The Obama administration’s first attempt at incrementally limiting the 2nd Amendment went down in bi-partisan defeat in the Senate. Walter and Joe Biden are visibly upset.
To prey on the emotions of victims is standard operating procedure for bleeding-heart liberals. That goes without saying. But what’s interesting to me about this performance yesterday is the audacity and arrogance he displays, and whining, over losing his first attempt at putting limits on the second amendment.
But instead of supporting this compromise, the gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill. They claimed that it would create some sort of “big brother” gun registry, even though the bill did the opposite. This legislation, in fact, outlawed any registry. Plain and simple, right there in the text. But that didn’t matter. And unfortunately, this pattern of spreading untruths about this legislation served a purpose, because those lies upset an intense minority of gun owners, and that in turn intimidated a lot of senators.
Making the gun lobby the bogeyman is expected. It is the American people who know, and have seen, what can be accomplished by incrementalism when it comes to legislation. This was but the first step. For him to accuse anyone of lying to the American people is the pot calling the kettle black when he says “this pattern of spreading untruths about this legislation served a purpose.” He should know, beginning with the so-called Affordable Health Care Act when he told the American people “I will not sign a bill that adds one dime to the deficit.” On Obama’s part, he knew he was lying. He knew that if it was repeated enough, with the support of the media, that the American people would believe his lies. They bought it. But since the Congress didn’t, states had to be bribed and the bill had to be forced through without a proper vote to get it enacted. Who’s to say he won’t try the same shenanigans with ‘gun’ control?
The only difference here is, gun rights folks know what Obama’s end-game is. It didn’t have to be spelled out in the legislation. Democrats have openly said they want to effectively disarm law-abiding citizens, since they can’t disarm criminals.
Below is the whiner and liar-in-chief from The Rose Garden.
The public by a significant margin is in favor of background checks. If politicians are to do the will of the people, they failed.
The problem, which anyone with a brain knows, is that politicians are in the NRAs back pocket. The NRA does not care about the dead, only their bank account.
It’s only a matter of time before bills like this pass, either because of more killings, or backwards, ignorant, bigots like yourself die off.
Your choice.
There was a time in our history when “the public by a significant margin” was in favor of slavery. But this nation is a nation of laws and the Constitution is the foundation for them. Sucks to be a dictator (and lemming of one) limited by it.
I’m in favor of background checks, the NRA is in favor of background checks. Current law requires background checks. The emotional appeal to expand them is useless unless and until the current laws in place are enforced. Not enforcing them, like those who falsify the purchase application (form 4473), only serves make the nation a more dangerous place. It also serves as emotional fodder for the “need” for more laws, which can be argued as the reason why the Obama Justice Department won’t enforce the ones we already have.
For example: Out of more than 15,700 fugitives and felons who tried to illegally purchase a firearm, the Obama Justice Department prosecuted only 44.
Those bills died because they won’t curb or stop the violence they are “intended” to stop. (logic, not emotion) I fully expect Obama to come across with executive orders now, in light of this defeat. Feeling restrained by the Constitution, or “charter of negative rights” as he calls it, will bring out the “Chavez” in him.
Your typical liberal sign-off, the name calling, is appreciated. Confirms that you have no argument to make. Only liberal frustration. Glad to have added to it.