July 22, 2012
If the liberal media go big on gun control, will it help elect liberals this fall?
Post-Aurora, the Daily News comes out with "Blood on hands of Obama, Mitt and NRA!" That's the most extreme outburst I'm seeing right now, but there's plenty of outraged/earnest/passionate talk about gun control. I presume these liberal media outlets imagine they are bolstering the case for electing Democrats this fall, but I don't see that working out very well. Should liberals want to forefront gun rights?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
80 comments:
This is a tough one for them (Liberals). Brian Ross tried to get ahead of the pack via a Tea Party link (wrong guy) and should be fired for it. The immediate liberal link is gun control, but it's not known if the killer would have been halted by any proposed gun law or if his motivations may have been drawn from the comic/movie story line.
They don't want to be seen as championing a return to the old Comics Code or Hayes Code for Movies do they?
This would work against Obama, who says nothing about the ongoing violence, including murder by guns and knives, in his hometown Chicago, which boasts a full-fledged gun control law. See this morning's article on Legal Insurrection.
10,000 Americans died yesterday, 100,000 people in the world.
Aurora is a news entertainment choice. It goes by ratings.
It turns bad when an entertainment choice becomes public policy.
I'm for anything that "doesn't work out very well" for the hypocritical liberals who have no problem putting so much violence in movies and if someone becomes violent, they want to take away gun rights or blame Sarah Palin. They never even ask if violence in movies is part of the problem. It may or may not be but they wouldn't even consider it since its not part of their ideology.
What controls were placed on Fast and Furious?
Utter hypocrisy. They just cannot stand the idea that a regular person should make an individual decision.
Peter Bella, who comments here sometimes, wrote an interesting column for the Washington Times on media coverage of this tragedy.
Improvements in aviation safety have put a real crimp in entertainment news.
The dash to the airport to find waiting family members, the interviews, the conspicuous shielding of the family members from the media itself being a story...
Though there hasn't been a really entertaining aviation disaster since JFK Jr, where the sexual divide went off scale.
Dear Barack:
Please Please Please run on gun control in November. You know you want to. You know you want to set those bitter clingers straight. Claire Mccaskill wants you to. I'm sure that your campaign managers in PA, WI, MN, and CO would just love having you say how you really feel about guns.
These bursts of hoplophobic enthusiasm never last very long nowadays. By Labor Day they'll be back to talking about how paranoid gun owners are to imagine that anyone wants to grab their guns.
No.
Gun control is now a non-issue.
The MSM beating the drum for it will only make them look extreme and out-of-touch.
As a number of people have pointed out, most of these massacres, not to mention the majority of urban shootings, occur in gun-free areas such as Gotham or Chi-town. That point will certainly be raised.
The real problem is how do the gun-grabbers deal with all the chemical weapons Holmes had? There are restrictions on them aplenty and some he probably made from recipes on the Internet.
If they want to address something, they might want to start with the ACLU's campaign to make it next to impossible to get someone dangerous committed before he actually does something.
Oh Please, Please, let Comrade Urkel and his little Stalinist fans push gun control!! that would me most excellent in rooting out DemonRAT candidates at all levels.
And this: I think the public now realizes that guns are controlled and to the point where the next and only step is to confiscate them from the public.
When you think of how many people own weapons and as a percentage of the population how few deaths occur the U.S. seems to be able to live with random acts of violence.
Look at Chicago: it's had approximately this many people killed and wounded in the past month, they have very strict GC laws and the laws have done nothing to stem the killing PLUS no one outside of the Chicago area cares that much.
They are hammering this because they always want to ban guns. Their problem will be the last 4 years of calling gun owners paranoid for thinking Obama and democrats want to ban guns.
With all that SWAT equipment, Holmes managed to kill 12 people in a crowded theater.
Timothy MvVeigh killed 165 using fertilizer and diesel fuel, and that was before ingenious minds set to work figuring out what you can really do with IED's.
However, something bad happened, so let us all jump up and spin like tops and call on our legislatures to pass some laws, so that we will all feel better.
The nutjob PLANNED IT FOR MONTHS. He had BOMBS, TEARGAS, BULLET PROOF VEST, SHOTGUN, PISTOLS, and, yes, ONE AR-15 5.56mm semi-automatic rifle.
He didn't have a 'assault' gun (they are fully automatic.)
He was in a 'gun free' zone to!
So how would gun control stop him?
Wouldn't. Right?
Instead how about let CCW (concealed handgun permit) holders pack NATION WIDE and allow them to enter 'gun free' zones.
For you see, when seconds matter, the police are only minutes away. There are several cases where CCW holders have stopped nutjobs.
Now that will do more than any banning.
Let us hope, pray, that this becomes the centerpiece of the 2012 campaign for all Dems. Please, God, let this be their rallying cry.
If they have any brains, no. The liberal media has spent much of the past 40 - 50 years doing de facto PR work for groups that are violent (Unions, Anarchists) or groups that habitually threaten violence (New Black Panther Party, OWS). Beating the drum for gun control at this point is just going to get the bitter clingers to cling even more bitterly.
Obama will use this tragedy as cover to sign the UN Gun Treaty
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/07/18/un-gun-control-treaty-will-reveal-gun-laws-obama-really-supports/
Should liberals want to forefront gun rights?
Yes!
Because it will cost them 10 house seats and 1-2 more Senate seats (OH).
Please, please, please!
Again:
1. The Dem Gov of Colorado said: "Stricter gun laws would not have stopped killer"
2. The AR-15 jammed. So the hysteria over "assault weapons" can now move aside for them to reveal they really do want to ban guns.
Is forefront a verb? Reminds me of impacted or disrespected which have been used as verbs only in the last 15-20 years and that bugs me for some reason.
I read two things in the NYDN in recent days -- that editorial, and an article detailing the trouble that investigators were having getting into Holmes's apartment because of his bombmaking prowess.
He could have decided to "drive to the kill scene" with a bomb and killed everyone in that auditorium. The weapon he chose isn't the issue.
Some Tea Partiers think Aurora was an Obama False Flag to confiscate guns.
Wake UP sheeple!
Some Tea Partiers think Aurora was an Obama False Flag to confiscate guns.
Link, please. I'd like to read it for myself.
garage mahal said...
Some Tea Partiers think Aurora was an Obama False Flag to confiscate guns.
Bullshit.
A real conspiracy theorist understands the movie studio planned and carried this out to generate attention on the movie.
Really garage? Which tea party's? Some OWS think 911 was a inside job. Some democrats think 911 was a inside job. Ergo, using garage logic......
I'm right of center but not a gun guy. I don't understand the ease at which someone can buy thousands of rounds. Having said that I learned a long time ago this is just like abortion. Most "discussion" about guns is either commisurating with "our" side or shouting at the other side.
garage mahal said...
Some Tea Partiers think Aurora was an Obama False Flag to confiscate guns.
If these people exist, they're merely using Fast and Furious as a template.
Should liberals want to forefront gun rights?
Yes!
Because it will cost them 10 house seats and 1-2 more Senate seats (OH).
Yeh, I can see it right now. Watching back-to-back Senate adds on cancer here in Montana. The Democratic incumbent hits his Republican competitor because he apparently wants to cut down, maybe, on cancer funding. This is immediately followed by his challenger's mother talking about how he was with her through her cancers. Literally back to back, one after another, several times last night.
I can just wait for the Obama campaign to roll out their anti-gun ad campaign. In this state, most every house has guns. Two years ago, 40 miles down the road, two problem grizzlies, that had been relocated from either Yellowstone or Glacier, were killed. One by a BNSF train that follows the same valley, and the other when it charged some guy who luckily was armed. The feds, thinking to minimize any opposition to these relocations, had not really informed the local communities all that well about what they were doing.
And, then, maybe 100 miles away in Missoula, the big thing in the news are the wolf hunts. It seems that the wolves that were brought back weren't exactly what was hunted out years ago, but rather are bigger and hunt in bigger packs. They have seemingly thrived when reintroduced into Montana and Idaho, taking down large game, which seems to include, in their minds, domesticated bovines. While the ranchers continue to fight with the tree-huggers on this issue, the reality that everyone knows here is that these packs are more than capable of easily taking down single unarmed humans.
It does remind me though of a story. GF and her ex had (and he still has) a ranch 5 miles down the river here, and one year, they gave their kids rabbits. They thought that they had just males, but somehow, next spring, they found a couple hundred rabbits on the property. Took about a month of sitting on the porch and plinking away to get rid of them.
No, I don't think that gun control is going to win a lot of swing state elections.
Really garage? Which tea party's?
Brian Ross's Tea Party.
Should liberals want to forefront gun rights?
It beats talking about the worst economy since the Great Depression. Even the most unpopular parts of the liberal social agenda are more popular than their economic track record. So we can expect to see much more talk about gun control, gay marriage, abortion and so forth.
I'm right of center but not a gun guy. I don't understand the ease at which someone can buy thousands of rounds. Having said that I learned a long time ago this is just like abortion. Most "discussion" about guns is either commisurating with "our" side or shouting at the other side.
People who shoot a lot, use up a lot of ammo. Hundreds of rounds a week, if not more. And, a surprising number of people do this. So, no surprise that no one bats an eye if someone who looks somewhat normal buys it in bulk.
Of course, I also have friends who swear that when the system breaks down, that the best currency is going to be ammunition, and so have thousands of rounds stored away. But, we are talking law-abiding lawyers here, and so don't look all that suspicious when they buy cases of the stuff.
The liberal response to nearly everything is authoritarianism and totalitarianism.
Biden and his slip of the tongue, Obama is publicly for gay marriage... now Holmes and the assault weapons ban.. and Obama is pushed in the direction everybody expects him to go.
Interesting decision by Obama to visit Aurora today.
Lots of risk if viewed as opportunistic, some potential for reward if viewed as caring.
Depends on how the MSM plays it. Might be worth watching network news tonight to see how they handle it.
Switzerland has a population of 7,600,000. It is required by Swiss law that every household has at least one gun.
Fewer than 100 gun-related crimes are committed annually.
Chicago has a population of 3,000,000. It has strict laws prohibiting gun ownership. there were approx 650 homicides in Chicago last year; 75% were gun related.
Americans, most of us, understand that gun control laws increase crime. Campaigning on that platform is a recipe for political failure.
By all means, then, let's require every Chicago household to own at least one gun.
It is almost impossible to get a permit to carry or legally transport a firearm in Chicago. Yet, 274 murders in Chicago so far this year.
Remember, those calling for more gun control are the "reality based community"
Most people understnad that removing guns from everyone doesn't keep guns out of the hands of criminals and crazy MFers.
Liberasl want to remove all gun rights. That won't help the situation.
Aside from a temporary blip after Columbine, the graphs in this linke demonstrate that polls show that support for stricter gun control has been declining for two decades:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/20/gun-control-polls-aurora-shooting_n_1690169.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
It's not only the gun makers, ammo manufacturers, or other gun related special interests that make the NRA one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington. A big part of their power comes from the many millions of individual law abiding Americans who voluntarily pay dues to it to protect their 2nd Amendment rights. The NRA is not like unions that often coerce their members into paying dues, then use that money to lobby for policies that individual union members may not always support. NRA support is entirely voluntary.
So by all means, I hope Democrats go BIG on pursuing policies that restrict gun rights. I think the public will respond appropriately in the elections.
I just watched a little of this media barrage.
The governor of Colorado seems like a decent guy for a politician. Never seen him before.
The guy who took his three month old baby to the theater was hot.
tits.
Some Tea Partiers think Aurora was an Obama False Flag to confiscate guns.
Ha. Not even a nice try. Film, projectionist, too easy.
Gun control and "Remember Aurora!" as a winner?
Unlikely, unless the "too-conservatives" overplay the gun loving rhetoric and say what we really need is the Freedom!! to buy full auto weapons and grenades so the "Armed Citizen" is ready to take out the James Holmes anywhere.
More likely the later part of the summer, early fall will have all the very unfortunate seeds in place to remind law - abiding Americans that gun ownership, or at least the right to be allowed to consider having a means of home defense will be in place,
1. Food prices will be up 30%.
2. Bankrupt cities will be scaling back services to the underclass.
3. Joblessness is already 40-45% in young black males betwenn 16 and 30.
4. More black flash mobs in hoodies will form this summer, early fall.
5. Obama will continue to divide America along race and class lines.
The next progression is spikes in black crime, even riots. With the most proximate target hispanics and their businesses.
garage - you're slipping. You had to say teathugs.
Not to worry, the liberals are cowed by the NRA. Nothing will happen. Don't worry.
C4 - I blacks start rioting, then Obama loses.
The consent of the governed to discard the Second Amendment is what appesrs to be missing.
So who will the "Destroy America" Neo-Dems get to betray us?
A Treaty made with a foreign power, such as treaty with Mexico under UN auspices would be one of the oldest tricks. That trick dates back to the late 1780s when New York State Laws were deemed superseded by The Treaty of Paris.
This "disarm the citizens" chess game goes on faster and furiouser every day.
Alex - Yes and lose on two big reasons:
1. The black-latino Alliance touted by Democrats has never really existed. There are strong dividing forces between the two groups. Latinos have no intent of living in squalor and see living in American inner cities as a stepping stone until they can get to better and safer neighborhoods. Blacks resent latinos taking "their jobs, their control of city governments". Latinos resent the heavy predation on them , especially illegals, by black thugs. Most latino gangs formed over "protection issues" to gain community acceptance. Hispanics are well aware the Democrat Party is the Party of blacks. Democrats the Party of excusing and enabling black dysfunctions and failure to work as hard as Hispanics or take the tough and dirty jobs latinos do, some whites do...
2. Feckless young women. Prime targets of Mr Dreamykins and his Hope&CHange...ten years ago, they were obsessed with security and stopping terrorism that might interfere with their right as young women to shop and party. At certain points, these emotionally driven females do wake from their dreams and realize bad guys really do want to kill them or turn them into breeders in burquas. Or that Mr Dreamykins is really like the magic ponies and unicorns dropping pellets of gold for good little girls....what they want, but not true.
Young females that may see black riots, food prices go up 30%, no jobs for them while Mr Dreamykins just smiles and plays golf. Mommy and Daddy fearful of a country going bankrupt - and they know things...4 more years may mean we can't afford government jobs for caring and nurturing people!
It could be younger women again "break" Republican as they did 2002-2004 now they realize Mr Dreamykins may be adorable...but the sort of livein boyfriend that spends every cent they make on his indulgences.
"Some Tea Partiers think Aurora was an Obama False Flag to confiscate guns.
Link, please. I'd like to read it for myself."
There is a job at ABC waiting for garage.
It was no coincidence when gun and ammo sales spiked after Obama's election. EVerybody knows the left's agenda on guns.
Phil,
I don't understand the ease at which someone can buy thousands of rounds
Because ALL responsible Americans own guns. All responsible Americans know that they are the first and last line of defense against predators. The government is simply on clean up patrol.
That you are not "comfortable" with buying guns only means that you are giant pussy who will cower behind people like me who, despite feeling contempt for you, will still defend you against predators.
Alex:
The problem with "teathugs" is that it's ambiguous. I'm sure GM hates "tea thugs", but how does he feel about "teat hugs"?
Could be an effective question to ask the younger female demographic now going 62-38 for Obama is this:
1. OK, so Obama is dreamy and you want him for your live-in boyfriend. Do you want to sign your whole paycheck over to him, seeing what he has done for the last 3 1/2 years on a belief that he can redistribute your money best?
But if Mr Dreamy is not suitable, you wouldn't trust him with a cent or help you to make any decision....If you still don't want dull Willard next door as your boyfriend? Knowing his abilities to get things done..if you got in a real financial mess, had no job - would he be someone you asked to help you get out of a real bad time??
Minor technical point; an assault weapon is select fire. That means capable of switching from semi to full auto.
Obam's problem with running on gun control is going to be Fast and Furious. He can no longer (honestly) deny knowledge of it since he invoked Executive Priviledge to withhold documents from Congress. EP only applies to Presidential communicaions.
It would also be somewhat difficult to propose another Assault Weapons Ban when the head of the Brady Campaign admitted that the prior ban accomplished nothing.
You know what would make the collective left leaning media implode? If the joker had a gun walker gun. Imagine the higher level meta physics that would be needed to rationalize that.
Go given the way Holder, et al, have behaved over the last three years, I don't think having the government making a full on attempt to restrict gun rights with as little as we think of the current political class is going to help elect statists...
The problem is not the availability of guns, but the decadence of the culture. Young men in extended adolescence immersed in Batman and first-shooter games, young women swooning over sexy vampires, drugged-out crazies eating the faces of their victims, IMO as a direct result of the zombie craze. And don't get me started on the Saw or Caterpillar movies.
All of this reminds me of the Eminem lyrics where he talks about how he is accused of inciting violence:
So who's bringin the guns in this country? (Hmm?)
I couldn't sneak a plastic pellet gun through customs over in London
And last week, I seen a Schwarzaneggar movie
where he's shootin all sorts of these motherfuckers with a uzi
I sees three little kids, up in the front row,
screamin "Go," with their 17-year-old Uncle
I'm like, "Guidance - ain't they got the same moms and dads
who got mad when I asked if they liked violence?"
And told me that my tape taught 'em to swear
What about the make-up you allow your 12-year-old daughter to wear?
http://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=hC3qtLsaiGE
And soon enough the average citizen will be packing...You said something about the Bodyguard handgun, DBQ?
Sooooo. Since we are getting into crazy town let me say, "Obama is to blame for the shooting! Clearly the guy went nuts because he could not find a job. This is Obama's fault! If he weren't down with crazy leftist economics that by definition screw the economy the shooting would never have happened!!!1!"
Since we are being crazy.
It is almost impossible to get a permit to carry or legally transport a firearm in Chicago. Yet, 274 murders in Chicago so far this year
And New Orleans with about 15% of the population of Chicago has 109 homicides this year.
no one outside of the Chicago area cares that much.
Few IN Chicago care, either, because they're used to it and most of the dead (and their killers) are young black and brown men.
I'd like to see a statistical analysis of killers/victims on TV crime shows versus actual crimes.
So Freder, what's your point. NOLA has the most restrictive gun laws in the South, if you don't include DC, St. Louis and Baltimore as Southern.
But, even if you do, those cities are right behind NOLA in per capita murder rates.
Each one of those cities has very restrictive gun control laws, and each one is run by Democrats. All the cities with the highest murder rates have very restrictive laws and they're all run by Progressives.
Look at the gun crime in the 'burbs of those cities. Negligible by comparison. Those suburban counties and parishes have far more lax gun control laws. You might want to look at that, Freder, before illuminating us with your ignorance.
By the way, gun crime in NOLA has been decreasing over the last decade, mostly because the State of Louisiana has been chipping away at the City of New Orleans.
Freder Frederson said...
It is almost impossible to get a permit to carry or legally transport a firearm in Chicago. Yet, 274 murders in Chicago so far this year
And New Orleans with about 15% of the population of Chicago has 109 homicides this year.
===============
All that shows is that black thugs in NOLA are even more depraved and crimeprone per capita than Chicago's black thugs.
Interesting decision by Obama to visit Aurora today.
Lots of risk if viewed as opportunistic, some potential for reward if viewed as caring.
Phx said: "Depends on how the MSM plays it. Might be worth watching network news tonight to see how they handle it.
I don't care who the President is, Republican, Democrat, libtard, wing nut. I don't care, but I don't believe that they make these decisions from that kind of cynical calculation."
===========
Oh contraire! The Oprahfication of
America has produced a media expectation that the President is no longer the Chief Executive of an immensely large nation but The Healer in Chief.
Who must go to scenes of mass death while ignoring the flood of natural deaths and sudden deaths from disasters and criminals that otherwise occur in far larger numbers - but in dribs and drabs.
The media sort of sets the agenda...this hurricane is special over other lethal hurricanes. Lady Di is someone you must cry for because the homos are going crazy over her loss...bigger than Judy Garland!
Ignore the 450 people murdered in Chicago...but you must show empathy and obsess over the 12 dead in Aurora.
Presidents are dragooned into personal appearances to show empathy...while the public is expected to cry for months about and know each personal biography of the 9/11 Victims or the Aurora victims.
(And if you don't pay special attention to the special designated victims - each politician and each person in the public must be insensitive, crass monsters!)
I don't think it is healthy.
NOLA has the most restrictive gun laws in the South,
No it doesn't. Do you just make shit up and not expect people to check.
By the way, gun crime in NOLA has been decreasing over the last decade, mostly because the State of Louisiana has been chipping away at the City of New Orleans.
Neither statement in this sentence is true either.
Oh, and btw, NYC has the lowest murder rate of any large city in the country, with draconian gun laws.
Freder Frederson said...
Oh, and btw, NYC has the lowest murder rate of any large city in the country, with draconian gun laws.
And Chicago has even stricter gun laws.
Oh, NYC has stop & frisk.
You left that out there little fella.
Freder Frederson said...
And New Orleans with about 15% of the population of Chicago has 109 homicides this year.
Um, and then _____?
Oh and here is another bastion of liberal failure Stockton, CA. One murder per 8,839 residents while Chicago has one per 11,231 citizens.
NYC has the lowest murder rate of any large city in the country
No, it doesn't unless you conveniently remove all cities ahead of by changing the criteria of "large city."
Even narrowing it down to firearm homicide rate, New York City is still not the lowest.
According to a CDC report from 2006, people living in 50 of the largest cities accounted for 67% of all firearm homicides. Perhaps simply living in large cities is the real problem.
(In one synopsis of the report, it was pointed out that "children and teens aged 10 to 19 in these areas — more than 85% of them male — accounted for 73% of all firearm homicides.")
That same CDC report did find that among the the top 50 metropolitan areas in the US, in 2006-2007, the City of New Orleans has the highest firearm homicide rate by a massive margin, with Detroit and Baltimore being second and third (the table wasn't sortable, so I may have missed one.)
This is the New York Daily News,right? Shouldn't they be investigating what size sodas are being sold at the candy counter of that Aurora theater? It's lax cup control laws that lead to the slippery slope of societal madness.
wv=usiverse an alternate universe.
By the way, gun crime in NOLA has been decreasing over the last decade, mostly because the State of Louisiana has been chipping away at the City of New Orleans.
If this is true (which I'm not sure about), it would probably have more to do with all the criminals who left NOLA after Katrina and brought their crime to other cities.
NOLA's has always been fairly violent. And in all the talk about violent cities, I'm surprised nobody mentioned Memphis.
Just anecdotally, I went shooting today and the range was as packed as I have ever seen it. It was a three hour wait for a lane. There were lots of women, kids, and minorities. No one was talkIng about Aurora but the mood seemed serious.
Shanna, according to NeighborhoodScout.com, Memphis has a crime index of 1 on a scale of 1 to 100, where 100 is safest.
I just checked out the scariest city near me, and it has a crime index of 3. That was an eye opener for me, since I willingly travel to Memphis, yet won't set foot in that city near me.
The other thing that I think is happening now is that the AR-15 type "platform" is becoming the norm for manufacturing rifles for whatever purpose. The parts just interchange so that you order the configuration you want for your particular use and fancy.
There will be a market for high end traditional bolt action hunting rifles for nostalgia and prestige, but working rifles will be built on the military platforms.
Look, the framers of the second amendment did not have hard data indicating the the right to bear arms would either increase or reduce gun violence. They believed in the right for other reasons. Moreover, the blanket assertions that gun control either increases or decreases gun violence is overly simplistic,, rendering it basically false. The relationships between guns and homicides and suicides, for example are complex, and dependent on the status of other variables. For those who believe in the second amendment, it's relationship to the level of violence and homicides should be irrelevant. I mean, even if it were determined that, under some circumstances, easy access to firearms was associated with increases in homicides, suicides, and violence would supporters of the second amendment move to nullify it?
I mean, even if it were determined that, under some circumstances, easy access to firearms was associated with increases in homicides, suicides, and violence would supporters of the second amendment move to nullify it?
I doubt it.
" even if it were determined that, under some circumstances, easy access to firearms was associated with increases in homicides, suicides, and violence would supporters of the second amendment move to nullify it?"
The Founders were smarter than you are.
Michael K said...
" even if it were determined that, under some circumstances, easy access to firearms was associated with increases in homicides, suicides, and violence would supporters of the second amendment move to nullify it?"
The Founders were smarter than you are.
Some of em anyway. That's why there were first 10 amendments and then a constitution.
How would you amend it. Assuming that's what you meant.
In gun-controlled Chicago, meanwhile, twice as many people have been murdered during July than were killed in Aurora. The gun-controlled land of Obama and Rahm!!!!
Since the polling on changing gun laws has since 2001 been 40% pro-liberal & 55% NRA, I'd invite the libs to weigh in on another of their lost-mind causes to subvert the Constitution.
Commissar-Mayor Bloomberg knows he loses no votes except gun-toting criminals in calling out the rest of the country for not following crime-ridden NYC's high path to social anarchy.
And quasi-Centrists like Obama [who does his termite-boring destruction through "czars" & Administrative ukases, dare not reveal his true colors on an issue as unpopular as further restrictions on gun control.
Post a Comment