.”
And that number is up, that’s right up, since Virginia Tech when it was 58%. That does not stop media from campaiging on the issue. It is obvious to everyone, as soon as news of a shooting breaks the media will turn it into a story about gun control, even over coverage of the events. It becomes their central theme. It’s no surprise. But the numbers show all that hasn’t worked to shift public opinion in favor of gun control.
Despite that, they reach out to a psychology expert to see why they are not successful. He goes through describing the issue and problem, and then suggests more discussion — aka a broader campaign — for gun control. But of course any lack of success they can blame on “powerful” gun organizations like NRA. So they also have their built in excuse or whipping post when they don’t succeed in shifting public opinion.
Just like Obamma thought about Obamacare, they believe they just aren’t pushing hard enough to change public perception. Hence, they see it as more of a “perception” problem. Never mind that people have heard it all before and still don’t like it. Can these people be serious? They will never accept that public opinion is against them. We usually hear them say something like they “want to change hearts and minds” when all they really care about is perception. My perception is they are morons; and they are doing nothing to change that. They believe public opinion and perception are a pile of clay to be molded and shaped however they want.
Pew Poll: (July 30, 2012)