is slimy - they had some of the worst polling in the 2012 election
cycle - and probably this one is way off. But whether they are way
off here is not really the point.
The problem is that a majority of people probably *do* support
universal background checks at the moment - mainly because
most of them don't really have a clue about what that actually
entails. And we are doing a poor job of framing the debate in
some way that would make it clear to more people what it
really involves and how it would affect them.
If we had the initiative, Diane Feinstein would be having to
explain why she thinks an elderly user of medical marijuana
threatened by thugs wanting to invade her home is a "criminal"
who should be denied the right to own a firearm, or sent to
federal prison for ten years if she were to happen to obtain one.
Instead, since we don't have the initiative, the debate is entirely
on DiFi/Obama/Schumer/Reid's terms - all about "gun safety"
and nothing about civil liberties and we are the ones having to
explain why we support the slaughter of innocent children and
assault weapons falling into the hands of criminals because we
won't support "reasonable" legislation...
We should be forcing *them* to explain why, even though they
claim to support the Second Amendment, that they are supporting
laws which say 40-50 million Americans have *no* Second
Amendment rights whatsoever.
If we were making a significant effort to do that and were failing
then at least we could say we tried. Problem is, I don't really see the
effort being made.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: