Thread: Using shooting victims as political pawns yet again – Does the gun control lobby have

I am afraid the idea of leveraging gun shooting for control policy lobby may not be effective as we thought it would be. The recent sruvey results shows that althe majority of respondents predicted gun control will become an important issue this year, only 39% thought the Colorado shootings could have been avoided if stricter gun control laws were in place. When asked if they would support a new Amendment to the Constitution that would rescind the 2nd Amendment (the right to bear arms), only 31% of the general population said “Yes” with 52% saying “No.”

You can find more results here http://www.instant.ly/blog/2012/07/i...ill-unpopular/

I would say people just don't want to complicate their lives

Originally Posted by Leffe

Victims shot by guns! No, we cannot agree. This is not political point scoring, it's a bunch of people who want these slaying to end!

Lets hear something from our Glorious Leader and the gun control pols about punishing the people who pull the trigger on the guns to commit crimes.

The last thing I heard from Glorious Leader was something about no need for AK-47's. He's right, you know---AR's are a better weapons system.

Originally Posted by Greataxe

Lets hear something from our Glorious Leader and the gun control pols about punishing the people who pull the trigger on the guns to commit crimes.

The last thing I heard from Glorious Leader was something about no need for AK-47's. He's right, you know---AR's are a better weapons system.

Yes, but you forget that to the gun control crowd, weapons that scare them are all referred to as AK-47s. Case in point, it wasn't an AK-47 used by James Holmes. They pretend their own ignorance is justification for the laws they wish to push.

Originally Posted by Leffe

They didn't have to, gun sales have gone through the roof anyway, meaning the financial sponsors of the NRA, the arms industry, have already benefitted.

I'm afraid that you are still missing my point. Let's flip it around and say that the Brady Campaign remained initially silent in the wake of the shooting, and the NRA, within hours of the shooting, claimed that it is because of absurd gun control laws creating "gun free" zones that caused this massacre. Would you be as sympathetic towards the NRA? Somehow I doubt it.

My point is, regardless of ideology, it is a pathetic and desperate measure for any organization to respond so soon after a tragedy, since (as I have shown) either the Left or the Right can spin this event to suit their own needs. If the NRA acted in a similar manner as the Brady Campaign, I would have equal condemnation towards them, even though I agree with their underlying message and focus. Why can't you see beyond your ideology and agree on this very simple point?