Guns.
Gun-nuts and they want MOAR GUNS!!
I actually called into the Michael Smerconish Show on the POTUS channel on Sirius, which I listen to every day, to make basically the same point that the OP is making. I actually managed to get through to the “gatekeeper” guy who screens the calls and asks you to summarize what you want to talk about, and he put me on hold and I waited for almost half an hour, but then eventually he got back on the line and told me there wasn’t time for my call.
So basically, yeah, I think the OP is correct, and I really hope the Democrats don’t campaign too hard on gun control - which to me, includes any policy with the word “ban” in it. They can (and should) push things like for tighter background checks and stricter sentencing for being a felon in possession of a firearm, but I think if they go beyond that, they risk throwing the election away.
Yes. It is true that the “Gun Nut” vote is solidly GOP. But they might get energized if there was a push to Ban.
The word “Ban” should never be mentioned.
Televangelist Pat Robertson supports new assault weapons ban
I think we are on the cusp of a #metoo moment for guns. If the NRA loses the evangelicals, it will be an unstoppable wave. And adaher will again be shown as a perfect reverse barometer of political trends.
Senor Beef wrote: “And you told everyone what a misogynist they were for even daring to question the great Hillary, the most qualified president ever ever, etc. Hell, and maybe she was.”
Well, I never called anyone a misogynist for questioning Hillary, but supporting trump, given his reputation, well-earned given his remarks, makes one wonder.
It doesn’t matter what Republicans are willing to support. Whatever they support, Democrats will want more and still be on the losing side of the issue. Except the Republicans will look even more reasonable.
Be real now, you know liberals aren’t willing to settle for an assault weapons ban and better background checks. They weren’t in the past when we actually had an assault weapons ban, why would they settle now? Maybe to save their political skins, but that offer expires on Nov. 7 when the Senate map starts to look a lot friendlier and they are heading into a general election.
I have never quite understood “Molon Labe”. Didn’t Xerxes win the battle?
And lost the war.
It’s a declaration of enmity, on the part of people who need an enemy to justify their own extremist position.
This is the toxicity of Second Amendment ideology, rather than gun ownership in and of itself, which when practiced by non-ideologues is largely harmless and manageable. Second Amendment ideologues are committed to the fantasy that the mere possession of a gun automatically carries with it an intrinsic connection to heroism, patriotism and liberty. In order to sustain that fantasy, they require somebody in the role of a dangerous enemy that their guns are crucially needed to defend against.
Occasional random actual enemies in the form of criminals, and imaginary potential enemies like invading hordes and government tyrants, aren’t substantial enough to satisfy the 2A-ideologues’ need for an enemy figure. So anybody who proposes any kind of restriction on guns gets cast to play the enemy. “Molon Labe” means “We are going to treat you as a fundamental danger and threat to us, because our gun-rights ideology is rooted in feeling fundamentally endangered and threatened.”
This is hardly unique to “Second Amendment ideologues”. There are plenty of people treating their political opponents as “as a fundamental danger and threat”. Over the last year+ I’ve seen a lot of it from liberals. What would the term for that toxicity be?
Let’s be honest now, the 2nd Amendment people take it just a bit further than the rest of the pack. Not all of them, mind you, but I can’t say I can think of another interest group whose motto is a de facto invitation to be killed.
I don’t think that everyone who displays that motto is truly capable of shooting at law enforcement in the event of some hypothetical gun confiscation; probably only a small minority actually have it in them, for the rest it’s just a bit of tough-guy branding and/or a shibboleth to be spotted by fellow in-group members. Nor do I think any such mass gun confiscation event will ever come to pass in this country. I do know that Democrats should probably not openly wish for it if they want to get elected.
Calling opponents’ ideas dangerous isn’t unique to Second Amendment ideologues, no. But depending on the existence of a perceived enemy to make one’s own principles meaningful in the first place arguably is, or nearly so.
Anti-tax ideologues don’t need opposition to justify their tax-cutting stance. Clean-energy ideologues don’t need opponents to validate the very existence of their ideology. Both those views, like most other ideologies, can be meaningfully supported and pursued even if (in fact, especially if) nobody’s trying to sabotage and destroy their proponents.
But Second Amendment ideology fundamentally requires a perceived existential threat in order to make sense at all. If guns are just another kind of dangerous but practical tool, then there’s nothing special about the right to own one and there’s nothing intrinsically heroic or courageous about the mere fact of being a gun owner. To justify regarding gun ownership as a crucially important fundamental right instead of just common-sense tool use, Second Amendment ideologues have to envision a looming enemy who is being kept at bay only by the brave perseverance of gun owners.
I agree with pretty much all of this.
Thanks, I now understand a bit more.
The Spartans were badly outnumbered at Thermopylae, they all got killed, and their molons were labed anyway.
But it *sounds *tough when you say it.
In other words, you’re trying to tell your opposition that it’s hopeless so they should just give up and go home.
Which strikes me as being slightly desperate
As point out - why do so many Republican polices result in dead children?
I suspect this is not going to turn out the way you expect it to.
You mean… like they’re praying for 17 dead kids on the floor of a school in Parkland, Florida? You mean, they’re kneeling in silence doing nothing? Yay! Inaction!
No, they pose an existential threat to our lives
17 dead lying in pools of their own blood would seem to contradict you.
And it’s not even the first time this year, this year which is less than two months old.
We’ve managed to “get this far” somehow, but you can NOT expect people sit down and shut up when you can’t go to a movie theater, a concert, a nightclub or a school without fear of being gunned down for no damn good reason. The Republicans keep trying to get us to wet our pants over foreign Muslim terrorists but all of those killings I linked to were perpetuated BY AMERICANS. We should fear ourselves more than we fear the foreign.
If they continue to maintain power we’ll all be dead, shot by a fellow American while going about our lives, or trying to. Yes, they are treasonous, they have failed to enact even the smallest protections against the worst tools of violence.
I’m not talking about taking the gun from the hunter or the pistol from the target shooter, I’m talking about taking the guns from the murderers and the insane, the violent, the angry, the dangerous-to-others.
I call BS.
I am fucking tired of being told it’s “too soon”, it’s not the right time, that now is the time to [del]pray[/del] do nothing. It’s bullshit. If you have your way it will never be time and more children will bleed out on the floors of more classrooms, more of us will die, and you will still not care enough about their lives and their deaths to snap out of your partisan training and care about your fellow human beings.
It’s not every year or two, it’s multiple times per year. You’re trying to minimize people dying. You’re willing to throw your fellow human beings under the bus. You’re willing to see people die rather than address this problem.
There will be no democracy if we continue to allow madmen to get weapons that rapidly kill large numbers of people. We have to be alive in order to vote.
“Gun control” is NOT “ban all guns”. It’s enacting controls so madmen don’t get guns. It’s limiting the available firepower so if one does get a gun they’re limited to single digits of victims instead of double or triple digits. It’s banning bullshit like “bump stocks” which have no damn good reason to even exist.
Stop trying to scare us. For one thing, we’re already scared. We’re scared of dying, why should we fear your words?
We’re tired of turning on the TV in the morning and hearing about another school with dead children on the ground?
If people are dead elections and healthcare are meaning less. Why do you put those other issues over people literally bleeding to death in the streets? No, elections and healthcare, even though incredibly important, are NOT “bigger fish to fry” than protecting the lives of our fellow citizens.
So guns are, politically, the most important thing in your life?
Do you still feel as if this is unique to gun rights supporters, after reading post #77?
Regards,
Shodan