General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe N.R.A. Wins Again - TheNewYorker
THE N.R.A. WINS AGAINPosted by Alex Koppelman - TheNewYorker
March 20, 2013
<snip>
After Sandy Hook, after twenty children were shot and killed at a place where they should have been safe from all harm, there was some optimism among supporters of gun control: perhaps now, finally, both Democrats and Republicans could see the light—and the suffering—and revive the assault-weapons ban. It was a futile hope.
Less than a week after Adam Lanza shot up an elementary school, it was already basically clear that an assault-weapons ban could not pass Congress—that it probably couldn’t even get through the Democratic-controlled Senate, never mind the House. So it was hardly a surprise when, three months later, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced that the ban would be removed from a larger gun-control package that is making its way through the upper chamber and given a separate vote that it will not survive. The scale of the defeat suffered by the ban’s supporters, though, is shocking. This wasn’t a close call; it was a body blow.
On Tuesday, Reid told reporters that, “using the most optimistic numbers,” the ban sponsored by Senator Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat of California, will come to the floor with “less than forty” yes votes. If that’s true, it means that of the senators who were on the fence and might theoretically have been persuaded to support the legislation—there may have been as many as fifteen of them, and perhaps more—Feinstein and her allies lost almost every single one.
Those gun-control supporters who tend toward the glass-half-full side of things can reasonably view this as Feinstein et. al realizing that the real goal of the post-Newtown anti-gun push was a law making background checks universal—that the ban was just a sacrifice offered up to ease that law’s path through Congress—and letting any Democrats nervous about the backlash against a pro-ban vote off the hook.
There’s another way to interpret Reid’s vote count, though. Even after Tucson, and Aurora, and Sandy Hook, the N.R.A. won. Even with polls showing a majority of the country in favor of a ban and the President publicly behind it, more than a quarter of the Senate’s Democratic caucus would have voted against it, and there may not be any Senate Republicans who would have voted for it. Three months ago, there were pro-gun senators—including Reid—who were making noises about coming around on assault weapons. To a man, it appears, they have reconsidered.
<snip>
More: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/03/the-nra-wins-again.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
onehandle
(51,122 posts)
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)how much credit is given to the NRA and how little attention is given to 20+ Democratic senators whose constituents, obviously, so strongly oppose this that they refuse to vote for it..
spanone
(141,628 posts)
Generation_Why
(97 posts)
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)They are a powerful lobbying group and have poured huge sums of money into some elections.
I will work on those I believe engage in gun nuttery one person or one group at a time. I have no problem starting with the NRA
pipoman
(16,038 posts)doesn't even come close to being a single Fortune 500 company...all companies combined..No, the NRA is just a boogieman which is easier to attack than the alternative...that large portions of the population and of Democrats don't believe this is necessary or right..
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)... except that it is, it is an exceptionally powerful lobbying group. it is also a group that preys on the weakness, fears and prejudice of others in order to buoy their fanatic fervor.
edit for spelling
pipoman
(16,038 posts)because they spend such a crazy amount of money or because of their 3 million members, it is a large portion of the 100 million gun owners who vocally oppose through letters, phone calls, and on the campaign trail who influence politicians. That and actually being good Democratic senators who are, say, civil libertarians therefore in strong favor of liberal interpretation of all civil rights/liberties, including the second amendment..They suck politically, they also do give money to Democratic campaigns..one wouldn't expect a lobbying group for marriage equality to give money to any candidate, regardless the party, who opposes gay marriage..they may actually support a marriage equality rethug over a less friendly Democratic candidate.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)should be primaried. We need to get some actual progressives in congress, otherwise we can expect the right-ward drift to continue, not just on guns, but across the board.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)as was demonstrated in the backlash to 1994. I know it is devastating to many urban Dems that their brethren take a different position on this issue. Most of the senators who are unwilling to vote for this would likely be the one's replaced next election cycle if they did vote in favor of this..Is this issue worth loosing majority status in the senate..again..?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)Truth is that Democrats are not unanimously in favor of ineffective gun control measures...anyone who believes they are are kidding themselves. Why do gun controllers need a "safe haven" right here at DU if this wasn't the case? No, gun control Dems simply can't face the reality that there are many pro 2nd Dems...too busy proclaiming freeper to care about the truth..
DanTex
(20,709 posts)About 60% of Americans support the Assault Weapons Ban. Since I can't imagine many Republicans are in that total, the percentage among Dems has got to be pretty high. You do the math.
Or you could post some evidence behind your claim that the Dems who caved are actually acting in the interests of their constitutents, but from my experience dealing with "pro-gun progressives," I think I'm pretty safe in my assumption that you have none.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)again, pretending that the NRA bought all of those senators is ludicrous..
If you remember 2004, when the '94 AWB came up for renewal GW said he would sign the reauthorization if it reached his desk, it didn't even come up for a vote in a Democratically controlled congress..
But, in the end, I suspect it was the findings of the Senate Judiciary Committee which doomed the bill..the DF bill, I believe, was determined by the Judiciary Committee not to be viable if/when challenged based on the standard set by SCOTUS in 1934 of, "in common use for lawful purposes"..frankly, I believe that is why it wasn't reauthorized in 2004, challenges were coming and a SCOTUS loss would have made any future attempts, like this one, impossible to even get to committee.
hack89
(39,181 posts)All Democratic Senate incumbents up for reelection in 2014. All Conservative pro-gun states.
Care to guess how they view gun control?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)If Dems are going to vote like Republicans, what's the point? Really, this argument has nothing to do with guns.
Of course, in addition to primarying right-wing Democrats, we should also use gun control as an issue to oust Republicans from blue states, that we can probably both agree on.
hack89
(39,181 posts)that is why they were elected. Now you can entertain your fantasy that gun control progressives can win statewide elections in those states but don't be surprised if others see it differently.
At some point you are going to have to face reality - there are many pro-gun Democrats and you will not be able to ignore them or marginalize them while trying to pass gun control. Even if they do not support an AWB, they do support other gun control laws like universal background checks. This all or nothing attitude is going to get you nothing if you are not careful.
I think that gun control is very useful for ousting blue state repukes.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)All I'm asking is for a poll showing that there are "a lot" of pro-gun Democrats (and by "pro-gun" I mean people that oppose the president on things like the AWB and magazine limits). All of the pro-gunners here keep claiming that, but I've never seen a single poll to back it up.
I've asked before, and the total amount of evidence I've been presented with is zero. From the polls I've seen, guns are no different than abortion or gay marriage. Sure, there are some anti-gay Dems, and some pro-life Dems, and some pro-gun Dems, but they are a pretty small minority.
It is my contention that gun control fails not because it is unpopular (as I keep repeating, almost 60% of Americans support the AWB, and even things like universal handgun registration which aren't even on the table enjoy majority support), but because of special interest politics. And this shouldn't be so hard to believe because it happens in other areas too. For example, most Americans do not want the retirement age lifted, nor do they want chained CPI, but it's looking like both of those things are going to happen.
If that happens, are you going to be arguing that we need to respect the Democrats who want to gut Social Security and Medicare? If not, why are guns any different?
hack89
(39,181 posts)look at all those states that have specifically said that an AWB is off the table - Oregon, Colorado, Minnesota come immediately to mind. All controlled by Democrats.
So don't try to convince me that there is an overwhelming and widespread desire in America for an AWB because it defies reality.
Support for an AWB hovers around 55% - a majority but not an overwhelming one. And that support is not evenly distributed - which means there are states with a majority of their population that do not support an AWB. And some of those states are represented by Dems.
When you can show that conservative pro-gun states are beginning to embrace an AWB then I could accept your argument. But you can't.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)So evidently you think Dems should only go for progressive issues if at least 70% of the country agrees with them. If it's 60% or less, let's just hand it over to the GOP. Is that it?
You continually ignore the fact that guns are no different from a bunch of other issues, where the majority of the population (and yes, 55% to 60% is a majority) agrees with the Democrats, but the special interest politics favor the Republicans. You're acting like guns are somehow different, but actually, the same people are voting for anti-union measures and pro-life measures and so on.
The majority of the American people do not want chained CPI, nor do they want to raise the retirement age. It's not an overwhelming majority, but a significant one, just like the AWB. And yet, it is looking like both of those are going to happen anyway. When that happens, and I again say that Democrats who caved to special interest politics should be primaried, are you going to again stick up for the right-wing Dems who are voting with the 40% of America that wants right-wing policies, and the Koch Brothers who are funding them?
hack89
(39,181 posts)Look - you can spread blame all you want. But until your logic evolves beyond "NRA NRA NRA" you will continued to fail.
Tell you what - how about you dig up some polls that show the level support for an AWB in each state. Then we will have more than a national poll to talk about. Then perhaps the decisions made by individual Democratic office holders will make more sense.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)How are guns different from abortion, unions, gay marriage, Social Security, tax cuts for the rich, or any other issue where the politics are to the right of the people, thanks to big money, special interest politics, and the fact that "centrist" Dems vote with Republicans more then centrist Republicans vote with Democrats.? It's the same forces at work.
Do I need to repeat it again?
55% to 60% of the country supports the AWB. The fact that we can't get it through the Senate means that the Dems are doing something wrong. If can only win political battles where 70% of the country is on our side, the future is not bright. You're happy about this one, because you don't like the Assault Weapons Ban. But don't pretend that it's because the AWB is "unpopular".
hack89
(39,181 posts)it enjoys significant support by Democrats and those independents we depend on to win presidential elections. I understand your tactic of smearing all gun owners as right wingers - it is a good way of controlling the conversation. But the fact that you actually believe it tells me how out of touch you are with American social and political reality.
And you refuse to see my point. It is irreverent to talk about national polls on gun control. That support is not evenly distributed. Until you can show me how that support is distributed on a state by state basis you have not made your case.
Do you really think that Democrats in pro-gun states will win by ignoring the wishes of their constituents because a bunch progressives in Blue states overwhelmingly support an AWB? Are you really saying that every state in the Union supports an AWB?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Which means that, unless we want to see abortion rights vanish, gay discrimination continue, unions destroyed, and social security and medicare gutted, we're going to have to adopt a different strategy. Now, maybe you are a centrist who would be OK with all that, but I am not. Particularly since, just like the AWB, over 50% of Americans agree with Dems on all those issues, and yet congress keeps pushing us further to the right.
Right, but the nation is the sum of all the states. On any issue, if 60% of Americans are on the Democratic side, and the Dems control the senate, we should be able to get a bill passed. Period. If not we're doing something wrong.
The Republicans somehow manage to get Susan Collins and Kelly Ayotte and Ron Johnson and Pat Toomey to oppose the AWB even though they come from blue states. I don't see why the Dems can't get the red state Dems to act like Democrats also. By all means, I think we should try and oust Republicans from blue states and replace them with Dems who will support progressive initiatives like gun control. But what happens now is that blue state Republicans act like right-wingers where as red-state Democrats act like centrists or even conservatives. That has to change.
hack89
(39,181 posts)Lets not forget that the number of Senators is not tied to population. Each state gets two Senators regardless of population.
Do you expect elected officials to represent the interests of their constituents? More importantly, do you think Dems will get reelected if they break their promises or ignore what their constituents want?
Your notion that a Dem Senator in a pro-gun state that opposes an AWB will vote for an AWB because of a national poll is naive beyond imagination.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Or should we just cave on every single issue because the people of Alaska are more conservative than the rest of the country.
Yes, I get that the undemocratic nature of the senate, which favors conservatives, is part of the problem. But I believe that it is still possible to get progressive policies passed -- particularly when 60% of the country agrees with us. Those people have to live somewhere!
You seem to be advocating a strategy where we let the GOP win every issue unless the 70% of the nation agrees with the Dems. Lucky for you, that seems to be what is happening. The public option had majority support but failed. Social security has majority support but it looks like that is going to get cut, etc.
It must be great having a center-right political outlook, so that the current congress is doing everything you want it to.
hack89
(39,181 posts)The reality here is that to push an AWB would jeopardize Democratic control of the Senate in 2014. I think Dem control of the Senate is more important than an AWB.
I advocate a strategy of not using broad nation polls to drive specific election strategies. Our strategy is to elect enough Dems that we are not so dependent on conservative Democrats. Getting them all replaced by Republicans is not the best way to achieve that.
I think gun controllers need to have patience.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Because we lost that the same way. We had 60 votes in the Senate, and the public option polled at around 60%. Yet the GOP managed to drag a few "centrist" Dems across to their side, and instead of holding the line, the Democrats caved.
The people in favor of caving made all the same arguments you are making now. That we couldn't be unrealistic, and that some Dems come from conservative states, and that we would lose a lot of seats if we went too far left. Well, guess what happened. The Dems caved and they also got crushed in the 2010 midterm.
So, somehow, the idea that caving to the Republicans over and over is the secret to winning elections isn't that persuasive to me.
hack89
(39,181 posts)what is so hard about this basic concept that eludes you? Politicians will always vote in their own best interest - which means they vote the way the voters want them to vote.
If you don't have the votes you don't have the votes.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)You know, Tom Harkin and Chuck Grassley have the exact same constituency (the voters of Iowa), and yet they vote very differently. How could that possibly be, if politicians always vote exactly the same way as the people they represent?
Hmm...
hack89
(39,181 posts)for what ever reason, they have decided it is in their best interest to vote the way they do. What do you think you can do about it?
Each politicians makes their own decision based on their own calculations. They have come to a different decision then you or Diane Feinstein.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Give them something else to worry about.
Maybe get Bloomberg to donate money ???
hack89
(39,181 posts)it might get more progressives in the Senate. If not, then a strong gun control opponent would allow the incumbents to strengthen and sharpen their pro-gun message and inoculate them from Republican attacks in the general election. That way we would at least keep the seat.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I doubt you can find a single state poll that finds the majority of Democrats in a state opposed to AWB. The Dems that voted against AWB are not doing what their constituents want. In fact, neither are most Republicans.
They are doing what the gun lobby wants.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
hack89
(39,181 posts)so the question really is "what percentage of Texas voters support an AWB.?"
That question applies to every state and the nation as a whole. Politicians pay attention to voters.
The pro-gun side has a proven track record of mobilizing a lot of single issue voters. Until the gun control movement shows they can do the same, things won't change, all the polls in the world withstanding.
The mechanic of elections and motivating voters is a fascinating one. Right now politicians fear the NRA. Until it can be shown that being pro-gun control can be a winning issue at the polls, things won't change in red and purple states. Gun controllers need to win some elections in these states.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Here, let me highlight the important part for you.
Above I posted a Virginia poll that shows that Virginians support AWB by an even bigger margin than Texans. I'm still waiting for a single poll that validates any of what you have been claiming about "red state Democrats". If Texan Dems support AWB by an overwhelming margin, it's a pretty good indication that actual "pro-gun progressives" are few and far between.
But do I like how your story keeps changing as the evidence comes in and disproves everything you say.
hack89
(39,181 posts)with pro-gun control Democrats. Make sense to you? Show you can translate polls into electoral victories and you are on your way.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I agree with you that the NRA has been playing the special interest game much better than the gun control advocates. That's exactly what I've been saying, and that's what we need to change. It's got nothing to do with insufficient public support. We need to harness the very broad support for gun control into electoral victories and policy changes.
hack89
(39,181 posts)it will be interesting to see if gun control is high on the list of voter priorities then.
hack89
(39,181 posts)Interesting tidbit.
so you believe a fiscal liberal should vote with Dems on every issue? Reality..really..don't pay too much attention to Washington eh? I believe Senators should vote the will of their districts...I suspect most people feel the same..party lines be damned..
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I mean, sure, I'm willing to give red state Dems a little leeway, but at some point, if they are going to vote like Republicans, we need to get some progressives into congress.
One thing you have to hand it to the GOP, is they get their people in line. Even blue state Republicans toe the party line on issue after issue. You celebrate on this issue because you happen to be on the side of less gun control, but if you can't see the pattern -- that on issue after issue, the country drifts to the right because "centrist" Dems vote with Republicans much more than vice-versa, then you're being willfully blind.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)I'll take the centrist dems every time..knowing and understanding full well they are not going to always vote with the party..In the states listed in the other post, a hard left dem will never, ever, be elected..No, it's time for the party to embrace rural dems instead of denying their existence, it is good for the party and will ensure Dem majorities..the opposite will doom Dem majorities..
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The problem, then, is that the current strategy the Dems are using only works on issues where progressives have overwhelming popular support. The AWB is a 55-45 or even a 60-40 issue. If we can't even get that through the senate with a Democratic majority, then we have a problem.
There are two things we can do about this. First, we can get Democrats to vote like Democrats. And second, we can oust Republicans. I think we should do both. First, we should force a vote on the AWB so that we can use the Republicans votes against them in the next election in blue and purple states. And second, we should do more, including primary challenges, to ensure that the Democrats in the senate are actually progressives.
Of course, maybe you are a centrist Dem, and you oppose things like gay marriage and abortion rights, and maybe you would like to see the retirement age raised. In which case our political objectives differ.
hack89
(39,181 posts)they ran on pro-gun platforms. Why do you think they will be reelected if they support an AWB?
pipoman
(16,038 posts)is distracting. Saying that popular support for this is 60/40, so the 60 should have no problem doesn't work. The question is if the 40 are crossed, will it change the outcome of a vote. IOW..even with 60% support, a shift of the 40% can defeat the 60%..
"Get Democrats to vote like Democrats" assumes that all democrats agree on every issue. We obviously don't. I don't care what the party says on any issue, I can't change the party. Just because the party takes a position, my mind doesn't automatically follow.
I am a many times pronounced Civil Liberatarian...have been a card carrying member of the ACLU for years. I will always come down on the side of liberal interpretation of civil rights/liberties. I have been very, very unpopular in real life while publicly defending the rights of truly despicable people. I didn't care what others thought then, and I don't care on an anonymous board.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)gun control, and yet I haven't seen any evidence that they really exist. I get that there are a small but very dedicated group of pro-gun advocates, but it seems to me that virtually all of them are already voting Republican. And it also seems that they are already a high-turnout group because they are constantly paranoid about the coming gun confiscation, so it's not like they can be made any more angry or motivated than they already are.
Pro-gunners tell me constantly about about how rural red state Dems are pro-gun, and it's not really a right-left thing, but then I look at polls and find that, for example, Democrats in the red state of Texas support the AWB by 75-18. So I'm struggling to find this elusive demographic of people that want to vote Democratic, but will be scared away by gun control.
I know that not all Democrats agree on all issues, but my point is that I don't think guns are particularly different from any other issue. Take abortion, or social security, or Wall Street reform, or whatever. Of course not everyone is going to be on the same side on all of them, but for the most part, people who cross over tend to be centrists -- people like Joe Manchin, who in addition to being pro-gun was also the only Democrat to oppose the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)however, every president ever elected was elected by the vast middle. The vast middle shifts left and right constantly. It is the raygun voter who also voted for Obama and Clinton who shifts. If winning elections hinged on firm right v. firm left there would be no races..no, it is the swing voter who determines elections. Keeping in mind that Obama ran on a platform of pretty much leaving the gun issue to states, a shift in that may have effected his re-election...Same is true in states which lean red but happen to like and elect a Democrat...a shift in the swing voters in his/her district, even a minor shift will take him/her out of Washington. So yes, this one issue can cost elections. It has happened before.
Most of the Dems who will not vote for this are dependent on indies and moderate republicans for re-election.
The assault weapon issue for me isn't about me. I don't own one and probably never will. It is about civil liberties. I know that the vast, vast majority of these weapons are used commonly and lawfully and I see no reason to put a restriction on the right which is purely based on cosmetics and really has no statistical evidence of a need to restrict them more than they already are..
LAGC
(5,330 posts)Staking out positions that are anti-gay, anti-choice, etc. all involve wanting to take away people's rights.
Being anti-gun is also about wanting to take away people's rights.
So how did that supposedly become a "liberal" issue?
I know "progressives" have historically been in favor of authoritarian solutions such as (alcohol) Prohibition back in the day...
I guess that's why I identify more with "liberal" (in favor of more personal freedom) than I do "progressive."
hack89
(39,181 posts)A strong gun control opponent would allow the incumbents to strengthen and sharpen their pro-gun message and inoculate them from Republican attacks in the general election.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Faced with a progressive D (including a strong pro-2A stand), and a not-so-progressive D (including strong gun-control), for whom would you vote?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)We're talking about people like Joe Manchin, the only Dem who voted against repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell, or Mark Pryor, the only Dem to vote against the "Buffet Rule" preventing millionaires from avoiding taxes.
As I've been pointing out, it's not like guns are some special issue. It's the same across the board. If we can't get policies through the senate, which we control, in cases where 60% of America agrees with the Dems, then we are doing something wrong.
derby378
(30,262 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)is that the 60% is a national average. If 80% of Chuck Schummer's district supports an assault weapons ban, and Harry Reid's district has only 40% support (which would equal 60% approval), how should Harry vote on the issue? Should he disregard the wishes of his district in favor of voting with his party? No, I think it is safe to say that the 13+ Democratic senators who refused to lend their vote to this know their districts and wish to not loose their seats. I wish them not to loose their seats. There are many more issues which can be effected by a Dem majority than this one issue is worth.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)And Texas Democrats support it by a margin of 75-18.
I haven't, of course, looked at data for every single state, but given that Texas is a red pro-gun state, the implication is that resistance to gun control is not nearly as strong as pro-gun advocates claim it to be, even in red states. And, I doubt there is a single state in the nation where the majority of Democrats oppose the AWB. Which means that any Democratic politician that votes against AWB is, at best, going against the desires of most of the people who voted for them, and most Americans, and quite possibly also most voters in their home state.
Keep in mind also that most politicians routinely underestimate how liberal their constituents are. In fact, there was a study about this that came out recently -- both Democrats and Republicans in congress believe their constituents are more conservative than they actually are.
I get that politicians need to be pragmatic. But I see the same thing happening on issue after issue. Most Americans supported the public option on health care reform. Most Americans don't want cuts to Social Security or Medicare, but it looks like we are headed in that direction. If Democrats can't get bills through the senate even though with 55% to 60% of support from the American people, they are doing something wrong.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)And that's not Virginia Democrats, that's all Virginians.
http://hamptonroads.com/2013/01/poll-virginians-favor-stricter-gun-control
I'm starting to wonder if you are ever right about anything?
hack89
(39,181 posts)he is deciding whether or not that NRA A rating means anything to him. I suspect he is also deciding that after running on a pro-gun platform, the voters would reelect a liar and a hypocrite.
Since Feinstein couldn't even get 40 votes something tells me Warner sees it differently then you.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)If Dems are going to support right-wing policies that their own constituents don't support, they need to be replaced.
hack89
(39,181 posts)then you have turned a huge corner.
2014 will be where the American people pass judgement on gun control (among a host of other issues.) It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.
Progressive dog
(7,604 posts)like that. I don't think it makes me any stuoider than anyone else.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Progressive dog
(7,604 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)thinks everyone is just like them, the world and country revolves around them and if they aren't tough..but even in New York state, the public isn't too big on gun control apparently..
Progressive dog
(7,604 posts)that was used to pass the new gun regulations. And if Cuomo chooses to change the law, they'll pass the changes instantly amended gun control. In the mean time, I'm sure you know that the heavily populated part of the state is not in green. It's one man one vote, nothing in there about acres.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Progressive dog
(7,604 posts)All those green areas trend more and more democratic every election. They'll continue to do so in the future. Cuomo's only at 55% approval. Oh wait, wouldn't that be a landslide?
Llewlladdwr
(2,175 posts)I can remember being told here a couple of months ago that as a 2nd Amendment supporter I needed to clean up my act and get ready to have my guns taken away.
Good times back then, huh guys?
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)Will you still be gloating the next time some gun nut kills a bunch of kids?
Logical
(22,457 posts)There are 300 million guns. Legally owned! 9000 of them a year are used to murder some.
What is your plan to stop the 9000 murders?
And if you say "collect all 300 million guns" then no need to have a logical discussion.
Peter cotton
(380 posts)...depending on how one defines them.
The genie is out of the bottle, and it's never getting put back.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)their parents guns?
Paladin
(32,354 posts)Those of you sitting on the Dark Side of the gun control issue better enjoy this victory while you can. Without question, there is a multitude of well-armed psychotics in the works, ready to commit no telling how many more mass murders with their easily-obtained guns. After each such incident, those of us on the gun control side will have a more convincing argument, just as your repeated justifications for easy firearms access lose ground. Regardless of current circumstances, you know damn well that Sandy Hook was a benchmark event, one that shifted the basis of the argument. Ultimately, you'll lose.
aikoaiko
(34,214 posts)The rifle Lanza used was compliant with the former national AWB and current CT AWB.
Its really just as tragic.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)_|_
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Guns are an addiction.
malaise
(296,118 posts)Time longer than rope!
aikoaiko
(34,214 posts)Once again for those who are willfully forgetting some important facts is that if the 1994 AWB was in place, the same rifle and magazines used by Lanza were accessible for purchase. Adam Lanza used a 1994 AWB compliant firearm.
The new proposed AWB would allow the same rifle Lanza used to be purchased and owned with a different grip.
Yes, the magazine limits are tougher in the proposed law (not allowing transfers), but much of the law is about banning firearms and that is why there is so much resistance to it.
kudzu22
(1,273 posts)The worst thing the Senate Dems could do is to pass something stupid and ineffectual just for the sake of "doing something". Reid probably saved the Senate majority for 2014.
Blue_Tires
(57,596 posts)What good is a senate majority if nothing ever gets accomplished with it??
kudzu22
(1,273 posts)That was pretty effing major.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Background checks on private sales of used firearms is far more important than restricting what kind of stock and cosmetic features can be put on a rifle.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)The AWB should NEVER have been used as a demonstration of how Democrats could vote down one measure, and expect to consolidate support around another. The argument used against Democrats has always been: They want bans. And guess what? DiFi waltzes right out and confirms those critics, thus jeopardizing any meaningful "half-glass" legislation.
At least 80,000,000 Americans own guns, including many millions of Democrats and independents, and including millions of grass-roots activists and contributors. Senators know and see this. Some in this OPEN thread see only the bogey of the NRA, and constantly attack fellow DUers by smearing them with this new "_______" word, and chanting "right wing! Right wing!"
It won't work. The issue is greater than that. A lot greater.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The number of gun owners is a meaningless statistic, because a lot of those gun owners support things like the Assault Weapons Ban. The problem is that special interest politics has trumped the will of the people.
You celebrate the GOP's victory on this issue because you agree with them, but what will you say when congress votes to cut Social Security, along the same party lines, with the same "centrist" Dems crossing over?
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)The Democratic Party has eschewed any label and philosophy which the GOP has tagged them with; we have forgotten what we stand for, including some of the issues you mention. This has been going on for some 40 years. Both parties have been corporatized. Not a week goes by when a lively discussion over these very points doesn't come up somewhere on DU.
But this dumb issue of gun control has been grafted onto a Party which has lost its way, out of frustration, I suppose. And vast energies are spent ripping at DUers who remember what the Democratic Party stood for.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)My approach starts with the observation that the very same "centrist" Dems who cave on guns are the ones that cave on things like Social Security. And they are the same ones who have caved in the past on things like the public option.
I agree, I guess, that the party has "lost its way", but failing to address gun violence is a part of the losing of the way, it's not some "graft on".
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)And according to one early controller wag, was out of concern that too many blacks were arming themselves. That legacy we can do without.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Most people don't understand what the term "assault weapon" means, which is understandable considering that there is no set definition that applies everywhere.
Federal law doesn't define the term at all, and it has no meaning in most states. So when you ask people what they think about a ban most of them have no idea what you are asking, but they know that assault and weapon are bad things.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Pretty straightforward. If people don't understand what that means, they can answer "I don't know" or "No opinion". But most people answer "yes".
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)I have studied statistics and sampling and questionnaire design.
The polls cited on forums like this are almost invariably done by organizations that have an axe to grind, and are conducted for political purposes or simply to generate news buzz.
If you want to get accurate results, i.e. if you care about the accuracy of the results, you include in the questionnaire items that check for validity. You have to ensure that the respondents' answers on substantive questions are supported by a good understanding of the subject.
In this case the term "Federal Assault Weapons Ban" has two likely but contradictory meanings - It could refer to the ban that was in place from 1994 - 2004, or to Senator Feinstein's bill that isn't going anywhere, at least not this year.
Many people have no idea what the previous ban covered, and what it did not cover. Because of pervasive propaganda in the media and sloppy reporting, a lot of people believe that the expired ban covered fully automatic weapons, which have been regulated since 1934. Or they confuse it with the Brady Act which requires background checks on all sales of new firearms. As for Senator Feinstein's moribund bill, that is much more extensive than the expired ban, and very few people have taken the time to read it - In fact most people probably don't care.
Without a validity check, asking people what they think about an item for which they have been given a name and little or nothing more, produces a meaningless result.
There are a lot of poorly informed and misinformed and just plain ignorant people out there. Try asking people at random what they think about the idea of "Ending womens' suffrage." You will be surprised and mystified by some of the responses you get.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Yes, I'm sure that, for example, the ABC News/Washington Post poll that found 57-41 support for the assault weapons ban was "done by an organization with an axe to grind". And the other polls with similar numbers by people like Pew or Gallup were, I'm sure, similarly biased, in whatever fantasy world you are constructing.
The problem of definitions is present in any poll. For example, what does it actually mean to "approve of" Obama's performance as president. And yet, by and large, people running the opinion polls do a pretty good job of measuring public opinion.
Of course, people who don't like or won't accept what the polls say never have any shortage of excuses. We saw a lot of that in the last election.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2013/03/12/National-Politics/Polling/release_217.xml
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)No validity check. The term "assault weapons" is undefined, so replies are based on whatever respondents know or think they know, which is often inaccurate.
If you ask 100 people to define "womens' suffrage", I'll bet at least seven of them say it has something to do with menstruation. I'd be very surprised if 70% gave the correct answer.
The problem of definitions is present in any poll.
In real scientific surveys (as opposed to popularity polls) validity checks are required.
In a poll about assault weapons, you could give examples of different firearms and ask the respondent to indicate whether each would qualify as an AW, with the option of saying there isn't enough information to tell.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)An opinion can't be "wrong". The fact that some people don't know the technical details of how an assault weapon is defined doesn't matter. It doesn't make their opinion invalid.
The point is, you can't argue that this bill is unpopular, and that congress, by caving to the NRA, was actually doing what the electorate wanted.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)I feel that it gives me a blanket license to ignore those opinions, not that I didn't already have it.
Defining a category of firearm for special treatment under the law is an inherently technical subject. Any attempt to do so without close attention to technical details will fail.
The point is, you can't argue that this bill is unpopular, and that congress, by caving to the NRA, was actually doing what the electorate wanted.
I'm not saying anyone caved to the NRA. I'm saying that enough members believe, correctly or not, that their constituents didn't want the bill.
sarisataka
(22,695 posts)I have repeatedly seen claims that the NRA is dead, a paper tiger, has no real power, lost every election they supported last cycle, will be spent into oblivion by authoritarian billionaires ...
Yet here they are getting credit for overcoming the will of the majority of the population. Can someone solve this corundum of how a toothless, nationally reviled special interest group that has no real power or support can force congress to act against the wishes of the majority of the population and the President?
IMO the damage was done by none other than a Democrat. When emotions were running at their peak and everyone was expecting the pendulum to swing the President did what I consider to have been the best move. Create a commission, headed by the VP, to build support and consensus. Seek information and opinion from both sides, determine a course of action and develop legislation that is well written, effective and already has majority support. Fringe elements would be left gnashing their teeth in the cold as their own supporters would walk away.
This did not come to pass as a certain Senator with her own agenda trotted out old legislation that was despised by one side and recognized by both as having so little effect as to be irrelevant. It included the one word, which the opposite fringe had been promoting and pounding, with zero basis in reality, for four years and had gone "all in" in the election with the meme. They failed. Now here comes the Senator, separate from her own leadership (?), who with one bill gave the fringe meme truth and justification of their propaganda. It revitalized their side, swelled the membership, boosted the lobbying power and poisoned the debate with claims that any effort at consensus was a sham.
Had Mr. Biden's team proposed similar legislation would it have had a better chance, likely; would there have been opposition, definitely; would it have passed, maybe. Would other legislation have also come out with broad support and had a positive effect on gun related crime, highly likely.
Twenty children died (how many can name one of Noah Pozner's classmates- I do not care what the killer was called but have committed one victim's name to memory, never to forget) and there was an opportunity to make a drastic change in this country. It was lost due to pride, ego and self-interest. Now even the smallest changes face incredible battles. Tragedy.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)If multitasking includes simultaneously holding two positions that are mutually exclusive.
premium
(3,731 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)The paper tiger argument is that the NRA has lost its ability to sway elections. This is based on looking at candidates they support, and seeing the results. That doesn't mean that the NRA has lost the ability to influence or intimidate members of congress.
The influence on congress is based, in part, on the perception that the gun lobby can influence elections, but as we all know, perceptions and reality don't always match up. In fact, one of the reasons that people were pointing out that the NRA's influence on actual elections seems very small, is precisely to try to break the control that the NRA has on actual policies, by demonstrating to elected officials that they don't actually need to be afraid of the NRA.
Apparently it didn't work. But that was the argument.
sarisataka
(22,695 posts)have spokesman named Wayne and Ted and this fringe believe those two are correct.
W & T claim to speak for others of us who would happily see them run out of town on a rail...
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/117215392
Obviously, we are supposed to believe that "We have always been at war with Eastasia".
Which is fitting, as "The NRA" serves the gun Prohibitionists' purpose in the same way that
"Emmanuel Goldstein" did in 1984 (or Leon Trotsky/Trotskyites did in real life for Stalin)....
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Guns are too much a part of the American culture to change, apparently even after the massacre of children.
In another generation, maybe we'll be ready to confront the issue.
LAGC
(5,330 posts)What does that tell you about the direction this country is heading?
Yeah, it's bad. The gun culture is dominant, there's nothing we can do if even Democrats won't vote for it.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)The 10-year sunset clause was the final modification to the "assault weapons ban" provisions in that bill - It was added to overcome the objections of two Senators, without whose votes the entire bill would have died due to lack of cloture.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=2&vote=00295
In March 2004 Senator Feinstein introduced an amendment to extend the AWB by another 10 years. That passed 52-47, but the bill to which it was attached, the original Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, died. That came back a year later and passed, but without anything about "AWs".
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=2&vote=00024
See http://voteview.com/blog/?p=693
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)
Moses2SandyKoufax
(1,290 posts)The only thing that would have stopped Adam Lanza was a good guy with a GUN!!!1 
Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)would have been legal......