Gun Control Advocates Spread Obvious Lies to Further Position

It's the lying liars lie some more: gun control edition.

If their position is so right, why do gun control advocates continually lie about reality?

From The NRO piece by Charles C. W. Cooke:

This map, which purports to show that there are have been 74 “shootings at schools” since the abomination at Newtown, is currently doing the rounds. 



 

 

Writing it up, the Washington Post reported that,

Tuesday’s school shooting in Oregon is at least the 74th instance of shots being fired on school grounds or in school buildings since the late-2012 elementary school shooting in Newtown, Conn., according to a list maintained by the group Everytown for Gun Safety, which advocates for policies it believes limit gun violence. 

There have been at least 37 shootings on school grounds this year, which is just barely half over. All told, there has been nearly one shooting per week in the year and a half since Newtown. Everytown identifies a school shooting as any instance in which a firearm was discharged within a school building or on school grounds, sourced to multiple news reports per incident. Therefore, the data isn’t limited to mass shootings like Newtown—it includes assaults, homicides, suicides and even accidental shootings. Of the shootings, 35 took place at a college or university, while 39 took place in K-12 schools.

 

The Post is admirably clear that the map includes both colleges and schools, that it counts “any instance in which a firearm was discharged within a school building or on school grounds,” and that the data isn’t “limited to mass shootings like Newtown.” This point has also been made forcefully by Charles C. Johnson, who yesterday looked into each of the 74 incidents and noted that not only did some of them not take place on campuses but that “fewer than 7 of the 74 school shootings listed by #Everytown are mass shootings,” that one or more probably didn’t happen at all, that at least one was actually a case of self-defense, and that 32 could be classified as “school shootings” only if we are to twist the meaning of the term beyond all recognition. 

And that, of course, is precisely what the map’s creator is doing. The point here is not to tell the truth, but to get out the “74 school shootings since Newtown” figure and to turn it into conventional wisdom before anybody can check if it’s actually correct. This is why, on its website, Everytown for Gun Safety introduces the map with the simple claim that,

 

Since the December 2012 shooting in Newtown, CT, there have been at least 74 school shootings in America. How many more before our leaders pass common-sense laws to prevent gun violence and save lives?  

Everytown is not the only advocate of gun control that is engaged in a concerted effort to convince the public that gun violence is on the rise. At his White House event yesterday, President Obama insinuated that the United States was uncommonly awash with shootings. “We’re the only developed country on Earth where this happens,” he said.

And it happens now once a week. And it’s a one-day story. There’s no place else like this.

Later, the president added:

So the country has to do some soul-searching about this. This is becoming the norm.

This isn’t true. But it doesn’t matter. As Pew reported last year, the American public remains largely unaware that the last two decades have seen a quite remarkable drop in gun violence. Obama presumably knows this. ”Despite national attention to the issue of firearm violence,” Pew wrote, “most Americans are unaware that gun crime is lower today than it was two decades ago. According to a new Pew Research Center survey, today 56% of Americans believe gun crime is higher than 20 years ago and only 12% think it is lower.” 

The truth? 

National rates of gun homicide and other violent gun crimes are strikingly lower now than during their peak in the mid-1990s, paralleling a general decline in violent crime, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of government data. Beneath the long-term trend, though, are big differences by decade: Violence plunged through the 1990s, but has declined less dramatically since 2000. 

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades. 

Don’t want to take Pew’s word for it? The Obama administration’s own Department of Justice agrees: 

According to DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. gun-related homicides dropped 39 percent over the course of 18 years, from 18,253 during 1993, to 11,101 in 2011. During the same period, non-fatal firearm crimes decreased even more, a whopping 69 percent. The majority of those declines in both categories occurred during the first 10 years of that time frame. Firearm homicides declined from 1993 to 1999, rose through 2006, and then declined again through 2011. Non-fatal firearm violence declined from 1993 through 2004, then fluctuated in the mid-to-late 2000s. 

As Forbes’s Larry Bell notes, this is the “gun-control hypesters’ worst nightmare.” ”More people are buying firearms, while firearm-related homicides and suicides are steadily diminishing.” I would only add that these drops have happened while the gun laws have generally been liberalized, not tightened. Do we really want to start screwing with the trend so that we can all feel good about ourselves?

What? Firearm homicides are down by 49% and violent crimes are down by 75%!! Well then we must ban guns. It's the only way to get those number back up to where they should be!

How else are we going to create a morass of worse-than-useless federal laws that restrict our freedoms, our ability to defend ourselves, and make us dependent on government agencies for protection? Get with the program people.

Poll: Most Americans Oppose Stricter Gun Control Laws

Pic from Legal Insurrection

Probably as a result from the massive overreach by various lawmakers in New York, Colorado, etc., immediately after the Sandy Hook killings.

From Rasmussen Reports (via AWR Hawkins at Breitbart):

Most voters oppose tougher gun control for the first time since the Connecticut elementary school shootings in December 2012. 

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 40% of Likely U.S. Voters now think the United States needs stricter gun control laws, down nine points from last May and the lowest level of support for stricter laws since February 2012. Fifty-three percent (53%) do not think the country needs tougher gun control laws, the highest level of opposition in over two years.

Considering that we've witnessed the arrest of State Senator Leland Yee, a major gun control advocate in California, and the rather selective enforcement of Washington DC's gun control laws, I'm astonished it's not a bit lower. But the Dems did clamber up the backs of dead children to proclaim their "moral high ground," so...

Gun Sales Go Up and Violent Crime Goes Down in 2013

Gee, do you think there's a connection?

From Townhall.com:

The FBI has released new statistics on NICS background checks showing 2013 gun sales hit a new record. The total number of background checks conducted for gun sales last year add up to 21,093,273, beating the previous 2012 record of 19,592,303 by 1,500,970. Texas conducted the most background checks with 1,633,278. Kentucky came is second with 1,578,331 background checks conducted. 

These significant numbers came during a year when Democrats and the White House attempted multiple times to push through new gun control measures. In 2013, President Obama released a number of executive actions on gun control and wasted no time in 2014 doing the same. States that implemented more gun control measures in 2013 saw a spike in gun sales, especially in relation to population. Gun sales in Maryland doubled, going from 136,604 in 2012 to 231,361 in 2013. In 2012, Colorado conducted 414,838 checks, in 2013, there were 514,658. In Connecticut, 237,496 checks were conducted in 2012 and in 2013, 294,338 went through the system. Background checks in New York, home of the S.A.F.E. Act, also went up in 2013. 

So who's buying these guns? According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation and NBC news, women are the fastest growing demographic of gun owners.

So, you know, we should totally ban guns so that the American people will be less safe, but high profile murders with guns will, perhaps, decrease.

Study: Concealed Carry Means Fewer Murders-- Plus, Assault Weapons Rifle Bans Have No Effect

"Only the responsible elite deserve access to guns! Bang! Bang! Take that Racist Tea-baggers!"

Shocker.

Criminals prey on those they see as weak. Guns can change that equation and they often back off.

Plus, the Wild West shootouts over parking spaces that opponents of concealed carry feared, never came to be. It's weird but law-abiding citizens tend to remain law-abiding citizens even when carrying guns. The gun didn't possess their souls and turn them into murderers. Again, shocker.

From Reason.com:

Quinnipiac University economist Mark Gius has published a new study, "An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates," in the journalApplied Economics Letters. From the abstract:

The purpose of the present study is to determine the effects of state-level assault weapons bans and concealed weapons laws on state-level murder rates. Using data for the period 1980 to 2009 and controlling for state and year fixed effects, the results of the present study suggest that states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murder rates than other states. It was also found that assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level. These results suggest that restrictive concealed weapons laws may cause an increase in gun-related murders at the state level. The results of this study are consistent with some prior research in this area, most notably Lott and Mustard (1997).

Funny how this study is consistent with prior studies, but still we have a debate over it. We're expected to disbelieve study after study and distrust our own lying eyes as we see violence escalte in gun restricted areas like Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York.

2013: Some Big Wins for 2nd Amendment Supporters

"I shall protect you and heal you. You need no guns nor health insurance. I am the Light-bringer."

And this despite a relentless push by Obama and Democrats to restrict guns to the wealthy and other deemed "worthy" of protection.

From AWR Hawkins "Top 5 Pro-Gun Moments in 2013" at Beitbart:

Number five on the list is the lopsided win NRA-backed Virginia delegates secured over delegates backed by Michael Bloomberg and Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) on November 5. Out of 67 delegate races, NRA-backed candidates won 65.  

[..]  

Number three is the way sheriffs throughout the country stood against gun control and literally refused to enforce new gun laws. This started with Jackson County Kentucky Sheriff Denny Peyman who spoke up in January during the intense federal gun control push following Sandy Hook. Said Peyman, "My office will not comply with any federal action which violates the United States Constitution or the Kentucky Constitution which I swore to uphold."  

[..]  

Number two in our top five list is the successful Colorado recall movement that tossed state senators John Morse (D-Colo. Springs) and Angela Giron (D-Pueblo) out of office for heaving gun control upon Coloradans. 

The September 10th recalls drew people from all demographics, including many of the young voters whom the Obama campaign once targeted and energized to support Obama. The success of the recalls sent a signal that the people want politicians to leave their guns alone.

Check out all five of Hawkins' list at the link at the top.

While this is generally good news for people who like a low crime rate and modicum of safety, the bad news is that Obama and the Leftist Dems on the national scene have shown the willingness to double down on stupidity regardless of the political consequences-- ObamaCare anyone? There will be much more standing on the backs of dead children to push anti-gun legislation in 2014.

"Never let a crisis/tragedy go to waste." It's the Obama way.

OFA Organizing Newtown Anniversary Events to Push Gun Control

The Light-bringer's replica will bring safety to us all.

I guess the idea to never let a crisis go to waste includes never stop standing on the backs of dead children to promote an unpopular political agenda.

From Twitchy.com:

Never mind how the families of Newtown, Conn., would prefer to observe the one-year anniversary of the tragic Sandy Hook Elementary massacre. Organizing for Action is hijacking Dec. 14 to stage its own “remembrance events” across the nation. 

In an email, OFA promises to give organizers “the resources you need to ensure your event is a powerful reminder of what we lost a year ago, and a reminder that we as a nation need to do more to prevent gun violence and keep our communities safe.” That certainly sounds more like a series of gun control rallies than a solemn remembrance, doesn’t it? If it doesn’t yet, check out the official event description from barackobama.com of the “day of action”:

It has been one year since the tragic events in Newtown, Connecticut, where 26 Americans lost their lives to gun violence. Despite overwhelming public support for expanding background checks for gun sales, Congress has failed to act. Join local supporters as we remember Newtown and ask Congress: What will it take to make our communities safer?

Somebody described the OFA as being "Tragedy pimps."  That sounds about right.

The EPA is Engaging in Backdoor Gun Control According to Allen West

"I shall make all of you pay for ignoring the Light-bringer's will! You will not ignore my political agendas... or else I will execute them by executive fiat!"

There's very little Obama will not try to get his way. Blatant lies, political intimidation, sluffing off blame and responsibility, using the executive branch's alphabet soup of regulatory commissions to bully and intimidate his political opponents, is all in a day's work for this embarrassment of a president.

Gun control unpopular? Fine, create it by executive fiat. He's just that kinda guy.

From AllenWest.com via Breitbart:

I am one who steers very clear of tinfoil hat conspiracy theories. I often believe progressives plant stories in order to distract and disrupt, enabling them to pursue their true goals and objectives. That’s why I stress the importance of staying focused on the modern liberal socialist policies of the Obama administration, not the sideshow antics.  

However, as a former combat commander, I have been trained to look for trends. And I believe we’ve found a very disturbing one. it seems that back door gun control is in full effect in the United States. Why? Thanks to Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), we can no longer smelt lead from ore in the United States. 

The first contact the EPA made with The Doe Run Lead Smelter in Herculaneum, Missouri (population 2,800) was in 2008 but it was in 2010 that the EPA finally forced Doe Run to plan a shut down. This plant has been in operation since 1892 but will finally close its doors this month. It was the last lead smelting plant in the US. 

The closedown is due to new extremely tight air quality restrictions placed on this specific plant. President Obama and his EPA raised the regulations by 10 fold and it would have cost the plant $100 million to comply.  

In response to the Doe Run lead smelter shutdown, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said the Doe Run Company “made a business decision” to shut down the smelter instead of installing pollution control technologies needed to reduce sulfur dioxide and lead emissions as required by the Clean Air Act.  

Of course this is why we need serious regulatory reform that precludes executive agency fiat, especially regulation implementation that exceeds a certain adverse financial impact to a private sector business.  

[...]   

What this all means is that after December 2013, any ammunition that will be available to US citizens will have to be imported, which will surely increase the price and possibly come under government control. It seems this is fully in concert with the US Military and Homeland Defense recent purchase of large quantities of ammunition.  

[...]  

So America, back door gun control is moving forward and while we are all distracted with Obamacare and Iran nuclear negotiations, our Second Amendment rights are undergoing an assault by clandestine infiltration. Remember we reported on this website the gun registration actions being undertaken in Washington DC. Barack Obama and his progressive socialist acolytes are quite savvy at political chess. He is seeking to outflank, envelope, and destroy the Second Amendment. Now it’s our move in 2014.

There really is no end to Obama's desire to control the American people. He will not leave you alone, no matter how hard you try to ignore him. His policies, such as ObamaCare, are designed to effect every American citizen against their will. We have to stand firm against him. There's no other way.

DC Police Chief Shuffles and Covers Up Giving Feinstein Illegal ‘Assault Weapons’

"Laws are for little people who don't have friends high up in the police department..."

And you wonder where Obama gets his thugs, conspirators and collaborators out of the rank and file. They're right there in the capitol working to break the law for the Democrats' agendas. Unreasonable laws being applied unequally-- often times due to political affiliation. This seems to always be the  result of the Democrats' sweeping agendas.


From the Op-ed piece by Emily Miller: (h/t Instapundit)

Washington Metropolitan Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier seems to think that gun-control laws don’t apply to the liberal elite. The police chief helped Sen. Dianne Feinstein acquire “assault weapons,” which are illegal to possess in the District, for a news conference early this year to promote a ban on these firearms, then tried to cover up the police involvement. 

Now, a response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request reveals Chief Lanier’s shocking willingness to bend the rules for partisan and ideological purposes.  

[...]  

Chief Lanier wanted to help Mrs. Feinstein, but didn’t want the media to know.
Cmdr. Williams emailed Mr. Mentzer to put a “bug” in his ear that the police would “prefer that no mention of the fact that the weapons came from D.C. or were recovered by MPDC in the official language or speeches.” Mr. Mentzer replied, “By not mentioning where the weapons came from, we open ourselves up to the same charge against David Gregory.” 

He was referring to the anchor of NBC’s “Meet the Press,” who knowingly procured an illegal 30-round magazine in the District as a stunt for his TV show, but was not charged.
The office of Senate Sergeant at Arms Terrance W. Gainer coordinated bringing the illegal weapons onto Capitol Hill for Mrs. Feinstein’s dramatic Jan. 24 news conference introducing her new “assault weapons” ban. 

Kathryn Stillman, the campus-access coordinator for Mr. Gainer, emailed Cmdr. Williams and Mrs. Feinstein’s staff to recommend the firearms be mounted on a board with zip ties so that Mrs. Feinstein could “point or even touch, but no need for any particular handling.” This was to ensure that it could be argued later that the senator never had “possession” of the illegal guns. 

[...]  

After seeing the weapons on display at the press event, I asked Mr. Gainer’s office about the legality and was told that the firearms were the property of the D.C. and Philadelphia police departments. A spokesman for Mrs. Feinstein, Brian Weiss, told me that his office ”coordinated” with the police and that “the weapons were under Washington MPD possession the entire time.” 

But when I asked Chief Lanier’s spokesman, Gwendolyn Crump, about the guns, she refused to confirm they belonged to MPD. I followed up the next day with several more questions to Ms. Crump. 

From the FOIA documents, I now know that she sent my second email to Chief Lanier, who then forwarded it to three people with notes. 

Chief Lanier wrote to Philadelphia Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey, “I am really disappointed in Terry [Gainer]. This is exactly why I didn’t want to participate.” She said to Mr. Gainer, “This is completely contrary to our agreement to participate in this event. We will not participate again.”  

The chief wrote to lobbyist Mr. DeWitt, “So much for our agreement.” Mr. DeWitt replied: “Well, Ramsey and Feinstein followed our script, but who would have guessed that [Gainer] would burn us.” He drafted a response for the police to send to me and added in a note, “I don’t know how you put up with people like Emily … .” Chief
Lanier replied, “Thanks, Chuck, unfortunately this will be the next tail wagging our dog for weeks.” 

No special favors for Republicans 

A week after Mrs. Feinstein’s publicity stunt, Republican Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina were refused permission to bring a hunting rifle and an AR-style rifle to the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Mrs. Feinstein’s “assault weapon” ban. 

The Republican senators sent a letter of complaint to committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy, but were still forced to use just a photo of a standard wooden hunting rifle with a plastic pistol grip at the hearing in order to demonstrate that simply adding the ergonomic feature transformed the gun into one that would be illegal under her ban.  

Mrs. Feinstein’s staff gloated: “I was gratified to hear Sens. Cruz and Graham complaining that getting weapons into their hearing today was ‘unworkable,’” Mr. Mentzer emailed Cmdr. Williams and another officer with a news story about the Republicans not being able bring in even a legal rifle. “I find you guys ENTIRELY practical, for the record.” 

The police have yet to turn over a majority of the documents I requested. The FOIA officer wrote that she was “still searching” and “will release them, if any are located.” 

The police stonewalling and cover-up are so that the public doesn’t find out that Chief Lanier enforces laws differently in the District, depending on whether you are a powerful liberal who opposes Second Amendment rights, like Mr. Gregory and Mrs. Feinstein, or an average American.

It's another reason why the Democrats push so hard for gun control against the public's beliefs. They know that the laws won't be applied to them... just to the little people, whom Dems routinely refer to as crazy, stupid, Nazis, racists, and terrorists.

But, hey keep on voting these petty would be dictators into office, because they'll give you ObamaCare and stuff...

The Media's Guide to Firearm Identification

I saw this on Twitchy (link here), and thought I would share.



CLICK PICTURE TO ENLARGE

Oops. CDC Study Obama Ordered Contradicts White House's Anti-gun Narrative

"Now let's not read too much into these statistics. We all know that guns are instruments of pure evil, and that the NRA are crazy, racist terrorists who hate women and eat other people's babies. Clearly, we must all become like Illinois or Washington DC and suffer through the resulting increase in violent crime to make America fair and safe for everyone."

Surely you should have an inkling about the facts before commissioning a study for political use, right? Oh, I forgot... Obama and his amateur hour politics... My bad.

From The New American article by Bob Adelmann (h/t Ace of Spades):

In January, following the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, President Obama issued a “Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence,” along with 22 other “initiatives.” That study, subcontracted out to the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, was completed in June and contained some surprises for the president. 

Obama had announced at the beginning of the year his push for three major gun control initiatives — universal background checks, a ban on “assault weapons,” and a ban on “high-capacity” magazines — to prevent future mass shootings, no doubt hoping that the CDC study would oblige him by providing evidence that additional gun control measures were justified to reduce gun violence. On the contrary, that study refuted nearly all the standard anti-gun narrative and instead supported many of the positions taken by gun ownership supporters. 

For example, the majority of gun-related deaths between 2000 and 2010 were due to suicide and not criminal violence: 

Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States. 

In addition, defensive use of guns “is a common occurrence,” according to the study: 

Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008. 

Accidental deaths due to firearms has continued to fall as well, with “the number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents account[ing] for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.” 

Furthermore, the key finding the president was no doubt seeking — that more laws would result in less crime — was missing. The study said that “interventions,” such as background checks and restrictions on firearms and increased penalties for illegal gun use, showed “mixed” results, while “turn-in” programs “are ineffective” in reducing crime. The study noted that most criminals obtained their guns in the underground economy — from friends, family members, or gang members — well outside any influence from gun controls on legitimate gun owners. 

Also, the report noted that mass shootings such as the one in Newtown, Connecticut, have declined and “account for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths.” 

There was one startling conclusion which, taken at face value, seemed to give the president what he was looking for. The study reported that “the U.S. rate of firearm-related homicide is higher than that of any other industrialized country: 19.5 times higher than the rates in other high-income countries.” However, Zara Matheson of the Martin Prosperity Institute, produced a map that compared gun violence rates in the major metropolitan areas of the country to rates of foreign countries. As Graham Noble of Guardian Express noted, “If one were to exclude figures for Illinois, California, New Jersey and Washington, DC, the homicide rate in the United States would be in line with any other country.” These areas, of course, are noted for the most restrictive gun laws in the country, thus negating any opportunity for the president to celebrate the report’s findings.

I can't decide which possibility is most likely: (1) that Obama is so ignorant about the numbers regarding gun violence and gun control that he actually thought the CDC report would back him up, or (2) Obama expected the CDC to fudge the numbers to his favor-- which isn't really possible for the CDC since they don't have control over gathering and analyzing the statistics. I suspect it's a combination of both.

Obama, like most of the modern American Left, are ruled by their "correct" opinion and rarely let facts-- statistical or otherwise-- get in the way of their views or their policies. If they did, we wouldn't be saddled with ObamaCare, nor would we have spent $1 trillion dollars on a "stimulus" that made the unemployment rates worse than doing nothing according to the White House's own numbers.

Dogma beats out reality for these people just about every time.

Dem's Appalling How-to Book on Pushing Gun Control Revealed

"It breaks my heart that every day in our country children wake up worried and just imagine the pain that a mother or father feels when their young child is gunned down and  the real outrage is that we know how to stop it and we're not getting it done when White people kill African American children during a specified hunting season that's an open secret that all White people know but don't talk about. Now give me all your guns-- I mean, I.. er... we all want common sense gun laws that makes it illeagal for you to own or use one."

And it's full of attempting to whip up and to manipulate emotions and light on emphasizing facts, their agendas and stating exactly what laws they want to pass. What a surprise!

From The Wall Street Journal piece by James Taranto:

Paul Bedard of the Washington Examiner has uncovered a fascinating document: an 80-page "talking points" monograph titled "Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging," written by a trio of Democratic political operatives.  

The document, as Bedard writes, instructs politicians and advocates "to hype high-profile gun incidents like the Florida slaying of Trayvon Martin to win support for new gun control laws." Essentially it's a how-to book on inciting a moral panic. 

"The most powerful time to communicate is when concern and emotions are running at their peak," it advises. Antigun advocates are urged to seize opportunistically on horrific crimes: "The debate over gun violence in America is periodically punctuated by high-profile gun violence incidents including Columbine, Virginia Tech, Tucson, the Trayvon Martin killing, Aurora, and Oak Creek. When an incident such as these attracts sustained media attention, it creates a unique climate for our communications efforts." 

The booklet explicitly urges foes of the Second Amendment to abjure rationality in favor of the argumentum ad passiones, or appeal to emotion. "When talking to broader audiences, we want to meet them where they are," the authors advise. "That means emphasizing emotion over policy prescriptions, keeping our facts and our case simple and direct, and avoiding arguments that leave people thinking they don't know enough about the topic to weigh in." 

The do's and don'ts are consistent with this advice. "Examples of power language" include: "It breaks my heart that every day in our country (state or city) children wake up worried and frightened about getting shot." "Just imagine the pain that a mother or father feels when their young child is gunned down." "The real outrage--the thing that makes this violence so unforgivable--is that we know how to stop it and we're not getting it done." 

And here are examples of "some ineffective language to avoid": "There's a clear body of research demonstrating the high social cost of gun violence." "The policy outcomes we're after are the ones that can have the most beneficial impact on the rates of violence among the most affected populations." "Of course, gun violence affects people's lives. But, it also has a devastating economic impact to the tune of over $100 billion a year. That's a number that should get every American taxpayer's attention." 

The monograph was published before the December massacre at Newtown, Conn., and its advice, as Bedard puts it, was "likely followed by top Democratic leaders including President Obama." Whether the post-Newtown campaign was propter hoc or merely post, there's no question that the book describes with great accuracy the approach Obama and his fellow antigun zealots took. The paradigmatic example, as we noted in April, was a New York Times op-ed carrying the name of Gabrielle Giffords, which was a model of unreasoning vehemence.

Huh. The Left's use of "power language" to exploit those killed largely due to "gun free" zones and other laws pushed by the Left?

I have long basically decided that the Left had no shame once I realized the American Left was indeed hijacked by socialists. Marxists such as Mao killed tens of millions, yet Kathleen Sebelius celebrates him as her favorite political philosopher. This how-to guide to exploit tragedies is really beneath contempt, and the fact that Obama and the other Dems zealots followed it so closely only gives further evidence to their contemptible tactics and agendas.

Obama's DOJ Organized and Managed Anti-Zimmerman Rallies in Florida

 

"I don't think racial tension is high enough in Florida. Perhaps the DOJ can do something about that..."

I wish I could say I was surprised, but it seems very little is beneath Obama-the-activist-president.

From the PJ Tatler (h/t Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit):

 Judicial Watch announced today that it has obtained documents proving that the Department of Justice played a major behind-the-scenes role in organizing protests against George Zimmerman. Zimmerman is on trial for second-degree murder in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin in February 2012. 

Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the DOJ on April 24, 2012. According to the documents JW received, a little-known DOJ unit called the Community Relations Service deployed to Sanford, FL, to organize and manage rallies against Zimmerman.  

Among JW's findings: 

March 25 – 27, 2012, CRS spent $674.14 upon being “deployed to Sanford, FL to work marches, demonstrations, and rallies related to the shooting and death of an African-American teen by a neighborhood watch captain.” 

March 25 – 28, 2012, CRS spent $1,142.84 “in Sanford, FL to work marches, demonstrations, and rallies related to the shooting and death of an African-American teen by a neighborhood watch captain.” 

March 30 – April 1, 2012, CRS spent $892.55 in Sanford, FL “to provide support for protest deployment in Florida.” 

March 30 – April 1, 2012, CRS spent an additional $751.60 in Sanford, FL “to provide technical assistance to the City of Sanford, event organizers, and law enforcement agencies for the march and rally on March 31.” 

April 3 – 12, 2012, CRS spent $1,307.40 in Sanford, FL “to provide technical assistance, conciliation, and onsite mediation during demonstrations planned in Sanford.” 

April 11-12, 2012, CRS spent $552.35 in Sanford, FL “to provide technical assistance for the preparation of possible marches and rallies related to the fatal shooting of a 17 year old African American male.” – expenses for employees to travel, eat, sleep? 

JW says the documents it obtained reveal that CRS is not engaging in its stated mission of conducting “impartial mediation practices and conflict resolution,” but instead engaged on the side of the anti-Zimmerman protesters.

On April 15, 2012, during the height of the protests, the Orlando Sentinel reported, “They [the CRS] helped set up a meeting between the local NAACP and elected officials that led to the temporary resignation of police Chief Bill Lee according to Turner Clayton, Seminole County chapter president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.” The paper quoted the Rev. Valarie Houston, pastor of Allen Chapel AME Church, a focal point for protestors, as saying “They were there for us,” after a March 20 meeting with CRS agents. 

Separately, in response to a Florida Sunshine Law request to the City of Sanford, Judicial Watch also obtained an audio recording of a “community meeting” held at Second Shiloh Missionary Baptist Church in Sanford on April 19, 2012. The meeting, which led to the ouster of Sanford’s Police Chief Bill Lee, was scheduled after a group of college students calling themselves the “Dream Defenders” barricaded the entrance to the police department demanding Lee be fired. According to the Orlando Sentinel, DOJ employees with the CRS had arranged a 40-mile police escort for the students from Daytona Beach to Sanford. 

“These documents detail the extraordinary intervention by the Justice Department in the pressure campaign leading to the prosecution of George Zimmerman,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “My guess is that most Americans would rightly object to taxpayers paying government employees to help organize racially-charged demonstrations.”

Obama's infamous comment about if he had a son it would like Trayvon Martin was well beyond inappropriate. Of course that's peanuts compared to actively supporting protesters demanding a show trial of George Zimmerman.

I think Obama and his people saw a double opportunity in the Zimmerman case. First, they could reinforce the idea that they're firmly on the sides of Blacks-- even though Blacks have been hit with extreme economic hardship by this administration's policies. Secondly, I think they wanted to start picking away at the concealed carry laws, using this case as a media flagship for change, much as they tried to use Sandy Hook to push for tighter gun control.

It's too bad that they backed a real loser in this case. The more information that filters out about the Zimmerman/Martin case through the trial, the more plain it is that Zimmerman is innocent of murder charges and very likely innocent of manslaughter as well. Plus, it becomes increasingly clear that political pressure was brought to bear to execute a show trial. It looks terrible for the State.

California Lawmakers Pass Bill Requiring $50 Fee for Ammo Purchases

California: Mankind's Last and Best Hope to Face Down the Twin Scourges of Middle America and Sane Fiscal Theories

Along with a whole gaggle of various gun restrictions. Does anyone want to bet on if this is going to decrease crime in Compton, Oakland, Watts, or any other place these lawmakers haven't set foot in, or won't travel to without an armed escort?

From the L.A. Times:

California lawmakers Wednesday advanced a dozen gun-control measures, including background checks for ammunition buyers, and gave early approval to a tax penalty on the Boy Scouts for barring openly gay leaders. 

Legislators also voted for a new $75 charge on real estate transactions to pay for affordable-housing projects. 

Mass shootings such as the one in Newtown, Conn., in December spurred Democratic lawmakers to look for ways to tighten California's gun laws, already some of the toughest in the nation.

So let's see here... Control guns to increase crime, then raise taxes, and then punish politically incorrect and therefore politically unpopular institutions. It's like a Christmas wish list of trendy American Leftist policies. And people wonder why California is sinking without the benefit of a mega-quake from the San Andreas...

Californians who want to buy ammunition would have to submit personal information and a $50 fee for a background check by the state, under a bill passed by the Senate. The state Department of Justice would determine whether buyers have a criminal record, severe mental illness or a restraining order that would disqualify them from owning guns. 

Ammo shops would check the name on buyers' driver's licenses against a state list of qualified purchasers.  

[...]  

The Senate also OK'd a bill that would outlaw the sale, purchase and manufacture in California of semiautomatic rifles that can accommodate detachable magazines. The measure, SB 374 by Steinberg [Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento)], also would require those who own such weapons to register them with the state. 

The Assembly joined the action on guns by passing a measure to require the state Department of Justice to notify local law enforcement agencies when someone buys more than 3,000 rounds of ammunition. The bill would also ban kits that convert magazines to carry more than 10 rounds and would extend a ban on gun ownership for anyone who conveys a serious threat of violence to a licensed psychotherapist. 

Yup. According to California's legislature, there's not a problem that can't be solved by over-regulation, notification/intimidation, and collecting taxes/fees for ineffective government programs and filling political coffers. Well, actually I suppose those programs are only ineffective if you believe that their purpose is to do what they're nominally supposed to do. If you think these of these programs as vehicles for enriching politically connected relatives/spouses, or political allies (public employee unions, for instance)... well, then they're quite effective.

This is like reason number 75,978 as to why I left California and will never return. Well, that and the basically ignorant and arrogant belief that anyone not from California or a big city in the east is an stupid and/or evil, possibly inbred, hick that will attack you on sight.

Think I'm kidding or exaggerating? I'm not. I've had conversations with family and friends in California who, in all seriousness, have claimed that the Tea Party thinks that's it's OK for men to rape women(!) because that's just the way it is in "other" parts of the country. I bet you didn't know that California is one of the last bastions of humanity in this country-- a country whose morals have, apparently, decayed to the point of Mad Max 2.

New Tone: News Editor Wants NRA Members Sent to Guantanamo

Because we all know who the real terrorists are...

From The Aurora Sentinel piece by Dave Petty (h/t Instapundit and Tom Blumer at Bizzy Blog):

WE CAN ONLY SAVE OURSELVES FROM KIDNAPPERS AT THE NRA 

I’m talking about the real terrorist threat here in America: the National Rifle Association

I have seen the light. After all these years, I now agree that it’s fruitless to give the benefit of the doubt to people who are so obviously corrupt, so clearly malevolent, so bent on hurting innocent people for their own sick gain.

No more due process in the clear-cut case of insidious terrorism. When the facts are so clearly before all Americans, for the whole world to see, why bother with this country’s odious and cumbersome system of justice? Send the guilty monsters directly to Guantanamo Bay for all eternity and let them rot in their own mental squalor.

No, no, no. Not the wannabe sick kid who blew up the Boston marathon [notice the wording. Not "terrorist" or "Muslim terrorist" but "sick" as though he's just mentally ill] or the freak that’s mailing ricin-laced letters to the president. I’m talking about the real terrorist threat here in America: the National Rifle Association.

I’m not laughing. What the NRA did last week was no laughing matter. Aurora is a community that knows only too well the downside of prolific guns, of military weapons in the hands of crazy people, of a nation that’s gone so far off base when it comes to firearm regulations that common sense is beyond our reach.

[...]

Well some people estimate that 1 in 4 Americans now own a gun. That would be about 76 million people. How many “belong” to the NRA? About 4.5 million. [actually 5 million. Obama and the Dems have done a bang-up job of increasing membership as well as selling guns and ammunition.] You know how many Americans don’t answer to the NRA goons? 309 million Americans. You know who dropped his membership to the NRA? George W. Bush after NRA freaks bought paid ads calling the government “jack-booted thugs.” [I had no idea that Left-leaning newspaper editors loved George W. Bush's so much. Oh that's right, just when they can use him to attempt to reinforce their point, or to blame him for Obama's economic failures-- and anything else. Other than that he's the Devil incarnate.]

By using the weapon of choice for all terrorist organizations, extortion, the NRA has forced the action of about 45 ineffectual U.S. senators, a clear act of terrorism and treason [LOL]. And Wayne LaPierre and his arrogant cronies are laughing about it [LOL]. They’re laughing at 9 out of 10 [Once again, a number pulled out the database suspended in the thin air] of you and your insistence that Congress do something reasonable to stop the insanity in this country [This "insistence" doesn't seem to be backed up by the results of an April 2013 Gallup poll. Only 4% listed "Guns/Gun Control" as "the most important problem facing this country today." And that 4% isn't even necessarily pro gun control. A number of those people could feel that gun-grabbing is the most important problem, and thus answer that gun control is the problem facing America and not a solution. So I guess when Perry uses the phrase "you and your insistence that Congress do something" he's actually referring to other newspaper editors and members of the media. They're insistence is undeniable.].

It’s time for the majority of Americans to fight the battle cowards in the Senate are too gutless to handle. If you have a relationship with the terrorists at the NRA, end it. Insist your political heroes do the same and turn back NRA blood money from gun makers. If you really stand behind the spirit of the American Constitution [LOL. Except for the 2nd Amendment I guess. Oh, and that idea of not relying on government to solve all your problems and tell you what to believe and stuff. All that is outdated... And remember freedom of religion was designed to protect the government from religion not the other way around, and so on and so forth...], push back against the cancerous threat that seeks to undermine it for the sake of U.S. gun makers [Yup, U.S. gunmakers-- an industry that probably has the highest percentage of American military veterans owning and working within their ranks-- are trying to destroy the American Constitution for their own greedy blood money-- through their terrorist wing of the NRA no less. *sigh* I miss the good old days when people merely called me racist and ignorant for disagreeing with their views that Blacks are inferior and that generally people are responsible for their own actions. Now I'm a terrorist and murderer for believing that law-abiding citizens should be able to own guns.].

The skipped parts are mostly Perry listing various liberal newspapers (while claiming they're not liberal i.e. Leftist because they're in places like Dallas where liberal i.e. Leftist newspapers are outlawed under pain of death or something) while dabbing away the froth coming from the corners of his mouth.

Rather amusingly-- and in an unfortunate turn of events for newspaper editor Dave Perry-- according to Gallup, the NRA's popularity remains quite high.

From Gallup (my own write up here):

Fifty-four percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of the National Rifle Association, while 38% have an unfavorable opinion. The public's ratings of the NRA have fluctuated since first measured by Gallup in 1993 -- from a low of 42% favorable in 1995 to a high of 60% in 2005.  

The NRA's positions on guns and gun control legislation have received significant attention from media and politicians during the last week after the association's top lobbyist, Wayne LaPierre, held a press conference in the wake of the Newtown school shooting. LaPierre denounced the idea of additional gun control legislation and instead called for armed guards in the nation's schools. The press conference came midway through the field period of this Dec. 19-22 USA Today/Gallup poll.

This poll was done in December 2012 immediately after the media's concerted efforts to paint LaPierre as a buffoon and the NRA as evil.

At around the same time (Sept. 2012) Gallup polls showed America's distrust of the media-- and that includes you hyper-ventilating editor Dave Perry-- at an all-time high:

Americans' distrust in the media hit a new high this year, with 60% saying they have little or no trust in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly. Distrust is up from the past few years, when Americans were already more negative about the media than they had been in years prior to 2004.

The record distrust in the media, based on a survey conducted Sept. 6-9, 2012, also means that negativity toward the media is at an all-time high for a presidential election year.

Huh. Distrust in the media?! America is distrusting of editors writing eliminationist rhetoric spiced with vitriol?! Shame and more shame shall be heaped upon you commoner America; shame for distrusting your betters that know what is important and best for you.

But all of Perry's sputtering rage aside, his rant and venom is absolutely typical of the anti-gun crowd. Shall we remember newspaper editor Donald Kaul in Des Moines who wished that the NRA to be declared a terrorist orginization, gun owners believing in rights granted by the Constitution to be summarily executed, and for key Republicans to be tortured? I quote: "Declare the NRA a terrorist organization and make membership illegal. [...] Make ownership of unlicensed assault rifles a felony. If some people refused to give up their guns, that 'prying the guns from their cold, dead hands' thing works for me.[...] I would tie Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, our esteemed Republican leaders, to the back of a Chevy pickup truck and drag them around a parking lot until they saw the light on gun control."

These people are not uncommon. Their publicly-aired violent fantasies (oh, but they were just kidding or something...) for torturing political opponents, summary executions, and tyrannical decrees are everyday. They're countless. Want to scare yourself? Look on Twitter for some of the tweets regarding Wayne LaPierre, Sarah Palin, Stacy Dash (a Black woman and actress daring to support Romney in 2012), or just the NRA.

It's only fitting that I came across Barry Snell's opinion piece at Iowa State Daily (via Instapundit) today. Click on the above link and read it all, but some of the lines that struck me are below.

From Snell:

In the gun debate, I’ve discovered that one cannot be expert enough about guns. Indeed, when it comes to the gun issue, opinion rules. There doesn’t seem to be any opportunity for any genuine, honest debate on guns, and even liberals would agree with that. I’ve often wondered about this over the years. Is it because my side of the debate is actually loony? I don’t think so; at least, I think I’m pretty normal. Sure, we’ve got some oddballs we all wish would go away, just like any group does.

But all the pro-gun people I know are normal people too — people so normal that nobody knows they’re gun people until they’re told. In fact, there are so many gun owners that if we are all crazy like some suggest, the daily crime rate in America would look more like our crime rate for the entire decade combined, and CNN would actually have something to report on other than the latest gossip.

 

That is to say, there’s a hundred million of us, owning a few hundred million guns combined, and we contribute to society peacefully every day. Many of us even literally protect society for a living, or used to.

 

I’ve come to realize after the Sandy Hook shooting that the reason we can’t have a rational gun debate is because the anti-gun side pre-supposes that their pro-gun opponents must first accept that guns are bad in order to have a discussion about guns in the first place. Before we even start the conversation, we’re the bad guys and we have to admit it. Without accepting that guns are bad and supplicating themselves to the anti-gunner, the pro-gunner can’t get a word in edgewise, and is quickly reduced to being  called a murderer, or a low, immoral and horrible human being.

You might think that’s hyperbole too, but I’ve experienced it personally from people I considered friends until recently. And every day I see it on TV or in the newspapers, from Piers Morgan to the Des Moines Register’s own Donald Kaul, who among others have actually said people like me are stupid, crazy or should be killed ourselves. YouTube is full of examples, and any Google search will result in example after example of gun-owning Americans being lampooned, ridiculed and demonized by the media and citizens somewhere.   

[...] 

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because anti-gunners always talk about 90 percent of Americans supporting this gun control measure, or 65 percent supporting that one, as if a majority opinion is what truly matters in America. We don’t trust anti-gun people because you think America is a democracy, when it’s actually a constitutional federal republic. In the American system, the rights of a single individual are what matters and are what our system is designed to protect. The emotional mob does not rule in America. 

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they keep saying they “respect the Second Amendment” and go on about how they respect the hunting traditions of America. We don’t trust you because you have to be a complete idiot to think the Second Amendment is about hunting. I wish people weren’t so stupid that I have to say this: The Second Amendment is about checking government tyranny. Period. End of story. The founders probably couldn’t have cared less about hunting since, you know, they just got done with that little tiff with England called the Revolutionary War right before they wrote that “little book” called the Constitution.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they lie to us. President Obama directly says he won’t tamper with guns or the Second Amendment, then turns around and pushes Congress to do just that. We don’t trust anti-gunners because they appoint one of the most lying and rabidly (and moronically) anti-gun people in America, Vice President Biden, to head up a “task force” to “solve” the so-called “gun problem,” who in turn talks with anti-gun special interest groups instead of us to complete his task.
 

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they tell us they don’t want to ban guns, only enact what they call “common sense gun laws.” But like a magician using misdirection, they tell everyone else they want to ban every gun everywhere. While some are busy trying to placate us with lies, another anti-gunner somewhere submits a gun ban proposal — proposals that often would automatically make us felons for possession. Felons, for no good reason. And you anti-gunners can roll up your grandfather clauses and stuff them where the sun don’t shine. If it ain’t good enough for our grandchildren in 60 years, it ain’t good enough for us right now.
 

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they make horrifying predictions about how there will be blood in the streets, gunfights on every street corner and America will become the Wild West again if citizens are allowed to carry concealed firearms. We don’t trust anti-gun people because we know that despite the millions of Americans who have carry permits, those who carry guns commit crimes at a much lower rate than people who don’t. We know because we know ourselves and we’re not criminals. We know because concealed carry is now legal nearly everywhere, and guess what? Violent crime continues to go down. What a shocker.  

[...]  

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they are purposely misleading to rile the emotions of the ignorant. We don’t trust anti-gunners because they say more than 30,000 people are killed each year by guns — a fact that is technically true, but the key piece of information withheld is that only a minor fraction of that number is murder; the majority is suicides and accidents. We don’t trust anti-gunners because we know accidents and suicides don’t count in the crime rate, but they’re held against us as if they do. 

[...]  

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because not only is the violent crime rate approaching historic lows, but mass shootings are on the decline too. We don’t trust anti-gun people because they fail to recognize that mass shootings happen where guns are already banned — ridiculous “gun-free zones” which attract homicidal maniacs to perpetrate their mass shootings.   

[...]  

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because anti-gun people put us down with dismissals like “just another dumb redneck with a gun.” We are told all over the Internet that we deserve to be in prison for being awful, heartless people; baby-killers and supporters of domestic terrorism, even. We don’t trust anti-gun people because even our own president says people like me are “bitter” and “cling to our guns and religion.” One need only go to any online comments section of any recent gun article in any of the major newspapers to see all this for themselves.  

[...]

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because when things like the Boston Marathon bombing happen, everyone correctly blames the bomber, not the bomb. Nobody is calling for bomb control because killing people with bombs is already illegal — just like killing people with guns is illegal too.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they’re fine with guns protecting the money in our banks, our politicians and our celebrities, but they’re against us using guns to protect ourselves, our families, or even our children in schools. Legislative trolls like Dianne Feinstein cry havoc about me protecting my life, while standing comfortably behind armed guards —and the .38 Special revolver she got a California carry permit for. We don’t trust anti-gunners because they tell us our lives aren’t important, or at least are less important than the life of some celebrity like Snooki, who can have all the armed guards her bank account can afford.
 

Bravo,  Mr. Snell. He has summed up, rather succinctly, many of my own feelings on the matter. And the experiences he describes are not unlike some my own experiences with anti-gun people both online and in person. Except he has described it better than I could, and I'm sure he has had to deal with this crud more than I have-- although I have had my fair share of run-ins. 

But what Barry Snell seems reluctant to admit is that people like Perry and Kaul do truly believe that our lives are less important than theirs. The Left's strategies often involve the dehumanizing of opponents and the elevating of themselves. And these strategies work first and foremost on themselves.

The Left is well convinced that all who publicly stand against their tyrannical crusades (whether for gun-grabbing, or health care, or green energy initiatives whose failure to implement threatens to end all life on earth) are ignorant and stupid. Obama truly believes us to be "bitter clingers" and is dumb-founded at our failure to embrace ObamaCare and his ruinous economic policies. And that's from a man in constant concern about his public persona blessed with a very friendly media helping to control his image.

One step passed that and the Left gives us the accusations of stupidity and ignorance, the Twitter and comments section death threats, the public fantasies of torture and dictatorial tyranny.

The gun debate and the emotions they stir just gives us all a less contrived and controlled glimpse into the Left's true nature. It should be remembered that the Left's basic doctrine-- whether it's known by those who follow it or not-- is that (1) regular people are stupid, ignorant and awful, and they must be controlled by their betters who know the "truth" as reflected in Marxism, and (2) that these people must be tyrannically controlled until some-- those not killed-- can "reeducated" to think like them, and then all will be well with this world.

With this in mind, is it really that surprising that people like Kaul and Perry give us their published violent and vitriolic fantasies?

Failure of Obama's Gun Push in Senate Offers Real Hope

"I was 'ready to rule' from the beginning. You shall be subject to my Hope & Change, I swear it. Both you, and one day, your heirs!!"

In the age of "Hope and Change" since Obama's election, there's been precious little hope. Meanwhile, the change we've been treated has been monstrously huge and unpopular laws being passed (ObamaCare), astronomical spending, a ramping up of class warfare rhetoric, a decline in the median income of the middle class, expensive and disastrous "Green" programs whose favors were doled out to political contributors/supporters, while 7%+ unemployment and $3.50 for a gallon of gas being referred to as the new normal-- all this as most of the mainstream media have transformed themselves into bitter and angry political cheerleaders.

Yet, even after Obama administration and the media pulled out every stop in its media blitz, and in the process sunk to new depths in exploiting the death of schoolchildren, the much-heralded Senate gun control bill failed.

Investors Business Daily had this take:

Gun ownership restrictions that the president said were supported by 90% of the nation have died in a Senate controlled by his party. Exploiting Newtown is haunting the power grabbers.

Just last week it was a political no-brainer. "Ninety percent of Americans support universal background checks," President Obama asserted yet again. This time he was at the University of Hartford, less than an hour's drive from Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Ct., where 20 students and six staff members were slaughtered just before Christmas. With Obama were many of the Newtown victims' parents.

[...]

He challenged Congress: "If our democracy is working the way it's supposed to, and 90% of the American people agree on something, in the wake of a tragedy you'd think this would not be a heavy lift."

Turns out that our republic is working the way it's supposed to. A Gallup poll asking what's the most important problem facing the country shows why what the president is trying to do is indeed a "heavy lift" — only 4% in both April and March cited "guns/gun control," down from 6% in February.

The "economy in general" at 24%, "unemployment/jobs" at 18%, "dissatisfaction with government" at 16% and "federal budget deficit/federal debt" at 11% all dwarfed concerns about guns. And the problems of "health care," three years after ObamaCare was passed, and "ethical/moral/family decline" are both more worrisome to the public than gun control.

As moderate Democratic senators, especially those facing re-election next year, run away from gun-restriction legislation, it's no mystery what's happened.

As Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said on Wednesday, "in some cases" the president has used Newtown victims and their families as props. While still grieving, they were flown on Air Force One to lobby Congress, with the president repeatedly insisting -- yelling, in fact -- that "this is not about politics!"

There is something repugnant about the parents of murdered children being exploited several months later. It's especially distasteful when the victims' parents are hardly unanimous on gun control. Note Mark Mattioli, who compellingly called for well-trained, on-site armed guards to protect schoolchildren as a more effective alternative to new gun laws.

Even some of the most pro-gun control Democrats, notably Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, whose 1994 assault weapons ban failed ignominiously, admit as much. Intensified background checks, she conceded, "would not have prevented the tragedy in Newtown."

Well then, why should Newtown be the rationale to rush such a government power grab into law?
 

Perhaps it was public distaste that turned the tables on the Obama/media push. Perhaps it was the simple fact that the vast majority of Americans do not believe that gun control is the answer to problems of either crime or mass shootings. Obama's oft quoted 90% of the people favor new gun control nonsense seems pulled out of thin air.

And, of course, the fact that Americans are more concerned about the economy, unemployment, and the general amount of the frequent out-and-out lies coming from the federal governament was significant.

Or maybe, just maybe, people are beginning to recognize Obama's ongoing political campaign, disguised as political policy, for what it is-- a constant power grab against people's rights and property. Perhaps a significant portion of the low information citizens now see through Obama's simple reductive ploys, and his strawman arguments. Perhaps these same people will no longer view those standing up to Obama's vision of an enormous, redistributive government as mere backwards fools motivated by racism.

Maybe.

As I''ve said many times before, Obama's Leftist policies simply do not work. They have been tried numerous times before and have always failed miserably. There has never been a question of Obama's success. There has simply been a a question of just how much misery his failures will cause, and whether he and the media will be able to scapegoat their responsibility onto political opponents or targets of opportunity.

Perhaps this political loss for Obama has offered a glimmer of hope that low information America is wising up. Perhaps the misery in the years ahead-- misery that ObamaCare, the naivety of Obama's State Department, and this administration's reckless spending and ignorance of actual economics basically guarantee-- will not be allowed to be used as a catalyst for further harmful change.

It's a stretch. But maybe. And at this point I'm grabbing whatever hope I can.

Gallup: Only 4% of Americans Think Guns & Gun Control are Important Problems

"I don't care what the rest of you think. I want gun control and I want it NOW!! I mean, it's for the sake of the children... just like the stimulus and my trillion dollar spending sprees."

And that's after a major media push.

From the CNS News article by Michael James:

Only 4 percent of Americans think guns and gun control are an important problem facing the country, according to Gallup, and far more Americans are concerned about the economy, unemployment and the federal debt.

In its poll from Apr. 4-7, Gallup surveyed 1,005 adults by telephone and asked, “What do you think is the most important problem facing the country today?”

Respondents answered in the following order:

Economy in general 24%
Unemployment/Jobs 18%
Dissatisfaction with Government 16%
Federal budget deficit/Federal debt 11%
Healthcare 6%
Ethical/Moral/Family decline 5%
Immigration/Illegal aliens 4%
Education 4%
Guns/Gun control 4%
Situation with North Korea 4%
Lack of Money 3%
Welfare 2%
Lack of respect for each other 2%
Poverty/Hunger/Homelessness 2%
Foreign aid/Focus overseas 2%
Taxes 2%

Despite the Obama administration’s strong push for more gun control legislation, few Americans are concerned about the issue.

As Gallup reports, “Few Americans mention guns or immigration as the most important problems facing the nation today, despite the current attention lawmakers in Washington are giving to these issues. The economy still dominates as the top concern, followed by jobs and dissatisfaction with the general way in which Congress and the government work.”
 

Of course Obama has failed miserably when working with Congress, preferring instead to run a continuous smear campaign and to indulge in class warfare to to shift blame from his amateur hour policies. And of course Obama's dealings with the the economy and debt have been utter failures. Indeed Obama is preparing to deal America a tremendous blow when ObamaCare begins to kick in full force in 2014.

Clearly Obama and the Dems don't want the economy and government functions in the limelight, so they ignore the whole thing and go after the next item on the Leftist agenda-- gun control. Play to the base, and blame all problems on the GOP, the Tea Party, racism, Bush, and anything else handy.

Pathetic.