Home ›

gun control

Americans shifting right on some issues ... why?

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Fri, 05/15/2009 - 17:49
in

In addition to the shift in the prolife direction mentioned here:

http://www.thenextright.com/t-d-williams/stunning-reversal-majority-of-a...

We see shifts on other issues in the right-wing direction.

Support for gun control is at its lowest level in 40 years of polling.

http://blog.nj.com/njv_scott_bach/2009/05/support_plummets_for_resrictio...

Four different polls recently point to declining support for gun restrictions as the answer to crime. In October, a Gallup poll found that fewer Americans than ever favor handgun bans, based on Gallup's 49 year history of polling on the issue. Support fell from a high of 60% in 1959 to a low of less than 30% in 2008. The same trend repeats itself in a question on whether more restrictions are needed on the sales of all firearms, not just handguns.

In addition, three different media polls taken in April reflect plummeting support for gun control. CNN found support has fallen by double digits to less than 40% while an ABC News-Washington Post poll found that more than 60% support enforcing current laws against criminals rather than passing new laws restricting the rights of law abiding citizens. NBC News and The Wall Street Journal found that support for a ban on rifles has fallen by a third in the last 18 years.

All of these polls show what peaceable gun owners already know - that support for the Second Amendment is the dominant belief in America today, and the fallacy that restricting the rights of honest citizens will impact crime has been exposed for what it is.

What the heck is going on? How could Americans get so gung ho over the second amendment and life while supporting the most leftwing candidate in history? Maybe you didnt notice during Obama's magnificent campaign last year, but he did the Kabuki dance on multiple issues:

  • He opposed gay marriage and the Cali Prop 8
  • He forcefully denounced deficits and promised to go after wasteful spending

If he didn't have the track record of the most liberal Senator in the US Senate, you'd might confuse him with a conservative. THAT WAS PROBABLY THE INTENTION. He fooled many uninformed voters into sounding more moderate/open than he really was.

What this has done is make it safe to be pro-life, pro-2ndA, pro-tax-cuts and still support Obama. Since these things in the past were associated with Republicans, people may have been dissuaded from saying they were prolife. They might have thought 'only Republicans hold that position'. This will lead to seeming contradictions, such as many pro-life, pro-2ndA people expressing support for a President who is in reality a pro-abort President and has members of his party eager to ban guns.

Now here's the hard part - come 2010, when the pro-life, pro-2ndA, pro-fiscal responsibility folks who got gulled into voting for Obama in 2008 look at the fruits of the Democrat Congress.... will they still vote for Democrats? Not if they push their gun banning, taxpayer-funded abortions, trillion-dollar deficits and huge boondoggle spending agenda.

Crossposted at Travis Monitor:

http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2009/05/us-is-shifting-right-on-some-i...

Eight Questions for the Next SCOTUS Nominee

Submitted by Matt Moon on Wed, 05/06/2009 - 17:20
in

I'm not so concerned about whether or not the Right or the Left win on their issues; I'm concerned about proper Constitutional interpretation, judicial activism and the "presumption of liberty" vs. the "presumption of Constitutionality" when it comes to judicial review. So, from a liberty-minded perspective, here are some serious questions that should be asked of the SCOTUS nominee that replaces David Souter. (Thanks to my co-worker, Joe Henchman, for help on these.)

ONE: Currently, the Supreme Court takes less than 100 cases per year, leaving many important legal questions undecided. Would you be in favor of increasing your caseload so that many Constitutional disputes can be resolved?

TWO: In the University of Michigan affirmative action cases, Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger, it was ruled that while racial quotas could not be set, race could still be used as a factor in admissions. Then-Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said that affirmative action may not be needed in the near future. Do you think it is appropriate for the Court to determine when a policy is no longer necessary?

THREE: The issues of property rights and eminent domain have been somewhat resolved in recent times. Do you believe that Kelo v. New London was decided correctly?

FOUR: The Second Amendment has also been a topic that the Court has recently taken up. Do you believe that District of Columbia v. Heller was decided correctly?

FIVE: There is always debate over the balance between government power and individual rights. When it comes to state laws that allegedly violate individual rights, to what extent should the Court give deference to that state law?

SIX: Since the 1938 decision in United States v. Caroline Products Co., the Court has only enforced equal protection in three specific categories: enumerated rights, protection for minorities and protections in the political process. Is it proper for equal protection to be limited to these categories, and if so, are these categories permanent?

SEVEN: When it comes to Constitutional interpretation, the Court has seemed to adopt “tiers of scrutiny” in various First Amendment, equal protection and other contexts: strict scrutiny, rational scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, etc. Is it proper for the Court to have different levels of scrutiny for different cases? If so, why?

EIGHT: The federal government influences state policy in many ways by attaching conditions to federal funding. Is there a point at which a condition would be unconstitutional, even though acceptance of funding is at the state's discretion?

When the government fears the people...

Submitted by Jon Henke on Fri, 04/24/2009 - 09:41
in

We've written about Tea Party protesters needing to focus on local activism.   So here's a useful project for the Milwaukee Tea Party protesters.   Get Milwaukee Police Chief Ed Flynn fired.  After the Wisconsin Attorney General affirmed the 2nd Amendment, pointing out that it is "legal to openly carry a gun", Ed Flynn said I am above the law...

"My message to my troops is if you see anybody carrying a gun on the streets of Milwaukee, we’ll put them on the ground, take the gun away and then decide whether you have a right to carry it,” Flynn said.

Tea Party protesters - and many others besides - ought to insist upon a number of things immediately.

  • Milwaukee citizens should demand that Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen uphold the law, immediately having Ed Flynn arrested and charged with intentional violation of the law.  Citizens should also insist that charges be filed against any police officer, chief or politician who violates the open carry rights that Van Hollen has recognized (and "following orders" is no excuse).  If Van Hollen will not do that, citizens should file a suit against him and/or Wisconsin.
  • Milwaukee citizens should file a civil suit against Police Chief Ed Flynn (and perhaps the city, as well) for depriving them of a basic civil liberty (protected under both the Constitution and Wisconsin law.)
  • Milwaukee police should openly and vocally refuse Police Chief Ed Flynn's orders - and perhaps file charges against him for ordering them to commit a crime.  They might also include Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett in that lawsuit, since he supports Flynn's decision to ignore State and Federal law.
  • Protesters should find and rally behind a strong candidate to replace Democratic Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett.

Government would be better if politicians and beauracrats were a lot more worried that they might be prosecuted or sued.  Milwaukee protesters can accomplish that.

Is Obama Change Incarnate?

Submitted by idahoconservative on Sun, 11/30/2008 - 00:59
in

Podcast Show Notes

Obama claims change comes from him, so he can surround himself with old time Washington hacks.

More Charlie Rangel corruption. (Hat Tip: Red State.)

The cost of the bailout.  

Georgia ackowledges the need for strong marriages.

One woman's decision not to be an abortionist. (Hat Tip: Jill Stanek.)

The perfect holiday gift: Planned Parenthood gift certificates.  (Hat Tip: Hot Air.)

A university pro-life club threatened. (Hat Tip: Right Mind.)

Homeschool harassment. (Hat Tip: Newsbusters.)

30 Marines beat back 250 Afghani Insurgents. (Hat Tip: Right Wing News.)

A message from a brave injured soldier.  (Hat Tip: The Corner.)

A union president fingered for corruption.

A burglar breaks into the wrong house and other second Amendment news.

Music by Admiral Twin via the Podsafe Music Network.

Click here to listen, click here to download.

Give 'em Heller, folks!

Submitted by Ironman on Thu, 10/23/2008 - 05:55
in

The NRA has targeted Barack Obama's anti-gun record in Illinois in this hard hitting ad.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/22/nra-ad-imagine/

This ad is aimed not so much at the rural sportsmen community, but for those people who buy firearms for personal protection. Amazingly, Obama voted in the Illinois State Senate to allow towns to bring charges against such people for defensive firearms use, which as usual, does not comport with his tepid support of the Heller v. DC  decision.

The Obama-Biden ticket is simply put, against the Second Amendment. Even when it comes to people trying to defend themselvesin their homes from the sort of juvenile psychopaths William Ayres thinks should not be locked up.

Thankfully, we don't have to rely on the DC Republican establishment to bring this message to the voters.  

Podcast: Call Me Hussein

Submitted by idahoconservative on Sun, 06/29/2008 - 01:34
in

Podcast Show Notes

Do we really need to know about comic heroes political affiliations?

Plus, the latest creepy Obama supporter trend: taking his middle name.

Plus Jon Stewart has his Jay Leno moment as he learns to stop worrying and poke fun at Obama like any other politician.

Republicans do a study to conclude that their strategy is not working after losing 3 special elections in traditionally Republican areas.

Richard Daley fights for Chicago's ineffectual gun ban that puts the lives of citizens in danger.

Canada's Human Rights Commission surrenders in their attacks on Mark Steyn and Maclean's Magazine to go after easier pickings.

The bungling incompetence of Arapahoe County, Colorado traumatizes an 8-year old boy and his parents.

San Francisco shows contempt for the troops by banning Junior ROTC.

McCain says Amnesty a priority: today, yesterday, and tomorrow.

The Millionaire exemption gutted as a piece of McCain-Feingold bites the dust and calls into question what type of judges McCain will appoint.

Second Amendment updates from the South and Detroit.

Canadian Government forces kids to be taught homosexual propoganda against the will of parents. (Hat Tip: Political Correctness Watch.)

A dumb global warming solution: banning drive thrus.  (Hat Tip: Wizbang.)

The Vatican encourages Christian involvement in politics.

Homeless people in Texas pay it forward and give generously to help the poor in Africa.

Click here to listen, click here to download,

Will Heller Hurt Obama?

Submitted by Katherine Miller on Thu, 06/26/2008 - 14:39
in

Despite the Obama campaign insisting that the Nov., 2007 Chicago Tribune article was "inartful" description of Obama's position, Obama has a nice long history of supporting the D.C. gun ban, including this video from February, 2008 on ABC 7 in the Washington area:

So, will Heller hurt Obama? Certainly, support for gun control isn't against party platform for him, but after all it's been argued here that drilling is the next gun control -- an issue that tilts largely toward the GOP stance, which Dems would be wise to lay off. Under Obama's banner of progressivism, though, he seems trapped in the 1970s and would be unlikely to move right on gun control, particularly if he's catering to an urban vote.

More importantly, however, the Heller waffling introduces yet another instance of Obama taking a key issue and attempting to change positions dramatically by means of vagueness. Look at the video, Obama tries to overcome a prior gaffe by giving a run at having it both ways and ultimately failing. It's rather difficult to "respect the second amendment and people's traditions" while taking away the guns. Can this be exploited as another instance of his dramatically changing stances, or at the very least, attempting to equivocate on something? In some ways, the "present" votes have not played enough of a role in the narrative yet; on the other hand, the right to bear arms could be the issue that helps mobilize veterans for McCain, if it's played well.

Katherine Miller blogs at Right-Wing Vitriol, the blog of the Vanderbilt Torch.

Is Offshore Drilling the Next Gun Control?

Submitted by William Beutler on Fri, 06/20/2008 - 10:21
in

The conventional punditry on McCain's call to end the ban on offshore oil exploration has focused on whether President Bush's suppport for the idea will hurt McCain in the fall. But that could change, and soon, if what's happened in just the past few days develops into a real trend:

  • Sen. Jim Webb announced he now supports exploration off the coast of Virginia.
  • Ex-Gov. Mark Warner also supports opening up the Virginia coastline to possible drilling.
  • Meanwhile, the latest Gallup survey shows Democrats are split on offshore drilling, with 39% in support while 59% still oppose.

Better yet, it's an issue where independents side with the GOP, although the margins are not so wide (80% in favor vs. 56%). Overall, Americans favor opening up U.S. coastal waters by a 57% to 41%.

Now, what does this issue remind you of? How about gun control in the late 1990s?

Syndicate content