Biden's Meetings with Interest Groups

[sigcurious]

the entertainment industry participants, slated for a 6 p.m. ET meeting, include representatives from the Motion Picture Association of America, Comcast, and the Directors Guild.

Source

I came across an article about the recent meetings Biden's task force had with various interest groups. The above really stood out to me. Am I the only one baffled as to how or why these groups were included in a discussion about our 2A rights as a country?

The really disconcerting part is the only partially valid reason would be violence in the media. Which entirely too tangential to what type of legislation they're looking at pushing for them to have the gravitas to be included. As only an ugly alternative of legislation limiting the 1A to restrict media content would effectively alter the media.

It is very odd to me that any politician thinks any one of these groups has any meaningful representation of the citizens of America or input, particularly in the realm of the 2A.

[Webleymkv]

In short, it's for show. Did anyone really think that Biden was going to come up with recommendations for anything substantive other than more gun control? This whole dog and pony show is nothing more than an excuse to say "we looked at everything and gun control is the only answer" when, in reality, more gun control was the foregone conclusion of the Biden panel to begin with.

[sigcurious]

In short, it's for show.

I want a refund for this show!

Seriously though, while I didn't have high expectations for this task force, I certainly hoped they would have at least tried a little harder to hide their predetermined conclusions.

[Webleymkv]

Seriously though, while I didn't have high expectations for this task force, I certainly hoped they would have at least tried a little harder to hide their predetermined conclusions.

I really don't think that Biden's that creative. As I've stated elsewhere, if President Obama really wants to do something with gun control, Joe Biden was the wrong pick to head the panel. Biden is and always has been very "in your face" on various issues which includes being openly, almost rabidly, anti-gun. If the President wanted to sway some fence-sitters to support gun control (and he'll have to in order to get anything meaningful done), then someone who is more moderate on the issue and has some mainstream appeal would have been a much better choice.

Honestly, the longer this goes on the less I think the chances of any significant new gun control happening are. Biden's primary role within the administration has always seemed to be rallying the base rather than winning over fence sitters (and the President has had trouble with his base over gun control). The fact that Biden's already talking about executive orders is, I think, somewhat telling as the scope of gun control that can be accomplished through EO is severely limited. While we still need to remain vigilant by keeping pressure on our elected officials, anything major needs an act of congress and the fact that Biden's already talking about EO's tells me that they don't have the support in congress for significant new gun control.

[btmj]

Webley, I agree with your political assessment. The longer this goes on, the better it is for us. The emotionalism will fade. The true die-hard gun banners are in the minority, and as the emotionalism fades, they are loosing the fence-sitters.

It is possible that Biden will announce a couple of over-the-top Executive Orders, things which are not enforceable, easily defeated in court. But these will create the appearance that "something is being done". They may also cause some of the more fringe elements on OUR side to do or say something stupid, which will play into the hands of the administration. In fact, this may be what Biden and his fellow travelers are hoping for.

[Progress]

I tend to agree. History teaches that the earlier the jump on it, the more likely they'll get change.

I expect most of that change to come via individual states. Cuomo might get something done simply because he's pushing it early.

[MLeake]

I can't help but picture Biden in white facepaint and a robe, to the accompaniment of a large drum.

If this is not kabuki theater...

[Glenn E. Meyer]

It's for show that there is a consensus.

Biden is all for attacking gun rights. He hates them and also hates the other party - sorry to be mildly political. Guns are seen as symbols of his political enemies and he attacks them with zeal on that level.

Real plans take much more time to design.

One insidious ploy is inviting folks like the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Ducks Unlimited, and the Outdoor Industry Association.

This is a blatant attempt to split gun folks on the nutsos vs. the happy shotgun skeet shooters and assassins of deer and ducks. They are OK. Biden proclaimed Obama won't take your shotgun (Elmer calms down) and that he has shotguns and shoots the skeets - thus he knows and loves guns. But not nutso guns.

If the hunting, skeet crowd falls in line , that will be pathetic. We know from the Zumbo incident, they are out there.

I also saw a great quote about the past AWB how Pres. Carter, Ford and Reagan support it as a cure for crime (oh, dear! - but shoot those deer - that's ok).

[MLeake]

Interestingly, the media have suggested that the NRA is part of the "consensus."

The email I received last night from the NRA would make it appear this is definitely not the case.

The National Rifle Association of America is made up of over 4 million moms and dads, daughters and sons, who are involved in the national conversation about how to prevent a tragedy like Newtown from ever happening again. We attended today's White House meeting to discuss how to keep our children safe and were prepared to have a meaningful conversation about school safety, mental health issues, the marketing of violence to our kids and the collapse of federal prosecutions of violent criminals.

We were disappointed with how little this meeting had to do with keeping our children safe and how much it had to do with an agenda to attack the Second Amendment. While claiming that no policy proposals would be “prejudged,” this Task Force spent most of its time on proposed restrictions on lawful firearms owners - honest, taxpaying, hardworking Americans. It is unfortunate that this Administration continues to insist on pushing failed solutions to our nation's most pressing problems. We will not allow law-abiding gun owners to be blamed for the acts of criminals and madmen. Instead, we will now take our commitment and meaningful contributions to members of congress of both parties who are interested in having an honest conversation about what works - and what does not.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The NRA was supposed to become supplicants and bow down. Please let us keep our deer and skeet killing shotguns. Or see - they are nutso and won't accept the consensus of the willing that Joe has put together.

Bah.

[MLeake]

I feel like a broken record, but...

Instead of wringing hands, please contact representatives, donate to RKBA organizations (if able), and take advantage of any opportunity to educate and change the mind of an anti.

[Evan Thomas]

Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer

It's for show that there is a consensus.

Biden is all for attacking gun rights. He hates them and also hates the other party - sorry to be mildly political. Guns are seen as symbols of his political enemies and he attacks them with zeal on that level.

It's for show, but I'm not sure about the "consensus" part. Biden and his boss know perfectly well that "the other party" controls the House, and that many members of Congress in their own party would have trouble getting reelected if they voted for such an attack.

IMO, it's more of the classic old "divide and conquer" strategy: throw a (theoretical) bone to the people who reelected them -- "See, we're really on your side" -- while making sure that voters on both sides of the divide don't notice how many interests they actually have in common: electing a government that's not run almost entirely for the benefit of large corporations, for example. Not to go all conspiracist about this, but on that level, there is something of a consensus between the two parties: their real interests just aren't that far apart.

As to making Biden the face of all this, that's what vice presidents are for: doing and saying the things presidents would rather take a back seat on, and taking the heat when things don't work out in the way their supporters wanted.

(It is hard to talk about such a politicized issue without being at least "mildly political" -- no wish to do more than state the obvious, here...)

[HarrySchell]

I suspect part of the gambit (such as having Wal-Mart represented) was to play the Chicago game.

"Nice business you have here. Too bad if something happened to it. Don't forget the cops work for me." Thuggery is a feature, not a bug, of this admin's programming. Jeffy Immelt signed on, and others, after all.

Sandy Hook is an excuse for the agenda, the excuse Fast + Furious was supposed to provide.

The element of theater surely is at work, other issues fade in the "public mind" and Hillary suddenly is compis mentis. Or so the hope is, I suspect. "Move On" is quite an irony in some ways.

I am less worried with time, but I think the real action may occur at the states where, like CA, Democrats can do whatever they want. Even then, fiascoes like the "fiscal cliff" don't argue well for trust in our solons.

The rapid schedule of implementation may well be a distress signal, that the hobby horses of emotion already are tired and cranky.

Time is on our side, as it has aided others on F+F and Benghazi.

Time does wound all heels, also.

Forgive my wandering into the gutter of politics.

[sigcurious]

but I think the real action may occur at the states where, like CA

Anything in the wind about proposals from Senator Yee ? Or is he still focused on revising the anti-bullet button legislation so it actually makes sense?

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by Glenn E. Meyer

One insidious ploy is inviting folks like the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Ducks Unlimited, and the Outdoor Industry Association.

This is a blatant attempt to split gun folks on the nutsos vs. the happy shotgun skeet shooters and assassins of deer and ducks. They are OK. Biden proclaimed Obama won't take your shotgun (Elmer calms down) and that he has shotguns and shoots the skeets - thus he knows and loves guns. But not nutso guns.

If the hunting, skeet crowd falls in line , that will be pathetic. We know from the Zumbo incident, they are out there.

Oh, I'm sure that trying to divide the "sportsmen" from those interested in so-called "assault weapons" is certainly part of the strategy, but I'm not convinced that it will be as effective as it has in the past. Unlike the situation in 1994, I don't think that people whose interest in guns stops at shooting deer, ducks and clay pigeons are the majority of the gun owning public anymore.

I've seen reported elsewhere that the AR-15 has been the best selling rifle in America for at least a few years now and small CC-type pistols seem to be among the most popular sold. This tells me that the majority of the gun owners, particularly new gun owners, are more interested in self-defense than in shooting bambi. Proclaiming that because you are a hunter you understand gun owners isn't going to resonate very well with the mother whose never stepped foot in the woods but bought a gun to protect herself and her children. Such proclamations are, IMO, more likely to make one seem like an out-of-touch old elitist to much, if not most, of the gun owners today.

Originally posted by Harry Schell

I am less worried with time, but I think the real action may occur at the states where, like CA, Democrats can do whatever they want.

They're not completely invulnerable even in far-left states either. The NRA, while I fully support them, are not our only advocates here. The SAF is proving to be effective in moving the debate into federal courts thus removing the advantage of intrastate politics in places like CA, NY, and IL. People like Cuomo can rant and rave all they want, but if their draconian measures don't stand up in court then all they've done is expend a lot of political capital for nothing. This is why, when this whole mess started, I contributed to both the NRA-ILA and SAF.

[sigcurious]

Proclaiming that because you are a hunter you understand gun owners isn't going to resonate very well with the mother whose never stepped foot in the woods but bought a gun to protect herself and her children. Such proclamations are, IMO, more likely to make one seem like an out-of-touch old elitist to much, if not most, of the gun owners today.

I certainly hope so. Unfortunately as far as I've seen portrayed in the media there seems to be far more "gun people" that favor gun control or than "non-gun people" who don't. I do think however as time goes on the general public fence sitters will be less swayed by these media biases or the shows that politicians put on.

[Alabama Shooter]

Source

I came across an article about the recent meetings Biden's task force had with various interest groups. The above really stood out to me. Am I the only one baffled as to how or why these groups were included in a discussion about our 2A rights as a country?

I see a lot of silly answers. The truth is much more simple. Chris Dodd is now the president of the MPA. Dodd is like Darth Mal for the empire and is remarkably 100% consistent with his votes on gun control (back when he was in congress).

Brian L Roberts heads Comcast after his daddy gave him the job. He is another big gun banner.

You get the idea.

[Tom Servo]

Alabama, I am shocked that you have bought into the lies of the galactic conspiracy machine. Darth Maul died before the Empire was even formed, and we all know that the Jedi purge was simply an excuse to push a ban on assault lightsabers.

Sure, it's true that dismemberments from lightsabers dropped 99.94% annually following the purge, but then they passed that stupid Death Star Appropriation Bill that cranked up everyone's payroll taxes. I am personally pleased that the Emperor disbanded the Senate and passed a law requiring Wookiees to wear underpants.

That said, Chris Dodd is something of an equal-opportunity jerk when it comes to civil liberties. He played a huge role in pushing the Stop Internet Piracy Act, which has some parallels to gun control legislation in its "gotcha" clauses.

[kilimanjaro]

We can expect a lot of anti-gun propaganda from the enertainment industry in short order. Give them 10 years to brainwash the populace, and kiss the Constitution goodbye.

[USA SHARK]

I don't think we can underestimate the power of the media, whether it be news or entertainment. As stated, once they start their campaign to rally the Sheeple, it will influence the masses to be more open to restrictions of our rights in the future. It may take many years, but I can see it happening. Just look at the role they've played to create our current political landscape.

M&M.... Money (Super PACs) and Media.

[MLeake]

Lately, I am often reminded of 1984. Using the TV as opiate for the masses... Orwell predicted quite a few things. So did Max Headroom. (Ironically, a TV show about TV shows as propaganda machines...)

Too bad more parents in the last couple generations didn't encourage their kids to read more...

[Battler]

I don't think we can underestimate the power of the media, whether it be news or entertainment.

Of course. Without the news the everyman wouldn't know about the connecticut massacre. Without repetition, they wouldn't get the magnitude of perception it gets. We're discussing how long it'd take to be "forgotten", what forgotten doesn't mean what would happen if every person heard it only once; but how long before the repetition on CNN etc. would compromise their business.

[breakingcontact]

He's supposed to "deliver" his recommendations to the Prez tomorrow right? We expecting any leaks on it today? Will we know the plan tomorrow?

[JimPage]

"1984" was intended to a warning. Obama is using it as blue print.

[Qtiphky]

I haven't seen any national polls on gun control since the shooting. I have seen several regional ones from my neck of the woods and bar none they are 95% against futher gun control. It seems to me that the only people truly interested in pushing further gun control are our "elected officials in DC" and the mainstream media. The only thing our "electeds" are trying to do is get re-elected. They have no concern over fixing the problem, which doesn't exist, but rather making their constituents "feel good" by "doing something."

The new healthcare law is just a data gathering tool. One of the specific questions asks if there are any guns in the home. This has absolutely nothing to do with healthcare and everything to do with data collection to be used down the road. While I agree that time is on our side, it won't be long until another copy cat crime will be committed and then this will all start over. Even though Exec Orders won't be enforceable, that has never stopped this administration from issueing them. Once issued, they must be defeated in court which takes time and it won't be long until this administration picks the next Justice on the Supreme Court, possibly two this term, which are appointments for life!

Evil doers will do evil, regardless of the tool.