Americans still don’t care about passing more gun control. And it’s not just gun control. Immigration reform, the other big White House and Democratic priority, is also not a big concern. I wonder whether, at this point, Obama is just running back to his inner-city roots. When things aren’t going well, hit on issues that play up to the base, and deflect attention from the real and substantive problems. I’ve noticed this often from Philadelphia politicians: when it comes to crime, their support for gun control is rooted in the fact that it’s easier to blame Harrisburg for a lack of gun laws than it is to discuss the substantive problems facing those communities.
5 thoughts on “Gun Control Still not a Winner”
Comments are closed.
Philly? Look at Chicago. A Gun Control nut’s paradise.
And more dangerous than many war zones……
I won’t retell my complete Old Story, but one time I was involved in promoting an issue that PSU polls showed was so popular that the lowest level of support among any demographic in the state was 85 percent. But, a sympathetic state rep explained to us that while almost every citizen thought it was a terrific idea, it also would never excite anyone enough that someone would win or lose an election over it. And since it held no direct advantages at all for pols — actually the opposite — it was just never going to happen. That was over 20 years ago, and indeed there has never been any motion on the issue.
The good news in that story (for us, now) is that it illustrates that legislators understand the significance of people’s commitment to what they believe in. We are the ones who are committed to our position.
Basically, Obama doesn’t have the know-how or gumption to handle the big important problems, so he’s fallen back to trying to get “his people” excited over a non-starter or two.
In other words, he’s campaigning again. This is my shocked face.
Has anyone looked into the dangerous UN treaty on firearms. This treaty is to be signed by the president making firearm ownership illegal and/ or very restrictive. Essentially a loophole to go around the Second Amendment. This is our president agreeing to other nations demands.
A bombing occurs, we blame the bomber. A drunk driver kills someone we blame the driver, We have a shooting, we blame the firearm?? LOGIC???
This is not true. There is a treaty. No, it’s not good. But it’s not good for very different reasons. All treaties have to be ratified by 2/3rds of the Senate, and there are currently not the votes for that. The President does not have any loophole to go around the Second Amendment via the UN. The loophole in the Second Amendment is the fact that the courts offer few protections under it at this point.