NRA-Gabrielle Giffords fight heats up

[damnedifIknow]

"There was a time when a failed gun bill might have quietly slipped off the stage. But the dynamics have shifted, since the NRA is no longer the only group in the gun debate with money, power and some signs of staying power.

On Wednesday morning, the NRA announced a $25,000 television week-long television ad buy to support Sen. Kelly Ayotte, a New Hampshire Republican who’s been under attack by gun control groups on the airwaves and in town halls for her vote on the Senate bill.

Just hours later, Giffords’ gun control group, Americans for Responsible Solutions, hit back – announcing it raised more than $11 million in its first four months of operation – a staggering figure even in the age of super PACs and big outside money groups."

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/gun-control-nra-gabrielle-giffords-91099.html?ml=po_r

[TnDem]

1. I'm sure...

I can reasonably speculate that Republican NYC Mayor Bloomberg has donated or assisted with millions of that cash for Giffords and other similar causes.

The problem is that Republican Bloomberg is going to end up costing us seats in the US Senate, (like Arkansas Senator Mark Pryor), and other southern Democrats.

This will tilt the balance to the Republicans and yet folks on this forum keep on cheering gun control.

Drop it, DROP IT....It will finally and completely kill the Democratic party in all southern, rural and western states.

People just don't understand.

[Lurks Often]

2. Gun control almost certainly cost Gore Tennessee in the 2000 election

and we all know happened after that. All Gore needed was just ONE other state and Florida would not have mattered.

[Thinkingabout]

5. We also see what happens when those who should not be having guns uses them incorrectly.

You may point to an election which happened before Sandy Hook for comfort, those may a thing of the past.

[TnDem]

14. Recent elections

I can point to over a half dozen elections that happened right after high profile murders/school shootings, etc....Most were as high profile and as bad as Newtown...None of them resulted in any long term change...In fact, once the dust settles and the rural voters and Democrats get intrigued, the issue often turns against us...Case in point, "Shall Issue" CCW states now compared to 15 years ago, Sunsetted AWB from 1994 and numerous state house decisions all across the rural west/Midwest and south that go against frantic emotionalism over an issue that rural Democrats understand and urban Democrats cannot grasp.

The issue is pounded by the extremists in our party, and then when we lose seats and lose the south, they gasp and claim voter fraud, poor campaigning and other nonsensical issues..It is none of those...What it is, is simply Democrats that are disgusted by their shitty party choice of a non-matched candidate with their district.

Nancy Pelosi could not win in Grapevine Texas, Charlotte NC, Nashville TN or Birmingham AL....Why do you think that is?...Even most Democrats will either not vote for her or stay home...

Remember what Bill Clinton said in his book "My Life" which is an excellent book about the total Democratic disaster of the 1994 elections after the first, (and now gone and useless), assault weapons ban.

"Just before the House vote (on the crime bill), Speaker Tom Foley and majority leader Dick Gephardt had made a last-ditch appeal to me to remove the assault weapons ban from the bill. They argued that many Democrats who represented closely divided districts had already...defied the NRA once on the Brady bill vote. They said that if we made them walk the plank again on the assault weapons ban, the overall bill might not pass, and that if it did, many Democrats who voted for it would not survive the election in November. Jack Brooks, the House Judiciary Committee chairman from Texas, told me the same thing...Jack was convinced that if we didn't drop the ban, the NRA would beat a lot of Democrats by terrifying gun owners....Foley, Gephardt, and Brooks were right and I was wrong. The price...would be heavy casualties among its defenders." (Pages 611-612)

"On November 8, we got the living daylights beat out of us, losing eight Senate races and fifty-four House seats, the largest defeat for our party since 1946....The NRA had a great night. They beat both Speaker Tom Foley and Jack Brooks, two of the ablest members of Congress, who had warned me this would happen. Foley was the first Speaker to be defeated in more than a century. Jack Brooks had supported the NRA for years and had led the fight against the assault weapons ban in the House, but as chairman of the Judiciary Committee he had voted for the overall crime bill even after the ban was put into it. The NRA was an unforgiving master: one strike and you're out. The gun lobby claimed to have defeated nineteen of the twenty-four members on its hit list. They did at least that much damage...." (Pages 629-630)

And then this from Clinton from January of this year about guns and the south...He basically says as I say.....STFU about guns and move on to something important...Rome is burning while we diddle with something that will not be changed in ten generations in the US:

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/bill-clinton-to-democrats-dont-trivialize-gun-culture-86443.html

[Thinkingabout]

21. Can you point to one mass murder event where 20 young children was killed in the US?

I would venture to say if a few of the no voters had an opportunity to vote again they would reconsider their vote. This is not an anti gun bill, no matter what the NRA tells you, this is not "they gonna take away your guns" which is nothing but a scare tactic to those paranoid enough to believe this. It took years before MADD got its footing, it might take years before Gabby Giffords group gets its footing. Those who vote against sensible controls to control weapons into the wrong hands, some of these candidates who does not listen to the 90% who wants these bills passed. It may well take out more than you think, we are a nation of citizens and should not be controlled by gun manufacturers. I don't scare with backing congressional members who do not listen to the 90%, and when we get those who are controlled by NRA out of office then we can get sensible bills passed.

[TnDem]

31. Listen man

Rural Democratic voters are not "gun manufacturers" either..

The background check provision would have BENEFITTED gun manufacturers by making used guns as difficult to buy as a new gun from the manufacturer, yet the NRA opposed it vigorously....Why?

Because its members opposed it....NRA is made up of individuals that agree with its policies, many of which are southern Democrats like my local party chairman.

BTW, 90% of the people do NOT want the bill passed...Read the Politico article from yesterday where Gallup polled about important issues and guns were right at the bottom of the importance level.

I am just damn sick and tired of losing more and more seats in the rural areas because urban Democrats wish to push their urban laws into rural areas and we end up losing more and more..

It sucks and now I know why..

[samsingh]

41. surely responsible gun measures to reduce accidents and massacres is a good thing

[TnDem]

43. Maybe

Maybe they will, or maybe not...As with everything, the "devil is in the details"

The problem with that definition is that it means totally different things to northeastern Democrats and southern Democrats.

And it does not sell whatsoever down here.

[premium]

46. Same in the rural parts of Nevada,

gun control goes over like a lead balloon once you get out of Clark County, which encompasses Las Vegas.

[Thinkingabout]

74. Don't think opinions made by me is northeastern democrats, as for me I am a southern

Democrat, raised in the rural south, came from a family of hunters, have hunted myself, own guns and I think the background checks should happen. I do not see the need for criminals, terrorist and mentally incapable of possessing weapons is a good thing. The incidences of mass shootings has gone overboard and I will not be supporting candidates who vote against background checks. This is a reality. I heard in 2000 if citizens filled out their census forms the guberment was "gonna take your guns away", it wasn't true then and the bills being presented now is not doing this either. If you can pass a background check you can purchase a weapon.

[Lordquinton]

80. The NRA opposed it vigorously because it was legislation regarding guns

no other reason. They have to keep beating the drums that any talk of gun laws, regardless of what they are, will naturally, and swiftly lead to the government taking everyone's guns away. That is the reason, and like always, the low information rural vote buys into the hype and runs to the gun store on the way to the voting booth.

Farmers often, almost reliably vote against their interests and keep re-electing ultra conservative reps and such that work to take away everything they own, and they are happy to do so, because it keeps the liberals out.

No, Rural America is what is keeping us back, that small percent of the population holds a huge sway over the country, it is a tyranny of the minority, and we are being bled dry.

[LanternWaste]

53. polls in Alaska, Arizona, Nevada, and Ohio find serious backlash against the 5 Senators who voted...

Dated Apr. 29, 2013 (rather recent, yes?)

New PPP polls in Alaska, Arizona, Nevada, and Ohio find serious backlash against the 5 Senators who voted against background checks in those states. Each of them has seen their approval numbers decline, and voters say they're less likely to support them the next time they're up for reelection. That's no surprise given that we continue to find overwhelming, bipartisan support for background checks in these states.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/04/more-backlash-against-senators-on-gun-vote.html


Seems like not everyone shares your premise that voting against the dictates of the right-wing PCA known as the NRA is a bad thing... times change people's views, events dramatic and violent change people's views.

[tavalon]

65. Are you proud of the fact that gun control cost Gore Tennessee

I'm proud that he stuck to his principles, a rare commodity among politicians.

[Lurks Often]

72. And they may not be a thing of the past.

If we lose the Senate in 2014 and the election in 2016 because we tried to push gun control again, what do you think is going to happen when the Republicans have control of Congress and Presidency.

Sandy Hook was a horrible tragedy, but none of the laws that I have seen proposed would have changed that.

[Robb]

11. Transparent. And weak.

No thanks.

[TnDem]

17. Weak? Will you apologize to me publicly?

Will you apologize to me publicly when we lose fifteen plus house seats in 2014 because the incessant pounding of this polarizing issue that even half of our OWN party cannot agree with and be motivated to vote for?

If the exit polls in 2014 during the midterms show this as a major issue in rural areas, I'll expect a public forum apology.

[Robb]

18. Stamp your feet some more, it's rather convincing.

[billh58]

22. Cute when their

NRA idols are losing, aren't they?

[TnDem]

24. Losing?

It won't be too cute when we lose 15-20 house seats in the mid-terms because of this issue.

[billh58]

26. Be sure and help

that prognosis along by donating to the NRA. The American people are waking up to your "gunz for everyone" NRA propaganda, and it is you and your right-wing Gungeoneer buddies who will be on the losing side of this fight.

[TnDem]

27. Wrong

I am not an NRA member, but you don't understand the philosophy of the southern voter that I am in contact with daily..

I cannot tell you anyone that I know personally that is a member of the NRA, but as I tried to explain, rural voters have a sixth-sense about media bullshitters and also people that do not understand rural Democratic culture.

We've been warned...

[thucythucy]

39. "Rural voters have a sixth-sense about media bullshitters..."

Yeah, right. As opposed to urban voters who don't have a clue?

If rural voters are so wise to BS, why do they keep electing witnits like Sarah Palin, Mark Sanford, Rand and Ron Paul?

This idea that rural voters possess some special insight or common sense unavailable to anyone else is one of the great myths of American politics. I'm so sick of hearing BS about "real America"--as opposed to our cities and suburbs where the vast majority of voters actually live.

This isn't 1994. It isn't even 2000. The electorate is evolving, both demographically and politically. Five years ago, even two years ago we were being "warned" that gay marriage was a third rail that would kill Democratic chances to win or retain the White House or the Senate. We were told NOT to spread the word about marriage equality, NOT to take any position on GLBT issues unpopular with the southern evangelicals, otherwise we'd lose election after election after election. And how did that turn out?

Personally, I tend not to respond well to threats as a means of political pursuasion. You know, like warnings about how if we don't kowtow to your particular gun-loving "rural Democratic culture" the whole party will go down in flames.

Maybe if you spent more time engaging your rural compatriots in political discussion, even debate, and less time cowering to their mystical "sixth sense," we might all be a little better off.

[TnDem]

45. Look

Understand one thing about anyone's human nature....

Taking something from someone is always much harder than leaving them alone or giving them something.

An example....Abortion versus Right to Life arguments...The pro-choice crowd will always win that in the end. Why? Because the right to life folks want to TAKE freedom from the pro-choice crowd. The pro-choice voter intensity is much higher than the other side because the pro-choice group understands that they do not want their freedom taken.

Same goes for same-sex marriage where the other side wants to TAKE freedom from the same-sex marriage proponents.

Gun Control is our party's version of TAKING something from someone and the more rural the voter, the more passionate the willingness to crawl over broken glass to vote against the person wishing to take those freedoms.

And before you say that our party wishes not to take anyone's gun, please review the one minute clip below. You can ask any rural Democrat and they will tell you about Ms. Feinstein.

[jmg257]

63. Uh Oh - big scary DiFI wants a ban on assault weapons!?! In other news...

[thucythucy]

64. So now, not only do I lack your alleged rural BS detector,

but I also don't understand "human nature"? Is this another one of those special gifts only "rural" voters possess? Because, you know, there just aren't that many people in New York, LA, Boston, Chicago, Atlanta, to help with our understanding?

I think your analysis of what constitutes a winning vs. a losing political argument is shallow, to say the least. Abortion rights were granted by a US Supreme Court decision in the early 1970s, and have been whittled away ever since, often by rural constituencies who don't seem, despite their vaunted BS detector and your analysis of human nature, to understand that anti-choice means anti-rights. If you doubt this, ask yourself, how many health centers now offer abortions in Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, South Dakota, vs. how many offer them New York, Massachusetts, or California? Your analysis doesn't hold water, not a bit of it.

And as someone quite interested in women's health issues, I can tell you that fight is far from "won." Again, how easy is it, do you think, for a poor woman in Mississippi to get an abortion if and when she needs one? The "right to choose" is being yanked away from us, even as we speak, and representatives of rural constituencies are often at the forefront of the anti-choice movement. And so rural voters seem to have no problem taking rights away, as long as we're talking women's rights, or the rights of people in poverty, or GLBT rights.

In fact, the anti-marriage equality sentiment (and law) is still strongest in precisely those places where pro-gun safety regulations are least popular. How does that factor into your freedom vs. taking stuff away paradigm? It seems to me the picture in the rural south is: gun rights are sacred, but women's rights, and GLBT rights, not so much.

That said, the last polls I saw showed the overwhelming majority of Americans--like say, 90%--support universal background checks. So let's start with that. Or is that another issue progressive and urban Democrats need to back away from, for fear of offending the (ever shrinking) southern rural white male voter?

That Senator Feinstein is a bogy for rural voters isn't surprising. As I recall, Speaker Pelosi served that function before her.

If progressives were to back down every time the right tries to demonize a Democrat, we'd be left with no agenda at all.

And as a progressive Democrat, that can't possibly be what you want, can it?

[frylock]

50. word up

[2ndAmForComputers]

76. True colors are showing. And they are of the longest wavelengths.

[lark]

60. I live in FL, home to a great many teabagger and Christian fundie types.

FL also has a large rural population, along with a few urban centers and background checks are favored even by at least some gun owning Repugs at my work.

[hopemountain]

78. no, you are wrong.

i'm a rural democrat in the pacific northwest. we have virtually no law enforcement. some folks are armed for their protection because thefts and break-ins are rampant around our parts. we do not want more criminals or persons on meth walking around locked and loaded. we know background checks are about safe gun use in the hands of stable people. so, you are wrong about democratic rural voters all being worried about their "freedom" / nra b.s.
(and, go gabby!)

[2ndAmForComputers]

75. "we"

[TnDem]

23. OK

So no apology when it happens then...

I'll be sure to resurrect this post with some links to news reports from astonished NYC and SF reporters that do not understand rural Democrats...

[tavalon]

67. Yeah, you be sure to do that

and I've already told you my response.

[tavalon]

66. And yet another mitzvah

This we do because it is right. The goal should be, as it was in Australia, to protect the citizens, not the politicians. Politicians lost their jobs in Australia because they voted for stringent (much more stringent than ours) gun control but not a one of them regrets it. They get it over there that they are public servants. Here, too many politicians do not get that at all. And too many here at DU also see this as a big ass football game.

You'll not get an apology from me if a career politicians lose their seats because they choose the right action. Those persons will get my genuine thanks.

[wilsonbooks]

30. http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/05/public-opinion-nra/64854/

But another set of polls shows that two Democrats in red or swing states saw a boost from backing the background check policy. PPP reports that 44 percent of Louisiana voters said Senator Mary Landrieu's vote for the policy made them more likely to support her — including a plurality of independents. For North Carolina's Kay Hagan, 52 percent of all voters were similarly inclined; 59 percent of Republicans are either more likely to support Hagan now or said the vote didn't matter.

[lapislzi]

48. No.

If you persist in framing the discussion as "gun control," you have already lost (and you weren't debating in good faith in the first place).

Gun responsibility is important, necessary, and long overdue.

As long as people continue to die due to irresponsible gun practices, I will not drop it. Nope, never.

[lark]

58. So a 90% approval rate for background checks is irrelevant?

The people are for this, it's the paid shills in Congress who stand with the gun mfg. and for gun deaths.

The gun craziness has. got. to. stop!!

[jonthebru]

79. Yea, lets not do anything.

I love to observe the nationwide trauma every time a certifiable fuckin' nutcase goes off and kills people...
Our Nation deserves it, doesn't it?
Or to read a story about some parent rewarding their little boy with a firearm that he uses to fuckin' kill another child or adult.
Just love it.

[DFW]

3. You gotta know Gabby to know she means every word of this.

Her credentials are probably very uncomfortable to most opponents of restricting gun rights, but she isn't against gun rights per se. This is what makes her so scary to the NRA and the Republicans. She is is against gun insanity, and that is what we have in America now. Only the looney tunes extreme fringe wants unrestricted gun ownership. If you can't drive a car well enough to pass a driver's test, then you don't get a license. If you don't pass a background test that indicates you are responsible to handle a gun, then you shouldn't handle a gun. This won't prevent all gun tragedies, just like licensing drivers doesn't prevent all road mishaps. But it will help.

Anyway, if you know Gabby and Mark, you know they won't be intimidated by NRA-financed smearing of them. After what happened to her, what in the world does she have left to lose?

[shireen]

15. +1

She's becoming the most formidable force the NRA has ever encountered. I'm proud to be a donor/supporter to her PAC.

[billh58]

19. As am I, and

many other concerned Americans. The money that she and Mark are collecting is coming from grass roots Americans -- the same ones who vote.

[samsingh]

42. how do i donate to her PAC?

[DreamGypsy]

52. Here:

Americans for Responsible Solutions

[samsingh]

62. thanks

[TnDem]

20. Gabby Giffords

Gabby Giffords, while a tragic case of violence, will sway absolutely no one in rural states, because most rural Democrats already know the shooter was basically abusing drugs and was in the abyss of insanity...That is not a gun issue, it is a mental health issue...Loughner was a no-political party hater that was basically insane, but bought his weapon legally at Sportsman's Warehouse.

Democrats in rural states will not vote by-and-large on the issue as it applies to reality in their area and not how it has affected Gabby Giffords.

[billh58]

25. Who appointed you

the NRA spokesperson for ALL Southern Democrats? Are you really saying that the poll that showed 90% support for background checks did NOT include the Southern states?

Don't you miss the Gungeon where your NRA buddies all agree with you?

[TnDem]

29. I am not an NRA member

I am not an NRA member, nor have I ever been...

I can tell you this though....I have been actively involved in Democratic politics since the late 1970's from State Senate and House races in Tennessee and a Western Maryland house race.

I understand rural Democrats....You, apparently do not.

[billh58]

33. I guess that you don't

have to be a card-carrying member of the NRA in order to spout their bullshit propaganda, and you probably think that not being a "member" gives you more credibility with Democrats. It doesn't.

I know many "Southern" Democrats and Progressives, and most of them support stricter gun regulation and accountability. When you, and the NRA run around screaming things like "they're coming for our guns," or "talking about gun control will cost you Democrats our votes," and other cold-dead-hands catch phrases, you are actively aiding the NRA, the Koch Brothers, and the gun manufacturers to increase their profits through the unchecked proliferation of gunz, gunz, and more gunz in this country.

So I don't really give a rat's ass whether you paid for the NRA membership, or not. You walk like, talk like, and strut like an NRA apologist and supporter, and that speaks much louder than your empty threats of a loss of votes because we are working toward interjecting some sanity into the gun problem in this country.

Also, if you are proud of helping to elect Blue Dog DINOs, I've got some news for you: demographics are changing and the Republican Party is in a death spiral. If you hurry, you just might be able to find a Libertarian to support when your "rural" DINO gets handed his/her ass and loses to a real Democrat.

[Thinkingabout]

32. If these shooters had mental health issues why would you want them to purchase weapons?

[DFW]

34. TN, you just made my point

"Loughner was a no-political party hater that was basically insane, but bought his weapon legally at Sportsman's Warehouse."

Her point is that people like him should NOT have been able to buy a weapon legally at all. No more, no less.

I grew up in a part of Virginia that was considered the sticks at the time. People back home feel no differently, and they are as armed and dangerous as anywhere else in the south.

[lapislzi]

49. No.

I don't believe that you speak for all rural Democrats. You're wrong, and I'd like to see where you obtained your ironclad numbers.

What is the "reality in their area?" That is a phrase so vague as to be meaningless.

[Blue_Tires]

61. You've underlined the very problem in your own post:

"the shooter was basically abusing drugs and was in the abyss of insanity...Loughner was a no-political party hater that was basically insane, but bought his weapon legally at Sportsman's Warehouse."

There *IS* a problem with unstable, psychotic drug addicts being able to legally buy weapons, wouldn't you agree?

[tavalon]

69. Yeah, she was a strong person before the shooting, during and after

Thank goodness that part of her wasn't destroyed. But much was and that is wrong.

I rarely join in these discussions because I'm actually one of those mythical creatures who really does want to take away all guns. Yours and every one elses in the whole world. I want war to be a strange aberration children study in history class. Yep, I'm really that kind of person and that kind of person rarely pushes the discussion forward.

[Thinkingabout]

4. This is a worthwhile cause, I hope we cqn make some accomplishments in the next

Few years. This is an issue which has gotten out of hand and until the gun violence is brought under control I think we will fight on. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!!!! When sensible reasonable gun ownership becomes the usual then the pro gun people are going to continue to see efforts to make it happen.

[TnDem]

8. OK then.....

Remember, when we lose 15 seats in the midterms and subsequent exit polls all over the south show gun control was a huge issue in the voting, you heard it here first.

It's not all about NY, CA or IL....Every state in the union has two US Senators and all of them vote with their constituency....The south and Midwest have more Senators than the rest of the US combined.

This is not a winning issue no matter what Joe Scarborough and Chris Matthews preach....

Don't believe it? Go to a Democratic Jackson Day dinner anywhere in TN, KY, GA, LA, AL, NC,SC or several other places and bring this issue up and you'll get eye rolls from people that know exactly what I know...

And that is, it's a loser...

[Thinkingabout]

9. Do you really seriously think Ayotte voted for what her constituents wanted? Then try to figure out

Why her poll numbers are dropping and she is trying to crawfish out of her voting position. This is a 90/10 issue on background checks, they did not vote for their constituents. They may have in Tennessee but that would only be one state and two senators. Check the recent election in Illinois, see what happened to the pro gun candidate. The smartest thing NRA could have done was to close the loop holes in background checks.

[TnDem]

10. You gotta be kidding...

REALLY?

Comparing Illinois with any southern state is laughable... Illinois is arguably the largest crime capitol in the United States....Very harsh gun laws and high cost of living...An Illinois Democrat explaining to a Democrat in Tennessee about why they think guns should be regulated/banned/registered/whatever, is like someone talking Swahili...They might as well be from another country, because that's how culturally removed they are from each other.

One thing about gun control that people cannot understand is voter intensity....Gun owners, (particularly rural and southern gun owners), understand this issue and will follow it almost religiously.

On the Ayotte issue....New Hampshire is an odd libertarian state...They go to the beat of a somewhat different drummer... Ayotte voted the way she did because of internal voter intensity polls....Don't be at all surprised if she wins by 3-7 points in her next election....It had nothing to do with NRA money initially, although she will probably get a ton of money now since she held the line for the NRA.

Remember Democratic Senator Mark Pryor from Arkansas....He voted against it too and he will cruise to re-election...Why do you think that is?

Answer that question and you will understand why Democrats are becoming all but extinct in rural areas....And we HAVE to have these rural areas to have a national consensus.

[Robb]

12. Colorado.

[TnDem]

16. Colorado?

Colorado has turned into a San Francisco of the west...Look for Oregon and possibly Washington state to follow their lead... They are much more liberal anomalies than anywhere in the Midwest and south..

It's all about demographics and Colorado was ripe for our plucking anyway...

It will NEVER happen with current policies in places all the way from Nebraska to Alabama...

[Robb]

28. This post is so disconnected from reality, I'm increasingly convinced

... you're doing some kind of parody schtick.

"The San Francisco of the West...."

[DFW]

36. The San Francisco of the west?

Considering the location of San Francisco, you might want to think about that one for a second.

[Erose999]

44. hahaha BURN!! Send that troll back under his bridge to sulk!

[DFW]

47. I mean, really?

By the same token, Indiana is the Boston of the east? Unless there's some liberal bastion in Rhode Island called San Francisco that we don't know about, but somehow I doubt it.

[thucythucy]

71. Personally I always thought Boston to be

the Canada of the north.

[newmember]

13. You speak the uncomfortable truth and most here don't want to hear it...but it is the truth

[LanternWaste]

54. Confusing an opinion with "an uncomfortable truth" is rather convenient

Confusing an opinion with "an uncomfortable truth" is rather convenient for those who really don't understand the concept of objective truth, and allows the speaker to place himself on a well-constructed home-made cross from which to hang from and martyr themselves...

[wa003]

55. Welcome to the 21st century

I am sure that this is the same line you would have pushed 150 years ago: the south wants slaves, and we can't make the difficult decision to have and stand by our principles if it hurts us at the ballot box.

Bullshit. Grow up. We aren't republicans.

[Democracyinkind]

56. Spot on. It is the exact same argument.

Just writing a paper about civil war Missouri wherein that exact argument is presented. This line of thinking was mainly responsible for the fact that (formal) Slavery in the US ended with a bang, and not with a whimper - which is, I humbly present, what is going to happen to gun ownership too. Delay reasonable gun safety regulation that much longer and the bang will be that much greater. Gun afficionados are well advised to consider this.

[hrmjustin]

57. Welcome to DU my friend!

[Lordquinton]

82. She voted that way because that's what Rs do

They vote in lockstep and then cover their own, and buy elections.

Look to Australia, the guy who championed the control laws there knew it would cost him his political career and he did it anyway, and it succeeded, they haven't had any mass shooting since then, and he felt it was worth the cost to him.

[DFW]

35. I've been to the Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Dallas

OK, so you didn't mention Texas, but they are with Gabby and Mark on this. Responsible gun control doesn't mean confiscation any more than a driver's license means you can't have a car--unless you're Wayne LaPierre or Louie Gohmert.

[tavalon]

70. What's more important, doing the right thing or having more Democrats

Honestly, the crap the constitutes some of the democratic party would hardly be a waste if it were flushed.

I'm not a one issue voter but I am an issue voter. I never vote Republican because they haven't been on the right side of almost any issue but their Democratic brethren, especially the third wayers, or Republican light as I call them, haven't been on the right side of all that much lately.

I don't know how we do it, but we need to wrestle control of DC back from the politicians and lobbyists. We The People.

[onehandle]

6. NRA = Klan 2.0 nt

[Cha]

7. That's the good news right there.. This Isn't Over..

"There was a time when a failed gun bill might have quietly slipped off the stage. But the dynamics have shifted, since the NRA is no longer the only group in the gun debate with money, power and some signs of staying power.

thanks damnedifIknow

[davidn3600]

37. Yeah it is...the House will destroy the bill in committee if it gets that far

And no one will care at election time when only 4% of Americans rank this as the most pressing issue.

[lapislzi]

51. Five times.

The Brady Bill failed five times.

Even the Sandy Hook parents weren't surprised at the failure of their first effort. This isn't going to happen overnight, but it's going to happen.

It's going to happen through the steady application of political pressure, and money.

Get used to it, TNDem. Your parochial thinking is going to take you the way of the dodo.

[Lordquinton]

81. How many times have they tried to repeal the ACA?

I I don't think this will reach nearly that many times, this issue can actually pass.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

38. NRA puppets on strings: look at the vertical lines. nt

[samsingh]

40. the nra has no shame

[Zoeisright]

59. Fuck the NRA

And ANYONE who supports that trashy, lying, putrid organization.

[billh58]

68. But I was recently informed

by a Gungeoneer that the NRA is schizophrenic: there is a good NRA, and a bad NRA. The good NRA helps hunters shoot Bambi, and teaches gun safety (in order to sell more guns), and the bad NRA teaches right-wing hate and sedition. Unfortunately, Wayne LaPierre speaks for both personalities.

If we could only get the good NRA to talk to it's other personality, we could all live in harmony.

Yeah, it sounded like bullshit to me too...

[smirkymonkey]

73. +10.000

[SidDithers]

77. Go Gabby!...

Give 'em shit.

Sid