Thread: Obama Pushes Phony Poll Numbers to Advance Gun Control Agenda

Obama Pushes Phony Poll Numbers to Advance Gun Control Agenda

Posted on 17 September, 2013 by clyde
via freedomoutpost

When it comes to placing blame, Obama has most assuredly been the president who knows how to play the best. If it isn’t race, it’s the republicans, or it’s the “they are just against me” rhetoric. While appearing on ABC News’ “This Week with George Stephanopolous,” Obama commented that 80 to 90 percent of Americans were in agreement with him when it came to favoring gun control; however, he could not “get gun-control legislation enacted because of a ‘faction of the Republican party.’”



Stephanopolous had asked Obama about the reason issues on which he had chosen to focus in the second term of his presidency that seem to be stalled. Obama claimed the immigration bill with its “pathway to citizen” for illegal aliens passed the Senate and would pass in the House except that Speaker John Boehner would not bring it to vote. On the gun-control legislation, Obama said, “I mean, gun control, we had 80, 90 percent of the country that agreed with it.”

Overall, Obama placed the blame on a Republican Party faction. “The problem we have is we have a faction of the Republican Party, in the House of Representatives in particular, that view compromise as a dirty word and anything that is either remotely associated with me, they feel obliged to oppose,” Obama said. “And my argument to them is simple. That’s not why the people sent to[sic] here.”

According to CNSnews.com: On Jan. 23, Gallup published a poll in which it had asked people about some gun-related issues. Gallup asked, for example: “Would you vote for or against a law that would limit the sale of ammunition magazines to those with 10 rounds or less?” Fifty-four percent said they would, and 43 percent said they would not. But when the respondents to that question were broken out as Democrats, Independents and Republicans, only a majority of the Democrats (74 percent) said they would.

By contrast, only 46 percent of Independents said they would limit the sale of ammunition magazines to those with 10 rounds or less, and only 39 percent of Republicans. Eighty percent of Democrats said they would reinstate and strengthen the assault weapons ban that was in effect from 1994 to 2004, but only 51 percent of Independents said they would do so, and only 49 percent of Republicans. Large percentages of Republicans (92 percent), Democrats (97 percent) and Independents (86 percent) said they favored requiring criminal background checks on all gun sales. Overall, a majority of 82 percent agreed with increasing government spending on mental health programs for youth, including 93 percent of Democrats, 84 percent of Independents and 67 percent of Republicans.

The January poll by Gallup is interesting to say the least. In reading and re-reading, nowhere could an 80 to 90 percent agreement on gun-control legislation be found. That percentage is tied to mental health programs and criminal background checks, but certainly not to gun control. Only 74 percent of Democrats supported limiting the sale of ammunition magazines to those with 10 rounds or less; but that’s not guns. So, where does this 80 to 90 percent of the country supporting gun-control legislation poll exist?

It seems Obama may be clinging to a poll taken for MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” The poll surveyed 1,200 people and oversampled Democrats. This poll indicated that 87 percent of Americans supported requiring background checks for private gun sales and sales at gun shows. In May of 2013, the Reason-Rupe National Poll found that, overall, only 33 percent of Americans felt the Senate should continue to vote on gun-control legislation while 62 percent of Americans felt they should move on to other issues. A Pew Research Center survey, conducted in May, indicated that “81 percent of Americans said they continue to back making gun show and private firearms sales subject to background checks, while only 17 percent said they were opposed,” according to a Huffington Post article.

From the looks of any poll, results are varied by location, number of people surveyed, and the demographics of the group. Depending on these variables, I could go out today, conduct a survey and get results showing 80 to 90 percent of people opposed to any type of gun-control legislation. Tomorrow, I could go out, conduct a survey and get results showing 80 to 90 percent of people who would support gun legislation.

If you factor in sensational, skewed news reports surrounding a mass shooting or a child getting shot, those numbers could go higher in support of gun legislation. If you factor in a sensational news report about terrorists attacking a town, those numbers could go higher in opposing gun legislation. I view polls and surveys as I view eating. Depending on the day, time and year, what I would like to eat and choose to eat varies. It’s the same thing with opinions. The Second Amendment of the Constitution states, “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Regardless of what any poll, survey or opinion of the masses may be at the time, this country was established as a Constitutional Republic intent on preserving God-given rights and freedoms and protecting the individual from over bearing, over reaching, tyrannical government. The Second Amendment is clear and the most important, as it ensures all others. This amendment says nothing about criminal background checks or magazine limits or ammunition type. Some individuals on the left think those of us who support the Second Amendment as written are in favor of criminals having guns, or at least, that is what some I have encountered think. Well, criminals are not going to patronage a gun shop and purchase a gun; they’re criminals.

Background checks do nothing to deter criminals from obtaining guns nor do they keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Criminals commit crimes to get goods. They are not going to go buy something they can get for free by committing a crime. If they want a gun, they steal one or get one through other illegal means. Any argument over gun control is moot. The Constitution is the law of the land and the Second Amendment is clear. It’s only a problem for those who want total power and control or those who believe the government will provide for their security and protection.

However, the bigger picture involves not any one single issue. It concerns an out of control president who is intent on “ruling” this country instead of leading it. Any opposition to his agenda is seen as a “race issue” or a “Republican issue” or “lack of compromise.” Remember, compromise with this type of man occupying the oval office involves caving to his demands as though he is a “Supreme Ruler,” “a God,” or “A King.”

Nothing less. The law of the land means little, if anything, to him. He will use everything at his disposal to destroy it and this country. As of right now, he is doing a good job and is bringing it more out in the open by clinging to data that serves his purpose thinking the rest of America will succumb to the majority, thereby abandoning the preservation of individual God-given rights. Stick to your guns America! We must demand from our elected officials they honor their oath to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution.

http://gopthedailydose.com/2013/09/1...ontrol-agenda/

California Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein has exploited another mass shooting to call for destroying the Second Amendment and disarming law-abiding Americans.

http://www.infowars.com/feinstein-exploits-navy-yard-shooting-to-renew-call-to-disarm-mr-and-mrs-america/

Zeroes in on unconfirmed report shooter had an AR-15.

September 13, 2013 02:10 PM EDT
Syrian Jihadist Slits Throat of Christian Man Refusing to Deny Christ, Then Taunts Fiancée, 'Jesus Didn't Come to Save Him'

By Leonardo Blair | CP Reporter

(Photo: Reuters)

Ghastly attacks on Christians mocked as "Crusaders" in Syria continued unabated as Jihadists reportedly forced one man to convert to Islam at gunpoint and slit the throat of another Christian woman's fiancé and then told her, "Jesus didn't come to save him."
Residents who fled from the ancient town of Maalula in Syria told AFP that jihadists ambushed the town last week and forced a man to convert to Islam at gunpoint.
"They arrived in our town at dawn... and shouted 'We are from the Al-Nusra Front and have come to make lives miserable for the Crusaders," said one woman identified as Marie in Damascus, where many people from Maalula fled after rebels first attacked that town on Sept. 4.
One of the most renowned Christian towns in Syria, many of Maalula's approximately 5,000 residents speak Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke. Rebels want to tighten their control of the town for its strategic value as a launching point to level attacks on the highway between the capital and Homs, a key regime supply route.
On Tuesday, Marie and hundreds of others in exile in Damascus, attended the burial of three Christian pro-regime militiamen who were killed in fighting.
Adnan Nasrallah, 62, told AFP that an explosion destroyed an archway just across from his house that leads into Maalula during the fighting last week.
Like us on Facebook
"I saw people wearing Al-Nusra headbands who started shooting at crosses," the Christian senior told the AFP. One of the shooters, he said, "put a pistol to the head of my neighbor and forced him to convert to Islam by obliging him to repeat 'there is no God but God'...Afterwards they joked, 'he's one of ours now'."
Nasrallah said he operated a restaurant, called Maalula, in the State of Washington in the U.S. for 42 years when he decided to return to Syria shortly before the uprising erupted in Syria in March 2011.
"I had a great dream. I came back to my country to promote tourism. I built a guesthouse and spent $2,000 installing a windmill to provide electricity in the town…My dream has gone up in smoke. Forty-two years of work for nothing," he lamented.
He said when the rebels came to town, his Muslim neighbors rejoiced. His sister Antoinette disputed that story, however, saying the people rejoicing were refugees from out of town.
Another Maalula resident, Rasha said the jihadists brutally murdered her fiancé Atef, who was a part of the town's militia.
"I rang his mobile phone and one of them answered," she said.
"Good morning, Rashrush," a voice answered, calling her by her nickname according to AFP. "We are from the Free Syrian Army. Do you know your fiancé was a member of the shabiha (pro-regime militia) who was carrying weapons, and we have slit his throat?"
Rasha said the man told her Atef was asked to denounce his faith and convert to Islam and he refused.
"Jesus didn't come to save him," the rebel taunted.

http://m.christianpost.com/news/syri...e-him--104498/

“The rules are simple: they lie to us, we know they're lying, they know we know they're lying, but they keep lying to us, and we keep pretending to believe them.”


― Elena Gorokhova, A Mountain of Crumbs

Occupy The Firing Range

You know what? I was going to stay silent and give it time. I was expecting the other side would do the same, but the knee jerk reactionaries have already started their crap. FEINSTEIN is already calling for new bills! The usual suspects are going on about the need for more laws, same old stuff they roll out every time, without any regard for the facts. Nope, no need for facts when you base your decisions on emotion, disinformation, knee jerk reactions and hysteria.

The shooter was former Navy and civilian DOD contractor. He'd already passed some stringent background checks.

DC already has extremely strict gun control. Under DC gun control laws:

-it was illegal for the shooter to bring a gun to DC

- it was illegal for him to possess any magazines over 10 rounds.

-it was illegal for the shooter to carry a gun through DC

- it was illegal to bring his weapon on a military installation


ALL UNDER DC'S STRICT GUN CONTROL LAWS.

How, exactly, would more laws like this have prevented this????

Washington Navy Yard Already Suffers the Restrictions That Gun Control Advocates Favor

J.D. Tuccille|Sep. 17, 2013 1:36 pm

FBI

Yet another mass shooting, and flags fly across the country at half-mast to mourn the 13 dead at the Washington Navy Yard—well, 12 of them, anyway, since one of the bodies was that of the murderer. Gun control advocates wasted no time in demanding new restrictions on the means of self-defense. Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA), who used to carry a pistol for her own defense, responded to the crime by saying, "Congress must stop shirking its responsibility and resume a thoughtful debate on gun violence in this country. We must do more to stop this endless loss of life." But the unhappy truth is that the scene of the crime, the Washington Navy Yard, is subject to many of the restrictions that gun control advocates favor. And the perpetrator, Aaron Alexis, had passed a background check for a security clearance. Unfortunately, laws and databases don't create magic forcefields against criminal intent.
Navy public affairs officers have full voicemail boxes, today, for obvious reason, so it's difficult to learn if there were specific restrictions that applied to the Washington Navy Yard or to Naval Sea Systems Command Headquarters, where the shootings took place. But military installations, despite their obvious role in waging war, come pretty close to being gun-free zones, given the rules by which personnel and visitors must abide. Or, if not strictly gun-free-zones, they're subject to tight regulations that keep most (law-abiding) people largely disarmed.
Firearms regulations at military installations are sufficiently byzantine that the Quantico Shooting Club at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia,cautions members and guests about them and maintains a listing of restrictions (PDF). In particular, U.S. Navy Regulation 1159 (PDF) states:

Except as may be necessary to the proper performance of his or her duty or as may be authorised by proper authority, no person in the naval service shall:
a. have concealed about his or her person any dangerous weapon, instrument or device, or any highly explosive article or compound; or
b. have in his or her possession any dangerous weapon, instrument or device or any highly explosive article or compound on board any ship, craft, aircraft, or in any vehicle of the naval service or within any base or other place under naval jurisdiction.

The Quantico summary clarifies interpretation of the rules for the base, adding, "Under no circumstances will the transportation of loaded or concealed handguns, shotguns, or rifles be permitted on MCBQ except under those situations outlined in paragraph 7 of this Order." That's specific to Quantico, but there's little reason to think that's at wide variance from policy anywhere else.
Then-President Clinton issued an order in 1993 (PDF) severely tightening gun restrictions at all Department of the Army installations. The directive said in part, "The authorization to carry firearms will be issued only to qualified personnel when there is a reasonable expectation that life or Department of the Army (DA) assets will be jeopardized if firearms are not carried." The same rules seem to apply to the other branches of service, to go by the Navy regulations above.
That makes military bases much like other "gun-free zones." They're only as well protected as the willingness of would-be perpetrators to follow rules allows, along with the ability of a thin line of personnel authorized to carry arms to deter or stop criminals.
And detecting would-be perpetrators isn't as simple as imposing ever-tougher background checks. Aaron Alexis passed such a check. "Alexis had a security clearance that was updated in July, approved by military security service personnel," said Thomas Hoshko, CEO at The Experts, Alexis's employer. That's despite being pushed out of the military "over a pattern of misconduct that included insubordination, unauthorized absences and other infractions" as well as two criminal incidents—one of which involved shooting out a car's tires. Alexis also reportedly sought help with mental health issuesfrom the Veterans Administration.
And yet he received a security clearance last year which was renewed in July.
Background checks are only as good as the information in the database and the people running them. Alexis passed his background checks, then was issued credentials that allowed him to enter the Navy Yard, bypassing such armed security personnel as guarded the perimeter.
After that, he faced unarmed victims, deprived of the means to defend themselves. At this point the choice of weapons, nevermind Sen. Feinstein's fixation on AR-15s, was moot*.
This is gun control.
*Update: The FBI now says the weapons used by Aaron Alexis in the Washington Navy Yard attack were one shotgun and two pistols.



RELATED

• Does the Successful Colorado Recall of Anti-Gun Politicians Mean Gun Control is Dead?
  
  Brian Doherty| 9.13.13
• New York Sheriffs Tell Cuomo To Stuff His Gun Control Laws
  
  J.D. Tuccille| 9.10.13
• Joining Federalism Surge, Missouri Prepares To Tell Feds To Stuff Their Gun Laws
  
  J.D. Tuccille| 8.29.13
  
  
  
  http://reason.com/blog/2013/09/17/na...-the-restricti

http://www.alipac.us/f9/obama-%9380-...8/#post1368039

AVOW (Another Voice of Warning)

“The rules are simple: they lie to us, we know they're lying, they know we know they're lying, but they keep lying to us, and we keep pretending to believe them.”


― Elena Gorokhova, A Mountain of Crumbs