Joy Behar’s “recommendation” to gun-grabbing freedom-denying politicians is to lie about their intent to confiscate guns, then just do it once they’re in office.
Well, we’re used to politicians lying to us. It’s more surprising when they tell the truth. However even their lies can be informative. The thing to remember is that a politician has only one raison de etre. Anything they say, anything they do, has only one purpose: to win their next election. There may be occasional exceptions (for instance, a President heading toward a second term being more “flexible” after their last election), but that’s the general rule. This is especially true when it comes to lies: they lie because it’s what they need to do to get elected.
Now consider that in the light of Ms. Behar’s recommendation. Lie about gun confiscation because that’s what you need to do to get elected. After all, consider how Robert “Beta” O’Roark’s” campaign tanked on his “ban the guns, have mandatory ‘buy backs’, and police going door to door if people don’t comply with the ‘buy back’.” (How can you buy something “back” that you never sold in the first place?)
If you want to be elected, you have to lie about confiscating guns. At the very least you have to couch it in indirect terms such as “Australian-style gun control” or “UK-style gun control”. Both of those were widespread confiscations but most people on hearing those terms don’t think of it in those terms.
But here’s the flip side of that. The same people who are lying about their positions (unless you catch them in unguarded moments), or at the very least are spinning a net of words so you don’t think of it in those terms, are also the ones claiming that there is broad support amounting to a majority of Americans for the “Australian” or “UK” style gun control–for bans and confiscation.
So which is it? Do you have to lie about banning being the goal to win elections or does banning have the broad support claimed for it? Because you can’t have both. If it were really something that a majority of Americans supported, then you would be touting it to the heavens in order to win those votes.
Oh, sure, you point to public polls saying that a majority of Americans support this ban or that ban, “mandatory buy-backs”, and so on and so on. And a correctly designed and implemented poll can give one a good idea of what ideas are popular among the American people. But not all polls are well designed and well implemented. Some are designed not so much to measure public opinion but to try to shape it.
And, by your own actions, concealing that you really do want to take their guns in order to win elections, you show that you do not believe those poll results yourself. Perhaps your internal polls, those aimed to actually measure public opinion rather than attempt to manipulate it, tell a different story than the publicly reported ones?
Then show us you have the courage of your convictions. Go all-in on gun confiscation, whether called a “buy back” or simply a legal requirement that a person divest themselves of their firearms (with no one else legally able to buy them so the only de fecto legal option is surrender to law enforcement). Show us that you actually believe those polls.
Or just watch the rest of us as we keep pointing and saying “liar.”