Nice try, Michelle

http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2522593

In an interview with Good Morning America’s Robin Roberts aired this morning, First Lady Michelle Obama recalled the tragic death of 15-year-old Hadiya Pendleton who was shot and killed in Chicago after performing during the President’s Inauguration celebration in Washington D.C.

“She was caught in the line of fire because some kids had some automatic weapons they didn’t need,” the First Lady explained. “I just don’t want to keep disappointing our kids in this country. I want them to know that we put them first.”

Chicago police reported, however, that Pendleton was shot by a man who “opened fire with a handgun before fleeing in a waiting car.”

It is extremely unlikely that the murder weapon was an automatic handgun, an extremely rare occurrence, even in the streets of Chicago. An overwhelming majority of handguns bought and sold in America are semi-automatic. Police officials have not recovered the firearm, but prosecutors stated that the accused attacker shot “at least six times” into the crowd.

ABC edited out the automatic weapons part.

"Nice try, Michelle."

What exactly was she attempting to accomplish by incorrectly stating they had automatic weapons? Fully automatics are already incredibly regulated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigBlueBrock

"Nice try, Michelle."

What exactly was she attempting to accomplish by incorrectly stating they had automatic weapons? Automatics are already illegal.

---

Anti gun groups are engaging in an Orwellian tactic of word connotations, now making "semi-automatic" blurred with "automatic" to conjure up images of machine guns in movies, making all semi-autos some kind of threat. It's already been reflected in proposed bills like the one pushed by the Illinois governor to ban all semi-automatics. I already see in the media the shift to attacking semi-autos and blurring that with "automatic".

They're doing the same thing with "weapons of war" versus "assault weapons", again calling up images of movie scenes where people are unloading bottomless magazines in full auto mode with no recoil, another complete misrepresentation of how weapons are used in war.

And yes before you respond with "both sides do it", the industry is using the term "modern sporting rifles" to counter "Assault weapons". Same basic idea, though the gun groups like NSSF do have far more to stand on since such guns are in fact used extensively for sporting purposes and are aren't used to "assault" anyone or anything. It is the more accurate term, even if its promulgation is motivated by word connotations.

Of course it's possible she just doesn't know the difference, in which case it's a nice try at acting like she should have any input into the gun issue since she has no understanding of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

Of course it's possible she just doesn't know the difference, in which case it's a nice try at acting like she should have any input into the gun issue since she has no understanding of it.

---

I'm more willing to err on this side of the argument, personally. When given the choice between Machiavellian subterfuge and someone simply saying something stupid (how's that for alliteration?), I'll go with someone said something stupid most of the time.

I want to break out the most obvious "nice try" as a 2nd post b/c it's critically important:

She was killed by a gun that isn't on any legislative list including her own husband's, and 6 shots were fired, far less than the 10 round goal of his administration. The gun was fired by a criminal and wouldn't have been caught by any new laws on background checks.

In fact police think it was a REVOLVER, not even an "automatic" or "semi-automatic" b/c no shell casings were found at the scene.

So in fact she proved the failure and uselessness of his proposals. Nothing he's proposed, most notably his misplaced focus on guns that kill almost no one on an annual basis and magazine capacities that don't impact criminal use of guns, would have helped that girl in any way. Of course most urban shootings occur with guns not on their target lists.

Further, this person was convicted last year of crimes using a gun, and was right back on the streets. He was convicted of "aggravated unlawful use of a weapon" and was out on probation when he shot this girl. The failure clearly was in the legal system, not prosecuting him and putting him away for using a gun illegally, not the gun itself. Yet NOTHING Obama has proposed deals with the actual criminals using these guns and committing the crimes and addressing why they are ever allowed back among us.

Last, he was a typical criminal with a long record. No background check system was going to touch him as the vast majority of their guns are obtained either illegally or from immediate family/friends who are either going to ignore the checks or are criminals themselves. Passing a law on background checks to catch criminals is like passing a law making the baggies that hold the crack illegal. They're using guns in the commission of crimes but they're going to go down to the local gun dealer to run a NICS check? How asinine can they get?

She claims an obligation to this child and others like her in Chicago, yet her husband and her political allies in Chicago refuse to do anything to actually help them. Instead they use those deaths to push an agenda that has nothing to do with them or the threats they face every day. They are nothing more than political tools, apparently meaningless to her and her husband.


So I guess in the end it's his policies that are the biggest "nice try" of all, since they don't address a single, solitary aspect of this murder. The wrong guns, the wrong kind of gun altogether, the wrong capacity, the wrong owner/buyer of it, all the while ignoring the obvious solution of locking up the people who would do such a thing.

Like the guy who shot the watch maker 4 times and was back on the streets in 5 years, it's pretty clear where 95% of gun violence is coming from and what the solution is, and it doesn't involve the guns themselves at all. Obama doesn't care about this girl, if he did he'd have a proposal that did something to reduce crime and the criminal population in Chicago's projects, not using piles of political chips to limit rifles that on average kill 10 or so people a year. he'd be focusing on criminal justice, not "assault weapons".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigBlueBrock

I'm more willing to err on this side of the argument, personally. When given the choice between Machiavellian subterfuge and someone simply saying something stupid (how's that for alliteration?), I'll go with someone said something stupid most of the time.

---

I generally do too but I see the shift from "semi-automatic" to "automatic" happening across the media and the anti-gun politicians. I agree that 90% of them don't know the first thing about guns, but it's also a broad trend and I think it is a mix of both their ignorance and their desire to characterize guns as being as dangerous as possible in people's imaginations. It is critically tied to the "they don't serve a purpose" argument you yourself have put forth. The more they are like something Rambo uses the less need people perceive for civilians to have and the more dangerous their ownership is perceived as being.

The Illinois governor wants to ban all semi-autos, rifles and pistols. The battle has expanded well beyond "assault weapons" and now at the state level the anti-gun groups are arguing against semi-autos of all kinds. It's a little too convenient those terms are being blurred by their leaders and then showing up in identically worded bills being introduced in multiple state legislatures.

I'll accept Michelle is just ill-informed and doesn't care to learn anything that may upset her myopic world view, and I'll accept many in the media are just as likely to not do any homework, but the terms are being intentionally blurred as well.

That's a great post, Chuck. I actually will take "Nice try" a step further and say that it's exactly what they're going for with new legislation. Not necessarily more effective, but creates of sense of "Hey, they're doing something!" a lot of people would like to feel. Hell, take a look at the memo the NRA obtained that was posted in another thread (I really don't know why we have to have a half-dozen threads about the same topic, especially since so few of us post in here, but w/e). It says none of the proposed legislation would make a bit of difference, that to effectively curb use of these weapons, the person believed gun registration and even "buy-backs" would be necessary. I always assume the laziest option of political groups and I believe those on both sides would be happy to make their bases FEEL satiated with whatever legislation they ATTEMPT to pass than actually accomplish anything with efficacy. It's easier to look like you're doing something in order to get re-elected than actually DO something that may make you a political pariah in Washington.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigBlueBrock

That's a great post, Chuck. I actually will take "Nice try" a step further and say that it's exactly what they're going for with new legislation. Not necessarily more effective, but creates of sense of "Hey, they're doing something!" a lot of people would like to feel. Hell, take a look at the memo the NRA obtained that was posted in another thread (I really don't know why we have to have a half-dozen threads about the same topic, especially since so few of us post in here, but w/e). It says none of the proposed legislation would make a bit of difference, that to effectively curb use of these weapons, the person believed gun registration and even "buy-backs" would be necessary. I always assume the laziest option of political groups and I believe those on both sides would be happy to make their bases FEEL satiated with whatever legislation they ATTEMPT to pass than actually accomplish anything with efficacy. It's easier to look like you're doing something in order to get re-elected than actually DO something that may make you a political pariah in Washington.

---

We agree 100% both on this issue being a "we're doing something" move but also on that being the case 90% of the time with politicians.

Politics as a career is interesting in that you don't have to actually accomplish anything at all to be successful. You just have to have people THINK you accomplished something. Perception is all that matters, and it cuts both ways. You can accomplish lots and be seen as not doing so, and do nothing and be seen as a champion of whatever cause as if you are doing something.

In fact it's generally a good idea to accomplish nothing if you want to move up b/c then there's nothing that can be hung around your neck as a negative. That's how we end up with these 2-D cutouts as leaders. They don't dare act like normal people or take chances to try to do the right thing b/c it will be run against them in 30 second commercials filmed in black and white where they're made out to be Stalin's long lost nephew.

So they do as little as possible while being seen as a champion of causes that will get them votes. I agree 100%.

I do wonder about why in a given case they choose a particular way of being the champion of the cause or why the bases view it that way. In the gun issue I don't get why people focus on what they focus on. OK I get "assault weapons" are used in the highest profile mass shootings, and those get massive media coverage so they are imprinted on people's minds, but I don't get why those who champion the issue of gun violence focus on such things. They clearly know AKs and ARs aren't the issue in Chicago yet they still lobby for such laws instead of things that would make a difference.

In fact in one interview I saw the person was thrilled Obama was including things to help them. Huh? The only thing is universal background checks and the idea was that somehow this would keep Chicago criminals from having guns b/c nationally no one would sell them one now. Yet they KNOW those guns are by and large obtained illegally and that source would only grow to accommodate demand as needed.

So what I don't get is how people who I tend to think really do care about issue X continue to buy into the non-solutions given by politicians when they know those policies are nothing more than grandstanding and a diversion of political will away from things that would help.

I know politicians are 90% full of it, but I don't get how these grass roots groups of all kinds go along with it so happily.

That's also why I largely shrug off the gun control debate. For one, I believe there are far more important policy issues to tackle (foreign policy, failing domestic infrastructure, Social Security and Medicare solvency, etc). But the other thing is I don't believe Washington can or is even all that willing to try and effect real policy regarding gun control. And if they're not willing to do anything all that effective, then I'm not going to dedicate brain power to thinking about what should be done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

I don't get how these grass roots groups of all kinds go along with it so happily.

---

Because people are, quite frankly, stupid. Individuals can be and usually are intelligent, but as a group people are really obtuse and easily lead around by their nose.

Except "nice try's" are only known by a relative few. Most folks will only see what is most readily available to them. Relatively few will bother to read the facts that Chuck provided above while most will be moved by the edited words of FLOTUS. I used to think that short jail terms for felons w/guns were due to judges with bleeding hearts. But with overwhelming evidence of rehab failing miserably for quite a while now I'm starting to think it's by design. Let the stench become so strong the people will cry out...and throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigBlueBrock

Because people are, quite frankly, stupid. Individuals can be and usually are intelligent, but as a group people are really obtuse and easily lead around by their nose.

---

Agree with this as well. I have a low opinion of many people as individuals, just too many out there who don't even try to understand the world around them, but once the mob mentality takes over it becomes an organic entity acting on pure instinct, and is almost always wrong.

The article where I found one of the details asked this Chicago politician about the failures of the Chicago police and if it was more than a gun issue, and he said that an outside consultant would likely tell them to do what they are doing now, including "getting the guns off the streets". I seriously doubt anyone with a clue would tell them to keep doing what clearly isn't working and even in that question he circled back to gun availability as the problem, not the abject poverty, drugs and crime that pervade south and west Chicago. They are completely focused in on guns being the problem and pushing more gun restrictions despite overwhelming evidence their gun laws have been completely ineffectual.

The fact that this person was out on probation having committed some kind of assault with a firearm a year earlier, and no doubt had other criminal convictions, didn't enter his comments at all. No outrage about the judicial system that put him back on the streets, just questions about where he got yet another gun after the one he used in an assault last year was no doubt confiscated and destroyed. With 300 million of them in the US we're going to be colonizing the moons of Jupiter before their approach gets rid of enough guns to make a difference. lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by badrose

Except "nice try's" are only known by a relative few. Most folks will only see what is most readily available to them. Relatively few will bother to read the facts that Chuck provided above while most will be moved by the edited words of FLOTUS. I used to think that short jail terms for felons w/guns were due to judges with bleeding hearts. But with overwhelming evidence of rehab failing miserably for quite a while now I'm starting to think it's by design. Let the stench become so strong the people will cry out...and throw the baby out with the bathwater.

---

Yep. 99% of those hearing her comments will assume she was killed by a nasty "automatic" or "semi-automatic" weapon of some kind, and inextricably tie that act to the laws Obama is proposing. That's why she brought up the murder, and why I say they don't give a damn about these kids being killed other than their usefulness politically. No doubt with the resources of the White House at hand she and Obama would have been easily far better briefed than us on the fact that the gun used wasn't even a semi-auto or "automatic", that he was out on probation for another gun charge, etc.

So she knew and lied, or didn't bother to find out what happened in which case she didn't really care about what happened so much as how the fact of it happening could be used for political gain.

FWIW I bet she knew it was a revolver, and my only reason for saying it is I bet the White House wanted to know, as much as the NRA, which weapon was used b/c if it was a weapon they're going after it would be an even better pitch. Had it been an AR or AK no doubt she'd have cited it very specifically as would the media. When they found out it was a revolver they dropped the reference in favor of a generic "automatic" claim they could deny was a reference to her specific death but about all the deaths she represents if ever called on it, which in the national media would never happen.

I accept ignorance as a reason, but in this case it would have been too fruitful for the Administration to not check to see if it were a weapon that would further their goals. So they would have checked and known. Maybe Michelle wasn't told and was in ignorance, but someone at the White House developing their use of her death as a pitch was tasked with finding out and buried the fact it was a revolver b/c it didn't fit the agenda, and I find it hard to believe she wasn't curious enough to ask. if she wasn't it lowers my opinion of her b/c it's an obvious question.

Her comments were deceptive by intent. They know what they are doing and stage every move and every comment.

I guess her husband shoots skeet with an automatic shotgun?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dan_bgblue

I guess her husband shoots skeet with an automatic shotgun?

---

One with no recoil, evidently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KeithKSR

One with no recoil, evidently.

---

Well as Biden says, shotguns are easier to aim and control than those massive 223 rounds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KeithKSR

Her comments were deceptive by intent. They know what they are doing and stage every move and every comment.

---

Biden says whatever blather comes out, but Michelle is too smart for that. She is well practiced, as any politician's wife is expected to be.