Michael Bloomberg and the Joyce Foundation are pouring ever-more money into the gun grab debate. They are going long on the idea that upper-middle-class white liberal guilt (for which all gun control events serve as, for lack of a better term, anti-pep rallies) will become an electoral force in the next election.
But over the past few years, according to Gallup, Real Americans have made their case pretty convincingly to the people:
The Gallup poll shows that “55 percent of Americans… are dissatisfied overall with American gun laws and policies.” Among the dissatisfied, 16 percent are Americans who believe gun control laws should be rolled back.
Gallup notes that this is a change from a historical trend in which the dissatisfied usually want stricter gun laws. But in January 2014, the 16 percent of dissatisfied Americans who actually think gun control is too strict is up more than three times what it was in January 2013, while the number of those who want more gun control has fallen from 38 percent to 31.
Read the whole thing. The upshot is, the popular case for strangling the civil right of self-defense is dying the big death, outside the circles of the plutocrat liberal elite and their media and non-profit waitstaff.
From the LawDog:
I hear a lot about “compromise” from the gun-control camp … except, it’s not compromise.
Allow me to illustrate:
Let’s say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with “GUN RIGHTS” written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, “Give me that cake.”
I say, “No, it’s my cake.”
You say, “Let’s compromise. Give me half.” I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.
Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.
This leaves me with half of my cake and there I am, enjoying my cake when you walk back up and say, “Give me that cake.”
I say — again: “No, it’s my cake.”
You say, “Let’s compromise.” What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what’s left of the cake I already own.
So, we compromise — let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 — and this time I’m left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.
And I’m sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.
This time you take several bites — we’ll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders — and I’m left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you’ve got nine-tenths of it.
Let me restate that: I started out with MY CAKE and you have already ‘compromised’ me out of ninety percent of MY CAKE …
… and here you come again. Compromise! … Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble). Compromise! … The HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble). Compromise! … The Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM). Compromise! … The School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)
After every one of these “compromises” — in which I lose rights and you lose NOTHING — I’m left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you’re standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being “reasonable”, and wondering “why we won’t compromise” as you try for the rest of my cake.
…
I could go on and on, but the plain and simple truth of the matter is that a genuine “compromise” means that both sides give up something. My side of the discussion has been giving, giving, and giving yet more — and your side has been taking, taking, and now wants to take more.
For you, “compromise” means you’ll take half of my cake now, and the other half of my cake next time. Always has been, always will be.
I’ve got news for you: That is not “compromise”.
The entire post is here: http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-repost.html
I’m wondering how many of those running for office in this next election will be on the stump embracing gun control issues?????
NW – I have to blog about that. Thanks for the link.
Scott – I’m going to guess VERY few, until such time as Bloomberg and Joyce’s efforts start to generate some traction outside of NYC, Boston, Chicago and San Francisco.