|
DeusExMachinima posted:Ban selfloading/bolt-action/pump-action/lever-action/breechloading/muzzleloading rifles/pistols/shotguns. 
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 05:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 21:24 |
|
|
the problem is while the GOP establishment is still fighting the Tea Party crazies the Democrats long ago surrendered to the nutballs like Pelosi who can't help but lick the third rail of gun control.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 05:29
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Kinda striking how thoroughly stale and boring all these arguments are anyway. As I was saying above I think the sheer repetitiveness, viciousness and gridlock of the gun debate is more of a turnoff than the gun issue itself. There are a few people here who, whatever they might claim, are clearly happy to talk endlessly about guns. Doesn't really seem like they're trying to change anyone's mind or get a better understanding of their own thoughts either -- they just talk hearing themselves talk about their favorite pet issue, and will happily turn any political discussion into a de facto discussion on guns. Pretty much. I started this thread to have an insightful discussion. So far its just been people yelling "guns, guns, guns!" since page 2 or so.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Pretty much. I started this thread to have an insightful discussion. So far its just been people yelling "guns, guns, guns!" since page 2 or so. DeusExMachinima posted:I think Dems could be focusing harder on Goldwater style conservatives/independents with the Medicaid/care expansion. Pointing out that money for state expansions are federal tax dollars that came from the states in the first place, and that opposition governors are refusing to get that money back in the state when given the chance, is a good point. Not doing enough to save the blue dogs because they wanted to make deep blue holdouts feel good about themselves/stay ideologically pure in the culture war sure has enabled the Republicans to gobble up most seats out there. People just can't keep bringing up how pushing gun control really should be a priority though.  AWBs can have an effect outside of gun issues as well. Makes you wonder what other topic they'll try to pass laws on after reading two sentences about it on Wikipedia.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 05:58
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
The answer to the Democratic party is to push to the left not to the right. In other words, they shouldn't pander to voters who are voting republican for any reason, but instead look to pick up the many, many people who don't vote via education and talking about their issues, mainly poverty. Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't lower income people least likely to vote? Are we going to be condescending and call them idiots or maybe realize they are smart enough to realize neither party has represented them from about 1980 to 2016 in a meaningful way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 06:05
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:To a large portion of this country firearms are the most important cultural symbol of self reliance. I think this is pretty much it. Democratic policies might be good. But they've being mixed with a bunch of tribal signaling bullshit. Of course that makes people hostile. There are a ton of other areas where democratic policy gets mixed with messaging that exudes contempt for rural workers. Take: "muh jobs". It's a great rebuttal when people on the right say they're worried about immigration. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUTnNKhF-EU The joke, of course, its that the kind of people who work in factories are uneducated and talk funny. Also they dress all gross and sweat stained. Because they're dirty and bad. Bring it out, and the college-educated office workers laugh. Later, the college-educated office workers wonder why the rural workers aren't rationally considering the argument that immigrants, by being both suppliers and consumers of work, could actually make an economy better off. Must be a 'muh jobs' selfishness.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 06:28
|
|
|
Gun control doesn't matter. The right will just make up some other culture war poo poo to get people who don't understand why they're poor and isolated all paranoid and angry about something just like they did with abortion and gays and Mexicans and terrism and welfare queens and evolution. They'll just go anti vax or anti zoning restrictions or anti elementary school or some other drat thing which will be the new Threat To Freedom and the new Thing Elitist Democrats Want to Force On You/Take From You. Republicans were just fine with gun control in the 70s and 80s, it's entirely manufactured because that's what the right is good at and that's what works to give hurting people an imaginary enemy to fight. We'd just be back here again with posters saying "hey you know if only you'd give up on vaccination then you'll steal the GOP's constituency right out from other them gosh you guys it's so easy". "The government takes from you and they want to take even more" has been extremely successful for the right ever since civil rights broke the New Deal Coalition. It's been used to support gun control (the blacks and democrats want to rob and kill you, Republicans will protect you) and to oppose it (Clinton wants to disarm you so the blacks and democrats can rob and kill you, Republicans will protect you). The party that tried to stop medicare and wants to repeal it has even successfully convinced people that the government wants to take over medicare and of course once the government runs Medicare they're going to take it from you. It really doesn't matter what the specific issue is, the Republicans will find another issue or they'll do like Medicare and just lie about it over and over until scared people believe it. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 07:16 on Feb 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 06:44
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Gun control doesn't matter. The right will just make up some other culture war poo poo to get people who don't understand why they're poor and isolated all paranoid and angry about something just like they did with abortion and gays and Mexicans and terrism and welfare queens and evolution. They'll just go anti vax or anti zoning restrictions or anti elementary school or some other drat thing which will be the new Threat To Freedom and the new Thing Elitist Democrats Want to Force On You/Take From You. Republicans were okay with gun control back in the 70s when it was "hey maybe we should do something to keep all these minorities from owning guns", they've never been on board with having their gun rights taken away. Trying to act like this is the same debate they were in support of in the 70s is about as intellectually honest as claiming democrats are the real racists because Lincoln was a Republican.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 07:44
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Yes because 'legislators should not regulate a good without sufficient research to have a basic understanding of what they are seeking to regulate' really means 'anarchy in the UK'. That's a good reason to be against individual, specific gun control proposals - but it's a very bad reason to be against the very idea of gun control. Likewise, just because we have some bad drug laws doesn't mean the government is fundamentally incapable of regulating substances. Besides, legislators often pass deliberately bad or flawed laws on purpose - not because they're too stupid to understand the thing they're passing a law about, but rather because they're trying to trick demographic A into thinking they're oppressing demographic B, when in fact they're writing the law to minimize the real impact to demographic B. For example, financial legislation or taxes on the rich. Anyone who thinks those "loopholes" are accidental is a fool who's been thoroughly duped by their own politicians. go3 posted:the problem is while the GOP establishment is still fighting the Tea Party crazies the Democrats long ago surrendered to the nutballs like Pelosi who can't help but lick the third rail of gun control. Romney was a big gun control supporter and pushed several gun control bills. He supported the Brady Bill, and signed a permanent Assault Weapons Ban in Massachusetts. Before he decided he wanted to be President, he spoke proudly and openly about how he supported the "tough gun laws" in his state. But for some reason, a candidate with major gun control laws under his belt got the NRA endorsement, while the person who had spent the last four years in office doing jack poo poo about guns got smeared as a psychopath looking for an opportunity to ban guns altogether. It's almost as if it isn't really about guns at all, and that the NRA is just a Republican lobbying organization that feeds people lies in order to get them to vote R and buy more guns, regardless of the actual state of the issues.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 07:53
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Republicans were okay with gun control back in the 70s when it was "hey maybe we should do something to keep all these minorities from owning guns", they've never been on board with having their gun rights taken away. Trying to act like this is the same debate they were in support of in the 70s is about as intellectually honest as claiming democrats are the real racists because Lincoln was a Republican. Triangulating culture war poo poo like this is pointless, as you point out, the right changed the debate in the 90's and successfully marketed a consumer good to people as a core identity and the gun manufacturers were all too happy to get on board and rake in profits with scare campaigns about how it's time to stock up on guns and ammo because Obama is coming to take it away, so successful even that people ITT are freeping out about how any gun regulation is a secret plot to take them all away and unman them. There are endless issues the right can use for this purpose, they're already dipping a toe in antivax to see if something that's currently the domain of fringe religious nuts and woo-woo natural medicine quacks could be used to frighten the poor and the uneducated over big government injecting chemicals into our children. And might I point out Medicare/Medicaid again, how the party that wants to demolish it campaigned on calling Obama's expansion of Medicaid a "government takeover" of those popular government programs. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 08:31 on Feb 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 08:26
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Pretty much. I started this thread to have an insightful discussion. So far its just been people yelling "guns, guns, guns!" since page 2 or so.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 08:28
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The 70s are not some long-lost historical time and all the actors are long dead, many of the same politicians were around in the 90s. You're making my point for me: it wasn't about the core issue; it was all about the marketing. In the 70s it was marketed as a wink-wink nudge-nudge we're keeping guns out of the hands of the wrong people. In the 90s they needed the presidency so gun control was an evil Clinton plot to take your freedom. Do you not remember the 90s? It wasn't marketing that changed, what changed was Democrats were pushing gun control pretty loving hard.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 08:36
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:That's a good reason to be against individual, specific gun control proposals - but it's a very bad reason to be against the very idea of gun control. Likewise, just because we have some bad drug laws doesn't mean the government is fundamentally incapable of regulating substances. This is, I note, why I have never suggested a blanket ban and repeal on all gun laws. Much of what we have on the books works, and would work better if the BATFE and DOJ would do their duty and actually enforce it. I suspect you get the impression that I am, though, because I do not subscribe to the present narrative that disarming the populace and abrogating their (as we keep being reminded by the GOP) Constitutionally protected rights is either Common Sense or invariably a good thing regardless of the details.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 08:40
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Do you not remember the 90s? It wasn't marketing that changed, what changed was Democrats were pushing gun control pretty loving hard. No it was the marketing. As was pointed out in the post above yours, Mitt Romney banned assault weapons in Massachusetts as late as 2004 and he still got the NRA endorsement for president eight years later. E: Cue "2004-Romney was a totally different person from 2012-Romney, that's like bringing up that the Republicans freed the slaves in 1863! 2004 get real, no one was even alive then!" VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 09:21 on Feb 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 08:42
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Republicans were okay with gun control back in the 70s when it was "hey maybe we should do something to keep all these minorities from owning guns", they've never been on board with having their gun rights taken away. Trying to act like this is the same debate they were in support of in the 70s is about as intellectually honest as claiming democrats are the real racists because Lincoln was a Republican. This is one of the reasons why I also don't see why one of the left would get behind gun control. It only gets passed when its people in power wanting to restrict worker and or a specific minoriy groups rights.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 12:55
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:This is, I note, why I have never suggested a blanket ban and repeal on all gun laws. Much of what we have on the books works, and would work better if the BATFE and DOJ would do their duty and actually enforce it. I suspect you get the impression that I am, though, because I do not subscribe to the present narrative that disarming the populace and abrogating their (as we keep being reminded by the GOP) Constitutionally protected rights is either Common Sense or invariably a good thing regardless of the details. What narrative? I don't recall any serious, mainstream politician pushing for a total national gun ban. Not even Mitt "I don't think people have the right to own assault weapons" Romney.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 14:22
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No it was the marketing. As was pointed out in the post above yours, Mitt Romney banned assault weapons in Massachusetts as late as 2004 and he still got the NRA endorsement for president eight years later. What exactly do you think that proves that supports your position? That the NRA, known for being a completely partisan organization, endorsed the republican candidate for president? Do you think Romney wanted to implement federal gun control? Is this supposed to be some sort of evidence that my memories of the gun control debate from the 90s were implanted by aliens? Also if you think that the reason that "Lincoln was a republican" is dishonest is because it was a long time ago I don't even know what to say, your grasp on basic concepts is tenuous at best. Maybe try googling "the southern strategy"?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Gun control doesn't matter. The right will just make up some other culture war poo poo to get people who don't understand why they're poor and isolated all paranoid and angry about something just like they did with abortion and gays and Mexicans and terrism and welfare queens and evolution. They'll just go anti vax or anti zoning restrictions or anti elementary school or some other drat thing which will be the new Threat To Freedom and the new Thing Elitist Democrats Want to Force On You/Take From You. Being against more gun control doesn't tell you anything about that person's stance on gay marriage or the NSA reading all your emails. There is no logical, necessary connection between the two. There is no sworn package deal ultimatum that everyone who has ever voted Republican signed onto in a blood compact. So yes, it does matter and the whole reason it matters is that you can peel off voters and make a difference in who gets elected that way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Being against more gun control doesn't tell you anything about that person's stance on gay marriage or the NSA reading all your emails. There is no logical, necessary connection between the two. There is no sworn package deal ultimatum that everyone who has ever voted Republican signed onto in a blood compact. So yes, it does matter and the whole reason it matters is that you can peel off voters and make a difference in who gets elected that way. How, precisely, would the national Democratic party stop supporting gun control when that is what base wants? Why not stop supporting another issue like Abortion (which is even more divisive?) The whole point is abandoning the issue is just a non-starter. It is complete fantasy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
NNick posted:How, precisely, would the national Democratic party stop supporting gun control when that is what base wants? Why not stop supporting another issue like Abortion (which is even more divisive?) DeusExMachinima posted:Not doing enough to save the blue dogs because they wanted to make deep blue holdouts feel good about themselves/stay ideologically pure in the culture war sure has enabled the Republicans to gobble up most seats out there. And now your ability to support abortion rights, ironically, has been weakened as a result. The base should probably realize that they aren't large enough to win an election on their own. When your Moving LeftTM includes creating more possession crimes it's probably going to motivate the opposition harder than your side, as has been the case with gun control. This shouldn't be surprising because it's your opposition who'll notice the difference directly if your idea passes. Your supporters who already aren't engaging in the bad activity you want to get rid of won't notice a difference in their lives at large and so are almost invariably less motivated.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 00:55
|
|
|
NNick posted:How, precisely, would the national Democratic party stop supporting gun control when that is what base wants? Why not stop supporting another issue like Abortion (which is even more divisive?) The base doesn't care too much. If they did, they'd raise hell like pro-gunners do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
NNick posted:How, precisely, would the national Democratic party stop supporting gun control when that is what base wants? Why not stop supporting another issue like Abortion (which is even more divisive?) At best as many 1/4th of the base does and they'll support the dorms anyways for standing up for social democracy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:At best as many 1/4th of the base does and they'll support the dorms anyways for standing up for social democracy. Polls I've seen suggest the number is closer to 3/4ths, and the second part of your statement is straight-up horseshit. Since when did outright making poo poo up become acceptable in D&D?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
Get hosed, gun chatters. I'd guess Democrats need to push wealth inequality remedies. I don't know how they're going to overcome gerrymandering though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 05:24
|
|
|
vorebane posted:Get hosed, gun chatters. Get the Supreme Court to adress it 
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 05:55
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Polls I've seen suggest the number is closer to 3/4ths, and the second part of your statement is straight-up horseshit. Since when did outright making poo poo up become acceptable in D&D? Lol you're convinced the base will rally more for gun control than social issues. And we wonder why the last midterms were a charnel house for the Dems.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 07:30
|
|
|
gohmak posted:Get the Supreme Court to adress it After Obama replaces Scalia, and Sanders replaces the next three oldest justices 
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 14:15
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Lol you're convinced the base will rally more for gun control than social issues. Plenty of people in this thread have suggested that there are a bunch of people out there who are Dems on social issues but are refusing to vote Democratic because they care more about gun control than about social issues. Now you're saying that all current Dem voters won't be affected by dropping gun control because every current voter cares more about social issues than gun control. That just stinks of having it both ways - dropping gun control will help because the Dem base cares more about gun control than social issues, but it won't hurt because the Dem base cares more about social issues than gun control?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Plenty of people in this thread have suggested that there are a bunch of people out there who are Dems on social issues but are refusing to vote Democratic because they care more about gun control than about social issues. Now you're saying that all current Dem voters won't be affected by dropping gun control because every current voter cares more about social issues than gun control. That just stinks of having it both ways - dropping gun control will help because the Dem base cares more about gun control than social issues, but it won't hurt because the Dem base cares more about social issues than gun control? Do you actually read what other people post in this thread? Seriously, please point out where someone said doing gun control would motivate the democratic base.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
To all those who say drop gun control, how do you think that will affect the demographics that support gun control in the Democratic party? Something like 80% of black people and and 56% of Hispanics vote Democrat (35% of the Democratic base in total), and both groups overwhelmingly support gun control: http://www.pewresearch.org/files/old-assets/pdf/gun-control-2011.pdf posted:% in favor Will the number of voters drawn in from dropping gun control outweigh the 35% of the current base who overwhelmingly support gun control? How would you even sell that to the black community? "Hey guys we know you're twice as likely to be a victim of gun violence as white people, and we know 80% you support gun control, but we gotta drop this poo poo so we can win over some white people from the Republicans. But don't worry they totally care about social issues more important than black people dying." How is that possibly a winning strategy given the shifting demographics of the country?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Plenty of people in this thread have suggested that there are a bunch of people out there who are Dems on social issues but are refusing to vote Democratic because they care more about gun control than about social issues. Now you're saying that all current Dem voters won't be affected by dropping gun control because every current voter cares more about social issues than gun control. That just stinks of having it both ways - dropping gun control will help because the Dem base cares more about gun control than social issues, but it won't hurt because the Dem base cares more about social issues than gun control? lol you confuse the democratic and republican base
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
skeet decorator posted:To all those who say drop gun control, how do you think that will affect the demographics that support gun control in the Democratic party? uhhhhh is this a poll that asks people "the topic is [this gun control stuff], are you for or against", or is this a poll that asks people "please assign these issues to the categories of 'important' 'nice but who cares' 'irrelevant bullshit'" if the former, than it's basically meaningless because it includes no information about whether the base actually cares about gun control or just goes "yeah it's probably good, but i have more important stuff to care about"
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
blowfish posted:uhhhhh "Q39: What do you think is more important – to protect the right of Americans to own guns, OR to control gun ownership?" I agree that relying on a survey like that is shaky, but I think it paints a pretty good picture once you look at who's been behind every push for gun control in the past few years. Considering that the congressional black caucus has been one of the biggest proponents of gun control in congress, and considering the NAACP's stance on gun control, it seems like a rather important issue. And again, regardless of the surveys/demographics, how do you sell that to black people? Gun control probably isn't the biggest issue for most people, but it's an issue that is starkly divided by race, and racism is absolutely the biggest issue for black Americans. So how do you sell dropping gun control in the era of #blacklivesmatter? Even if it's not the most important issue among blacks and Hispanics, there is still a large amount of support for it. It would seem prudent to cater to the interests of the groups who are poised to become the majority of voters.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
You think minorities are going to start voting Republican if the Democrats drop support for gun control?
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:You think minorities are going to start voting Republican if the Democrats drop support for gun control? No, I think they'll just stop voting for Democrats. How is thinking Republicans will start voting Democrat if they drop gun control any less fanciful? So your position is we should not care about what minorities in the Democratic party want, and try to win over Republicans by pandering to them on issues that are starkly divided by race? skeet decorator fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Feb 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
blowfish posted:lol you confuse the democratic and republican base No, someone literally said that there are a bunch of people who would vote Democratic if it weren't for gun control, but vote Republican instead even though they supposedly disagree with the GOP on everything except guns.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:No, someone literally said that there are a bunch of people who would vote Democratic if it weren't for gun control, but vote Republican instead even though they supposedly disagree with the GOP on everything except guns.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
I've said this before and I'll say it again: it would be a mistake for the Democratic party to start pandering to crazy people just to get more votes. We already have a party that does that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:I've said this before and I'll say it again: it would be a mistake for the Democratic party to poke crazy people with a stick for the hell of it, unless it gets them more votes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 21:24 |
|
|
They don't do it "for the hell of it." They do it because gun ownership has resulted in many tragedies that could have been avoided or at least mitigated. No one wants to have their children massacred in school.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 22:22
|
|