Skip to main content

Posts

Showing posts with the label background checks

If you're truly a "Never-Trumper," you'll vote Democrat.

Conservative columnist and analyst Mona Charen just published an an article on Politico , titled, "How a Democrat Can Win Over a Never-Trumper: And if you don't think you need us, you should think twice," and I felt the need to comment on it. First off, for those who don't know, a "Never-Trumper" is a conservative/Republican who can't stand Donald Trump and vows to never vote for him. In her article, Ms. Charen defines the term, tells us why she constitutes as a Never-Trumper, and shares her semi-willingness of voting for a Democrat in the 2020 presidential election. Here are a few snippets on which I'd like to comment: - "You may think you don't need us-but you'd be wrong. I know things are looking good for you: Trump's approval rating has never topped 46 percent, and among younger voters, millennials and Gens Zers, his support is 30 percent or below. But Trump was elected with the lowest approval ratings of any major candidat...

Gun enthusiast caught on camera supporting expanded background checks

Alan Gottlieb is the executive vice president of the gun-rights group the Second Amendment Foundation, which is planning to team up with other such groups to hold a "Guns Save Lives Day" on the first-anniversary of the Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. After receiving a great deal of flack for the timing of the event, the groups have agreed to push it back a day - to December 15th. I know, how sweet of them, right? When he was a recent guest on the CNN show Piers Morgan Tonight , Gottlieb said this regarding the timing of the event with relation to the Newtown school shooting:  "My heart goes out to them... but that doesn't allow them to use that day either to attack my rights." Ah, the irony in that statement is so thick, I could have sworn it took steroids. Mr. Gottlieb is complaining that the anniversary of a horrific school shooting where 20 children and 6 adults were attacked and killed by way of a gun is somehow an attack o...

Ted Cruz is not speaking for the American people (he just likes to hear himself talk)

Texas Senator and man who makes Tom Cruise look sane - Ted Cruz - has been claiming that he and other Tea Partiers are speaking for the American people to defund Obamacare. He even went as far to say that if it were up to the American people, the vote would be 100 to 0 to defund the bill. Sorry, Ted, but like many of the other things you say, this is false. In five recent polls taken on the matter, an average of 38% of people support the defunding of Obamacare, while an average of 49.6% oppose such an idea, with another 13% whom aren't sure. Using Cruz's made-up vote count, this would result in 38 people voting aye and 50 people voting nay for the defunding of the healthcare reform bill. In other words, Cruz was just off by 62% and 50%, respectively... I actually find it to be quite funny that Cruz and the Tea Party claim to be speaking for the American people in shutting down the government to repeal, defund, or delay Obamacare. As I just noted, the numbers aren't on t...

Who else supports expanding background checks? Gun dealers...

Results from a 2011 gun dealer-gun control survey conducted by the University of California-Davis Violence Prevention Research Team were reported this week and will soon be published in the Journal of Urban Health . The survey found some interesting results with regard to gun dealers' views on expanding background checks. While approximately 90% of the public supports such legislation, it was largely unknown until now what gun dealers thought on the matter. According to this survey, it appears as if gun dealers are nearly as supportive of such legislation as the general public. According to this survey, gun dealers support the following reasons for denying gun sales based on background checks: - Armed robber: 99.3% - Aggravated assault, involving a lethal weapon or serious injury: 99.1% - Serious mental illness, with a history of violence: 98.9% - Serious mental illness, with a history of alcohol or drug abuse: 97.4% - Serious mental illness, but no violence or alcoho...

The day the NRA RAN from the press

Setting: Press conference with the NRA's president somewhere in Texas NRA President: "Thank you all for coming today. I'll be open to any and all questions. Who wants to start? Okay, yes, you over there with USA Today ..." USA Today reporter: "You've gone on the record as saying that regardless of the gun laws, people are going to break them, so there's no point in having gun laws. Is that correct?" NRA President: "Yes, that is correct. Look, we have drug laws and people are still snorting coke and crap like that, right? So what's the point in having gun laws, you know?" USA Today reporter: "So, if one person breaks a drug or gun law, this proves the law isn't at all effective and doesn't prevent some people from committing such crimes?" NRA President: "Uh, yeah, sure" USA Today reporter: "So, unless 100% of drug and gun-related crimes can be prevented with law, then there's no point i...

When 90% is less than 10%

Setting: Monday, May 27th at Mr. John LaPierre's 11th grade math class in Washington, D.C. Mr. LaPierre: "Okay, class. It's getting toward that time of year again - finals week. I think I'm going to go about things a little differently this year, though. What I'm going to do is take a vote. We can either have the final next Monday, June 3rd, and take the rest of this week to get ready for it, or we can have it tomorrow, May 28th, and spend the next few days just watching movies. Just write down your vote on a piece of paper and pass it up to the front - write down either tomorrow or next week. I'll then ask one person from each side of the debate to get up here and make a few points on why we should hold the final on their preferred day, and then I'll have the final say on when we do wind up having the test. Does everyone understand?" ::the class nods in unison, before writing down their votes on a piece of paper, and passing them up to the front o...

Will Senator Ayotte believe these numbers?

Republican New Hampshire Senator Kelly Ayotte was one of the many Republicans to vote down the Manchin-Toomey background check bill. Not long ago, she said she was skeptical that 90% of Americans actually support extended background checks as polls have consistently shown. Well, not long after her no vote on the bill, Ayotte's approval numbers have suffered quite considerably. In October, as surveyed by PPP (Public Policy Polling), Ayotte enjoyed a +13 approval rating (48-35). Her approval rating is now at -2 (44-46). That's a difference in net-approval of 15%. Of course, these numbers could very well be meaningless to Senator Ayotte, just like those which suggested that 90% of the country supported a bill which she helped to vote down. Hopefully reality finally bites her in the backside come 2016 when she faces re-election. No matter how much she may want to deny the numbers in the case that she loses, she'd then be forced to feel a figurative smack on the face and com...

Senator Toomey changes his mind on who is to blame for the failed background check bill

Just a few days ago, Republican Pennsylvania Senator Pat Toomey blamed President Obama for the failed background check bill he co-sponsored with Democratic West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin, saying: "I would suggest the administration brought this on themselves. I think the president ran his re-election campaign in a divisive way. He divided Americans. He was using resentment of some Americans toward others to generate support for himself." After seeing his poll numbers go up in light of his helping push the before-mentioned gun control bill and seeing some fellow Republicans' numbers go the direct opposite direction after voting against the measure, Toomey seemed to have a change of heart on who really was to blame for the bill's failure, telling Digital First Media editors the following in a recent interview: "In the end it didn't pass because we're so politicized. There were some on my side who did not want to be seen helping the president do som...

Pennsylvania Senator Pat Toomey believes President Obama's dividing the country is to blame for his failed background check bill

Republican Pennsylvania Senator Pat Toomey, co-sponsor of the recent failed expanded background check bill with Democratic West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin, placed blame on President Obama and his administration for the disappointing outcome of the bill, saying: "I would suggest the administration brought this on themselves. I think the president ran his re-election campaign in a divisive way. He divided Americans. He was using resentment of some Americans toward others to generate support for himself. That was very divisive, that has consequences, that lingers. I understand why people have some apprehension about this administration. I don't agree with the conclusion as it applies to my [background checks] amendment, but I understand where the emotion comes from." Toomey is right. The president has divided this country, especially with regard to background checks. According to the latest poll on the issue, the country is split right in half, with 91% supporting the ...

Women get a background check for showing displeasure over the failed vote on expanding background checks

Wanna hear a joke? What do you get when two women yell "Shame on you!" toward 46 Senators whom voted against expanding background checks on gun sales? Give up? A background check. Sadly, this isn't really a joke, as this very thing happened to Patricia Maisch and Lori Haas after the bill to expand background checks on guns failed this past week. Perhaps those 46 Senators will be proposing new legislation to expand background checks on people wanting to speak to them. Expanding background checks for people speaking their opinions and possibly hurting others' feelings? Republicans say "aye!" Expanding background checks for people purchasing a weapon designed to hurt others' feelings so much it kills them? Republicans say "nay!" Wanna hear another joke? Knock, knock, ::"Who's there?":: The United States Congress... http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/04/18/1886801/gun-violence-victims-detained-put-through-backgroun...

South Carolina Representative Jeff Duncan compares background checks for guns to the genocide in Rwanda

Congressional Republicans have been none too coy when making statements about the gun-control debate which are so outlandish that they make Charlie Sheen look sane. Add South Carolina Representative Jeff Duncan to that ever-growing list. In a Facebook post of his on Thursday, Duncan stated the following: "The 2nd Amendment is (or should be) equal to the 1st Amendment and the 4th Amendment and all of the others. Ask yourselves why it is under attack? Ask yourselves about a National gun registry database and how that might be used and why it is so wanted by progressives. Read about the Rwandan genocide, the Hutu and Tutsi tribes. Read that all Tutsi tribe members were required to register their address with the Hutu government and that this database was used to locate Tutsi for slaughter at the hands of the Hutu. Since the government had the names and addresses of nearly all Tutsis living in Rwanda (remember, each Rwandan had an identity card that labeled them Tusi, Hutu, or T...

Democratic Arkansas Senator Mark Pryor should have his head checked when it comes to background checks

When talking about whether or not he'd support a Democratic initiative to make background checks on gun purchases mandatory, Arkansas Senator Mark Pryor said the following on the radio show The Alice Stewart Show : "You know, I'm a Second Amendment guy, everybody knows that. People in our state are very strong believers in the Second Amendment and the right to gun ownership." When the topic turned to mental health, Senator Pryor insinuated that he was in favor of not enforcing stricter gun control measures on those whom are deemed seriously mentally ill, but to make such measures more lax. A report from Mayors Against Illegal Guns found that "millions of records identifying seriously mentally ill people and drug abusers as prohibited purchasers are missing from the federal background check database because of lax reporting by state agencies." Senator Pryor's bill would only exacerbate this trend. In response to the report, Pryor said, "I don...

Utah senator compares guns to church, breakfast, and library books

Even though approximately 90% of the public support universal background checks, including a large majority of gun owners, many Congressional Republicans are not convinced on the matter. The latest in this seemingly never-ending line of anti-background check Republicans is Utah Senator Mike Lee, who recently said the following on Fox News: "[T]he concern with those is that background checks in and of themselves aren't going to work unless they are accompanied by some sort of registration system. [The American people] are not really comfortable with the idea of the government knowing exactly what firearm they purchase any more than they would be comfortable with the government knowing when or how often they go to church or what they eat for breakfast or what books they are reading from the library." Senator Lee is absolutely right. I mean, what's the difference between a gun and a church, breakfast, or library books anyway? Nothing. I will now prove just how striki...

Colorado State Senator Greg Brophy explains how laws which are supported by 91 and 62% of the public can also be unpopular...

It appears as if the Democratic Governor of Colorado - John Hickenlooper - is about to sign two gun control laws - one which would require background checks, even in the cases of private or online sales, and also one which would limit most ammunition magazines to 15 rounds. What does the Republican Party have to say about these likely signings? Colorado State Senator Greg Brophy responded with this: "If he signs these bills, I have come to the conclusion that he's more interested in his national prospects than he is in his legacy here in Colorado. These are not moderate. These are extreme, and just really unpopular." It appears that Mr. Brophy is celebrating his own personal opposite day. How would you describe these gun control laws again, Mr. Brophy? "...just really unpopular..." That's what I thought I read. Well, according to a recent Quinnipiac poll, 92% of the American public believes in mandatory background checks, even for private or on...

Why the false dilemma on guns?

Ever since the tragic shooting spree at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut last month,  the gun control debate has run rampant in this country. Even in the world of Facebook, I can't tell you how many such debates have transpired just among my "friends" over the past few weeks. While I am a gun control advocate, I try as hard as I can to listen to the NRA-esque crowd. Just today, I read through many comments from die-hard guns rights activists, just so I could try to understand their perspective better. After reading those comments, and upon looking back at similar comments I've seen in those before-mentioned Facebook debates, I've started to notice what appears to be a trend, and may be a big reason why many gun control proponents and opponents have a hard time understanding one another and coming to a decent compromise. In the comments I read earlier, I can't tell you how many times I read these far-right gun rights activists refer to ...