Why Gun Owners Don't Trust Obama—Even When They Agree With Him

White HouseWhite HouseThe latest New York Times/CBS News poll finds that about nine out of 10 Americans continue to favor "a federal law requiring background checks on all potential gun buyers." But as President Obama has suggested, a lot of these people seem to think we already have such a law, because only 54 percent of respondents said they supported stricter gun control. And despite the fact that Obama has been pushing a requirement that 88 percent of Americans say they support, only 41 percent approve of the way he has been handling gun policy, while 52 percent disapprove. That's twice as high as the percentage who said they had an unfavorable view of the National Rifle Association, which Obama has sought to demonize at every opportunity. Furthermore, even though Republicans in Congress opposed expanded background checks, more Americans trust them to "make the right decisions about gun laws" than trust the president (44 percent vs. 41 percent). A Republican respondent interviewed by the Times after the survey suggested a possible explanation for this apparent inconsistency.  "I was really ticked off that the law didn’t pass," he said, "but I thought it was wrong of President Obama to get in front of the public and use people who had been damaged by gun violence as props."

Could it be that Obama's eagerness to claim the moral high ground by clambering onto the bloody corpses of children offended some people who might otherwise be inclined to support his policy proposals? I'd like to think so. Revulsion at the president's portrayal of his opponents as accomplices to mass murder may help account for the Pew Research Center's finding that just 47 percent of Americans reacted negatively to the Senate's rejection of a bill that nine out of 10 notionally supported, while 39 percent said they were "happy" or "relieved"—reactions that were especially common among people who said they had been paying close attention to the issue.

Obama's difficulty in winning the trust of gun control skeptics, even when they agree with him on the issue at hand, goes beyond his crass and insulting rhetoric. Although he frequently proclaims his support for Second Amendment rights, he has a very narrow concept of what they entail. He tellingly defended the constitutionality of the severe gun restrictions overturned by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicagowhich barred law-abiding citizens from keeping handguns for self-protection even in their own homes. Obama argues that state and municipal governments have wide latitude under the Second Amendment to adopt gun controls that make sense in light of local conditions, even when those laws virtually eliminate the right to keep and bear arms. The D.C. law overturned in Heller, for instance, not only banned handguns but also effectively forbade the use of rifles or shotguns for self-defense. As Obama put it after Heller was decided in 2010, "What works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne." And vice versa, of course. In light of that position, Obama's anecdote about how his wife came to empathize with rural gun owners is not as reassuring as it may seem on its face:

And so one of the questions we talked about was, how do you build trust? How do you rebuild some trust? And I told the story about two conversations I had. The first conversation was when Michelle came back from doing some campaigning out in rural Iowa. And we were sitting at dinner, and she had been to like a big county, a lot of driving out there, a lot of farmland.  And she said, if I was living out in a farm in Iowa, I'd probably want a gun, too. If somebody just drives up into your driveway and you're not home—you don't know who these people are and you don't know how long it's going to take for the sheriffs to respond. I can see why you'd want some guns for protection. That's one conversation.

I had another conversation just a couple of months ago with a mom from Chicago—actually, Evanston, Illinois—whose son had been killed in a random shooting. And she said, you know, I hate it when people tell me that my son was shot because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. He was in the right place. He was on his way to school. He wasn't in the wrong place. He was exactly where he was supposed to be. 

Now, both those things are true. And sometimes we're so divided between rural and urban, and folks whose hunting is part of their lives and folks whose only experience with guns is street crime. And the two sides just talk past one another. And more than anything, what I want to just emphasize is there are good people on both sides of this thing, but we have to be able to put ourselves in the other person's shoes. If you're a hunter, if you're a sportsman—if you have a gun in your house for protection—you've got to understand what it feels like for that mom whose son was randomly shot. 

Here Obama is avowedly trying to build a bridge of understanding between gun owners and gun controllers. Yet his implicit message is that while guns may be fine for you country folk, they have no place in crime-plagued cities like Chicago—i.e., exactly the setting where the need for amed self-protection is strongest. This is the sort of attitude that turns off Obama's potential allies on gun control. "I'm for stricter gun laws," another poll participant told the Times, "but the reason I favor the Republicans over the Democrats and the liberals on gun laws is because they have always been against the Second Amendment and the right to own guns." In short, supporters of the Second Amendment do not trust Obama because he is not trustworthy.

The results of the New York Times/CBS News poll are here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • AuH20||

    I think Obama, and a lot of Democrats, rhetorical style is wearing thin. The idea that disagreeing with them automatically makes you a bad person is turning a lot of people off.

    The only issue it really works anymore is gay marriage/abortion, and that is mostly a young and in the second case mostly a female thing. Seriously, young guys: Do chicks you date, upon learning your political leanings, automatically need to know the gay marriage/abortion thing? Happens to men, and being pro-gay marriage and pro-legal abortion, they then seem to stop caring about other stuff (also because I tend to know more about, say, education spending than they do).

    But I think a lot of people are starting to get the sense that Obama is a petulant dick. I mean, even the media are starting to point that out (although maybe it is because the media is starting to point that out that people are waking up)

  • AuH20||

    Ugh. Happens to me, not all men, obviously.

  • Dweebston||

    I'm seeing an abortion clinic therapist who I'm gradually bringing around on state's rights by pointing to DOMA, federal gun control, and marijuana prohibition, all of which she favors state laws sidestepping. I'll probably never bring her around on RvW, but I've at least managed to convince her that federal law should not reign supreme.

  • Virginian||

    Seriously, young guys: Do chicks you date, upon learning your political leanings, automatically need to know the gay marriage/abortion thing?

    I always field the political question with this.

    "I'll tell you if you really want to know, but I doubt we see eye to eye on every issue. You looking for an honest discussion, or a way to torpedo the date?" Said with a wry smile and a dry tone, it usually draws a subject change

    Seriously, if I screened sexual partners for political compatibility, I'd be celibate.

  • ||

    Yeah, but is this screening for political compatibility, or is it the woman screening for, "If I accidentally get pregnant and want to abort, are we about to have a problem?"

  • Hugh Akston||

    No problem. The answer is "I'm opposed to abortion in all cases, but I do have a steep staircase at home."

  • Tman||

    "accidentally get pregnant "

    This always makes me laugh. Sure, it was an "accident". The intercourse and the sperm in your vagina was on purpose, but the baby was an accident.

    Don't want a baby? Don't cum inside her. No "accidents" to worry about.

  • ||

    Birth control never fails. And if you think pulling out works effectively, I'm sure my mom can dig up some of my old YM magazines and send you some horror--I mean warning--stories.

  • Tman||

    There's "not ejaculating inside" and then there's "pulling out in time". Either way the science is pretty clear. No sperm in the vagina, no baby.

  • ||

    There may be sperm in preseminal fluid though.

  • ||

    This is absurd. Birth control does in fact fail. Secondly, pre-ejaculate might have sperm in it (this is debated and there is no conclusion at this point).

    Of course one can accidentally get pregnant even if precautions are taken. Any claim otherwise is just slut-shaming nonsense. And it's fucking stupid.

  • Virginian||

    I prefer to use unintentional or unplanned instead of accidental.

  • Tman||

    That is what I'm saying. It's never really an "accident". You were fucking, you knew it was a possibility.

  • ||

    You're being fucking asinine. "Oh, that stupid slut, she wanted to have sex? Well if she gets pregnant even with precautions, too fucking bad. She deserves it for fucking."

    That's a disgusting attitude. Because that's exactly what you're saying.

  • Tman||

    I didn't say "oh that stupid slut", you are putting words in my mouth.

    I said "if you are fucking, you might make a baby, therefore it won't necessarily be an accident". It might be "unplanned" or "unintentional" but the term "accident" always just amuses me.

    And more importantly, I'm not saying this means anyone is a slut or otherwise, I'm not making a judgment call at all. I'm just saying it's not really an accident.

  • Zeb||

    If you are driving a car, you might crash it, so no one should call car crashes accidents.

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    Zeb, I already picked apart his argument earlier and he stopped responding to me. Once it was pointed out that he was just arguing pointless semantics, he ran away.

  • Tman||

    I ran away?

    No I didn't. You disagree with my opinion on whether or not it's an "accident". That's fine. I disagree with you.

    My point is that intercourse carries the risk that you will make a baby, regardless of protection or whatever. I'm not judging anyone on whether or not they are "sluts who deserve it" or anything like that at all.

    Jesus you people. Settle down.

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    Well, you stopped responding to me as soon as I thoroughly debunked all your arguments and you stopped responding to me even though you continued to respond to other people, so I assumed you were running away from me.

    My point is that intercourse carries the risk that you will make a baby, regardless of protection or whatever.

    You either suck at making a point or are confused as to what an accident is. So here's the definition for you.

    ac·ci·dent
    /ˈaksidənt/
    Noun
    An unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury.
    A crash involving road or other vehicles, typically one that causes serious damage or injury.

    See that part about being unexpected and unintentional?? Yeah, that's the important part. Just because there is a risk of something doesn't mean it's the intention every time the action is carried out. I.E. car accidents.

  • Tman||

    I don't understand why this is so hard for you to understand.

    I find it amusing that people call the creation of individual life "an accident". I'm not judging anyone, I just said it amuses me. The reason it amuses me is that there is an inherent risk of pregnancy in having intercourse. An "assumed risk" if you will. I tend to look at a car "accident" differently than conception.

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    Sure, it was an "accident". The intercourse and the sperm in your vagina was on purpose, but the baby was an accident.

    What you are saying here, explicitly, is that if you put sperm inside a vagina, a baby is the intended result.

    An accident is a negative unintended result.

    And please, tell me, how is getting into a car wreck (not the intended result of driving) an accident, while getting pregnant when you don't want to (not the intended result of fucking) not an accident?

  • Tman||

    What you are saying here, explicitly, is that if you put sperm inside a vagina, a baby is the intended result.

    Stop putting words in my mouth. I said no such thing.

    This is your idea of getting "thoroughly debunked"? You argue like Tony. I never said what you are accusing me of.

    All I said in the beginning is that I find it amusing that people call it an "accident" when they create life.

    To use your car analogy, if I was drunk off my ass driving a car, speeding, with no headlights on a windy road at night in the rain and I crashed, this would still be technically an "accident" but it wouldn't mean you were devoid of responsibility. This is the point I was getting at.

    Yes, "accidents happen". But if you were fucking you knew it was a possibility, thus the term "accident" amuses me.

    Happy now? Jesus.

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    Whatever. You said it wasn't an accident.

    That is what I'm saying. It's never really an "accident".

    I guess I'll just chalk it up to you now knowing what an accident is.

  • Tman||

    Thus the quotation marks. Do I need to draw a map?

    And again, if you are trying to argue a point don't make up straw men. It's what Tony does and it's terrible.

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    What straw man? You said it wasn't accidental, if something is not accidental, it's intentional.

    baby was an accident

    No quote marks in your first post. Gonna have to assume you actually mean that word. You're moving the goalpoasts, just like Tulpa.

  • Tman||

    Actually there were. Two of the three times I put quotes around the word "accident".

    This always makes me laugh. Sure, it was an "accident". The intercourse and the sperm in your vagina was on purpose, but the baby was an accident.

    Don't want a baby? Don't cum inside her. No "accidents" to worry about.

    And I NEVER said explicitly, that "if you put sperm inside a vagina, a baby is the intended result."

    That's a Tony argument. A straw man, if you will.

  • BladeDoc||

    Actually, this is a big thing in the trauma literature now. The preferred term is MVC (collision) instead of MVA (accident) because using the term accident begs the question of preventability.

  • ||

    Why are you playing pointless semantic games, Tman?

    ...Wait...just what does the T stand for???

  • Seamus||

    Tman is very vicious. When attacked, he defends himself.

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    And apparently, once his argument is thoroughly derailed, he runs and hides like a bitch.

  • Tman||

    Sure buddy. If it makes you feel better.

    But I'm not hiding.

  • GILMORE||

    WAIT THIS IS CONFUSING!?!?

    REGGIE, WAS I FUCKING??

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vftIGU8-uqs

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    Secondly, pre-ejaculate might have sperm in it (this is debated and there is no conclusion at this point).

    That's why you pee between rounds. Flush 'em out.

  • ||

    See, if someone climbs up a tree and falls off, that's not an accident. They knew climbing a tree could result in falling off, therefore you can't say falling off the tree is accidental.

    /tman

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    So, according to you, sex should just be for procreation?

    You are aware that birth control isn't flawless. The pill can fail to prevent an egg from dropping, Condoms tear, etc.

    So unless you truly believe that sex is only for procreation, yes, you can accidentally get pregnant.

  • Tman||

    So, according to you, sex should just be for procreation?

    No, but the point is if you're having intercourse you might get pregnant. If you aren't, then you won't. Maybe the birth control fails, maybe the pre-ejaculate contains sperm, maybe the condom rips, but the bottom line is that if you are having intercourse the risk of pregnancy (barring vasectomy or other health related impotency issues) is part of it.

    It's the same as saying I "accidentally" got bit by a shark when I was swimming in chum infested waters.

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    If the intent of having sex is pleasure, and it results in a pregnancy, that's accidental.

    if you're having intercourse you might get pregnant.

    If you're driving a car, you might get into a collision. Not your intended result, but it is possible. Hence, why it's called an accident.

    It's the same as saying I "accidentally" got bit by a shark when I was swimming in chum infested waters.

    No, not if you're using protection. This analogy might be accurate if you have unprotected sex while the female is ovulating.

  • entropy_factor||

    BUSTING ALL KIIIIIINDS OF NUTS!

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    A problem how? He couldn't stop her from having an abortion even with an army of 100 lawyers.

  • ||

    No, but you might want to keep it a secret if you think he's going to be angry about it. Or if you think it's a decision that both parties should agree on and shouldn't be kept secret, you might just not be comfortable going down that road at all.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    That's true.

  • AuH20||

    I think the abortion thing is that, definitely. The gay marriage is some "Your not a Republican bigot like Rick Santorum" screener, which is weird, because I say libertarian.

  • SugarFree||

    There are plenty of people on this very board who call themselves libertarians that have Santorum's exact opinions on SSM.

  • ||

    And there's one dipshit who has Obama's position on guns and calls himself a libertarian. But I don't think he ever has talked to a girl, so never mind.

  • Virginian||

    Eh, you can honestly be opposed to SSM if you think the liberty lost from creating a new grievance class with the ability to sue people would be more then the liberty gained from people marrying.

    One of the tricky things about libertarianism is that we all know what the ideal is, but incremental policy changes can be tough to parse from a libertarian viewpoint.

    Take abortion. The Right wants to ban it, the Left wants the State to pay for it. Neither of those is the libertarian position. But let's say you had to vote between the two. Which one do you choose?

  • SugarFree||

    You exclude the possibility that she doesn't want to date a libertarian that is against SSM either. When you have libertarians running around with Republican opinions--and it's the opinions you object too--then asking is the right thing to do.

    Saying "I'm a libertarian" doesn't answer the question that is being asked, given the divisions in people who call themselves libertarians.

    I've met "libertarians" who wanted to round up HIV-Pos people and put them in concentration camps. I've met "libertarians" who wanted to make people let the police search their houses without warrants in order to keep and bear arms. I've met "libertarians" that were fine with executing pot dealers.

    People whine and whine about the "purity" wars, but branding matters.

  • Virginian||

    People whine and whine about the "purity" wars, but branding matters.

    Agree. Certain things are beyond the pale.

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    Exactly, SF. There were people last election calling Paul Ryan libertarian.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I choose to ban it, because that is the libertarian position.... assuming that you think all human beings deserve the benefit of murder laws, which I do.

    There is no libertarian position on marriage: it still comes back to when does a fetus get rights.

  • AuH20||

    There is no libertarian position on marriage: it still comes back to when does a fetus get rights.

    I can't get gay married if a fetus has rights? SHIT!

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Uh...yes?

  • Fool||

    A lot of liberals think libertarians are just dishonest Republicans. I told a gay acquaintance of mine that I was a libertarian one time, and he replied, "Ew, that just means that you're a Republican. If not, why do libertarians never vote for Democrats?"

    I reminded him that libertarians vote according to principles, i.e. supporting gay rights decades before it was fashionable, and then asked him which of the two main parties was marginally more likely to use our talking points. That shut him up.

  • entropy_factor||

    JUST TELL HIM "SHUT UP FAG"

  • Virginian||

    Yeah, but is this screening for political compatibility, or is it the woman screening for, "If I accidentally get pregnant and want to abort, are we about to have a problem?"

    What's this we shit? It's her body, her choice. I have no legal say whatsoever, not even in any kind of advisory capacity. She can abort it, or she can have it, and my opinion means jack shit.

    Come on, you should know this.

  • ||

    See my 1:13.

  • Virginian||

    Nah, that's my own little Galt thing. Women wanted the power, fine, they can have it.

    Men have zero reproductive rights at this point. We have privileges, which can be revoked upon the whim of the mother, enforced by the family court system.

    You can drag me to the cell, but I will not walk into it. I will not pretend I am complying of my own free will.

  • ||

    I agree, and I think the legal situation at it stands is incredibly wrong. If I were a guy I'd be super leery of sleeping with someone I didn't trust a lot. But I'm approaching it more from an interpersonal relationship perspective. It is not something I would want my partner and myself to be on a different page about. (Just like I wouldn't want my partner and I to be on a different page about whether we were trying to conceive, or when, or something.)

  • Virginian||

    Yeah absolutely. The issue is though, people are people, and can be shitty sometimes.

    A guy I know, not a friend really, but certainly someone I was friendly with and knew of, was dating this girl. They're both very typical college students, big Obama boosters. So I was very surprised when she informed everyone she was pregnant.

    Turns out she decided that their relationship needed to be taken to the next level. So she did it, just by flushing the pill instead of swallowing it. So now he's married with a kid, but he didn't choose it. He had Hobson's choice.

  • ||

    I find things like that really sad.

  • Virginian||

    Yeah, and you know what so did everyone when we talked about it.

    Now guess how many agreed with me that men should be able to divorce themselves from their parental rights and responsibilities if the pregnancy was unplanned?

  • ||

    Now guess how many agreed with me that men should be able to divorce themselves from their parental rights and responsibilities if the pregnancy was unplanned?

    Probably zero, but I always have.

    Literally, since I was a teenager, I couldn't understand why men couldn't waive parental responsibilities by waiving parental rights. It's just one of those things that was always, clearly, wrong.

    (I have an uncle who was stupid enough to let two women do this to him, as it happens, though he didn't marry either.)

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Now guess how many agreed with me that men should be able to divorce themselves from their parental rights and responsibilities if the pregnancy was unplanned?

    Even many on the right would tell the guy "tough shit, be a man and take responsibility." The double standard in a situation like an unplanned pregnancy is ridiculous, and it exposes a lot about the hypocrisy of modern society. What if the girl lied about taking birth control? What if she sabatoged the condoms? Oh well, her body, her choice, your money. It basically says that men are no better than sperm donors and ATM machines. "Mama and The State will raise the child, you just be sure the lights stay on in the house because that's all you're good for."

    If men had the right to waive their parental rights and responsibilities in situtations like this, I guaran-fucking-tee that the illegitimate birth rate, regardless of race, would drop like a thunderbolt.

  • Tman||

    I know too many of these stories. I know of one where the girl literally just wanted a baby and really could care less about the husband. Fortunately the guy is a responsible one so he is taking care of his part, but I doubt most cases turn out this well, never mind what it does to the kid.

  • Virginian||

    Fortunately the guy is a responsible one so he is taking care of his part,

    And that's the fucking part that pisses me off the most.

    Responsibility must be willfully assumed without coercion. There is no such thing in an unplanned pregnancy in this country. You can either support her and the child, or the State will force you to support her and the child.

    A slave might decide it's better to work then be whipped, but that doesn't make him free.

  • Irish||

    That is one of the most fucked up things I've ever heard. How could you do something like that?

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    One of my ex girlfriends tried to do this to me. She swore up and down that she was on birth control, so we stopped using condoms. A few months after we broke up, I ran into her best friend and she told me all about how she was planning on getting pregnant so she could have a baby and a husband and all that. She never once took birth control while we were together. I dodged one hell of a bullet on that one, because the very next guy she dated got her pregnant and is married to her with 5 kids now.

  • GILMORE||

    "" Turns out she decided that their relationship needed to be taken to the next level.""

    Next Floor! = Slavery and Depression and Baby Clothes

  • AuH20||

    I field it with "Here is what I am, but any question near and dear to you, ask me."

    So I guess the opposite of your strategy. It helps that I can rattle off things like per-pupil spending off the top of my head. Most chicks kind of back off when they realize that I know more about the issue than they do, and therefore may be right.

  • AuH20||

    Then again, Virginian, I think we are also looking for different things. I am basically going for are nerdy kinky girls, and the first thing I look at on OKC is match %. This leads to more liberal and, to use the generous term, "curvier" women, but if the tits are decent sized I'd rather have the compatibility and common interests.

  • Virginian||

    Eh, I don't get my intellectual or cultural stimulation from girls. I see girls for the purpose of getting laid. It's nice if they're smart, but it's not a requirement.

  • ||

    I feel very sorry for you. I really do. You're missing out on, in my opinion, one of the best parts of (straight male) life. Which is the company of women. Not just sex with them (though that's great too), but just having them around.

  • Virginian||

    Who says I don't like having them around? I like having them around fine. I just don't expect to be able to discuss history or politics or philosophy. So I talk about other things with them. Most of the ones I know don't like scifi either, or Kipling, or video games. So I don't talk about that with them.

    Actually my biggest relationship regret is probably the fact that one of my high school girlfriends was a staunch libertarian when I was still a Republican. I kind of let her drift away. She's still sexy, still smart as hell, and we talk every now and then on Facebook. She's real busy though, marriage and job and all.

  • Lord Humungus||

    ouch. I once dated a dumb (blonde and large breasted) girl. She was booorrriiinng. The relationship didn't last long at all.

    This sounds sappy - but my wife is my best friend. We can talk about anything under the sun. You gotta do something when you're not fuckin'

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    Sappy or no, LH, I'm with you.

    I dated 2 hot girls in my early dating life (not at the same time). Neither of them had anyting in common with me. I'm a sci-fi loving, D&D playing, computer nerd. They were into their hair and celebrity gossip. I stopped chasing them after that. I never wrote off the possibility of dating a hot girl, just never found any that shared my interests.

    My wife isn't the most attractive woman, but like yours, she's my best friend. We watch Dr Who, Battlestar Galactica, Star Trek, etc all the time together and she's recently started playing video games with me.

    Dorky girls rule!

  • AuH20||

    We.... view our relationships with women very differently.

    Then again, I am the kind of person who goes the other way. I simply can't have meaningless sex, one night stands, that sort of things, because afterwords I always want to cuddle and shit.

  • ||

    because afterwords I always want to cuddle and shit

    Well we all know why that is ;)

  • Irish||

    Cause he's a FUCKING BETA!?!?!

    I bet he doesn't even peacock.

  • ||

    Jesus you're gay.

  • Lord Humungus||

    what about the holy ghost?

  • AuH20||

    I'M THE GAYEST MONSTER SINCE GAY CAME TO GAY TOWN!

  • ||

    Dammit Au, stop trying to replace Epi. You know you'll never be able to satisfy Warty the way he can.

  • Ted S.||

    afterwords I always want to cuddle and shit.

    So what percentage of women share your coprophilia kink? :-p

  • Irish||

    Eh, I don't get my intellectual or cultural stimulation from girls. I see girls for the purpose of getting laid. It's nice if they're smart, but it's not a requirement.

    Every time I feel like you get more shit than you deserve for your PUA shit, you post something like this. At that moment, all the sympathy I had for you just evaporates.

  • Virginian||

    Every time I feel like you get more shit than you deserve for your PUA shit, you post something like this. At that moment, all the sympathy I had for you just evaporates.

    My response is always the same: it takes all kinds.

    Oh, and clarifying: I'm not saying that women are incapable of providing intellectual or cultural stimulation. I'm saying that for my personal interests, women usually are not the ones who can engage me.

    I mean, how many women can argue Jackson's Valley Campaigns? MilHist is a guy thing.

    If I was really into theater or feminism or fashion, I'd probably mostly talk to women about that kind of thing.

    Some areas of interest are neutral, some are more heavily male, some more heavily female.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    I've had a couple of very cute, but not very intelligent, girlfriends.

    They were boring as hell. I mean, we literally had nothing to talk about. So of course when the sex got old, or stopped altogether, the relationship fell apart soon afterwards. Ultimately, if you can't talk about what's going on in the world with someone, things are going to get stale very fast.

  • ||

    I do agree w/Virginian that everyone is an individual with their own tastes. Some people just derive different things form relationships.

    I hear lots of men bitch about their partners not liking sports, but as soon as they find a woman who wants to join them on the couch on a Sunday afternoon, or go to the sports bar with them for the Stanley Cup playoffs, she's suddenly "around too much".

    I find a mix of common and separate interests is best. The squeeze loves miniature combat games. I couldn't be less interested. I love sports - he couldn't be less interested (10 years ago I would have told you I would never date a man who didn't like sports. Never say never). But we both like sci fi, fishing, physics, and ....other activities. We find plenty to talk about and do. And our political views are generally in alignment. He's just ever so slightly more....conservative? I don't know if that's the right word.

  • ||

    (BTW, we met via OKC. OKC is awesome for finding compatible people. So much better than any other dating site).

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    That depends on where you live. In Arkansas, it's not so great for an atheist libertarian who's allergic to cats.

    I did date one girl from there for a few months, but other than that it's been useless.

  • ||

    Oklahoma Couples? Contrary to what schools there may have taught you, there are other states in the Union.

  • AuH20||

    BTW, Kristen, I think this gif may be relevant to your interests:

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FdvR.....rtless.gif

  • ||

    I'll be in my bunk....

    (the cast of that show is, on average, amazingly HOT).

  • AuH20||

    Yeah. Honestly, with the sucess of Vikings, Ax Men, Deadliest Catch, etc. when is Hollywood going to clue into the fact that apparently, not all you ladies like the hairless male chest thing?

    Like I get two of those are reality shows with an assumed male audience, but I'm sure some network focus groups have included women.

  • ||

    I always thought I would love to do a Bachelor-type dating show where the men were all rough, flannel-wearing and bearded. The men on the actual Bachelor and Bachelorette are so pretty and vanilla and slightly femme. Kind of like the boring hot chicks describe by several dudes in this thread.

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    The upcoming Man Of Steel has a non-hairless Superman. I'm hoping for it to do away with manscaping in the way that JFK's inauguration did away with men's hats.

  • Tony||

    Those silly, stupid women and their almost universally not having the correct political beliefs.

  • Irish||

    Other than Virginian, no one is arguing that.

    Keep pounding away at those strawmen, Tony. It's pretty much your only rhetorical move.

  • Virginian||

    No one, period, is arguing that. Fucking hell, don't give me shit for things I haven't said.

  • AuH20||

    I will leave one post here as a warning: Do not engage with Tony. The path there leads only to madness.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    "MAJORITY RULZEZ!"

  • AlmightyJB||

    There was a pretty funny Seinfeld where elaine was going to break up with her guy because he was pro-life. I'm not sure if that was the same episode where she was mad at him not so much because he told her that she was going to hell but because it did not appear to bother him that much that she was going to hell.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Do chicks you date, upon learning your political leanings, automatically need to know the gay marriage/abortion thing?

    All the time. That tells me they aren't the girls I want to date. I don't need to agree with a girlfriend on politics, I just need her to be willing to shut up about it.

  • Muzzle of Bees||

    This is a great point. I'd describe my wife as "casually libertarian". She listens to my rants and reads my blog and generally nods in affirmation, but there's no way in hell she's ever going to read so much as an essay by Rothbard or bring up the broken window fallacy in political conversation. I'm fine with it, I don't need to engage in back-and-forth with her, but if she was an outspoken, dyed-in-the-wool liberal I think I'd be up shit creek.

  • Taggart||

    Maybe you should expand your dating pool to include women who aren't liberals.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    What works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne.

    Looking at last year's murder stats, gun control doesn't work in Chicago either.

    In 2012, 532 people were murdered in the city of Chicago, according to statistics compiled by the Crime in Chicago website. The number of people murdered the year before was 441, meaning in the city of Chicago, murders have increased by 91 from 2011 to 2012.

    The Chicago Police Department was not available to confirm these numbers today, which is New Year's Day.

    The website also claims that, through December 25, 2012, there 2,670 people were shot in Chicago last year. That's also an increase from the year before, when 2,217 people were shot in Chicago that year.

    In all, it means that on average almost 1.5 people were murdered in Chicago each day last year, while on average 7.3 people were shot each day.

    So much for "working."

  • ||

    I'm just waiting for them to start using the continued increase in homicide rate as proof that our "liberalized" gun control laws are the problem.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Why wait? The likes of Bloomie blame fucking Virginia for NYC's killing problem. It's already happening. Got a high murder rate? Blame the closest state with high gun sales.

  • ||

    Well that's what they've been doing up to now, with Indiana. But I get nervous thinking about whether "we" should tout Chi homicide stats as evidence that gun control doesn't work, when they'll just say no, this is what happened when we took gun control away.

  • Virginian||

    They'll say that anyway nikki.

    http://thefiringline.com/forum.....hp?t=23483

    Mencken wrote that in 1925. It's the exact same argument Bloomberg used when he sent fucking NY cops down to my state to break federal laws.

    They have nothing new to say.

  • ||

    To all this, of course, the uplifters have a ready answer. (At having ready answers, indeed, they always shine!)

    Good line.

  • ||

    Vermont....all them armed Vermonters are moving to NYC, going gangsta, and shooting the fucking shit out of people.

  • ||

    So you're saying that's why you want to move there, right?

  • Virginian||

    I think she wants to move there for the skiing. Or possibly for the large number of burly bearded men.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    It's what I'm doing in Boston. I am going with a strategy of slow and stealthy.

  • ||

    A) I grew up there. B) I love the skiing there. It's mas macho than western skiing. C) The gun laws (or lack thereof) are awesome.

    The beardos in VT are almost all hipsters. The VT native mountain man is a dying breed. They've all moved to Maine.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    The VT native mountain man is a dying breed. They've all moved to Maine.

    False. I moved to Boston and got into software. And I am quite literally a VT native mountain man (though the beard I can grow sucks).

    I actually might go visit Burlington and the hipsters soon. I was at a party last weekend that randomly had a bunch of UVM grads there, and it made me a bit nostalgic.

  • ||

    Would you be interested in moving back to VT and having a marriage of convenience with a slightly middle aged woman? ;)

    But I insist on living in the NEK, or at least northeast Lamoille County.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    There's no jobs up there! And even if I worked remotely, it'd be a bitch to get to an airport for any business travel. Though I do miss my guns, which are still at my parents' house in the NEK mountains...

  • ||

    DR is hiring (interviewed with them when I was up there in January). So is My Web Grocer and Inntopia.

    Now, if you're talking about salaries being too low, I'm with you there. DR was looking for a jack-of-all-trades, experienced internet marketing, content and front-end development person. But they weren't willing to pay for the privilege.

  • ||

    Dang... I guess we know what it takes for Kristen to move on from "the squeeze"... a mountain man libertarian from Vermont.

    Although if such a thing existed in decent numbers that might even sway me to start batting for the other team lol

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Don't forget that I'm much younger!

  • Marc F Cheney||

    I'm just waiting for them to start using the continued increase in homicide rate as proof that our "liberalized" gun control laws are the problem.

    That reminds me, how's our brand new concealed carry law coming along?

  • ||

    My man told me a couple nights ago that Lisa Madigan had indeed filed for a stay. I should look into it but I haven't yet.

  • enoriverbend||

    Cheyenne murders, 2011: 2
    Rate per 100,000: 2.2

    There is a lesson there for gun control advocates, but they won't listen.

  • robc||

    Dont allow cities over 100k in population?

  • JW||

    Because he's a mendacious dickweasel who shouldn't even be trusted for the time of day?

  • NoVAHockey||

    I think whoever was heading the legislative strategy for the WH is really bad at this. with those numbers in favor of "do something" they should have been able to get to 60 in the senate.

    all they had to do was not lead with AWB and pee themselves.
    but, sometimes you get an issue that you think is a sure thing and tactics and vote counting get pushed aside.

  • Jon Lester||

    Something that really irks me is the notion that the NRA is this singular, malevolent force that subjugates men's souls and prevents the passage of "common sense" legislation. Well, not only is the NRA an organization of around 4 million citizens (estimates seem to vary), there is a larger number of Americans who are more or less pro-gun, but don't belong to the NRA, either because they're to the left of wingnut, they think the executives are paid too much, or they get tired of almost every monthly magazine editorial asserting why the Citizens United decision is the best thing ever.

  • Pro Libertate||

    The fact is that it's the sheer number of vocal, pro-gun voters out there that scares politicians, not the NRA itself. Because the former is much larger than the membership in the latter.

  • Chris Mallory||

    Or we joined GOA instead of the NRA, since the NRA is the largest group promoting gun control in the US today.

  • Virginian||

    Or we joined GOA instead of the NRA, since the NRA is the largest group promoting gun control in the US today.

    You're a retard.

  • Jon Lester||

    I haven't become a dues-paying member yet, but I do participate in the Liberal Gun Club's forums.

  • Jordan||

    Amusingly, the NRA added about 500,000 new members just from Dec. 2012 to Jan 2013. Obama is the NRA's biggest friend.

    And those numbers include me. I had never donated to the NRA until December 2012. Obama inspired me to donate to them and Gun Owners of America.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    I'm as staunch a gun owner as you'll find.

    I'm not a member of the NRA because I don't necessarily like the way they go about their business of annoying people on their list for more money, all of the time. I have never been an NRA member, and I never will be.

    But what you say dances around the much bigger elephant in the room. The NRA has 4-5M members. The US has 100M gun owners, which mean that ~95% of gun owners have nothing whatsoever to do with the NRA? The NRA is a liberal scapegoat. They have no intellectual argument. That's why they had to wave the bloody shirts of the dead children they were standing on. So rather than admit to an intellectually null position, they finger point and target a bogeyman in order to get their 2 minute hate on.

  • Jordan||

    I'm not a member of the NRA because I don't necessarily like the way they go about their business of annoying people on their list for more money, all of the time.

    Yeah, I agree with this. I looked for a way to just donate anonymously, but I didn't see one.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Buy Girl Scout cookies. Yes, that's right, the GSA is an NRA front. Follow the money.

  • BakedPenguin||

    I'm not an NRA member because they absolutely do not give a shit about any other amendment than the 2nd, as LaPierre bullshit about video games clearly showed. GOA is even worse - they love them some Joe Arpiao. The SAF is better.

  • Virginian||

    The GOA is a bunch of staunch Republicans pissed that the NRA is sticking with the single issue strategy.

  • Irish||

    Isn't that why the NRA is relatively effective, though?

    I feel like single issue groups tend to have outsized power relative to groups that try to be general left or general right wing. The reason modern feminists don't wield real political power is because they've become nothing but a general left-wing group, which means that any conservative women who might agree with them on some issues despise them for their politics.

  • Virginian||

    Isn't that why the NRA is relatively effective, though?

    It's exactly why they're effective. Harry Reid is Senate Majority Leader. The GOA wanted him removed in favor of that Angle woman. The NRA said "uh no, we have a friend of the NRA blocking a lot of gun control legislation. If Reid falls, then Dick Durbin becomes Majority Leader. That sound like a good thing?"

    The GOA is literally composed of people pissed that the NRA does not take stands on issues not related to guns.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Except that they do.

    Less well known is that the NRA has also helped ALEC spread other conservative laws that have nothing to do with gun rights.

    ALEC drafts and shares model bills with state legislators to promote corporation-friendly and conservative social policy.

    A watchdog group called the Center for Media and Democracy first documented the NRA's role in these bills with ALEC.

    An NRA lobbyist, Tara Mica, helped shepherd a model bill that requires voters to show a photo ID at the polls. Many conservatives have pushed voter ID laws to prevent election fraud. Many liberals say these laws inhibit voting by minorities.

    Mica also helped preside over ALEC's passage of the model bill that became the basis of Arizona's immigration law. That's the law that requires police to arrest anyone who cannot prove when asked that they entered the United States legally.
  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Enjoy your pillow talk with the leftists, MLG.

    Other than the AZ immigration law, every one of the cited "non-gun" campaigns in that article was something libertarians would agree with. Stand Your Ground, Voter ID, anti-McCain-Feingold.

  • Irish||

    Also, isn't stand your ground related to gun laws? I would argue that stand your ground has a clear link to the second amendment, so it isn't weird that they'd be in favor of it.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Do you refuse to support the American Heart Association because they don't fight thyroid cancer, too?

  • Irish||

    Would you support the American Heart Association if they were actively poisoning people?

    The issue here is that the NRA actively attacked another amendment. They shouldn't put resources into protecting the first amendment, since they're a 2A group, but attacking the first amendment is something else entirely.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Did Lapierre actually call for coercion against video games?

  • BakedPenguin||

    God, you're fucking stupid. For an alleged math teacher, your logic is shit. Do you even think about what you're saying?

  • Tonio||

    Tulpa, BP clearly states that his opposition is because the NRA actively shits on other amendments and uses the specific example of video games.

    Fail.

  • ||

    I haven't given any money to any gun orgs, but I do follow the National Association for Gun Rights on Facebook. They're highly aggressive (which I love) and unwilling to compromise (which I also love). They're the organization that all the Hill staffers were bitching about constantly calling and emailing prior to the vote on those background check bills.

  • Virginian||

    The gun rights people are literally the only ones of the "rightwing" group who have wised up to the Left's trick of eternal "compromise".

    The budget hawks always fall for the grand compromise of tax hikes now, with spending cuts promised at a later date. The gun people are not fooled by that kind of bundling anymore. If you want to talk national gun registry, I want NFA, GCA, and the fucking Hughes Amendment repealed. When I can walk into my local store and buy FN MAG with a two minute background check, I will consider some kind of registration.

  • JD the elder||

    "about nine out of 10 Americans continue to favor "a federal law requiring background checks on all potential gun buyers." A lot of these people seem to think we already have such a law..."

    A good rule of thumb is that nine out of ten people have absolutely no idea what the fuck existing gun laws are. This suits the gun-banners just fine, as every few years they can push for a new law while pretending that we have absolutely no laws on the books, and the morons will always fall for it.

  • Virginian||

    Well considering at least 25% of the population are gun owners.....

    The question is how many bought at an FFL.

  • Tony||

    I suppose it's taking the moral high ground to actually invoke the bloody corpses of children when making your argument. You know, lots of the victims' family members are actually, themselves, lobbying Congress. Obama is not invoking them against their will. The implied argument that victims of gun violence shouldn't get a voice in a debate over gun regulation is pure NRA bullshit.

    Obama's urban vs. rural culture point is perfectly reasonable and exactly the middle-ground conversation that needs to be had. The empirically wrong claim that more guns equals more safety is the anomaly that needs to be expelled from the discussion. The Chicago streets are no more Western movie sets than is rural Montana. More guns means more gun deaths, accidental, homicidal, and suicidal, and not more prevention of such, and I defy you to demonstrate otherwise.

  • tarran||

    Oh Tonykins, they do have a voice, and we respect their opinions. We just don't do what they want because they are wrong.

  • Tony||

    Wrong about what? That policies actually being proposed will have saved their children? Perhaps, but that's just an argument for stronger policies.

    Or are they wrong to claim that their children's lives are worth less than convenience of gun sellers?

  • ||

    No, they're wrong. An assault weapons ban didn't prevent Columbine and by the FBI's own admission would not make even the slightest dent in crime due to the extremely low number of crimes involving such weapons.

  • Irish||

    Or are they wrong to claim that their children's lives are worth less than convenience of gun sellers?

    Their children's lives are worth exactly the same as the lives of children who would be killed by a black market in firearms, except that more children would be killed by a black market in firearms, as is the case with the war on drugs.

    Also, periodic tragedies of this nature are a price you pay for freedom, and without freedom the consequences would be vastly worse. Theoretically, if we didn't allow freedom of speech, it's possible the Tsarneav's never would have been radicalized and a beautiful little boy who died in the bombing would still be alive.

    So Tony, should we get rid of freedom of speech in order to save the lives of children who may be lost due to radicalization? If you believe otherwise, then clearly you are a heartless monster who wants eight year olds to die.

  • Seamus||

    The Manchin-Toomey background check proposal might have saved 38 lives of people killed in mass shootings over the past decade (http://tinyurl.com/clwdkwt). But if Tony were serious about saving lives, he'd be fore a ban on motorcycles. Given that we lose a couple thousand a year to motorcycle accidents, it seems like a no-brainer, right? After all, who really *needs* a motorcycle, when there are all those public buses and taxis available?

    If Tony disagrees, and says there are plenty of legitimate reasons for owning and riding a motorcycle, what that says to me is that Tony morally approves of the pleasure that motorcyclists get from riding, and think it justifies the added risk, while believing that the pleasure that gun owners get from shooting guns is a sick perversion that should be suppressed by law.

    Of course, there's always the risk that Tony will say, "You're right. There *is* no reason to allow private ownership of motorcycles." In which case I'll learn to shut my big mouth before giving the statists any more ideas.

  • Tony||

    Interestingly, I've seen a relative die on his motorcycle. How about we regulate the safety of guns at least as much as we do motorcycles?

  • BladeDoc||

    Great. So I could buy any type of gun from a dealer at any age without paperwork of any kind if I promise only to use it on my own property? I could modify it however I wanted? I could sell it any time I wanted, to anyone whether or not they had a license and whether or not they were going to use it on their own property for cash by signing the title on the back?

    Sounds good to me. I'm in. Now, how many laws do we need to repeal for that, starting with the ban on fully automatic weapons?

  • tarran||

    They are wrong to argue that their childrens' death at the hands of a madman mean that other people should give up their rights.

    They are no different than your fellow progressives who 3/4 of a century ago argued that the safety of white people from dangerous negroes was worth more than the inconvenience to home sellers.

  • ||

    Fuck off, sockpuppet.

  • Irish||

    You know, lots of the victims' family members are actually, themselves, lobbying Congress.

    As is their right as citizens. What is not their right as citizens is to be held up by the sitting president of the United States as moral exemplars whose dictates we must obey or else we 'hate the children.' What is not their right as citizens is to be used as a moralizing bludgeon by leftists who are incapable of making a rational argument and must therefore resort to emotional ploys and bully tactics.

    You are the most disingenuous human being to ever live.

    More guns means more gun deaths, accidental, homicidal, and suicidal, and not more prevention of such, and I defy you to demonstrate otherwise.

    We don't need to demonstrate otherwise. You're the one trying to remove the rights of law abiding American citizens. Unless you can prove that the laws you propose would actually result in fewer homicides, rather than simply creating a black market for guns, as has been the case with every other prohibition, you have no right to restrict an American's right to bear arms.

    Explain why your magical laws would simply result in fewer guns on the street, rather than creating a dangerous black market like the war on drugs. You can't explain why because in your mind, government power is an inherent good because you are a fascist.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Unless you can prove that the laws you propose would actually result in fewer homicides, rather than simply creating a black market for guns, as has been the case with every other prohibition, you have no right to restrict an American's right to bear arms.

    Even if he could demonstrable point that out, it still isn't a case to infringe upon the rights of the tens of millions of individual gun owners who don't shoot other people. In short, there is no good reason for the vast majority of gun control measures.

  • Tony||

    Calling whatever a right is to beg the question. The debate is about how liberal gun rights should be.

  • Irish||

    Way to avoid every point I made. You have trouble arguing, don't you Tony?

  • ||

    No, he has trouble being intellectually honest. He clearly has no problems arguing, as many a people fall into his (not so) carefully laid traps every time.

  • Unindicted Co-conspirator||

    Fuck off, sockpuppet.

  • Terc||

    When we move to a universe where we are not born with rights and where rights are handed out by government, I will be happy to have this debate. Until that happens, self defense is right we are born with. It's not negotiable. Not ever. Now if you'll excuse me I'm off to the range.

  • ||

    I suppose it's taking the moral high ground to actually invoke the bloody corpses of children when making your argument. You know, lots of the victims' family members are actually, themselves, lobbying Congress. Obama is not invoking them against their will. The implied argument that victims of gun violence shouldn't get a voice in a debate over gun regulation is pure NRA bullshit.

    No one says the Newtown families or Giffords doesn't have a right to advocate their cause. What a lot of Americans take issue with is their being used by the president and others to emotionally bully people.

    Why don't we let the victims of the Boston bombing lobby the government to waterboard the bomber?

  • Zeb||

    And there are several Newtown families who are opposed to new gun restrictions, despite the tragedy they have suffered. The president is not inviting them to join in the public conversation and as such is deliberately creating the misconception that all victims are of the same mind when it comes to gun issues. It means that the president is a fucking liar when he says there needs to be a national conversation. He is just using the people who are saying what he wants to say as propaganda for policies he already favored.

  • NoVAHockey||

    "You know, lots of the victims' family members are actually, themselves, lobbying Congress"

    not effectively. i bet they're being lead around by some piss poor lobbyists and trying the same tired talking points.

  • sarcasmic||

    That's a whole lot of stupid there based upon false premises.

    And as I have repeated so often, logic based upon false premises constitutes a fallacy.

    When honest law abiding people are not disarmed by law, then that means that they could be armed. It doesn't mean that they are armed, but the certainty that they are not armed is no longer there.

    It's that certainty that emboldens criminals. Why do you think so many mass shootings happen in gun-free-zones? That's right. The shooter knows that no one can shoot back.

    So it's not so much that more guns equals more safety. It's that by removing laws that disarm honest and law abiding people, making certain that they will be disarmed, the certainty that emboldens criminals, will be gone.

    Taking away that certainty is what makes everyone safer. Not the guns.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    You know, lots of the victims' family members are actually, themselves, lobbying Congress. Obama is not invoking them against their will. The implied argument that victims of gun violence shouldn't get a voice in a debate over gun regulation is pure NRA bullshit.

    Let me know when Obama flies people whose lives have been saved by private gun ownership to DC and offers them the Rose Garden mike to speak their mind. Or does he think that armed survivors shouldn't get a voice in a debate over gun regulation?

  • Tony||

    He probably can't find any.

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    You can't find something you don't want to acknowledge exists. I've heard people say that guns are never used to save lives while talking to a person who's life has been saved by having a gun.

    Fuck off, sockpuppet.

  • Tony||

    It would be absurd to claim it never happens. The question is whether it wouldn't be better if neither party had a gun--to deal with all the bad outcomes. Or if that doesn't outweigh the loss of a right to defend oneself with a specific murder weapon.

  • Mike M.||

    More guns means more gun deaths, accidental, homicidal, and suicidal, and not more prevention of such, and I defy you to demonstrate otherwise.

    Switzerland, scumbag, Switzerland.

  • DaveSs||

    Another example, United States

    The last 20 years have seen firearm related deaths and injuries decline. Gun ownership though has been steadily increasing, particularly within the last 5 years.

    We certainly haven't had 20 years of increasing levels of gun control. The closest thing would be the Brady background check bill, but it didn't really go fully into effect until 1998, six or seven years after the decline began.

    If anything, we've gone the opposite of gun control with more concealed carry.

  • fish||

    I defy you to demonstrate otherwise....

    That's right face down....bite the pillow if you want.....!

  • Jordan||

    Obama's urban vs. rural culture point is perfectly reasonable and exactly the middle-ground conversation that needs to be had.

    Uh huh. And what if rural communities decided that abortion clinics should be relegated to cities?

  • Tony||

    Well I was being reasonable for the sake of argument.

    What I meant to say was may the best man win.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    a lot of these people seem to think we already have such a law, because only 54 percent of respondents said they supported stricter gun control.

    Maybe they don't consider a measure to enforce existing laws to be "stricter gun control"?

    And despite the fact that Obama has been pushing a requirement that 88 percent of Americans say they support, only 41 percent approve of the way he has been handling gun policy, while 52 percent disapprove.

    Obama is pushing for way more than background checks. I would be OK with UBC as long as we had an enforceable anti-registry provision attached, but there is no way I would say I approve of BO's push for AWB and mag limits.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    And don't forget...

    ROMNEY WOULD HAVE DONE IT TOO!!!!!!!1!!!!

  • Mike M.||

    Welcome back.

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    "If you're a hunter, if you're a sportsman—if you have a gun in your house for protection—you've got to understand what it feels like for that mom whose son was randomly shot."

    Such a scumbag. Those damn rednecks with their assault machine rifles have to be told that they need to understand what its like to have your kid killed.

  • ||

    As if no one who supports gun rights has ever had a child killed with a gun. Jeebus.

    My college roommate's brother was killed when he was a kid while fucking around with a shotgun. The family still owns plenty of guns to this day, and I'd be willing to bet are strong 2A supporters.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I fully recognize the government's right to seize my gun because of a random shooting....

    when they are seizing it as evidence for a random shooting it was used in. Until then, too bad. You don't get to arrest me just because the guy who shoot the kid was a white male, either.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I had another conversation just a couple of months ago with a mom from Chicago—actually, Evanston, Illinois—whose son had been killed in a random shooting.

    Sounds like she should move somewhere with gun laws that are different than the ones she has now. Like that place in Iowa where people aren't getting shot randomly. She should get gun laws like they have.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    The latest New York Times/CBS News poll finds that about nine out of 10 Americans continue to favor "a federal law requiring background checks on all potential gun buyers."

    Apparently the right to keep and bear arms is another right that we need to vote on every few months and get approval from the mob to exercise. The current reading of "shall not be infringed" means "fuck you, that's why!"

  • Auric Demonocles||

    But IDing voters is racist.

  • ||

    Side note: Top Shot starts on May 29! It's an All-Star edition.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Im wondering if the polls woild be that high if the people knew how they wers being intentially mislead concerning gun show and internet background checks. Listening to the media you would think no one had to complete a check if purchasing through those channels when in reality most gun show and internet Sales do result in a background check because they are mostly done by gun dealers and not private individuals. The reporting on this does not give that impression.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Its also not discussed about how you enforce the law on private transactions without some sort of registration or federal database. The reporting is basically just that the NRA and gun owners are selfish heartless bastards.

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    I don't know if you could properly educate people. Some, sure. Just today one of my friends posted something to the order of "the NRA doesn't support the new background check law, but wants us to have a database of mentally ill people. What good is that if we don't have background checks"

    I commented that we DO have background checks for the vast majority of gun purchases and he just deleted my comment. /facepalm

  • Unindicted Co-conspirator||

    I'm not sure we needed a 500-word column to tell us that gun owners don't trust Obama because he's a lying shitbag, Sullum. But thanks! :)

  • Polo Ralph Lauren outlet||

    I think it's because they do not have a sense of security.
    Ralph Lauren pas cher
    Polo Ralph Lauren
    Polo pas cher
    Brose Burberry

  • Polo Ralph Lauren outlet||

    if you like you can look here
    Borse Burberry http://www.borseburberry.it
    Abercrombie Amsterdam:http://www.abercrombiesamsterdam.com/
    Hollister France:http://www.hollisterfrance-pascher.fr/

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement