America’s New Gun Control Consensus


Pages: 1 2

Much to the chagrin of gun-control proponents, the Aurora, Colorado, movie theater shootings have not triggered a new political push for stricter regulation of the right to bear arms.

Both President Obama and Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, a Democrat, reaffirmed their support for gun rights in the aftermath of the shootings and declined to back new gun control measures. On the contrary, Obama spokesman Jay Carney stressed that the president would “protect Second Amendment rights.” While the call for stricter gun control did go up from predictable sources like liberal columnists and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the media mostly restrained the impulse to endorse new restrictions on firearms.

Democrats and anti-gun activists wasted little time assigning blame for the dearth of enthusiasm for gun control to that familiar boogeyman, the National Rifle Association. Thus, New York’s Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer lamented what he called the “power of the NRA” in stifling political support for gun control, while in neighboring New Jersey Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez complained that the NRA was using its “money” and “resources” to “oppose all reasonable gun legislation” and to drive the national debate in its favor.

However one measures the political clout of the NRA, the organization simply is not powerful enough to transform American public opinion in the manner that Democrats suggest. Indeed, their argument has it backward: To the extent that the NRA’s skepticism about gun control is influential in American politics it is because it mostly reflects a gradual decline in support for gun control among the American public. Polls bear this out. A 1991 Gallup poll found that 78 percent of Americans supported stricter laws on the sale of firearms. By 2011, public support for gun control had eroded, with just 43 percent favoring stricter gun control. Americans still have their political hobbyhorses, but by and large gun control is not one of them.

Several factors explain gun control’s plummeting popularity. For one thing, much of current gun control legislation was enacted into law on the dubious premise that a reduced availability of legal firearms would curtail violent crime. Yet, as the economist John Lott has long argued, the correlation between guns and crime is statistically shaky. Crime rates have fallen in the United States for several decades even as rates of gun ownership have increased. Washington D.C., which until recently had one of the strictest gun control laws in the country, also has some of the highest rates of crime in the nation. In fact, crime rates shot up after the city’s ban on handguns went into effect in 1976. The United States is not the only country to illustrate the paradox of more guns and less crime. Countries like Israel and Switzerland have comparatively lax gun control regimes, yet their homicide rates are roughly comparable to those of the UK and Japan, which have strict gun control policies.

Pages: 1 2

  • harrylies

    When mass killings happened in Australia, Britian, and Canada, goverrnments, both left and right-wing, put in restrictions. None of these countries are police states. You're less likely to be murdered in those countries than the US. Yes, all these countries have guys who talk to their guns, but they do not run the government.

    • tagalog

      I don't know about "guys who talk to their guns," but I DO know that gun control issues have usually been resolved by the people and their institutions fighting against our political leaders, where the political leaders favor gun control and the people are against it.

    • Spider

      None of the countries that you mention with low crime rates have millions of un-educated blacks and migrants. like the U.S. has. In order to survive these groups get involved in the gangland culture and become professional criminals. This raises havoc with the entire society and this is why you are more likely to get murdered in the U.S. That is the difference between these countries and the US – not the gun issue. This is where the real problem lies and nobody wants to talk about it because it is not polite or PC.

      • Max

        Spider, excellent point. I was held up twice, once by a couple of blacks and another time by a Hispanic man. The firearm resolved both situations peacefully.

    • pagegl

      Any society that restricts free speech, as do the three you mentioned, that require you to attempt to flee rather than protect yourself lest you harm your assailant and probably end up with more severe charges than your assailant, that imprison a man for defending his property, as GB has, may not be police states, but in some ways they are darn near borderline police state. Plus, just in case you don't know it, in the USA the murder rate has been trending down, it's going up in Great Britain. Also, if you remove the criminal killing criminal murders in the USA you just might find that our murder rate isn't much worse than most of Europe's; unless you're a drug dealer or a gang banger your chances of being murdered here aren't much, if any, worse than Europe's or Canada's or Australia's.

    • UCSPanther

      We're changing that in Canada. We just recently got rid of our long gun registry and we are pushing to put an end to the rest of the restrictions.

    • Serafino

      Harrylies, you are clueless. A typical opinionated liberal who has not spent 5 minutes to research a subject but rams through a topic as if he/she knows it all. The crime levels in the U.K,, Australia and other countries with tight gun control are at the all-time high. Citizens are helpless and in panic. Most refuse to give up, though. People are resourseful and they certainly do not wish to become defenseless sheep. There are thousands of websites – most of them based in U.K. – that give users step-by-step instructions on how to build zipguns – check it out for yourself. But you probably won't. You probably don't even have the mental capacity to understand why there would be such a demand for DIY instructions to build a gun. Why? Because it is a great equalizer and it makes for a polite society free of crime and government abuse.

    • Dpavey3

      You were less likely to be killed in those countries to begin with. You are also less likely to be killed with a gun in Switzerland even though they allow citizen the same age of the aurora shooter to posses FULLY automatic rifles. Following your reasoning we should allow this to see if we can reduce violence that way? The problem is not guns but the US society. Banning guns and not fixing the really problem will only lead to grater problems!

  • franz von fear

    This whole gun-control debate is a diversion, allowing all involved to evade the real problem – Violence in US society.

    The US homicide rate is well above 4 times that of any other industrialized Western society. And it has little to do with arms. Almost every Swiss male holds his army assult weapon at home, yet Swiss homicide rates are under 0.8, compared to the US 4.7.

    Murders per 1.000.000 inhabitants in the US: 56,3. And in Germany: 9,7. That means the murder rate is nearly six times higher in the US than in Germany. Canada's rates run at 6.8, although Canadian arms laws are less restrictive than those of many US states.

    While violence spinns out of control in US society, all involved retreat behind the smokescreen of "gun control".

    • sharpsrifle

      Actually, when you control for black-on-black crime and black-on-white crime, the homicide rate in the United States plummets to levels approximating those of Israel, the UK and Japan. The "inconvenient truth" is that hard-core urban areas are combat zones, but rural and suburban areas are not…and it's one group of people who statistically commit those crimes with UNLAWFULLY OBTAINED FIREARMS. The problem is that to bring that fact up (look at the FBI's statistics if you doubt me), is deemed politically incorrect and racist. Sad thing though, the truth is a b*tch.

    • Lady_Dr

      Where exactly is the violence spinning out of control? Chicago? Detroit maybe? Yeah, probably but these places are not typical and futhermore these are left-wing centers of poltical correctness which allows for violence to spin out of control. It ain't happening in the 'real USA."

    • Fred Dawes

      This is what happens when you allow others to control your country the next move will be to Errducation camp not like in the 1930 Naiz germany but a new form of control be using money and jobs and the IRS To get people to do things like Gun Control most will go along to get along others will just be killed.

    • mlcblog

      I say, and using your own statistics, that the problem is a lack of enough ready firearms held by every male.

      • crackerjack

        In countrys such as Somalia, Afghanistan, Jemen or Ruanda there is no lack of ready firearms among males. The impact on homicide rates remain negative.

        • mlcblog

          good point

          I guess I always come from the platform of being born and raised here, where people have a different conscience as regards mayhem against others.

  • ★FALCON★

    Anyone who has ever voted for a Democrats should willingly turn in their guns. And then their knives next.

    • johnnywoods

      Hey Falcon, I last voted Democrap in 1988. Does that count for something. Nobody gets my gun!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • mlcblog

      but Wait!! that was before I saw the light.

  • jacob

    FALCON :

    You failed to include kitchen and table knives and forks….
    Hair combs can be used also to slit peoples throats…

    Reelect OBAMA and see where this country ends up….

    • ★FALCON★

      True – In China they don't allow the peasant to own hand guns – so murders are committed with knives. If someone wants another dead badly enough – the weapon doesn't matter. Bare hands can be used.

    • Fred Dawes

      the police state will get to that soon,monkeys jumping! Obama looks like something from a ZOO.

  • Infidel

    We don't have a gun-control problem in this country, what we have is a SIN problem. We have kicked GOD out of most everything in our country even in certain church's. Now we are stuck with the consequinces.

    • popseal

      "ON KILLING" by West Point Military Academy professor LT. Col. Dave Grossman explains the 'desensitization' process leading to home grown "Terminators" or 'Batmen".

      • dmw

        Good point. Ultimately, it is about context. (See my comment below about the Dirty Harry remark) When training American Soldiers, a training regimen must desensitize raw recruits from their normative tendencies to be unaggressive and not kill. But the context is to be able and willing to kill "the enemy" or be killed (and thus fail to fulfill the rationale for the Soldier's existence — to defend his comrades and the Nation). As a former Soldier and officer, it greatly saddens me that there is so much in our popular culture now that glorifies and simulates killing in both a law enforcement and military context. Couple that with no genuine self-esteem and a tendency can surely develop to translate fantasy to real life in the form of a simulated "superman" which must eventually come of the closet.

  • popseal

    Look for Obama and an end run tactic using the United Nations in regards to overthrowing the Second Amendment. That's the way it is with his bait and switch style. Also don't expect him to leave office peacefully. That's the way it is with dictators!

    • Asher

      He had better be ready for a well armed American public who are not going to give up their weapons…No Way!

  • WildJew

    Obama's and Schumer's wet dream is a defenseless, disarmed America. Barack Obama's "bitter clinger" speech said it all. Americans, in Obama's view, are clinging to their guns and religion. Obama wants to win another term so that he can complete the destruction of America as we know it. Now is not a good time to talk about taking away people's guns. When Obama was elected, November 2008, gun sales went through the roof. Little doubt Obama knows why.

    • dmw

      The right to life is more than about abortion. I'm talking about the Life mentioned in our Declaration, of which "pro-life" is a subset.

    • Jim_C

      Gun sales went through the roof because IDIOTS think Obama is going to take away their guns. He hasn't, he won't, but that won't stop idiots from paranoid conjecture. It's never about facts for these idiots–it's all about emotion and speculation.

      • Western Spirit

        your so-called idiots are only human. Its human to let emotions and speculation sway people. Maybe you'd prefer some other species? I would, if I could do away with certain human nature characteristics.

        But you're right that facts seldom get in the way of willful ignorance—that's why the Left has been so successful in spreading its nonsense.

        As far as gun control is concerned common sense tells you that if you control the guns of the general public, only criminals or mad men will have guns. They'll be motivated to get them by hook or crook and won't care about laws.

        • Jim_C

          But why? Obama has not, and is not, coming after anybody's guns. So why do people keep saying that's what he's doing? Talk about spreading nonsense.

          I agree with your common sense.

          • Drakken

            You are truly clueless, but you go ahead a vote for those liberal democrats and see what happens.

          • Jim_C

            You are truly a dumbass, if you think you've said anything with your reply. Has Obama come for your gun, you bedwetting moron?

    • Max

      Excellent point. They want to disarm the people of this great nation. But… they themselves parade around with armed bodyguards, these shameless punk demagogues.

  • dmw

    Recall the Dirty Harry (Callahan) line that went something like this: "Shooting's O.K. — as long as the right people get shot." In the case of Aurora, CO the perp could not be shot, as a preventative measure. No cop around yet (when seconds count, the police are just minutes away) and no licensed concealed or, for that matter, open carry holders. In all the statistics that are gathered in the U.S. regarding unlawful shooting related and other unlawful/criminal deaths, I would like to see a breakdown of who's getting unlawfully killed and what method or tool was used. How many of the "victims" were engaging in high risk criminal activity.that resulted in being killed by another criminal?

  • Alex Kovnat

    In the wake of the recent Aurora, CO theater tragedy I have this to say: Unlike Seung-Hui Cho at Virginia Tech, the culprit in the Aurora tragedy didn't give as much warning as did SHC. It is a frustration that while Seung-Hui Cho was known (by those who knew or had contact with him) to be a terribly sick and disturbed young man, he nonetheless was able to purchase a powerful handgun and lots of ammunition with which to kill 30+ students and professors. I believe as strongly as ever, that if there were a few students or professors carrying handguns themselves, this pathetic guy could have been stopped before killing as many people as he did. So the problem as I see it, is this: One, do a better job of enforcing laws we already have to keep insane people from acquiring Glocks and similar weapons and two, allow sane, law-abiding citizens to carry handguns wherever they go.

    Regarding James Holmes: I don't know if he could have been stopped beforehand as unlike Cho, he didn't give as much obvious warning beforehand of what a sick puppy he was. But if there had been armed citizens in that theater, maybe they could have stopped him.

    • Lady_Dr

      Agreed – the best defense is a good offense. And we need to get rid of these 'gun free zones' because the criminals and the nut cases see them as refuges from attack while they do their evil deeds.

  • Ricky Michael

    He can't have my arsenal.

    • Fred Dawes

      He can't have my M-14 But when the moneys come some of that old M-14 Will be handed over the little parts that come from the front. 95 percent will hand the guns over at some point in time 6 percent will not and some will be killed but 2 percent that can fight on will do so, the old will die the young will fight on for freedom inside a police monkey state. I say to the cops come get some little monkeys of hell.

  • Robert Pinkerton

    It is nothing less than a "Copybook Headings" (Thank you, Rudyard Kipling) lesson of the last century that disarming the citizenry is the harbinger of indecent designs on the citizens' other liberties.

  • Zionista

    after the shootings, obama the narcissist had to weigh in (when doesn't he inject himself into anything?) and he said something like, "……..if my daughters had been in that theatre….." . message to hussein: If your daughters had been there, the secret service would have been there too – and one of them would have taken out holmes at he first sign of trouble – eliminating most or even all of the deaths holmes caused. Viva la 2nd amendment.

  • AntiSharia

    The President and his minions are restraining themselves because President Obama doesn't want to risk losing states like Colorado and Nevada(both of which he won in 2008) by an anti gun stance. If the UN gun trade treaty is ratified he won't have to do anything, the second amendment will be nullified by treaty. If not he'll just go after gun rights in his second term.

  • Looking4Sanity

    When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

  • http://logistory.blogspot.com/ noway2no

    While I claim no expertise in psychology or biology I believe I have found the root cause of liberal insanity. The fight-or-flight response, also called the acute stress response. This theory states that animals react to threats with a general discharge of the sympathetic nervous system, priming the animal for fighting or fleeing.

    Leftist’s innate response to a threat is flight. They will not let anything, even the inevitable later and greater threat posed by their enemies, keep them from running away. Even when they don’t have to do the fighting; other, better men and women do it for them.

    So to the effeminate left their first and enduring response to a threat is flight. They will not let anything keep them from running away. But in this there is no real danger to them in passing laws that restrict good honest people’s freedoms so they stand and fight. Criminals do represent real danger so their response is flight. This “flight” is manifested by their complete abdication of blame for criminals and an attack on an inanimate object.

  • Iratus Vulgas

    Gun laws are inherently flawed because they're written by people who know little or nothing about guns. They hardly ever accomplish what they were intended to do. The other flaw is gun control proponents are unable or unwilling to confront just how many guns and gun owners there are in the US. The NRA is powerful because they represent a huge sector of American voters–something liberals hate to acknowledge.

  • cynthia curran

    Well, actually upper middle class white areas or more successful Asian ones have murder rates of Western Europe. Take Mission Viejo and Irivne, one in a while more than their usual murder rates but low. ITs mainly ciites with afro-Americans and 2nd generation Hispanics that have higher murder rates and let's say among minorities Anaheim with a little riot has a much lower murder rate compared to Detroit.

  • http://www.wastewatchersinc.org Richard Ahern

    The Right to Carry

    Right To Carry laws reduce crime

    States with Right to Carry laws have lower violent crime rates

    Restrictive carry laws have been on the books for decades, but never reduced crime

    The reason Predient Obama wants to puch for more gun control, his believes that the Constitution is out of date. Its strictley political grand standing. His mindset is what it is sociali Progressive thinking.

    “The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant: Its just that they know so much that isn’t so ” Ronald Reagan

  • Ghostwriter

    Both Anders Breivik and James Holmes are disturbed lunatics with a bloodthirsty bent. They both deserve the death penalty although sadly,only one is going to get it. And to me,James Holmes is a prime candidate for the death penalty,like Anders Breivik was.

  • Amused

    Man , what a CROC Laskin ! Lets see now ….Obama wants to take away our 2nd Amendment rights – yet in 4 yrs in office , not one iota of my 2nd Amendment rights has been even touched ..oh "but he's got a plot goin' on right " ? " A SECRIT CONSPIRACY " to take away all our defenses so he can really take over the country ,then the WORLD mwaaahahahah !!!
    Let me see if I'm gettin' this right now…. the fact that after this terrible tragedy , you don't hear hoardes of those Lefty Democrats clamoring for gun control ….that is to be taken as part of ANOTHER " secrit " conspiracy ? " Cause'n they know no one will stand for it " …Right ?? What are you doing Laskin ? If there's no issue , YOU WILL MAKE ONE UP ?? Man! Talk about exploiting a tragedy and inventing an argument to boot ! What's the matter with you people ?

  • Amused

    Like I said about one of Bawers strawman op-eds , you guys certainly know the mentality of your readership . And they've got a large bulls-eye on their foreheads which you aim and hit center-spot . I've only saw about three or four sane posts amongst the sea of paranoid misinformed and gullible ..parrots . As with any gun-related tragedy , there will be the usual suspects calling for greater control , but in the absence of anything significant …lol….if there ain't no issue , then create one .

    " G-d protect us from men who come in the name of evil , and G-D save us from men who come in the name of good "

    Palladin – Have Gun Will Travel .

  • White Hunter

    Obama's "support for gun rights" is about as sincere as every other promise he's made, starting in 2008 with his "promise" to "bring the country together" and "put partisanship behind us" and be "transparent," continuing with his oath of office promising to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, to…you name it, and he's lied about it.

    We've been down this road many times before. The antis always have an exception, and an excuse. Either a gun is "too powerful" and "too accurate" (e.g. "assault rifles"), or "isn't used for hunting" (as if any of them are hunters) or else it's "cheap, poorly made, and unreliable" ("Saturday night specials"), or whatever they think will get them what they want — which is to confiscate, by any means necessary, all firearms from all responsible, peaceable, law-abiding citizens. The U.N. treaty is a back-door nullification of the Bill of Rights that he can't get through Congress, designed by such paragons of virtue as Syria, Iran, and Cuba. Any questions?

  • Alvaro

    Guns are pieces of metal that will work for anyone. In the hands of criminals, guns are bad. In the hands of decent men, guns are good. And even if there are more decent men than criminals, criminals can still find ways to use their guns to do bad things; but they will undoubtedly lay lower when the guns of decent men are pointed at them.

  • Fred Dawes

    The government of the FORMER USA Is now in the hands of totally evil people and soon the system will start to attack any who are not in line with this evil ideals.
    The system is in the hands of the Nazi bankers it will use the mob to murder and rape the dead corpse of this country.
    Some will fight but it looks as if so many third world people have taken the place of real Americans that anything that we do to stop this evil monkey is helpless.

  • Fred Dawes

    This government will murder millions but in the end game it will not enslave us.

  • Asher

    Well, This is definitely the topic of the week, and in every gun shop where people have bought arsenals of ammo and weapons. This country was based on Judeo-christian values, and the right to bear arms to protect yourself from the government…and for self-defense…. unequivically…no ifs ands, or buts about it….It is insane to say that disarming millions of gun owners who use their firearms for self-defense, hunting, recreational, and competitive target shooting, will make the country a safer place…How does this stop terrorists and criminals from getting guns illegally and creating a massacre like the Dark Knight theater shooting, or Columbine? The problem is we have a radical President, with a radical New York Mayor, and other anti-gun radicals that want to control you not protect you…

  • WilliamJamesWard

    I saw a bumper sticker that read "want to take my gun, smile at the muzzle and wait for the flash".
    It depends where you live if death by gunshot is something to worry about, you know if you are in
    that situation and for you and your family if it is a problem, move, just move while you can. No
    respect for the law is now commonplace and the lawmakers are mostly crooks and false to the
    core. Life is tougher each day and soon we shall all partake in a National demand for law and order.
    Owning weapons helps to assure stability and at least culls some of the criminals…………..William

  • Glennd1

    I'm a gun owner, but I have a question for you folks here. Do you agree that we should have procedures in place to ensure that felons and mentally unstable folks can't just walk into a store and buy a gun? I mean, Virginia Tech, Jared Loughner and now Holmes, they all have that weird pychopathy where violence gets rewired so as to excite their sexual pleasure center. It's part of a much more profound slip into insanity that happens pretty quickly, although folks do bounce along the bottom for some time. Often, such people are in contact with police and civil authorities.

    Jared Loughner had been thrown out of college because his classmates were terrified to come to class, they thought he was going to show up with a gun and kill everyone. I'm not kidding – but this never made it to an intervention stage? We might not catch them all, but we can catch more of them. We have to have civil containment laws again which allow us to act when such a slide is occurring. I'd agree to that, and then to have a database that has to be checked before you can buy a gun. On the spot, just like the NCIC check they do in some states. It could easily be added to NCIC but run by the states.

    Also, I'm not opposed to limiting drum-mags. Sorry, 30 rounds is more than enough, i'd be fine with 15. Maybe you wouldn't, but can we not agree that 100 round mags are a bit much? Just sayin' – and I'm a gun owner.

    • Alvaro

      I live in a country with strict gun control, and it does not prevent criminals from getting guns at all. They will always find a way if they want one.

      Gun control will continue to build up. From simple procedures allegedly to prevent criminals from getting guns, like we see in some countries, to a near ban of privately owned guns like we see in Britain. Gun control laws are getting stricter and stricter until the general population is disarmed. (They are never relaxed.) And criminals are the only ones left with guns.

      Law abiding citizens are subjected to organized harassment. In Norway, the police can legally enter your home to see if your guns are stored in a safe manner. If they think you no longer have the use for a gun, they can withdraw your right of ownership. (They rarely do, but they can.) The point is, gun control is a slippery slope that ultimately ends with the disarmament of law abiding citizens.

      And if it matters, I am a gun owner as well.

      • Glennd1

        I don't disagree with what you are saying but it's unresponsive to the point I'm making. Do you not think that any society should have laws to disallow felons and mentally unstable people from purchasing a firearm? My point focused in on doing better with mentally ill folks, and that we should have some kind of civil (non-criminal) process for dealing with the mentally.

        Example in Loughner case. The college security which decided he should be expelled due to his unstable and threatening behavior should have also had to notify a state mental health agency which would then do an evaluation of Loughner. Only in severe cases should a person who is evaluated be "locked up", but in the mean time, they could be put on the list which bars a gun purchase. These types of rampage killers have a very predictable and identifiable pattern. And, as I suspected, it's come out now that Holmes was doing lots of weird, scary stuff including a notebook a school had of his filled with pics he drew of killing people.

        It should not stop anyone who we want to legally own a gun from buying one, on the spot. But also, gun sellers and folks who run ranges should also be able to report people to the mental health hotline. The gun range owner who refused Holmes should have just been able to flag him, and a civil evaluation could have happened then.

        • Alvaro

          "Do you not think that any society should have laws to disallow felons and mentally unstable people from purchasing a firearm?"

          In an ideal world, yes. In the real world they will be able to get a firearm if they really want to. Gun control with that in mind will only be a hassle for the vast majority of law abiding people.

          "These types of rampage killers have a very predictable and identifiable pattern."

          No. Breivik went on the most "successful" shooting rampage in history. He was not flagged by anyone and had legally purchased his weapons. The problem at Utøya was not that there was a killer armed to the teeth, but like in the Loughner case, they were successful only because no one around them were armed.

          • Glennd1

            And Breivik was not crazy in the way Loughner, Holmes and the Virginia Tech guy was. He may be mentally unstable, but he is not a psychopath, getting his sexual thrills by murdering people. And I don't say you can stop all such people. As for being a "hassle" – that is exactly my point. Perhaps you aren't aware but in New York state, for example (not NYC), if you buy a shotgun, they do an "NCIC check" which assures that I'm not a convicted felon. This same database could be updated by states who are currently evaluating or monitoring people who are mentally ill and prevent them from buying guns over the counter, legally. This would not stop everyone, but it would slow down some folks. And the NCIC check is instant, there is no waiting period, it's like a credit card authorization, and only takes a minute or two.

            You seem to be blithely ignorant of the limitations imposed by ACLU activism in the '60s and '70s on the ability of the state to intervene in the lives of mentally ill people. It's common sense to be able to intervene when someone is going obviously crazy, as the likes of Loughner do. It's coming out now that Holmes had become notable erratic and had a notebook filled with violent drawings that some school kept "confidentia" – this kind of insanity has to stop. When someone becomes noticeably crazy, we should report it to a public health authority and they should be able to intervene, and at a minimum, put a hold on the person's ability to legally buy a firearm (of course with due process and recourse to courts to provide a check against abuse of the system). Guys like you seem to just be, "well, whatevs" – a truly inane stance.

  • Western Sspirit

    I agree with your comment because it has the ring of truth. The Left, if anything, is cowardly. I became aware of this when still a member of the Left. (before I became enlightened. Ironically the Left, afflicted with delusions of grandeur, thinks its enlightened. What a crock.)

    Flight instead of fight is natural to them. In fact, the Left can't even debate with an opponent without shouting them down. They appeal to emotions while the Right uses facts requiring thought, that the Left can't afford to have activated in people.