Gun Control rally in San Bernardino makes the news...

[virginia mountainman]

But only has three people show up.... But MSM, deems it press worthy...

"It's three people today, but it will be 23 next time, and we'll see the time after that,"

http://www.sbsun.com/news/ci_23464357/organizing-action-rallies-san-bernardino-gun-control

Now, explain to me why some politicians think gun control is what the people want?

[gejohnston]

1. but the thousands that showed up in Albany to

protest the SAFE Act didn't seem newsworthy.
the MSM was too busy cheerleading the Iraq invasion to notice the millions in the US and world wide protesting that very war.
Two guys with a Gadsden Flag and a stupid sign is front page news while OWS is either ignored or called "just a bunch of dirty hippies".

Neither of my conservative or liberal friends or relatives get why I call the media infotainment, with more tainment than info.

[virginia mountainman]

3. Your absouluty correct..

If it was not for gun control, Peirs Morgan would not have a news show, and like you said, they completely ignore the THOUSANDS that show up to resist their tyrannical bullshit, but those 3 people at a "rally" are deemed news worth.

Remember the HIGHLY TOUTED "Occupy the NRA" march... it was all over here, and in the news... Here is the reality..

:large

The NRA hq, is just outside Washington DC, and THAT was the best that could be done?! ROFLMAO!!!!

I am afraid that the damage to our parties credibility on this issue, is completely shot, and it was take another 20 years to "fix it".

[CokeMachine]

4. I like the guy in the foreground

He seems to be scratching his head and saying what the f____.

[Eleanors38]

7. Interesting, is Occupy ready to capitalize on the benefits of the gun control issue?

Or are the controllers trying to grab onto anyone else's organized effort? Since I have not seen any lit from Occupy indicating the hugely popular gun control issue is part of their agenda, I'm betting on the latter.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

2. Why? The push for "gun control" began in 1993 when an unhappy San Francisco businessman went into

Last edited Tue Jun 18, 2013, 04:21 PM - Edit history (1)

a major law firm, whose clients included the super-rich, and shot up the place.

Senator Dianne I've-got-a-.38-special-for-my-self-defense Feinstein immediately got the message. She grabbed the issue and ran with it. The people that she heard were among the rich and the super-rich.

Notwithstanding that the "gun control" issue is supposed to be a "liberal Democrat" issue (because we all know that Dianne Feinstein is a liberal Democrat, notwithstanding the defense contracts that her husband has with the U.S. military), this issue was also picked up by some big-time Republicans who were known to not be liberals. When the former Governor Ryan (R) of Illinois pushed for "gun control" in Illinois (gun control = let's take firearms away from law-abiding citizens or make it difficult for them to own firearms in their homes for self-defense), Obama was an Illinois politician who made himself unavailable in Hawaii when the vote was taken. If it had been perceived by him as a big-time liberal issue which would have helped him gain the White House, he would have been there for the vote.

Mayor Bloomberg - a member of the super-rich who is identified as a former Republican although he has actively sought to undermine the 4th, 5th, and 1st Amendments while being an Independent - hears the voices of the super-rich.

When the politicians think that gun control is what the people want (in lieu of economic reform), the people that they hear are those of the rich and the super-rich. They never focus upon economic reform, more mental health care for the mentally disturbed, and increased prison time for criminals who use firearms while engaged in their criminal activities.

[rl6214]

6. Well said

[jeepnstein]

5. In no time at all they'll be up to forty or fifty.

Wow, think of it. That's real political might there.