Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Barry's OKC II

Updated
RE:Obama's OKC
Poll shows high marks for Obama on
Tucson, low regard for political dialogue

Trying to hang on here
I referred earlier to a suggestion that Obama "needs an event ‘similar’ to OKC to ‘reconnect’ with voters."  I wondered if the Giffords shootings would suffice?  As events unfolded however, and it became apparent that this was the act of a deranged left-wing liberal, and despite the media trying desperately to blame it on Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh, it seemed a no-go for Obama. 
However,
if this WaPost story is accurate (and I'm about to show it is not), it is working for him.

Evaluations of President Obama's handling of the Jan. 8 tragedy are highly positive across the political spectrum, with nearly eight in 10 giving him high marks for his response to the incident. A robust 71 percent of Republicans say they approve of his leadership following the shootings.

The strong reviews of the president's response to the Arizona incident - which included giving a prime-time eulogy at a memorial service for the victims - have helped boost Obama's overall approval rating to its highest point since last April. Fully 54 percent of all Americans now approve of the way he is handling his job as president, while 43 percent disapprove. 

 Almost immediately after hearing about the shootings I had this question.  How is it that this could happen in a state that has a carry law?  How can Jared Lee Loughner walk down the line, ala Colin Ferguson, and shoot people without someone blowing his ass away?  Ferguson was able to execute 6 people because he did it in New York, where only criminals have guns.  But Arizona?  Last night it struck me.  This event was held by Democrat Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, and attended by Democrats.  There wasn't anyone there who believed in self defense! So, how can I square that with these gun control "facts" from the article?

Overall, 52 percent favor stricter gun-control laws, a number little changed in recent years and down from where it was after the 2007 shootings at Virginia Tech. Support for new restrictions on the sale of semiautomatic handguns is also down from what it was after the Virginia Tech incident.

About a third - 31 percent - favor a blanket prohibition on the sale of all handguns, except to law enforcement officers, which is comparable to public opinion after the Columbine school shootings in 1999 in Littleton, Colo., and lower than what it was after Virginia Tech.

The answer is that the POST is playing fast and loose with the facts, if not outright lying. 

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

24 yr old Joe Zamudio WAS armed ran to the sound of the shots and tackled Loughner.
RAK
http://www.maggiesnotebook.com/2011/01/joe-zamudio-tucson-hero-on-geraldo-video/

Rodger the Real King of France said...

but by that time a dozen were shot RAK.

Anonymous said...

With that in mind; yeah the crowd was made up of Dems with the now proven Loony "Your Dead" "Prince"Fuller amongst them. Reminds me of Ed McGivern and other trick shooters: they would challenge someone from the audience to try and get a shot off before they could draw and fire... action always beats reaction...
My wife was near the epicenter of a spree killer- far more experienced shooter with more guns and multiple reloads and armed citizen, Chad Eastep, brought it to a happy ending the perp shot himself as Chad covered him with his own G-23.

Melissa "Darla" In Texas said...

The gun owners are largely conservative and this was a democrat event, it makes sense that no one in the immediate crowd was armed.
There were folks who were armed, but they were not at the event when the shooting started and came running toward the danger from elsewhere.
Had some of the liberal, peacenik gun haters present been carrying and known what to do with their weapon, the outcome could have been VERY different.

Kristophr said...

I'd bet the CCW holders that took the perp down were Republicans protesting the Dem rally.

They are welcome.

Chuck said...

When someone suggests the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms should be restricted the response should be a look of extreme incredulity and informing them that they should not act on that impulse. Such acts are illegal. People acting on them can and should be arrested and sent to prison. The same goes for politicians.

This is no different than someone proposing the right to freedom of association should be limited to those groups that pass a sporting purpose test and be restricted to ten people or less. After all you only need five people for a basketball team and ten people can make a baseball team. If you want to associate in groups larger than if can only mean you want to form an angry mob and riot. You don’t need to associate in larger groups than ten, right?

Now that the cards are on the table tell me we can find common ground and compromise on something “reasonable” for both sides.

Some of those same people are also advocating the repeal of the Second Amendment. I find this just as abhorrent as I would a suggestion of repealing the 13th Amendment. We fought a civil war over that issue and I would expect no less over the attempted repeal of the Second Amendment.

Post a Comment

Just type your name and post as anonymous if you don't have a Blogger profile.