Obama gun view out of step with public opinion: Guest Column

[dubya]

It's a guest column but well stated. The NRA and TSRA are doing excellent work to protects our rights and freedom.
But, as we have seen, what the majority desires is not this administrations main objective.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2 ... a/1851643/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Obama gun view out of step with public opinion: Column
Excerpts:
The NRA has a higher approval rating than the president because it's in sync with Americans' beliefs.
...
... it turned out that 55% of Americans supported the NRA proposal.
...
Meanwhile, pundits denounced gun-rights activists who said that the right to bear arms is in part a protection against government tyranny. Only a crazed militia type could possibly believe that, right? Except that — go figure — 65% of Americans see gun rights as a protection against tyranny. And only 17% say they disagree. Once again, it's the critics who appear to be out of the mainstream.
...
Outside the mainstream
And by out of the mainstream, I mean really out of the mainstream. According to a post-Sandy Hook Gallup poll, the NRA,with a 54% favorable rating, is actually more popular than President Obama. By contrast, Obama's most recent approval rating from Gallup was 48%. This is particularly striking given that the NRA has faced unrelentingly hostile treatment from most press and pundits, while President Obama has received treatment that is, to put it mildly, far more generous

Excerpts. More at the link http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2 ... a/1851643/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[chasfm11]

/tin foil hat on.

While initially, those calling for the gun bans etc. may be out of the mainstream thinking, I believe that the purpose of the this exercise is to change that. The Obama White House is threatening to use their campaign mechanism to undermine the NRA position. And it may work. Let's review history.

- Sarah Palin came from nowhere. She was suddenly a VP candidate. And the attacks begin. Within a few short months, she had amassed a huge negative response. Those in charge of the campaign saw her as a threat and acted accordingly. I'm not a big fan of Sarah Palin but the concerted, sustained and vicious attack against her remains out of character for the position that she holds - none - in politics.
- Mitt Romney was attacked consistently and heavily before he was even the official candidate. The attacks were significantly different than for any other GOP candidate. By the time of the debates, a negative persona had already been created for him, defined by the campaign. Even great performances in the debates could not overcome it. Again, I was not a Romney fan and there were many other factors (i.e. lack of enthusiasm for him among the Evangelicals) that caused the election results but there is no discounting the role that the campaign played.
- no opposition group to the campaign controls the message in social media. Those who can frame the message control it. Social media apparently has a much greater impact on the minds of the American public than any of the political pundits recognized. Given the demise of the print media and poor ratings for the larger broadcast media (both radio and TV), this shouldn't be surprising. I'm amazed at how many people seem to get their news through Facebook. It is frightening, at least to me.
- I believe President Obama and his supporters view gun control as a "must win". Obamacare was a highly unpopular program, causing a significant shift in the Congress on the next election cycle. Since then, there has been a full court press to change public opinion on Obamacare. It is still the law and it will go into pretty much full implementation unchecked next near. Opposition remains but it is not having an impact on that implementation. I can see gun control following the same path. Unpopular does not equal un-doable.

[VMI77]

/tin foil hat on.

While initially, those calling for the gun bans etc. may be out of the mainstream thinking, I believe that the purpose of the this exercise is to change that. The Obama White House is threatening to use their campaign mechanism to undermine the NRA position. And it may work. Let's review history.

- Sarah Palin came from nowhere. She was suddenly a VP candidate. And the attacks begin. Within a few short months, she had amassed a huge negative response. Those in charge of the campaign saw her as a threat and acted accordingly. I'm not a big fan of Sarah Palin but the concerted, sustained and vicious attack against her remains out of character for the position that she holds - none - in politics.
- Mitt Romney was attacked consistently and heavily before he was even the official candidate. The attacks were significantly different than for any other GOP candidate. By the time of the debates, a negative persona had already been created for him, defined by the campaign. Even great performances in the debates could not overcome it. Again, I was not a Romney fan and there were many other factors (i.e. lack of enthusiasm for him among the Evangelicals) that caused the election results but there is no discounting the role that the campaign played.
- no opposition group to the campaign controls the message in social media. Those who can frame the message control it. Social media apparently has a much greater impact on the minds of the American public than any of the political pundits recognized. Given the demise of the print media and poor ratings for the larger broadcast media (both radio and TV), this shouldn't be surprising. I'm amazed at how many people seem to get their news through Facebook. It is frightening, at least to me.
- I believe President Obama and his supporters view gun control as a "must win". Obamacare was a highly unpopular program, causing a significant shift in the Congress on the next election cycle. Since then, there has been a full court press to change public opinion on Obamacare. It is still the law and it will go into pretty much full implementation unchecked next near. Opposition remains but it is not having an impact on that implementation. I can see gun control following the same path. Unpopular does not equal un-doable.

I don't think those events are necessarily comparable because they're not really "personal." No particular action that directly affects individuals was associated with these politicians; and these politicians were only knowable through the media with no direct personal experience (which btw, was not how the country was intended to be governed --legislators were supposed to come from relatively small regions where they were known personally by large numbers of people). People have their own experiences with guns. Where a claim about Palin can only be validated through what people can read or see in the media people who have guns know from their own experiences that they are being lied to. Also, most people in this country still believe in the right to self-defense, and even those without guns know that self-defense means having guns available. In the debate there are already two committed sides. No one on either side is going to change their minds. The people who haven't taken a side can't be as easily fooled on the topic of guns and self-defense as they can about a politician, because there are physically demonstrable facts that show the other side to be liars and undermine the gun control arguments.

The left has publicly stated that they intend to demonize and stigmatize gun ownership so there is no doubt about their goals, but I don't think it will be as easy as it is to demagogue on politics or a politician.

[anygunanywhere]

/tin foil hat on.

While initially, those calling for the gun bans etc. may be out of the mainstream thinking, I believe that the purpose of the this exercise is to change that. The Obama White House is threatening to use their campaign mechanism to undermine the NRA position. And it may work. Let's review history.

- Sarah Palin came from nowhere. She was suddenly a VP candidate. And the attacks begin. Within a few short months, she had amassed a huge negative response. Those in charge of the campaign saw her as a threat and acted accordingly. I'm not a big fan of Sarah Palin but the concerted, sustained and vicious attack against her remains out of character for the position that she holds - none - in politics.
- Mitt Romney was attacked consistently and heavily before he was even the official candidate. The attacks were significantly different than for any other GOP candidate. By the time of the debates, a negative persona had already been created for him, defined by the campaign. Even great performances in the debates could not overcome it. Again, I was not a Romney fan and there were many other factors (i.e. lack of enthusiasm for him among the Evangelicals) that caused the election results but there is no discounting the role that the campaign played.
- no opposition group to the campaign controls the message in social media. Those who can frame the message control it. Social media apparently has a much greater impact on the minds of the American public than any of the political pundits recognized. Given the demise of the print media and poor ratings for the larger broadcast media (both radio and TV), this shouldn't be surprising. I'm amazed at how many people seem to get their news through Facebook. It is frightening, at least to me.
- I believe President Obama and his supporters view gun control as a "must win". Obamacare was a highly unpopular program, causing a significant shift in the Congress on the next election cycle. Since then, there has been a full court press to change public opinion on Obamacare. It is still the law and it will go into pretty much full implementation unchecked next near. Opposition remains but it is not having an impact on that implementation. I can see gun control following the same path. Unpopular does not equal un-doable.

I don't think those events are necessarily comparable because they're not really "personal." No particular action that directly affects individuals was associated with these politicians; and these politicians were only knowable through the media with no direct personal experience (which btw, was not how the country was intended to be governed --legislators were supposed to come from relatively small regions where they were known personally by large numbers of people). People have their own experiences with guns. Where a claim about Palin can only be validated through what people can read or see in the media people who have guns know from their own experiences that they are being lied to. Also, most people in this country still believe in the right to self-defense, and even those without guns know that self-defense means having guns available. In the debate there are already two committed sides. No one on either side is going to change their minds. The people who haven't taken a side can't be as easily fooled on the topic of guns and self-defense as they can about a politician, because there are physically demonstrable facts that show the other side to be liars and undermine the gun control arguments.

The left has publicly stated that they intend to demonize and stigmatize gun ownership so there is no doubt about their goals, but I don't think it will be as easy as it is to demagogue on politics or a politician.

Sticks and stones may break our bones but we have a bunch of guns and lots of ammo.

Anygunanywhere

[chasfm11]

I don't think those events are necessarily comparable because they're not really "personal." No particular action that directly affects individuals was associated with these politicians; and these politicians were only knowable through the media with no direct personal experience (which btw, was not how the country was intended to be governed --legislators were supposed to come from relatively small regions where they were known personally by large numbers of people). People have their own experiences with guns. Where a claim about Palin can only be validated through what people can read or see in the media people who have guns know from their own experiences that they are being lied to. Also, most people in this country still believe in the right to self-defense, and even those without guns know that self-defense means having guns available. In the debate there are already two committed sides. No one on either side is going to change their minds. The people who haven't taken a side can't be as easily fooled on the topic of guns and self-defense as they can about a politician, because there are physically demonstrable facts that show the other side to be liars and undermine the gun control arguments.

The left has publicly stated that they intend to demonize and stigmatize gun ownership so there is no doubt about their goals, but I don't think it will be as easy as it is to demagogue on politics or a politician.

I think this is part of the demographic problem. I understand your point about people not being as invested in demonizing Palin as they are about demonizing guns but the latter has been done significantly in a lot of Blue States. It is being done today in the public schools. I don't think the experiences with guns that those of us over 30 have are the same as the younger people, particularly in the urban areas. We all agree that several of the key urban areas (i.e. Chicago) control what happens in their respective States. I think that there is more than a little association with "old white guys" when it comes to the gun topic.

Yes, I do realize and acknowledge that there a millions and millions of gun owners. I also recognize that many of them are in Blue States and, like NY, could be other than gun owners tomorrow.

My point is that we don't want to underestimate the power of the social media and those who have proven that they know how to use it. Whether they will be successful remains to be seen. Even Slick Willy understands that and is trying to warn them. He was no where near as ideological as they are.

[VMI77]

I don't think those events are necessarily comparable because they're not really "personal." No particular action that directly affects individuals was associated with these politicians; and these politicians were only knowable through the media with no direct personal experience (which btw, was not how the country was intended to be governed --legislators were supposed to come from relatively small regions where they were known personally by large numbers of people). People have their own experiences with guns. Where a claim about Palin can only be validated through what people can read or see in the media people who have guns know from their own experiences that they are being lied to. Also, most people in this country still believe in the right to self-defense, and even those without guns know that self-defense means having guns available. In the debate there are already two committed sides. No one on either side is going to change their minds. The people who haven't taken a side can't be as easily fooled on the topic of guns and self-defense as they can about a politician, because there are physically demonstrable facts that show the other side to be liars and undermine the gun control arguments.

The left has publicly stated that they intend to demonize and stigmatize gun ownership so there is no doubt about their goals, but I don't think it will be as easy as it is to demagogue on politics or a politician.

I think this is part of the demographic problem. I understand your point about people not being as invested in demonizing Palin as they are about demonizing guns but the latter has been done significantly in a lot of Blue States. It is being done today in the public schools. I don't think the experiences with guns that those of us over 30 have are the same as the younger people, particularly in the urban areas. We all agree that several of the key urban areas (i.e. Chicago) control what happens in their respective States. I think that there is more than a little association with "old white guys" when it comes to the gun topic.

Yes, I do realize and acknowledge that there a millions and millions of gun owners. I also recognize that many of them are in Blue States and, like NY, could be other than gun owners tomorrow.

My point is that we don't want to underestimate the power of the social media and those who have proven that they know how to use it. Whether they will be successful remains to be seen. Even Slick Willy understands that and is trying to warn them. He was no where near as ideological as they are.

I agree about the demographic problem......The demographics are no accident; they are a creation of liberal policies. And I am very concerned about the direction we're headed. However, not all the demographic evidence is in their favor, with polls showing things like 40-60% of high school and college kids planning to buy or contemplating buying guns. The liberal entertainment media may actually have been unintentionally more successful at glamorizing and popularizing guns than stigmatizing them. I'm not just seeing old White men at guns stores, and lately I've been seeing a lot of women looking at guns. I think women in the military may be one influence, but there are others. And as the old media continues to discredit itself in more and more obvious ways, people are turning to alternative sources, so it is sort of a race between media propaganda and people becoming more informed, and I don't know what will win out.

[chasfm11]

I don't think those events are necessarily comparable because they're not really "personal." No particular action that directly affects individuals was associated with these politicians; and these politicians were only knowable through the media with no direct personal experience (which btw, was not how the country was intended to be governed --legislators were supposed to come from relatively small regions where they were known personally by large numbers of people). People have their own experiences with guns. Where a claim about Palin can only be validated through what people can read or see in the media people who have guns know from their own experiences that they are being lied to. Also, most people in this country still believe in the right to self-defense, and even those without guns know that self-defense means having guns available. In the debate there are already two committed sides. No one on either side is going to change their minds. The people who haven't taken a side can't be as easily fooled on the topic of guns and self-defense as they can about a politician, because there are physically demonstrable facts that show the other side to be liars and undermine the gun control arguments.

The left has publicly stated that they intend to demonize and stigmatize gun ownership so there is no doubt about their goals, but I don't think it will be as easy as it is to demagogue on politics or a politician.

I think this is part of the demographic problem. I understand your point about people not being as invested in demonizing Palin as they are about demonizing guns but the latter has been done significantly in a lot of Blue States. It is being done today in the public schools. I don't think the experiences with guns that those of us over 30 have are the same as the younger people, particularly in the urban areas. We all agree that several of the key urban areas (i.e. Chicago) control what happens in their respective States. I think that there is more than a little association with "old white guys" when it comes to the gun topic.

Yes, I do realize and acknowledge that there a millions and millions of gun owners. I also recognize that many of them are in Blue States and, like NY, could be other than gun owners tomorrow.

My point is that we don't want to underestimate the power of the social media and those who have proven that they know how to use it. Whether they will be successful remains to be seen. Even Slick Willy understands that and is trying to warn them. He was no where near as ideological as they are.

I agree about the demographic problem......The demographics are no accident; they are a creation of liberal policies. And I am very concerned about the direction we're headed. However, not all the demographic evidence is in their favor, with polls showing things like 40-60% of high school and college kids planning to buy or contemplating buying guns. The liberal entertainment media may actually have been unintentionally more successful at glamorizing and popularizing guns than stigmatizing them. I'm not just seeing old White men at guns stores, and lately I've been seeing a lot of women looking at guns. I think women in the military may be one influence, but there are others. And as the old media continues to discredit itself in more and more obvious ways, people are turning to alternative sources, so it is sort of a race between media propaganda and people becoming more informed, and I don't know what will win out.

I'm not sure that what we see in Texas is representative of the rest of the country. The anti-gun bias in the schools has an effect, too. The incident in Phila over the grade school girl with a very rough paper gun is an example.

I'm much more worried about people feeling like they can have no impact on government at any level and just burying their heads in the sand relative to the news. I know that the Tonight show and others solicit uninformed people on the street to mock but, as they sometimes say, that is "a target rich environment."