He’s wrong in politicizing right….
No, not really. Fair to say that’s his job.
But I guess the gun peoples’ objection to “politicizing’ is that emotion will triumph reason in a heated moment that makes for the passage of a bill when it otherwise wouldn’t. What’s the old Rahm Emmanuel quote, ‘you never let a serious crisis go to waste’…. and that’s supposed to be an unfair political tactic or something. But anyway, things have changed with guns and it’s not the way people might casually think with the regularity of mass shootings. The gun people… our domination and ownership of this issue is complete, and nothing is going to happen without our say so, not the way congressional apportionment works in this country. And we’re intransigent… we’re not going to be shamed or cowed such that Congress gets wiggle room to pass an irrelevant feel good measure. That’s just the way it is now, the Overton window is closed.
So I see this “politicizing’ claim as a something that comes from a misplaced fear. That, and it’s a bit of speech coding, which I don’t approve of generally. Then also, I actually think the more you get the left to talk about guns, the more we get to talk about guns…. and we win those arguments quite a bit more often than not.
The President is fairly genuine and earnest during these moments as far as it goes. And also, wrong, I’d say. But I’m not generally offended by how he ‘politicizes’. I will note, this thing where the President on one hand chastises the Republican congress for being captive to the NRA and on the other chastises them for being obtuse to the notion that under our system Planned Parenthood is properly defunded via legislation that gets approved by all three branches…. Bit of a blind spot there, but I suppose it’s dismissed by observing it not morally equivalent eh.
I have observed in these pages several times, these mentally defective people that go on these sprees all buy retail as a function of not having the requisite social skills to navigate the secondary firearms market. It’s also to say, they almost universally are shown to have been background checked. Which is to say, there’s no efficacy to be gained from closing the ‘gun show loophole’’ and putting administrative burdens on people like me and my ilk…
And so you read the inevitable post shooting articles, and inevitably you see them saying the shooters bought their guns ‘legally’.
It’s kind of a stylebook thing by now, this ‘legally’.
And we, my ilk, think…. Yeah, they were legal. That proves our point that this would be impossible to legislate away…. So what are you not understanding then there journalists and gun control people?
Well it occurs to me they see that word legally and see an irony there, and that it follows in their minds there’s a necessity for some legal standard to be erected to makes these shooters’ acquisitions illegal. And that by definition that standard will create some efficacy.
It won’t, gc people. Hence our objections, that and camel’s nose, ya know…
I don’t think she’s going to get elected anyway, but this position is a loser
But hey, go ahead….
The Hillary administrative stuff…. there is already BATF threshold analysis used to distinguish unlicensed people who sell through the year at a volume where they should have an FFL license. You can get prosecuted for that already. And… it’s not germane to the mentally defective mass shooter problem.
I don’t think there is administrative power to deny an instacheck ‘hold’ that lingers past 72 hrs. That stuff was codified in the ‘94 Crime Bill. Which Pres WJC signed.