Wed, Dec. 19th, 2012, 06:21 pm
My take on the current feeding frenzy
Originally published at VolkStudio Blog. You can comment here or there.
I do not think that it will amount to anything in terms of gun control. When our side is voting with thousands of dollars in purchases and many hours of activism, training and lobbying, the other side has only talking and collusive propaganda through the mass media.
The real reason for the gun control talk — in my opinion — is to take the pressure off the administration on the economic front. Everyone has been very concerned about the depression, the coming higher taxes, the massive budget deficits and the attendant defaults on government obligations that they just had to counter-strike somewhere. Just like the Brusilov offensive designed to relieve the French at Verdun, this strategic foray into gun control might accomplish the short-term goal at the cost of squandering much political capital the Democrats have.
If the current administration tries to push gun control in extra-legal ways, then they would be just reaching for the laurels of Ceaușescu. I doubt that any of them would go to the wall for that goal, and the current propaganda blitz is no different from the leaflets the Soviets used to drop over the Finnish lines in 1939. Wishful thinking more than a threat.
Thu, Dec. 20th, 2012 12:50 am (UTC)
Speaking of talking with dollars, did you see the backlash when CTD announced (on FB) that they were suspending all online sales in response to Newtown? I don't know if they've recanted, but I'm sure the damage is done.
Thu, Dec. 20th, 2012 01:04 am (UTC)
It amazes me the many in the gun community believe that all of this will amount to nothing. The AWB passed before and it will pass again. The same group that says no AWB will pass also said there is no way that Obama would be president...much less twice!
Thu, Dec. 20th, 2012 01:13 am (UTC)
Who said Obama would not be President? The moment the Republicans tossed Ron Paul aside, Obama's first term was inevitable. He was the only candidate who stood a chance against Obama, and Obama was certain to win the Democratic nomination. And the moment they did it a second time, his second term became inevitable.
Both were easy predictions.
Thu, Dec. 20th, 2012 03:26 am (UTC)
Ron Paul never had, and has never had, a chance of winning the country, or even the GOP nomination. I think Gary Johnson would've won it all if the GOP hadn't shut him out, though.
Thu, Dec. 20th, 2012 03:30 am (UTC)
Yeah, isidewith.com showed that most states supported him more than Romney, and sometimes more than Obama in states where Obama led Romney. I hope the Republican party learned a lesson with this election.
Thu, Dec. 20th, 2012 03:37 am (UTC)
Ron Paul didn't have a chance of winning the nomination. All of the actual, scientific polls, showed that he would have taken the country in a landslide, if nominated.
Thu, Dec. 20th, 2012 05:45 am (UTC)
I thought I'd support Paul, too, until I read his whole platform, and realized I disagree with about 2/3 of his positions..
Thu, Dec. 20th, 2012 12:49 pm (UTC)
I don't support any politician. But I would have preferred Paul to anyone else who ran in 2008. In 2012, Johnson was better, but he had less chance than Paul of getting the nomination.
Actually, for the general election, a Johnson/Paul ticked would have been the best option. Johnson has the youth and vigor that Americans want in a President - the guy climbed Everest, built his own house with his own hands - he has the same sort of appeal that Teddy Rosevelt did. And Paul is everyone's favorite uncle - he rambles a bit, but you know that, even when he's saying something odd, his heart is behind it - he would be perfect as the "elder statesman" VP.
Thu, Dec. 20th, 2012 02:29 am (UTC)
The timing is very convenient from the administration's perspective. F&F bubbling up again, Benghazi testimony to evade, no budget passed in years and a fiscal cliff to drive over, the dance card is just full. Nothing like a little misdirection when you need it most.
Thu, Dec. 20th, 2012 03:32 am (UTC)
I hope that you are right. One of my long term friends, hunter and pro 2A guy flipped on me today (changed sides).
Thu, Dec. 20th, 2012 04:16 am (UTC)
Not so sure Oleg, I think this one is gonna stick. All they have to do is keep hammering with the media. A number of Republican pols are already giving in. The Left controls most of the media, and most of the populace buys whatever it tells them to.
Thu, Dec. 20th, 2012 04:18 am (UTC)
So do your part and reach out individually. Personal proselytizing works for religions and political views alike -- better than the impersonal mass media.
Thu, Dec. 20th, 2012 04:25 am (UTC)
Believe me, I do. A thing I point out to friends on FB and other social media is that when they make good, clear cogent points about 2A, they need to get it to places where the OTHER SIDE sees it, not just to their friends page. That is just preaching to the choir!!!
Thu, Dec. 20th, 2012 05:43 am (UTC)
I suspect the majority of my FB friends for example are quite anti-gun, even with a lot of fairly lose connections on the pro-2A side. I've been in a number of discussions of course -- but I don't really have good responses to a lot of the memes going around. It's harder to refute than to assert, you know?
Fri, Dec. 21st, 2012 12:42 pm (UTC)
Heh. Mine certainly were, but my percentages are changing... mostly because apparently the anti-gun folks are getting tired of my refuting their BS--even when I am doing it nicely--and defriending me. Ultimately, a loss I can live with, as a 'friend' who wants to enslave me isn't much of a friend.
"No, sorry, 'murdering the owner and stealing them' does not count as 'legally acquiring the firearms used in the shooting', please try again."
(Ok, yes, I realise that was snarky, but I'm pretty much done with these assholes.)
Thu, Dec. 20th, 2012 05:42 am (UTC)
I'm worried about our "facts", numbers. Nobody can reproduce Lott's results, which is death to academic research, and Kleck is if anything worse. Meanwhile, what's going around is a summary of the studies saying that having a gun in the house just makes everything worse (I think I know how those studies got that result -- including houses with drug dealers and illegal guns in general; but still, they're valid studies at some level, in real journals). We need good responses to that. We're used to having the upper hand on the numbers, and I think we actually do, but we need really clear refutations of the memes going around, and I don't have them handy.