Friday, April 12, 2013

Walker Should Be Pressed On Background Checks, Internet Gun Sale Loopholes

[Updated, 11:40 a.m.] If he is seriously asking for consideration as a Presidential candidate, and as governor of a state with a recent mass shooting attributable to an Internet gun sale - - the Azana Spa tragedy in Brookfield - - then Scott Walker should be forced by mainstream media to take a position on the Senate bill aimed at closing Internet and gun show sales without background checks.

And other related bills on gun magazine capacity and assault weapon sales, for example.

Before he heads to China.

Walker should quit playing games with words and history - - stop evading the issue - - and offer clear answers - - unlike his recent remarks on gay marriage that obscured what his position actually is:

And on same-sex marriage itself? You can decipher his recent word-salady response and decide if it's the end product of skilled obfuscation or crossed wires:
"The interesting (thing) on the generational standpoint is I've had young people ask me I think an appropriate question, is not expanding it to include folks who are not one man and one woman but rather questioning why the government is sanctioning it in the first place," he said on the [Meet the Press] show. "I mean, that would be an alternative to say not have the government sanction marriage period, and leave that up to the churches and the synagogues and others to define that."


Anonymous said...

Maybe he is being "pressed". Assuming there's a reporter alive who still behaves like reporters did before they all became entertainers. But isn't Not Answering Questions an art form amongst politicians? In Walker's case particularly, he "hesitates" NOT because he's afraid to say something "wrong", but because he's just waiting for a perfect time to issue the perfect statement in perfect coordination with his next perfect initiative or project, perfectly coordinated by a millionaire and perfectly written up by a perfect Think Tank and then perfectly vetted by a team of perfectly tailored lawyers on an even more perfectly engineered wireless network that has been set up so perfectly this time that no one has even detected it yet.
If your assumption is that Presidential Candidates have an especially heavy obligation to be forthcoming and articulate about their plans, beliefs, and solutions, then I guess you didn't follow the Romney campaign. I could list some state Democrats who excel at evasion and vaguery too. Democrats who seem to be doing well amongst their kind, and are bandied about as possible Walker challengers in spite of being as "real" and weighty as cotton candy since Day One. Just how far can one politician go on the word "folksy"? I'm afraid I'll live to see that question answered, and I'll find it pretty painful. So on the one hand, when politicians evade it seems crappy, maddening, and even immoral. But on the other hand when you see The People suck right into it and beg for more while squealing, throwing money, and waving banners, you just kinda throw up your hands and walk away. It would be easier to blame these guys for doing what works, it if didn't work so well.

Anonymous said...

What part of the second amendment don't you understand?

Reagan's Discple said...

I don't believe anyone is allowed to purchase a gun online without a background check.

It is part of the FFL transfer process by your FFL licensee when it is sent to them.

The only exception would be for someone to sell it to somebody in state via a classified advertisement.

However, I certainly could not buy a gun online from a dealer without going through the FFL process.

I only say this because the post seems to imply that one can just order a gun online from a website without a background check, and that is not the case whether a rifle or handgun.

Anonymous said...

He is not running for President based on issues. He will run based on cliches and slogans.

Betsey said...

Well said, anonymoustoxin!

Boxer said...

@Anonymous at 5:28 AM:

It's quite unlikely that anyone will take your word, anonymous and ignorant as it is, for a credible analysis of Constitutional law regarding the second amendment.

Reagan's Disciple said...

@Anon 1:13


Anonymous said...

Madison liberals are so clueless
If you do not own a quality weapon with adequate firepower to defend yourself and your family from any reasonable threat, which in todays world include drug gangs with multiple members with automatic weapons, then you are not acting as a responsible adult.

Jake formerly of the LP said...

That's some solid satire right there. At least I think it's satire, though with the idiocy of Baggers, you never quite know for sure

Anonymous said...

Jake can't seem to make it through a post without tossing out the homophobic slang terms to describe the opposing views.

Would James let someone get away with call the liberals "Libtards?"
But because "Baggers" is funny it's okay, right?