Seeking consensus on immigration, guns

By Bill Schneider
February 2, 2013

Two tough issues — immigration reform and gun control. “It won’t be easy,” President Barack Obama said about gun control in December, “but that’s no excuse not to try.”   Tuesday, he said about immigration reform: “The closer we get, the more emotional this debate is going to become.”

Which does he stand a better chance of winning?  Answer: immigration. On immigration, Obama has Democrats strongly behind him. Republicans are divided — and freaked out by the issue. On guns, he’s got Republicans strongly against him. Democrats are divided — and freaked out by the issue.

On both issues, the president has the public solidly behind him. That’s his biggest asset. “There’s already a growing consensus for us to build from,” he said on Dec. 19, five days after the Newtown, Connecticut, massacre. “A majority of Americans support banning the sale of military-style assault weapons.’’ On Jan. 29, when he went to Las Vegas to speak about immigration reform, he said, “A broad consensus is emerging and … a call for action can be heard coming from all across America.”

Even more important, the president’s popularity is soaring. He has a 60 percent favorable rating in the new Washington Post-ABC News poll, the highest since his first year in office.

The president intends to use the bully pulpit to rally public opinion behind both causes. He also intends to use his 2012 campaign organization, which has morphed from Obama for America to Organizing for Action, to browbeat Congress into action. Welcome to real the permanent campaign.

There are some big differences between the two issues, however.

The sense of public outrage is greater over gun violence. The issue was forced onto the agenda by the horror of a madman brutally murdering young schoolchildren and their teachers with an assault weapon. The immigration issue was forced onto the agenda for political reasons. Latinos were a key to Obama’s re-election — though Obama promised immigration reform four years ago and never delivered. Latinos are waiting for a payoff.

Republicans face a crisis of political survival. GOP nominee Mitt Romney told a Republican fundraiser in Florida last April that if Republicans don’t start doing better with Latino voters, “It spells doom for us.” It did.

If public outrage is greater over the gun issue, why are the prospects for gun control bleaker?  Because opponents of gun control are better organized and more powerful. With immigration reform, supporters are better organized and more powerful.

On issues like gun control and immigration, intensity matters more than numbers. Politicians don’t just look at polls. They pay attention to how many votes the issue drives on each side. If the minority votes the issue and the majority doesn’t, the minority prevails.

The president said, “It’s going to take a wave of Americans — mothers and fathers, daughters and sons, pastors, law enforcement, mental health professionals and, yes, gun owners ‑ standing up and saying ‘Enough!’ on behalf of our kids.”

That’s happening. It happens after every sensational incident of gun violence. Gun control supporters became angry and start issuing threats: You’d better support new gun control measures or you’ll pay a price.

But that kind of anger is hard to sustain. Politicians are asking: Who’s going to be there in November 2014, almost two years from now? They know the gun lobby will be there, ready to punish waverers. Gun control supporters? They can’t be sure.

That’s a big problem for six Democratic senators up for re-election in red states next year: Mark Begich (Alaska), Max Baucus (Montana), Mary Landrieu (Louisiana), Mark Pryor (Arkansas), Kay Hagan (North Carolina) and Tim Johnson (South Dakota).  And maybe for three Democratic senators up in swing states: Mark Warner (Virginia), Jeanne Shaheen (New Hampshire) and Mark Udall (Colorado). Those senators can depend on retribution from the gun lobby. Can they rely on support from anti-gun activists? That’s what’s freaking those Democrats out.

The nation’s leading gun control advocate, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, is putting his money where his mouth is. His super PAC is spending millions of dollars to defeat lawmakers overly loyal to the gun lobby, like Representative Joe Baca last year, a pro-gun California Democrat. But Baca, running in a redrawn district, lost to another Democrat. It is not clear whether Bloomberg will be seen as a credible threat in more conservative parts of the country.

Supporters of immigration reform have to contend with anti-amnesty forces. They’re the voters who consider any path to citizenship for illegal immigrants “amnesty,” even if the process requires payment of a fine and is conditioned on improved border security. Anti-illegal immigration activists have denounced the new bipartisan Senate proposal for immigration reform as “Amnesty 2.0.”

Lawmakers take those threats seriously, but anti-amnesty groups are not as powerful or as well-organized as the gun lobby is.

Moreover, a number of forces have come together to build pressure for immigration reform. The border is more secure. “Yes, there’s been improvement in border security and, yes, it helps a lot,” Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) said at a press conference. Illegal immigration is down because of the slowdown in the U.S. economy, because of improvements in the Mexican economy and because of a declining Mexican birth rate (58 percent of the undocumented immigrant population in the U.S. is from Mexico, according to the Pew Hispanic Center).

There is also the fact that, as the Pew Center predicts, the Latino electorate is likely to double by 2030. That has Republicans terrified. The entire country could become California, where the GOP is barely holding on. In a radio interview last week, Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a Tea Party favorite, called immigration “an issue that we do need to evolve on.”

In addition, major organized interests support immigration reform: immigration activists, labor, religious groups, business and farm interests. While gun control could be regarded as the passion of the moment, immigration reform has a denser network of supporters, capable of rewarding and punishing lawmakers.

Republican voters are split on immigration reform. In the CBS News poll, 36 percent of Republicans want illegal immigrants deported, and 35 percent believe they should be allowed to stay and eventually apply for citizenship. Republican voters are not split on guns. By better than 3 to 1 in the Gallup poll, Republicans oppose new gun laws.

Immigration reform will still be a tough fight – particularly in the House of Representatives, where conservatives oppose any citizenship option. They prefer permanent legal residence. But the president is holding firm, and Democrats are solidly behind him.

Gun control looks more doubtful. The most advocates may be able to get is a law requiring background checks at gun shows. This is supported by almost 100 percent of voters in Virginia, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, according to Quinnipiac polls.

Yet Democrats are still freaking out. Consider that after pushing through new gun laws in New York, Governor Andrew Cuomo’s job approval dropped 15 points, according to Quinnipiac. Among men, it was a 20-point drop. He’s still OK (59 percent job approval).

But if the gun issue can damage a Democrat in New York named Cuomo, no one is safe.

 

PHOTO (Top): President Barack Obama talks about immigration reform at Del Sol High School in Las Vegas, January 29, 2013. REUTERS/Jason Reed

PHOTO (Insert Middle): Customers view semi automatic guns on display at a gun shop in Los Angeles, California December 19, 2012. REUTERS/Gene Blevins

PHOTO (Insert Bottom: Young people line up for assistance with paperwork for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program in Los Angeles, California, August 15, 2012. REUTERS/Jonathan Alcorn

 

15 comments

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

Why do you refer to pro-gun people as the gun lobby, but you refer to the anti-gun people as the anti-gun activists? I am pro gun and many people I know are pro gun but none of us are affiliated with any lobby.

Posted by ssssssssss | Report as abusive

If you people worried more about jobs for existing US citizens, instead of votes out of the Latino population, perhaps this country will survive.

If you don’t, this country will go the way of Mexico, including the propensity for violence and unstable governments.

“What will 11 million new citizens mean?”

http://blogs.reuters.com/nicholas-wapsho tt/2013/02/01/what-will-11-million-new-c itizens-mean/

Posted by PseudoTurtle | Report as abusive

Immigration is destroying the American middle class.

Nature has not yet rescinded the law of supply and demand.

The plain fact is that immigration into any modern country has two serious, lethal effects on the native-born citizens:

1. Immigration sharply drives down wage rates.
2. Immigration sharply drives up housing costs (apartment rents).

Thus employers and landlords benefit from immigration.

Thus common workers are greatly harmed by immigration.

Today in America, apartment rental rates are skyrocketing. I’ve lived in the same apartment building about 8 years. When I moved in it was mostly native-born Americans.

I’ve watched it change. Today it is about 60% foreign-born people. There is now a waiting list to move in. More and more foreigners every day.

The rental rates go up, and up and up. The large company that owns it greatly benefits from immigration, and of course gives great political support for further immigration.

But the native-born Americans, working class, already in financial straits, see their rents go up and up and up. Often they go from an apartment to being homeless.

The immigrants, coming from poverty, squalor and violent crime in Latin America, end up causing the native-born American working class to fall into squalor and destitution in America.

Immigration is a giant crime against the American working class, while the wealthy reap more profits, and then attend the same country club as the congressmen sponsoring these bills.

Posted by AdamSmith | Report as abusive

So our two major parties fall all over themselves courting the “new majority” of latinos of the future and betraying the American culture that is to be buried. Well if we don’t seal America’s borders REAL SOON, there will appear endless brown people infiltrating that are not hispanic.

They will be middle eastern radical muslims, ready to bring suicide bombings to a neighborhood near YOU full of “infidels”! If THEN Americans will see the need to CLEAN HOUSE of our “representatives” in Washington, it may be too late.

We CAN seal our border. We just have to be serious about doing it. We follow Israel’s lead and MINE IT! Leave the bodies where they fall for the buzzards. Word will “get back” very fast that “fence jumping” has become a fatal “gamble. Peace in our time, and our drug problem solved.

Posted by OneOfTheSheep | Report as abusive

America either has to enforce it’s immigration laws or abolish it’s labor laws. That is the problem now. The open borders activists like to claim that Americans are either too lazy or too dumb to do lots of jobs. That is not true. People are people. The problem with American workers is that they cannot be exploited like the illegals because of the labor laws.

It is time to put all workers in America on equal footing. Under those circumstances, Americans would have as good chance of being hired as the illegals. Either let the exploitive employers exploit ALL workers, or NO workers.

Posted by wigglwagon | Report as abusive

To run government around a third (GOP) of a third (unfettered gun rights supporters) of that population’s desire to carry extra large penile substitutes is stupid, regardless of how well the gun manufacturers distort the discussion. And to quote Rank Paul, especially with the word “evolving”, is an insult to your readers everywhere. He is a toupee wearing clown of a moronic clown’s loins who claims not to believe in evolution. And for Obama to implement the main components of the Dream Act by executive order is definitely something, whether this author cares to recognize it or not. Both immigration reform and gun control can and should be pursued regardless of what the anarchistic survivalist clowns have to say about it.

Posted by sylvan | Report as abusive

I think you are simplifying the gun control aspect a little bit. While there is a majority support for an assault weapons ban, it is slim, only by 5% last time I saw. And making comparisons to the New York law where they effectively outlawed the majority of handguns (most have clips greater than seven rounds and will need to be modified in order to take smaller) is a little bit of a stretch. If the democrats were to stick to background checks, which may actually do something, then go with feel good measures like reinstating an assault weapons ban that had a negligible effect on violence, then they may get somewhere. I think many democrats would want to pass an amnesty law, but that would divide their caucus and engender stiff republican opposition. Its all about using common sense and picking your battles wisely.

Posted by agsocrates | Report as abusive

@ sylvan –

Errr …. gun control with a large Latino population is an oxymoron.

Posted by EconCassandra | Report as abusive

A car can be, but isn’t intended to be, a deadly weapon. So we require training in its operation, issue licenses to those trained sufficiently, require insurance in case of accidents, and even revoke the licenses of those who cannot operate it correctly (elderly, epileptics, etc.).

The same can apply to dangerous occupations such as tower climbers and window washers who attend OSHA courses for safety and to reduce liability to employers.

I am against gun control of any kind, just as I am against all the above stated regulations and rules also, in principle. But I fail to see how, in this overly safety conscious society we live in, firearms are not regulated the same way any other supposed danger is. A car MAY be used to cause damage or death to person and property, so we train, license and insure. A firearms purpose IS to kill something, so why the objection to training, licensing and insuring by so many gun advocates? The same argument was made over drivers licenses and forced auto insurance decades ago but now it has become status quo. Sadly, sooner or later, guns will be regulated away.

Posted by LysanderTucker | Report as abusive

If you listen to the right talk they are all about how to work together and compromise. If you listen to the left talk it’s all about how to overcome the crazies and save this country by implementing unconstitutional programs that have proven track records of failure in other countries.

The American people would do well to wake up.

Posted by BioStudies | Report as abusive

“On both issues, the president has the public solidly behind him”

Do he doesn’t, unless by “public” you mean a select group of people polled for rigged results.
Poll people in cities with gun control (example New York) and poll cities with large hispanic populations (example Laredo Texas)for immigration polls to get “most people” results.
I know if the poll shows most people support President Obama on both issues, those polls never asked the states who voted against him or states who did, with cities that have high gun ownership figures.
That’s the thing about most polls, they call who they want to get the answer they want.
Don’t believe polls, they said Obama would lose right up until the election.

Posted by americanguy | Report as abusive

@ wigglwagon –

Your comment that “either let the exploitive employers exploit ALL workers, or NO workers” is — sorry, but there this is the first thing that came to my mind, and while I considered toning it down, there is no other way to put it — ignorant beyond belief.

THIS is exactly what the wealthy class intends to do.

They want to return to (their) “good old days” by wiping out any laws that protect workers from their greed.

There are some truths the American people need to understand:

The wealthy class has NO interest whatsoever in reducing unemployment, which is why it will NEVER go down.

Why?

Because low unemployment with a scarcity of labor gives workers some control over the despotic behavior of the wealthy class.

If workers can force the wealthy class to pay them a decent living wage, it means better food, housing, health care, education and retirement — ALL of which are an anathema to the wealthy who feel no moral or legal obligation to pay anyone any more than they must.

What the wealthy class wants is “quasi-slave labor” with as much of an excess population of potential workers as possible to reduce the power of the non-wealthy.

There are multiple instances of this in US history where the wealthy class has treated wokers as no different than animals meant for slaughter, while they lived in mansions.

The so-called “outsourcing” of US jobs was solely to obtain the cheapest labor possible at the expense of the American worker — who were once known as some of the finest workers and craftsman in the world.

Now, the wealthy are abandoning China for lower wages and less regulation in other parts of the world because the Chinese are demanding better wages and living conditions they refuse to give them.

——————————–

To illustrate my point (from Wikipedia, strictly for ease of access),

“Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd., trading as Foxconn, is a Taiwanese multinational electronics contract manufacturing company headquartered in Tucheng, New Taipei, Taiwan.

It is the world’s largest electronics contract manufacturer measured by revenues.[3][4]

Foxconn is primarily an original design manufacturer, and its clients include major American, European, and Japanese electronics and information technology companies.

Notable products that the company manufactures include the iPad,[5] iPhone,[6] iPod,[6] Kindle,[7] PlayStation 3[8] and Wii U.[9]

Foxconn has been involved in several controversies, most relating to how it manages employees in China where it is the largest private-sector employer.[10] In 2012 Apple hired the Fair Labor Association to conduct an audit of working conditions at Foxconn.[11]

The Foxconn suicides occurred between January and November 2010 when eighteen[1] Foxconn employees attempted suicide with fourteen deaths.[1][2][3] The suicides drew media attention, and employment practices at Foxconn, a large contract manufacturer, were investigated by several of its customers including Apple and HP.[4]

Foxconn is a major manufacturer that has catered to such companies as Apple, Dell, HP, Motorola, Nintendo, Nokia, and Sony.[4]

The suicides prompted 20 Chinese universities to compile a report on Foxconn, which they described as a labour camp.[2]

Long working hours,[5] discrimination of mainland Chinese workers by their Taiwanese coworkers,[6] and a lack of working relationships[7] have all been held up as potential problems.

=====================

In response to the suicides, Foxconn substantially increased wages for its Shenzhen factory workforce,[11]

installed suicide-prevention netting,[12]

and asked employees to sign no-suicide pledges.[13]

Workers were also forced to sign a legally binding document guaranteeing that they and their descendants would not sue the company as a result of unexpected death, self-injury, or suicide.[14]

========================

How many of you have bought the products listed above? If so you have been wilfully supporting slave labor in 3rd world countries. You CANNOT claim ignorance, because this latest incident is not the exception but the rule. This has happened with great regularity in other industries, especiall the garment and shoe industries. You would have to blind, deaf and dumb to be absolved from complicity in slave labor.

Are you kidding me?

“Asking (?) employees to sign no-suicide pledges” (and forcing workers) “to sign a legally binding document guaranteeing that they and their descendants would not sue the company as a result of unexpected death, self-injury, or suicide.”

Clearly, the wealthy class was more interested in protecting themselves and their money from lawsuits, than in improving working conditions for the workers, even when those abominable working conditions were encouraging workers to commit suicide rather than endure more abuse!

What happened to Foxconn in Asia is, again, NOT the exception, but the rule.

This same treatment has been accorded new immigrants from Europe to the US, for example, when they arrived here. They were essentially forced into slave labor with unsafe working conditions, which were so bad that many immigrants died as a result.

———————————–

Want proof?

“The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire in New York City on March 25, 1911, was the deadliest industrial disaster in the history of the city of New York and resulted in the fourth highest loss of life from an industrial accident in U.S. history.

It was also the second deadliest disaster in New York City – after the burning of the General Slocum on June 15, 1904 – until the destruction of the World Trade Center 90 years later.

The fire caused the deaths of 146 garment workers, who died from the fire, smoke inhalation, or falling or jumping to their deaths.

Most of the victims were recent Jewish and Italian immigrant women aged sixteen to twenty-three;[1][2][3] of the victims whose ages are known, the oldest victim was Providenza Panno at 43, and the youngest were 14-year-olds Kate Leone and “Sara” Rosaria Maltese.[4]

Because the managers had locked the doors to the stairwells and exits – a common practice at the time to prevent pilferage and unauthorized breaks[5] – many of the workers who could not escape the burning building jumped from the eighth, ninth, and tenth floors to the streets below.

The fire led to legislation requiring improved factory safety standards and helped spur the growth of the International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union, which fought for better working conditions for sweatshop workers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Sh irtwaist_Factory_fire

———————————

THAT did not happen in China, nor workers suffering from Chinese wealthy factory owners.

THAT is the “good old days” the wealthy class in the US want this country to return to, just so they can get wealthier and more powerful than they are today.

THAT IS THE UNDERLYING REASON THE WEALTHY WANT TO FLOOD THE US ECONOMY WITH CHEAP LABOR IMMIGRANTS.

THE FIRST TIME IT WAS WITH BLACK SLAVES, THE SECOND TIME WITH EUROPEAN QUASI-SLAVES, AND NOW IT IS WITH LATINOS, WHO WILL PROBABLY END UP VIOLENTLY OVERTHROWING THE GOVERNMENT.

THE UGLY TRUTH IS THE WEALTHY CLASS, NO MATTER WHERE OR WHEN IN HISTORY, HAS ALWAYS TREATED THE NON-WEALTHY LIKE ANIMALS GOING TO THE SLAUGHTER HOUSE.

THIS IS WHAT THE WEALTHY-CONTROLLED US GOVERNMENT WANTS US TO GO BACK TO — NO DECENT LIVING WAGE, MINIMUM FOOD, SHELTER AND CLOTHING FOR US AND OUR FAMILIES. NO HEALTH CARE, NO RETIREMENT — NOTHING!!!

WHY?

BECAUSE IF WE ARE NOT BORN WEALTHY, IT IS A SIGN FROM GOD THAT THE WEALTHY CLASS, WHO CAN SUPPOSEDLY TRACE THEIR ANCESTORS TO A DIVINE BEGINNING DO NOT NEED TO SEE US AS HUMAN.

THUS, WE ARE PUT ON THIS EARTH AS THEIR SERVANTS TO TREAT US AS THEY WISH — THIS IS KNOWN AS THE “PROTESTANT WORK ETHIC” AND IT UNDERLIES THE ENTIRE AMERICAN ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL HISTORY.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_ work_ethic

THIS IS ALSO THE BASIS OF THEIR BELIEF IN THE “SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST” — SOCIAL DARWINISM — WHICH JUSTIFIES EVERYTHING THEY DO.

WHAT SOCIAL DARWINISM MEANS ON AN EVERY DAY BASIS IS THAT THE WEALTHY CLASS SEE THE NON-WEALTHY AS A NATURALLY INFERIOR CLASS THAT MUST BE ELIMINATED IN ORDER TO ATTAIN “SOCIAL PROGRESS”.

————————————-

“Social Darwinism is an ideology of society that seeks to apply biological concepts of Darwinism or of evolutionary theory to sociology and politics,

often with the assumption that conflict between groups in society leads to social progress as superior groups outcompete inferior ones.

The name social Darwinism is a modern name given to the various theories of society that emerged in England and the United States in the 1870s, which, it is alleged, sought to apply biological concepts to sociology and politics.[1][2]

Today, because of the negative connotations of the theory of social Darwinism, especially after the atrocities of the Second World War (including the Holocaust), few people would describe themselves as Social Darwinists and the term is generally seen as pejorative.[3]

Social Darwinism is generally understood to use the concepts of struggle for existence and survival of the fittest to justify social policies which make no distinction between those able to support themselves and those unable to support themselves.

Many such views stress competition between individuals in laissez-faire capitalism; but the ideology has also motivated ideas of eugenics, scientific racism, imperialism,[4] fascism, Nazism and struggle between national or racial groups.[5][6]”

———————————

“Herbert Spencer (27 April 1820 – 8 December 1903) was an English philosopher, biologist, sociologist, and prominent classical liberal political theorist of the Victorian era.

Spencer is best known for coining the concept “survival of the fittest”, which he did in Principles of Biology (1864), after reading Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species.[6]”

NOTE THE WEALTHY CLASS NO LONGER USES SOCIAL DARWINISM BECAUSE OF ITS NEGATIVE CONNOTATIONS.

INSTEAD, THEY HAVE SWITCHED TO THE MORE NEUTRAL AND SOCIALLY ACCEPTABE PHRASE “SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST”.

——————————–

Granted the Protestant Work Ethic and Social Darwinism can, and have been used ethically and morally to advance society.

But the abolute perverson of those two led in the US to
“Manifest Destiny”, which is the ultimate twisted quasi-religious and social crusading version of beliefs that mark the US, not only historically, but in our present cultural attitude towards others in this society who are not the same. And, perhaps more importantly for the rest of the world, it is manifested not only internally, but in our foreign/military policy as well.

This is the underlying reason for our aggressive military adventures that have decimated so many nations and cultures.

THIS is “democracy”, American-style.

“Manifest destiny was the belief held by Democrats in the United States in the 19th century that American settlers were destined to expand across the continent.

This concept, born out of “A sense of mission to redeem the Old World by high example … generated by the potentialities of a new earth for building a new heaven”.[1]

The phrase itself meant many different things to many different people.

The unity of the definitions ended at “expansion, prearranged by Heaven”.[2]

Manifest destiny provided the tone for the largest acquisition of U.S. territory.

It was used by Democrats in the 1840s to justify the war with Mexico and it was also used to divide half of Oregon with Great Britain.

The legacy is a complex one. The belief in an American mission to promote and defend democracy throughout the world, as expounded by Abraham Lincoln and later by Woodrow Wilson and George W. Bush, continues to have an influence on American political ideology.[4][5]

Themes and influences:

Three key themes were usually touched upon by advocates of Manifest Destiny:

(1) the virtue of the American people and their institutions;

(2) the mission to spread these institutions, thereby redeeming and remaking the world in the image of the United States;

(3) the destiny under God to do this work.[20].

=======================

(1) The origin of the first theme, later known as American Exceptionalism, was often traced to America’s Puritan heritage, particularly John Winthrop’s famous “City upon a Hill” sermon of 1630, in which he called for the establishment of a virtuous community that would be a shining example to the Old World.

In his influential 1776 pamphlet Common Sense, Thomas Paine echoed this notion, arguing that the American Revolution provided an opportunity to create a new, better society:

We have it in our power to begin the world over again. A situation, similar to the present, hath not happened since the days of Noah until now. The birthday of a new world is at hand…

Many Americans agreed with Paine, and came to believe that the United States’ virtue was a result of its special experiment in freedom and democracy.

Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to James Monroe, wrote that “it is impossible not to look forward to distant times when our rapid multiplication will expand itself beyond those limits, and cover the whole northern, if not the southern continent”.[21]

To Americans in the decades that followed their proclaimed freedom for mankind, embodied in the Declaration of Independence, could only be described as the inauguration of “a new time scale” because the world would look back and define history as events that took place before, and after, the Declaration of Independence.[22]

It followed that American owed to the world an obligation to expand and preserve these beliefs.

(2) The second theme’s origination is less precise. A popular expression America’s mission was elaborated by President Abraham Lincoln’s description, in his December 1, 1862 message to Congress. He described the United States “the last, best hope of Earth” The “mission” of the United States was elaborated on in Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, in which he interpreted the Civil War as a struggle to determine if any nation with democratic ideals could survive, has been called by historian Robert Johannsen “the most enduring statement of America’s Manifest Destiny and mission”.[23]

(3) The third theme can be viewed as a natural outgrowth of the belief that God had a direct influence in the foundation and further actions of the United States.

Clinton Rossiter, a scholar, described this view as summing “that God, at the proper stage in the march of history, called forth certain hardy souls from the old and privilege-ridden nations…and that in bestowing His grace He also bestowed a peculiar responsibility”.

Americans presupposed that they were not only divinely elected to maintaining the North American continent but “spread abroad the fundamental principles stated in the Bill of Rights”.[24]

In many cases, this meant neighboring colonial holdings and countries were seen as obstacles not the destiny God had provided the United States.

=========================

By perverting the Protestant Work Ethic and Social Darwinism into Manifest Destiny, this nation morphed into a country of religious and moral fanatics that had not been seen since the Crusades.

And THAT is what we remain today.

—————————————

THIS IS THE WHAT THE RELIGIOUS AND MORAL FANATICS WHO CONTROL OUR GOVERNMENT REALLY ARE — I.E. THE WEALTHY CLASS.

IT IS THE WEALTHY CLASS, WITH THEIR TWISTED GREEDY BELIEF STRUCTURES IN THEIR, AND BY EXTENSION THIS NATION, GOD-GIVEN RIGHT TO RULE THE WORLD THAT IS DESTROYING THE WORLD TODAY.

THESE “PEOPLE” ARE NOT “HUMAN” IN ANY MORAL SENSE OF THE WORD.

THESE “PEOPLE” ARE VULTURES WHO LIVE OFF THE ROTTING FLESH OF A DYING SOCIETY.

AND THIS SO-CALLED “DEMOCRACY” IS NO DIFFERENT, EXCEPT IT HIDES IS SINS FAR BETTER THAN MOST OTHER CULTURES.

THIS IS WHAT THE WEALTHY-CONTROLLED US GOVERNMENT WANTS TO DO TO YOU, YOUR FAMILY AND YOUR CHILDREN’S FUTURE.

THIS IS WHY THEY REFUSE TO SAFEGUARD OUR BORDERS, BECAUSE THEY WANT AS MUCH CHEAP LABOR POURING INTO THIS COUNTRY AS POSSIBLE BECAUSE THEY KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN AS A RESULT.

AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE — ALL OF YOU, IF YOU ARE NOT WEALTHY — ARE LITERALLY TOO STUPID TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON.

WHAT MUST BE DONE IS TO OVERTHROW THE WEALTHY CLASS AND TAKE OUR GOVERNMENT BACK, OR WE WILL BECOME THIER SLAVES AGAIN, LIVING IN NO BETTER CONDITIONS THAN IN A CONCENTRATION CAMP.

=========================

IT IS A HARD, BITTER TRUTH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE MUST FACE IF WE ARE TO SURVIVE.

WHAT I PRESENTED ABOVE IS MERELY A THUMBNAIL SKETCH OF WHO AND WHAT WE ARE.

I CANNOT FORCE YOU TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU PROBABLY DO NOT WANT TO HEAR.

BUT WE MUST THROW OFF OUR IGNORANCE AND COMPLACENCY, UNDERSTAND WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE PAST, WHY IT IS STILL OCCURRING NOW, AND SUMMON THE MORAL COURAGE TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

THERE IS LITTLE TIME LEFT!

Posted by PseudoTurtle | Report as abusive

Is this support wishful thinking?

Almost 100 percent of people in three states support background checks.
Here are a few thoughts.
We ALREADY have background checks for commercial sales of firearms. Most would agree that the NICS system is supposed to cover exactly what the proposed new background checks are looking at. With the notable exception of sales between private parties.
The new proposal covers all sales. I am against the goverment being a party to ALL sales. Would society gain from this? Likely not as it isn’t currently a problem.
The End game for Feinstein/Schumer is to dry up the supply of guns and make them impractical to own..they do an end run around the Second Amendment.
The new background checks promoters don’t mention fingerprints, fees, photogrphs, applications, and turning your guns over to the government when you die. Say goodbye to Grandfather’s shotgun that has been in the family seventy-five years.
I dispute that a majority of americans want this kind of intrusion into their lives.
No thanks.

Posted by akrozbi | Report as abusive

The president said, “It’s going to take a wave of Americans — mothers and fathers, daughters and sons, pastors, law enforcement, mental health professionals and, yes, gun owners ‑ standing up and saying ‘Enough!’ on behalf of our kids.” That’s happening.

————-

Nope, it’s not. On TV it might “look” like that is happening, but it real life it is not happening.

What’s happening in real life?

Tens of millions of fathers, sons, mothers, daughters, pastors, law enforcement, mental health professionals and yes, gun owners…are flocking to gun stores to buy guns and ammo.

Posted by CF137 | Report as abusive

I wish writers would take the time to dig down into the NRA website to understand to legal, constitutional, ethical, historical aspects of firearms. Read Heller and McDonald and weigh, in your own mind, the merits of both sides of the argument. Only then would they understand that a ten round magazine limit is worthless. Just worthless. Absolutely NO benefit to society.

Posted by akrozbi | Report as abusive