For debate: will Democrats now return to the claim that they have no interest in gun control?
For years, Second Amendment activists were told, in effect, “Stop worrying about guns – gun control is off the table.” The message seemed to be, “Don’t worry about voting for Democrats; they won’t try to enact gun control measures because that issue is dead.”
Of course, that message wasn’t the truth. Fortunately, the efforts (at least at the national level) seem to have fizzled, but this tells me that despite disavowals by Democrats, many of them have not remotely abandoned their fond hope of erasing the Second Amendment – they were just stymied by political realities. And when the political climate hinted at a more favorable reception to their eraser-minded schemes, they were happy to leap into action again.
Fortunately for the country, their assessment of the political climate was in error.
Will the Democrats (at least those so minded) now try again to disclaim any interest in gun control, or have they blown their cover?
A pretty useless OP without some specific links to specific things people have said.
Did someone say “no Democratic elected official will EVER push for gun control of ANY kind under ANY circumstances”? If so, you have successfully proven that person wrong. Well done!
There were plenty of liberal-minded SDers who said that gun-control was a dead issue, and even a few who said us gun owners and 2ad. proponents were essentially paranoid over nothing.
I can flog the hamsters and search for quotes if you feel the need.
Well, the question is, is there actually a point to this thread? If it’s “here’s a fairly specific claim someone made, let’s evaluate it”, well, that’s at least a well defined thing we can do, even if it’s kinda snide. If it’s “neener neener neener, you guys were collectively wrong”, then what’s it doing in GD? And if it’s “so, let’s discuss what is actually going to happen next for gun control as an issue”, then why does it include the taunting?
I’d also like to point out that any prediction anyone seriously made about the issue certainly ought to have included a disclaimer “note: this prediction is null and avoid if someone kills a dozen 6-year-olds in a nationally publicized incident”.
Yeah, it’s odd how the OP accidentally neglected to mention that the mass murder of children might have had something to do with gun control going back on the table. I’m sure it was just an oversight.
The point is clearly and obviously stated in the OP, as even a cursory attempt to read it would discover. Bricker even re-stated it.
I suspect that many of the gun-grabber crowd will again try to disclaim any interest in gun control as the mid terms get closer. I gleefully look forward to that effort’s failure, and big Dem losses. In a perfect world, every last one of the gun grabbers will lose by huge margins, and Dems will never again raise this foolishness.
Right, that’s what they did. There was not enough popular support to make it an issue.
Then a bunch of kids got slaughtered and some Democrats started talking gun control again. Then after taking stock of the situation…
So as it turns out they haven’t done anything.
Yes. Because they never really left that position. They considered a different position, and rejected it.
I’m not clear on your point here? Do you think the Democrats should not maintain the stance they’ve held, that they should ignore the will of the people, and pursue laws to deny people their 2nd amendment rights? Or are you asking the Democrats to swear an oath to Wayne LaPierre that they will never vote for gun control laws?
Or it’s another one of Bricker’s “let’s expose liberal hypocrisy” threads that go awry followed by him denying any such intent and claiming a strictly neutral JAQ position.
I think most of us knew that the Sandy Hook killings were sort of a “movie of the week” thing, and there would be much gnashing of teeth, but when the rubber hit the road to actually enact legislation… well, the same old issues and mindsets would reemerge and basically nothing would be done.
However, I’m not sure where the OP is getting “no support” from, since that is not what the linked article says. There isn’t enough support, but it does seem that over 50% of Democrats do support the ban. That’s hardly “no support”.
It’s not over yet. We still need to beat the private sale ban and the magazine limit. I don’t think there are votes for the latter, but maybe the former.
He did, he said they could slip it by because the political situation had an emotional, galvinizing moment. Sort of like the left’s equivelant to passing the Patriot act in the wake of hysteria. It’s not that they suddenly drafted the Patriot act and thought it was a good response to 9/11, it’s a bunch of shit they’ve wanted to do for a long time and were just waiting for something to cause public sentiment to possibly allow it. Hey, dead kids, awesome.
Oh, and now you guys can claim not to be wrong on the issue of whether gun control was going to be an issue going forward, because hey, dead kids. Everyone wins!
To be clear, he didn’t say it was for the reasons I stated, he merely said that it became a viable option due to the political situation. The rest is my analysis.
That we only pretended to give up on gun control during the 2001-2012 period, in hopes of lulling the pro-gun side to sleep. It was all just a ruse, and when the gunnies had finally passed many hundreds of pro-gun laws at the state level, like laws allowing concealed weapons in bars, and banning employers from enforcing no-guns-on-site rules, not to mention stand-your-ground laws, they might finally doze off, and we’d rise up, elect a bunch of legislators who favored gun control, and…what? Have to repeal all those hundreds of pro-gun laws just to get back to where we were after the 2000 election?
Or:
We really did give up on gun control for all those years. And then the series of recent massacres beginning with Aurora and culminating with Newtown re-radicalized us after all these years. #1 makes about as much sense as a tunafish swimming through outer space. So, counselor, kindly get real, and try door number 2.
I’ve always felt the Left wanted to go after guns. The pesky 2nd amendment is a thorn in their backside. They gave up for awhile because they didn’t have the votes. But, were quite eager to exploit an opportunity after Aurora and Newtown.
Don’t ever forget that Dianne Feinstein is out there and she’s never given up. She’s been trying for at least 25 years to pass legislation limiting the 2nd amendment.
Reagan passed a gun ban when he prohibited the manufacturing of plastic guns. The 2nd Amendment (which I fully support) is not as sacred as you imagine.
The 2nd Amendment is always in jeopardy with politicians like her in office.