«

»

Obama Moves On Guns

Obama is announcing his new gun policies right now. I’ll post as I get updates. There are apparently 23 executive orders. I’ve looked over them quickly and I don’t really see anything terribly objectionable. Most of it is strengthening exiting law and the background check system. Here they are, with my commentary. None would have prevented Sandy Hook. But if you’re looking to reduce gun violence overall, they do address that.

1. “Issue a presidential memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.”

2. “Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.”

3. “Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.”

All three of these are reasonable ways of improving the background check system and are orders to federal agencies not requiring new laws.

4. “Direct the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.”

As long as any new proposed categories go through Congress, this is fine.

5. “Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.”

Again, as long as we get to see the rule before its implemented. We have, for very good reasons, grandfathered people in on background checks. We don’t want to set a precedent of seizing guns to do a retroactive check.

6. “Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.”

7. “Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.”

8. “Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).”

9. “Issue a presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.”

All of these are programs within the Justice Department. I would like to see some commentary on the legality of gun traces.

10. “Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.”

11. “Nominate an ATF director.”

We don’t have an ATF director? Seems we should, no?

12. “Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.”

I suspect this will be a waste of money, but it seems within the powers of the DOJ providing they have Congressionally-approved funds for this sort of thing.

13. “Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.”

This is more of a goal than an actual policy.

14. “Issue a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.”

This may be controversial. Congress has specifically prohibited the CDC from engaging in anti-gun advocacy which has been interpreted to ban all research. Given the Nanny Staters tendency to make loud noises with bogus research (the claim that obesity killed 400k people a year, claims on second-hand smoke), they are right to be suspicious of this. I do think we should clarify what the CDC is and is not allowed to do on this subject.

15. “Direct the attorney general to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.”

16. “Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.”

17. “Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.”

Words words words. No problem with words. I’m not sure if the ACA does or does not prohibit doctors from asking about guns, so that might be an issue. I believe several states, including Florida, have banned doctors from asking about guns.

18. “Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.”

19. “Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.”

I’m not sure what this means but it sounds like a waste of money. These events are very rare and any preparation for a once in a thousand year event is likely a waste.

20. “Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.”

Words.

21. “Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.”

22. “Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.”

Finalizing ACA regulations would probably be a good idea anyway, no?

23. “Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.”

Ooh, a dialogue! Dialogues solve so many problems.

The executive orders cross me as a non-issue. Almost all of them relate to clarify or writing regulations and soap-box stuff. The only substantive objections might be lodged at 14 (the CDC) and 16 (ACA). I don’t think any of this will help but I don’t think it will hurt. And it’s certainly not the tyrannical gun grab everyone was clamoring about.

The real substances is what he has asked Congress to do. It is, again, largely expected: universal background checks, assault weapons ban, magazine limits and tougher penalties for illegal sales. I suspect, apart from the penalties, most of that is DOA in Congress. But if we could create a system that would allow easy cheap universal background checks, I would be in favor of that. It would not have prevented Sandy Hook. But it might make a dent in the broader issue of gun violence.

Really, this is a non-event. Almost everything was as expected. And it’s largely going nowhere.


55 comments

No ping yet

  1. AlexInCT says:

    I have read through all 23 and can not find a single one of these “new policies” that Ii feel would have stopped or prevented the Sandy Hook massacre. In fact, I can not find a single reason that connect sany one of these “new policies” to what happened either. It feels like this was a list that was already made up, a very long time ago – probably right before they started off Fast & Furious – and waiting for a “tragedy/crisis” to allow them to push it out on us all.

    I guess we now have another king again. How did that work out the last time?

    Hot! Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2

      
  2. Poosh says:

    Sup all!

    Um I can’t help but feel none of this is note worthy or meaningful. It feels like air.

    But with 200+ dead Mexicans on this Administration’s hands, the entire ordeal, and the hypocrisy, leaves a nasty taste in one’s mouth.

    A king is not a tyrant, Alex! The right to bear arms was a natural and constant right bestowed upon / and / or enforced by many of our monarchs. It was “free-people” who were not ruled by a king, who tyrannically removed their own right to bear arms.

    Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1

      
  3. HARLEY says:

    Of all these orders, a majority of them are to direct Government officials to do their fucking job, as they are paid to do, spend more money on useless make work, that is already done in the private sector Cheaper and better, convince people that obamacare does not say that doctors can not ask about gun in the home.
    Over all it is a flop! LOL Every one of these actions would not have changed anything at Sandy hook Or Aurora….What i expected was out right ATF prohibition of Class3, and NFA devices, ban the importation of Firearms, ammo, mags, parts and part kits…. Odd that this was not included…..
    what bothered me the most was his rhetoric. Having these little kids Who wrote him moving letter… yeheyaheyah.. more stagecraft..you know its for the children, im surprised he didnt flash photos of the dead kids to make his point!.
    Or the line about > …. really? it hate to see them try to ban bolt action rifles, and lever guns too.. or Grands… Eca. pump action shot guns.. …yes,venerable “hunting weapons like the Henry rifle, Remington 700 bolt action and Winchester/Ithaca Pump action shot guns were designed, and refined for combat in mind.
    oh well if this is the best he can do, and with both the house and Senate , not eager to push any bans, i think Obama might has spent his wad on this issue..

    Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1

      
  4. HARLEY says:

    18. “Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.”

    These officers will be armed right?………………..?? anybody anybody Bueller? Bueller?

    Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

      
  5. Mississippi Yankee says:

    4. “Direct the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.”

    As long as any new proposed categories go through Congress, this is fine.

    Yes because the Attorney General’s office did such a bang up job letting people and guns “slip through the cracks” during Fast and Furious and had dodge pretty much ALL congressional oversight, right?

    11. “Nominate an ATF director.”

    We don’t have an ATF director? Seems we should, no?

    We did have one until he became incriminated in Fast and Furious. At that point the AG’s office scapegoated him and has dodge pretty much ALL congressional oversight since.

    I expect to be pilloried over my “gun” comments nevertheless it’s my opinion that these “23 Theses of Faith” is a weather-vane to see just how much support he really has amongst the brethren.
    Please keep in mind that the 2014 election cycle has already begin in the House and 200 of them are (D). Of further note is that “off election” years are usually not favorable to the sitting president (think 2010) with 2006 being an exception. Neither these House dems nor the 33 senators of both stripes want to commit to paper more than their constituents will allow.

    Obama is watching this crisis, just like the Gifford and Aurora crisis, slip through his fingers. Today was just his first volley. He and his people are very interested in just how much leeway YOU are willing to give him (a little here, a little there, ect..ect…) He is campaigning for added support, I use the word campaigning because it really is the only thing (besides guns and ammo salesperson) that he’s ever done.

    And so the battle begins…

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

      
  6. Argive says:

    Of further note is that “off election” years are usually not favorable to the sitting president (think 2010) with 2006 being an exception.

    Wait, what? The 2006 election wasn’t favorable to Bush.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  7. Mississippi Yankee says:

    Wait, what? The 2006 election wasn’t favorable to Bush.

    Isn’t that the election that swung the House blue and allowed Pelosi to become Speaker?

    My dyslexia with numbers had these dates incorrect, my bad…

    Of further note is that “off election” years are usually not favorable to the sitting president (think 2006) and 2010 with 2002 being an exception.

    And I’m sober, I swear

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  8. HARLEY says:

    Basically Obama Voted “present” with his EO’s….while using a racially balanced selection of young human shields….

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  9. Thrill says:

    Did you catch this bit of local goodness, Harley?

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  10. Hal_10000 says:

    I expect to be pilloried over my “gun” comments nevertheless it’s my opinion that these “23 Theses of Faith” is a weather-vane to see just how much support he really has amongst the brethren.

    I don’t disagree with this. Obama tends to be an incrementalist on some issues. He knows that gun control is unpopular and so i think he wants to take some small steps to see how much support he gets.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  11. Kimpost says:

    I think that he’s a realist. He knows that he can’t do much constitutionally without ending up in court – and losing. Instead he tells people to do their existing jobs better, and hands the ball over to congress. If another shooting happens he can always say: “Hey, I did my job. Congress didn’t.”

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

      
  12. salinger says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7

      
  13. InsipiD says:

    It’s a very vocal – but small minority slice of the population in general and even a minority of gun owners who think these measures are out of line.

    Not these measures, only the ones that seem possible and likely given who he hangs out with.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  14. Xetrov says:

    Most of what has been proposed here has been poll tested and even most NRA members would go along with these proposals. It’s a very vocal – but small minority slice of the population in general and even a minority of gun owners who think these measures are out of line.

    That would depend on which measures you’re talking about – his Executive Orders, or what he wants to get Congress to pass. If you’re talking his Executive Orders, I agree. If you’re talking about the proposals for Congress, you’re dead wrong. The only reason a majority would be against “Assault Weapons” is due to their ignorance and the media’s intentional obfuscation of what exactly the gun grabbers are calling “Assault Weapons”. I’ve seen interview after interview of people who think “Assault Weapon” means fully automatic rifle.

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

      
  15. salinger says:

    I’ve seen interview after interview of people who think “Assault Weapon” means fully automatic rifle.

    And I’ve seen “semi-automatic” weapons with a floating stock that shoot as quickly as fully automatic weapons. A little tightening up of regulations on these things isn’t going to infringe on any constitutional rights.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7

      
  16. Xetrov says:

    And I’ve seen “semi-automatic” weapons with a floating stock that shoot as quickly as fully automatic weapons. A little tightening up of regulations on these things isn’t going to infringe on any constitutional rights.

    None of the regulations proposed by Obama or Congress would make the slide-fire stock or other stocks like it illegal. You could put one on a regular old hunting rifle, and it wouldn’t qualify as an “Assault Weapon” as defined by the AWB.

    In any case, this doesn’t negate the fact that the majority of the public is confused by just what exactly an “Assault Weapon” is, which remains my valid point.

    Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

      
  17. salinger says:

    You could put one on a regular old hunting rifle, and it wouldn’t qualify as an “Assault Weapon” as defined by the AWB.

    Is this a fact – do we know the contents of the proposed bill? Because not addressing these things would be stupid.

    What purpose does this mechanism really serve?

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

      
  18. Xetrov says:

    Is this a fact

    Yup. The “Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act” (otherwise known as the “Assault Weapon Ban” or AWB I mentioned) had nothing in it that made a stock designed to help “bump-firing” a weapon illegal. Nothing put forth by any politician this time around yet has even mentioned bump-firing that I’ve seen.

    Because not addressing these things would be stupid.

    You can bump-fire a regular old semi-automatic pistol. Bump-firing has been around a lot longer than some specially designed rifle stock. Why aren’t the politicians addressing these peoples stupid weak-side fingers? Think of the children!!!

    My original point, which you continue to try to ignore, still stands.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      
  19. InsipiD says:

    The only reason a majority would be against “Assault Weapons” is due to their ignorance and the media’s intentional obfuscation of what exactly the gun grabbers are calling “Assault Weapons”.

    They’ve been trying to redefine anything they can during this debate. The 1994-2004 assault weapons ban defined high-capacity magazines as holding more than 10. Libs are using 8 during this round of debates as if it were some kind of known standard.

    Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

      
  20. salinger says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9

      
  21. Mississippi Yankee says:

    Actually the original ‘bump-fire’ floating stock was spring loaded and the BATFE made them illegal several years ago. The “new” bump-fire stock requires forward pressure by the support hand while the trigger hand pulls back on said weapon.

    They are not only a bit pricey $369. for the AR-15 and $299. for the AK-47,AK-74 and Siaga shotguns but they waste an incredible amount of ever increasingly expensive ammo. When you factor in muzzle climb these additions are best suited to people with more dollars than sense.

    But they ARE fun.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      
  22. InsipiD says:

    They are not only a bit pricey $369. for the AR-15 and $299. for the AK-47,AK-74 and Siaga shotguns but they waste an incredible amount of ever increasingly expensive ammo. When you factor in muzzle climb these additions are best suited to people with more dollars than sense.

    For all the fun that stuff like that is for shooting watermelons, the big deal to me is the redefinition of my 10 round Ruger Charger as an assault weapon. These rules are being defined by people who simply want rid of all private gun ownership, and they’re opening a big umbrella to make “you can’t be in favor of assault weapons” include things people buy for defense and recreation. The libs mention hunting like that’s what I’m afraid they’ll ban. I couldn’t care less about that, what I’m worried about is that they’ll take the ones that are my plan B. They’re doing all of this on purpose.

    As I’ve said before, the best time to be skeptical of liberal policies is if it’s ever described as “too important not to do” or “for the children.” This is both.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  23. AlexInCT says:

    When you factor in muzzle climb these additions are best suited to people with more dollars than sense.

    I do not fear an idiot that thinks spraying with his gun is the way to go. While he can do a lot of damage, it will mostly be random, and often to themselves. Now the guy that wants accurate shots above all else, that’s the guy you fear. They tend to hit what they aim at, and if they want to kill a lot of people, a 10 clip magazine and a weapon that requires you to pull the trigger for every shot is going to still cause more death than the moron spraying bullets everywhere but on target from as large a clip as you can get. Shooters know you do fewer shots, faster, and with more accuracy to hit center mass.

    But try to explain that to people that are in abject terror of firearms because all they know about firearm comes from what they have seen in movies, TV, and video games, and that wan to ban all guns because they don’t feel comfortable with one and thus feel nobody else should have one either.

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

      
  24. Xetrov says:

    I would add though – that it really doesn’t matter. It is a point of semantics.

    Semantics is all that matters when it comes to the letter of the law, which is what we are talking about.

    I understand that most of the guns being called assault weapons are just window dressed – but it is the window dressing that is scaring folks. Are the people misinformed? Sure – is their fear any less real? – no.

    So let me get this straight. You admit most of what the left wants banned is “window dressing” even though before you were claiming that “not addressing these things would be stupid”? And you want to legislate on what looks scary or based on irrational fear? If I have an irrational fear of spiders, can we make it illegal to harbor a black widow in your garage?

    Are the guns themselves designed to look scary? Yes

    I would bet you any amount of money that if we could ask Eugene Stoner, Robert Fremont, and L. James Sullivan who invented the basic platform for the big scary black rifle known as the AR if they designed it that way because they thought it was scary, they’d laugh. I guess you would have no argument as long as it was pink and had hello kitty on it.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      
  25. Kimpost says:

    What purpose does this mechanism really serve?

    Well, the purpose is just to side-step the ban on fully automatics. But just a little bit. It’s not auto when the stock moves back and forth pulling your finger over the trigger, after all. Nope. Totally reasonable. ;)

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

      
  26. salinger says:

    So let me get this straight. You admit most of what the left wants banned is “window dressing” even though before you were claiming that “not addressing these things would be stupid”?

    No what I said is – yes most of what makes the guns look more dangerous is window dressing. And separate from that – if these sliding stocks are not one of the things that are to be regulated – that would be stupid.

    I would bet you any amount of money that if we could ask Eugene Stoner, Robert Fremont, and L. James Sullivan who invented the basic platform for the big scary black rifle known as the AR if they designed it that way because they thought it was scary, they’d laugh.

    I’d take that bet. Intimidation goes into a lot of military design. And I would double down that the looks are what sell these things to civilians because there are a lot more accurate weapons out there than these. Correct me if I am wrong – but aren’t the targets used in competition for ARs set at half the distance than regular hunting rifles?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5

      
  27. Section8 says:

    Most of what has been proposed here has been poll tested and even most NRA members would go along with these proposals.

    Well I have to agree with Salinger sometimes I guess. Well I don’t have to but I’ll agree on this point anyhow. This was a lot more mild than I was expecting. Even a staunch pro gun (I’d prefer to say pro self defense) president would probably issue something link this. It’s doing what politics requires in this case without going to war on the second amendment.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  28. HARLEY says:

    depends, some targets are set out at 500 750 and 1000 meters…………. and yes AR-15 are used for this., the AR-15 design is inherently accurate… think Tack driver.
    My 24 inch barreled AR,with crappy low grade Wolf ammo can over lat bullet hole at 100 yards, High end AR with match ammo can do that at 500……

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  29. Mississippi Yankee says:

    Most of what has been proposed here has been poll tested and even most NRA members would go along with these proposals.

    Let me be the first to tell you sally, horseshit! And I speak as a person that has been an active member of the NRA at least as long as you have been on this planet. Although with statements like yours above perhaps you’re relatively new to this solar system.

    Right after Sandy Hook the NRA saw as many as 5,000 new members A DAY. These regular everyday Americans saw exactly where the bullshit was going to be thrown. State after state are signing putting NEW FFA laws on the books. And surprisingly they’re not all blue states either. Two states, Kentucky and North Dakota have passed laws that will arrest any federal LEO if they try to enforce gun laws not comparable with the states in question.

    I bolded the “poll tested” portion of your ridiculous sentence just to ask, in general, who these might be? (why do lefties rely and lie about polls so much)

    In closing sally, horseshit on your “poll tested” comment and horseshit on your NRA supposition.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      
  30. Mississippi Yankee says:

    HARLEY, an AR with a 24″ barrel… you could tie a K-Bar on the end and use it for a spear if you run out of ammo.
    jussayin’

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  31. salinger says:

    Right after Sandy Hook the NRA saw as many as 5,000 new members A DAY.

    At that rate it’ll take just a little under 100 years to reach half the population. Unless of course the rate drops off for some reason.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7

      
  32. salinger says:

    addendum.

    These poll numbers can be as easily ignored as past election polls were with, I’m supposing, the same results. We’ll see.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

      
  33. RightOnDave says:

    If you have any question over the left’s agenda, this from Louise Slaughter http://www.whec.com/news/stories/S2900399.shtml?cat=566

    News10NBC reporter, Ray Levato, said, “I just came from a gun shop and talked with a lady, and everybody there had pretty much the same opinion. She was buying ammo because she’s a target shooter and she said this targets the wrong people, law abiding citizens. “
    Rep. Slaughter said, “They’re all law abiding, Ray, until they go in and kill 30-40 people with guns.

    And yes, on Tuesday, when King Kuomo slammed his legislation through NY, the stores were packed. Conversations went something like “I’ll take it. What do you have?”

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

      
  34. balthazar says:

    Poor sally, taken in again by a poll that oversamples democrats.

    When will the useful idiot named Sally learn?

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

      
  35. balthazar says:

    At that rate it’ll take just a little under 100 years to reach half the population. Unless of course the rate drops off for some reason

    Fail math much sally?

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

      
  36. salinger says:

    Poor sally, taken in again by a poll that oversamples democrats.

    Where have I heard that before? Last November maybe?

    Fail math much sally?

    Let’s see: Figuring there are 311,591,917 U.S. citizens give or take. Divide that in half for 50% and you have 155,795,958.5 – divide that by 5,000 (the number of new NRA members per day claimed by whoever claimed it) and you have 31159 and change. Divide that by 365 to get the number of years needed and you get 85 years. Now that assumes that the NRA adds 5000 every day for those 85 years. This seems pretty slim – so figuring it could take a hundred years for NRA membership to reach 50% of the population is not a stretch.

    A side note: and I know I will most likely regret this. Salinger is not a pseudonym – it is my name – I do not like the “nickname” sally- never have. So you guys do whatever you want with that info.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

      
  37. HARLEY says:

    Just a side note, im not a NRA member, Why im tired of their constant money drives and the fact they laid down on the first AWB law. Wimpy ass leadership, and total unwillingness to stand up for ownership of NFA arms. Many gun owners in America dont join simply because of the cost and or the fact they think the NRA is to wimpy.
    Oh and i view them as to left wing for me…

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  38. HARLEY says:

    HARLEY, an AR with a 24″ barrel… you could tie a K-Bar on the end and use it for a spear if you run out of ammo.
    jussayin’

    Pretty much!! LOL

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  39. Xetrov says:

    More Polls.

    Nearly twice as many voters say there would be less violent crime if more law-abiding Americans owned guns, than if guns were banned.

    In addition, while American voters generally favor strengthening gun laws, 71 percent do not think tougher laws can stop shootings like the one last month in Newtown, Connecticut. Some 22 percent say new laws can prevent the next Sandy Hook.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  40. salinger says:

    Gun owners will never reach majority status if they keep accidentally shooting themselves and those around them.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

      
  41. Kimpost says:

    Sandy Hook won’t be avoided. It’s more about general access. Fewer guns would probably mean less accidental shootings. Probably less spontaneous suicides too. As well as quick rage shootings. On the other hand that would also mean a lower ability for self defence. You’d have to be willing to sacrify something you feel in control over (guns in your house, your own sanity etc.), for potentially lowering the overall risk for accidental shootings.

    I’d imagine that not too many would be willing to do that.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

      
  42. Mississippi Yankee says:

    You’d have to be willing to sacrify something you feel in control over (guns in your house, your own sanity etc.), for potentially lowering the overall risk for accidental shootings.

    Let’s use this same argument but substitute knives (all pointy objects), hammers, poisons and the cars in the garage.

    I’d imagine that not too many would be willing to do that.

    BINGO!

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

      
  43. Mississippi Yankee says:

    Gun owners will never reach majority status if they keep accidentally shooting themselves and those around them.

    Sir salinger Esq. (do you prefer that moniker to sally?)
    Two accidental discharges, no fatalities. How many people lost their lives to automobile accidents? Or do those figures not fit in with your smug comment?

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

      
  44. salinger says:

    Let’s use this same argument but substitute knives (all pointy objects), hammers, poisons and the cars in the garage.

    Yeah, because that’s exactly the same. *yawn*

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

      
  45. Poosh says:

    Question: How many NRA members have committed murders? …. if the answer is almost none then, to use liberal logic, we should all be forced to become NRA members.

    Question: There’s a Beyonce reference in this comment. Wonder if anyone can spot it…

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3

      
  46. CM says:

    I bolded the “poll tested” portion of your ridiculous sentence just to ask, in general, who these might be? (why do lefties rely and lie about polls so much)

    That’s possibly the funniest thing I’ve read so far in 2013.

    Poor sally, taken in again by a poll that oversamples democrats.

    That’s even better.

    Some people obviously threw the whole ridiculous election polling thing down the memory hole. It requires a massive massive hole it was so bad, but obviously where there’s an ideological will, there’s a way. Superb.

    Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

      
  47. Mississippi Yankee says:

    CM, welcome back from vacation
    (asshat)

    (why do lefties rely and lie about polls so much)

    I retorted this because unlike you and Nate Silver Mr. Sallie pulled his figures from his backside.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  48. salinger says:

    Yeah that Pew Research Center (headed up by a past publisher of that left wing rag the Wall Street Journal) has taken up residence in my ass. MY your dismissal of evidence is as lame as your middle school name calling and as chicken shit as your hiding behind a pseudonym.

    You guys whine about over sampling of democrats as if there weren’t more of them than republicans. Go ahead ignore the numbers, it worked like a charm for you in the last election. Better yet, support an organization that drags its opponents kids into a mudslinging party – that should sway those undecideds to support your cause about as well as “legitimate rape” helped in November. Those pesky polls be damned.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6

      
  49. CM says:

    CM, welcome back from vacation
    (asshat)

    Thanks. Hope you’re well.

    I retorted this because unlike you and Nate Silver Mr. Sallie pulled his figures from his backside.

    If it was a case of “unlike”, why the generalisation? Given what happened last year it’s not a great move. Unless you’re mocking yourself and others of course…..

    You guys whine about over sampling of democrats as if there weren’t more of them than republicans. Go ahead ignore the numbers, it worked like a charm for you in the last election.

    When do they start to get pissed off with their own non-reality-based sources, who sucked them in and lead them merrily down the garden path (“Is this just math you do as a Republican to make yourself feel better?”). I’ve yet to hear a single person admit they got taken for a ride, let alone appear to be annoyed at it.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

      
  50. Xetrov says:

    I’ve yet to hear a single person admit they got taken for a ride, let alone appear to be annoyed at it.

    I got taken for a ride. And I’m pissed.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      
  51. Xetrov says:

    On another note, Happy Hump Day everyone.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  52. CM says:

    I got taken for a ride. And I’m pissed.

    I’m sorry that you did, that sucks, and good on you for being pissed.

    On another note, Happy Hump Day everyone.

    ;-)
    http://www.theonion.com/articles/biden-working-his-way-through-scratchoff-tickets-d,30973/

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

      
  53. CM says:

    I got taken for a ride. And I’m pissed.

    I’m sorry that you did, that sucks, and good on you for being pissed.

    On another note, Happy Hump Day everyone.

    ;-)
    http://www.theonion.com/articles/biden-working-his-way-through-scratchoff-tickets-d,30973/

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

      
  54. CM says:

    Ah crap.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

      
  55. balthazar says:

    http://reason.com/assets/db/13595247487633.pdf

    Polling about what people think banning “assault rifles” will do.

    The short version….almost 70% say that strighter “assault weapons” bans/laws wont prevent another sandy hook.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      

Comments have been disabled.