I think the people that will be upset about Obama’s legislative push mostly already weren’t voting for him, and I think the ones who would have been mad if he had done nothing probably would have voted for him anyway.
I think the moderates on the gun control issue don’t rank it as an important enough issue to determine how they’ll vote for the next President or how they’ll vote in the next midterms.
Basically I think this will galvanize NRA opposition and they’re derail much if not all of the legislation, but it’ll have no lasting effect on the political battle lines currently.
Gun control most likely starts to be implemented because the Republicans lose ground on other issues, and once the Democrats control all government the small part of the Democratic base that is lusting after gun control will easily convince the rest who don’t care so much to go along with it.
I am aware of the difference in government. My point is not how gun control can or cannot happen but that at some point a terrible event can result in a tipping point when society starts to change.
Please point to one line I’ve ever written on this board that indicates that I want to confiscate guns or would approve if it happens. Ever.
Or you could think long and hard about these lines. Not hard to find. They’re right on this page.
That’s right. I bashed turning tiny steps into confiscation as a losing and utterly false argument in the current thread - and still you were utterly helpless from venting it anyway. Amazing. Purely amazing.
This attitude will destroy your side in the long run. I will cheer when that happens, should I live so long. But there still won’t be confiscation at that point, because confiscation is insane. But I suppose I really should encourage you to keep saying this, over and over and over, because anybody who mentions it in a gun conversation instantly and totally loses all credibility no matter what else is said. That’s the position you just put yourself in. And there’s no way out.
I meant to reply to BobLibDem, and quoted you by accident. His post above yours in which he was comparing gun owners to slaveholders prompted me to consider him in the extreme “confiscationist” camp.
Looking at the political situation - here’s how I see it.
Opposition to increased gun control measures is probably a bi-partisan issue, but, like everything in this country, probably less bi-partisan than it used to be.
Regardless, because of the extremely partisan nature of congress, when it comes to discussing Obama’s efforts, it’s going to break down purely along party lines. The Republicans on the show will oppose it uniformly, therefore, the producers will be inviting Democrats to support the measure, because it’s better television.
As it happens, the current crop of Republicans are absolutely awful at appearing sympathetic and thoughtful. If there’s one thing we learned in the last election, it’s that prolonged public exposure is bad for their brand. The last few weeks where we’re seeing people come unhinged and threatening to go on a rampage - it won’t take a lot of that before the opposition side becomes absolutely toxic to the public perception.
Wyoming wants to make it a felony to enforce the federal laws about assault weapons or high capacity magazine bans. This bit of legislation would hit federal agents with a fine of 50k and up to five years in jail for trying to enforce the law. Wyoming Ban On Federal Gun Bans Proposed By State Lawmaker | HuffPost Latest News
I wasn’t enthused at Obama’s use of executive orders either but if it’s going to make his opponents come unglued, then I’m starting to think it’s inspired. If he can fill the airwaves with Republicans howling at the moon, then he takes away their ability to control the message on other issues, such as the looming debt problems.
I’m a strong supporter of private firearm ownership, and I don’t see anything particularly objectionable in this list of executive orders. They look like reasonable responses, focusing on more effective enforcement of existing firearms laws, and addressing mental health care.
The proposed legislation, on the other hand, is crap. I think that all sides know that most of it will go nowhere, because it deserves to go nowhere. I agree with Airman Doors, that simple proposals to streamline and tighten up background checks, and provide better mental health care and screening would probably pass. And I’d even agree that those measures are where efforts should be directed.
Bans are stupid. They’re ineffective, nearly impossible to enforce and, on top of that, politically divisive.
I’m a blue state liberal. Voted for Obama twice. Any of my senators or representatives vote for an assault weapon ban, I’m voting against them even if their opposition is the demon spawn of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, and I’m letting them know in writing. I also just joined the NRA yesterday, something I never thought I’d do.
Maybe there aren’t an overwhelming number of people like me, but we exist, and we’re a lot more motivated by the issue than most of our opponents are. I don’t think it’s a factor that can be entirely discounted yet.
The problem with this analysis is it ignores the gun nuts have acted like this since the mid-90s, certainly by Columbine they were already this crazy. It didn’t derail them throughout most of the Clinton or Bush Presidencies.
Further, the GOP desire to use the debt ceiling as leverage is already deeply unpopular. But it’s a decision being made by Republicans in the House, and they’re only accountable to their constituents, not the country at large. Because of how polarized America has come, a lot of the GOP hardliners are in districts that are extremely Republican, so they have little to fear from the backlash you are talking about and thus nothing to fear in terms of national perception.
Offhand, I’d say the number of Republican/conservative single-issue pro-gun voters greatly outnumber the number of Democratic/liberal single issue pro-gun voters. Your switching sides is hardly going to make a difference. Looking at the polling, I believe you’re in the minority on assault weapons. Given the NRA’s anemic record supporting candidates in 2012, I don’t think your joining the NRA has any Dems quaking in their boots.
I’m curious as to why you want to cling so ferociously to the assault weapons. Just why do you think you need them? Who would you shoot, under what circumstances? And why join an organization that flatly opposes legislation that a majority of its own membership supports?
There aren’t, IMO. There just aren’t very many single-issue gun voters on the Democratic side (which is a good thing - single-issue voters are a pain in the ass no matter what the issue).
But it’s not gonna matter.
I’m gonna revise my prediction a little based on some remarks I heard on NPR from Reid’s office (or reports about Reid’s thinking). An AWB is not gonna even get voted on in the Senate. No Democrat in the Senate is going to have to vote on one, which means nobody in the House will either (Boehner has said he won’t bring up anything unless the Senate passes it first).
Instead I think you’ll see something pass the Senate that includes broadening and toughening background checks (but not universal ones, probably just mandatory for all sales to an unknown party) and maybe something about high-capacity magazines and armor-piercing rounds (although even that seems unlikely now).
The NRA will piss and moan, but hopefully even members like you, Stealth Potato, will decide they are being unreasonable by opposing such obvious measures.
I kind of hope the Democrats do decide to take a stand on this, because if anything I think it will only widen the demographic isolation of the GOP (white men are by far the strongest proponents of gun rights).
You could be right. OTOH, as I said, I suspect that this issue will fall more sharply along partisan lines than it would have twenty or even ten years ago.
I’m not talking about a backlash against the GOP hardliners - I’m suggesting a lack of a backlash against Democrats who oppose the GOP hardliners. I think if Obama can sell the public on the idea that it’s impossible to work with the GOP, that the GOP is both intransigent and nuts, then Democrats in general will have an easier time with voters justifying whatever they come up with. The Dems in congress can go back and say, “Look, we tried to work with them, but it’s hopeless, so we just did the best we could.” And I think the GOP seems to be doing everything in its power to live up to that characterization.
But we’ll see. I don’t mean to say it’s all a done deal.
But the ones who are are often concentrated in several bluish-purple states, like Iowa and Colorado. States which matter in a Presidential campaign. And while the Dems don’t have many constituents who are single-issue voters in the sense that they’ll reflexively vote against ANY gun control laws, however minor, they do have more voters than you’d suspect who WILL vote against laws they consider odious infringements on Second Amendment rights. “Blue collar Democrats” are still a significant element in the party.
That would be clever politicking, and unlikely to result in a significant backlash (at least in my opinion - which is probably worth what you paid for it).
But interest in gun rights is growing faster than you’d expect among women and minority groups - both groups who are now reliably voting Democratic. I’d hate to see that change merely to score some transient political points and pass ineffective laws.
More to the point, that makes it along majority/minority lines. That isn’t a coincidence, either - that’s the party of “God, guns, and gays” reaping the whirlwind.
It’s another way to say “imagined hypocrisy”. Or, “here’s another damned straw man to interfere with actual discussion”.
90% of gun owners, and 93% of people generally, now favor background checks.
The NRA still strongly opposes them.
This is an organization drifting away from reality.
A reasonable person joining them now is like a teenage girl dating a guy she doesn’t really like just because it makes her parents get upset. It’s a spiteful act of juvenile rebellion.
Pretty much all laws do that, don’t they? If we overturn laws saying you can’t sell beer on Sunday because Jesus, we are taking a step to the slippery slope towards enforced atheism. Or not.
In the past, the NRA has claimed to be “supportive” of the idea of background checks, but seemed to always find a problem with particular pieces of legislation increasing the background check requirement, and has supported legislative attempts to repeal them at the state level.
Still, because this statement comes on the heels of Obama’s call yesterday to close the gun-show loophole, I’m slightly optimistic that this signals a modest shift in the NRA’s position.
It’s a bad way to create public policy - to see how hard you can get the public to knee jerk after one incident. Good policy comes fron reasoned evaluation of the whole picture and accurate projections of what policy changes will do - not rushing to Do Something after a big emotional reaction.
That position would be inherently ridiculous. Long guns make up less than 10% of gun crimes, with “assault weapons” less than 1% of gun crimes total. So the person saying “look at handguns if you want to impact gun deaths” would have more factual backing than a person who said “look at assault weapons if you want to gun deaths”.
This is why I don’t understand why he’s got a hardon for the AWB. If he just came out and said these are my reforms - various administrative fixes to improve background checks, studying the issue, funding for enforcement, etc. I think it would both satisfy his base that something was being done, and not worry the gun rights crowd as much because they’re the ones that actually call for greater enforcement of current laws as a solution anyway.
But his support of the AWB shits all over that point.
There’ve been groups in our government who wanted to enact spying on our own citizens, indefinite detention, torture, and an invasion of Iraq before 9/11 happened. When 9/11 happened, they could now use the public hysteria to push their agenda because people just wanted to Do Something. In a similar way, people who favor gun control are always sitting there waiting on an agenda that they know wouldn’t get passed through during sane times, waits for public hysteria, and then tries to get their laws pushed through.
Ironic, to me, that the main impediment to fighting global warming right now isn’t the right’s refusal to acknowledge its existance, but rather the left’s refusal to allow the most practical solution - nuclear power. But in any case, I haven’t really seen an uptick in support for global warming solutions after Sandy, so I’m not sure this actually holds up. I mean, I get your point, but as I said upthread, policy decisions are best made with a calm, rational analysis, not knee jerk reactionism.
I honestly haven’t kept up with the NRA at all in about 10 years or so, so maybe they’ve become radicalized, but I recall that one of the few measures in the Brady Bill they actually supported wa the background checks. Are you sure that the NRA flat out opposes their existance now?