More Americans identify themselves as “conservative” than “liberal” in opinion polls, which is what the right constantly uses to support its argument that they represent American’s views.
This number is dwindling quite a bit, and is the closest it has been in years according to a new poll from Gallup.
What the poll didn’t address is the fact that many people call themselves conservative yet hold liberal views. As I have pointed out many times, A majority of Americans support Obamacare. A majority thinks gay marriage, abortion and marijuana should be legal. A majority supports more gun control. A majority want to raise the minimum wage and do something about campaign finance reform. A majority wants to raise taxes on the wealthy and do not believe that “corporations are people.”
These positions are liberal positions, but even people who hold them still like to call themselves “conservative.”
So when a politician tells you America is a conservative country, just nod and smile. He’s probably wrong about a bunch of other things as well.
“The people who do these mass shootings are crazy!” the NRA says. “It’s not the fault of the guns! It’s not our fault!”
Yes, if only there were some way to try to prevent crazy people from having access to guns. Some sort of, I dunno, background check system. Oh, really? That has been proposed? Well, gee, who would be against something as sensible as that?
The NRA? They’re the ones who are against that?
Clearly I am missing something. Tell me again how this isn’t at least partially their fault?
People who post this meme are stupid:
This is what is known as a “straw man” argument. You create a straw man of your own and then knock it down, and then prance around pretending you made some great accomplishment. Instead, you just look stupid — or worse, dishonest.
Nobody is saying that. No one thinks that stronger gun laws will be obeyed by criminals, any more than laws against murder have stopped all murders. Using the logic of this meme, all laws are bad because criminals will ignore them. Might as well not have any laws at all, hm?
It’s almost as stupid as the people who laugh at “gun free zones” as if they are so much smarter than the politicians who created such laws. Those laws do not create a magic zone protecting everyone inside. They say that if you have a gun in that zone, your punishment will be harsher. It’s like signs saying that you have to slow down in a construction zone. It doesn’t prevent speeders, but those speeders who get caught pay a harsher penalty.
Isn’t that a good thing? Isn’t that what laws are supposed to do — to encourage actions that benefit society and discourage actions that don’t? What in the world is stupid about that?
“But criminals won’t obey them anyway!” they say. There are two responses to this:
First, many gun deaths do not come from “criminals.” They come from guns in the home. These guns cause accidents (there’s at least one case per week where some kid shoots his brother with a gun in the house). They cause suicides. They are available for people to use in anger against their spouse. More guns means more gun deaths. (Duh)
Second, where gun control has been in place, gun deaths go down. This is another duh. States with gun control have less gun deaths per capita. The US has more gun deaths than any other advanced civilized country. States that have lessened gun control have seen their gun deaths skyrocket. Gun laws may not stop gun deaths completely, but they work.
We can do something about all these Americans who are dying on our streets. We can do something to reduce our outrageous number of gun deaths. Laws work.
And if you can’t acknowledge all that, you must be some special kind of stupid.
How did we ever get to the point where the right to carry firearms is greater than the right to not be shot?
The guys carrying the guns may falsely believe they are safer with their guns around (I say “falsely” because statistics show that having a gun increases your chance of being murdered) but what about the rest of us? Don’t we have a right to go to public places without seeing someone carrying a gun and having to worry whether that person is a law-abiding citizen or some deranged madman just about to commit another mass shooting? Places can say “no shirt, no shoes, no service” but not “no guns”? Give me a break.
Good old Joe the Plumber (who isn’t named Joe and is not a plumber) sees it differently. “Your dead kids don’t trump my Constitutional rights,” he says, which of course calmly reassures those who lost their children. What a nice guy! Oh, wait. I’m sorry. I meant “asshole.” What an asshole! 
A long standing exception to the 1st Amendment is called “Time, Place, and Manner.” The 1st Amendment clearly says Congress shall pass no law regulating speech, but of course they do. Your speech can be limited in a number of reasonable ways. You can’t stand in the middle of a courtroom during a trial and give a speech about taxation. You can’t have a rally at 3 am using loudspeakers. You can’t disrupt a military funeral claiming that “God hates fags.” The time, place, and manner of your speech can be regulated.
The 2nd Amendment is not as clearly written as the 1st, and even includes the words “well regulated” which appears nowhere else in the Constitution. So for people to say that the right to carry a gun cannot be regulated in the same way speech is doesn’t make any sense. Of course it can. If they can keep you from getting up in the middle of Chipotles and giving a speech, then they can keep you from bringing a gun in there. And this does not infringe on your right to own a gun, but only limits where you can take it.
(Do not be distracted by what Joe was responding to. The murder’s father rant blaming the NRA was ridiculous — he’s the father; he holds more responsibility for his son’s actions than anyone else.)
For Memorial Day, I thought I’d just post some cartoons, and remind everyone to always remember the true purpose of the day.
