A widely publicized sit-in by House Democrats. A bipartisan compromise proposal in the Senate. Neither is very likely to lead to any legislative action in Congress on gun safety this year. Election Day is too close, and most of the Republican opposition is too dug in.
This is all part of Obama's, and the Department of Justice's efforts to do everything they can not to mention the words Islamic Terrorism, taking the opportunity instead to push gun control. They are aided by the media which pushes out poll results that are rigged, as Frank Miniter wrote last week in Forbes, using wording in such a way that most people will say yes to the questions asked. For instance:But the fact that a legislative response remains elusive does not mean there has been no movement on the issue. Members of both parties say they sensed a shift in the gun debate after the mass killing in Orlando, Fla., a notable difference in attitude from the reaction on Capitol Hill after previous horrific shootings.Eight Senate Republicans joined with 44 Democrats on a Republican-proposed compromise that would deny people on two different federal watch lists the ability to buy weapons unless they could successfully appeal that decision. Several other Republican senators showed some willingness to accept new restrictions on gun purchases if they could be structured in an acceptable way. A bipartisan companion measure also was introduced in the House.These are incremental steps, but in the gridlocked world of gun control politics, they count for something..
The deception begins with polls. A CNN/ORC poll conducted June 16-19, is a good example. Its asked participants if they “generally favor or oppose … preventing people who are on the U.S. government’s Terrorist Watchlist or no-fly list from owning guns”?This allows the media and Obama to run with the false narrative that the NRA doesn't care if terrorists can buy guns. It's about demonizing the NRA. Doesn't seem to be working as a poll released earlier this week showed the NRA is more popular than both political parties and Hillary Clinton, and viewed negatively by less people than view Obama negatively.
Given how this question is worded, it should be no surprise that 85% of respondents said they are in “favor” stopping terrorists from legally owning guns. Who can blame them? Any reasonable person must want law enforcement to investigate, watch and, when necessary, prevent possible terrorists from getting guns.
Notice it uses the word “prevent” not “ban” or “stop.” “Prevent” implies a more nuanced approach than the U.S. Government using secret (as they must be) black lists, like the “no-fly list,” to not just take away a person’s Second Amendment right to bear arms away, but also their Fifth Amendment right to due process under the law.
Actually, the 15% of the respondents who said they “oppose” … “preventing people who are on the U.S. government’s Terrorist Watchlist or no-fly list from owning guns,” likely knew this was a loaded question and then stubbornly refused to go along with the premise that the government should be able to take the U.S. Bill of Rights away from U.S. citizens without even having its power checked by the judicial branch.
Miniter appeared on NRANews.com last Friday to discuss his article in more detail and why all of this is hypocritical.