So Reagan and DiFi have much in common on guns?
Good.
Oh? Hadn’t heard much about that, all the big Dem leaders, Congresscritters, so on and so forth, out and out saying they harbor a " fond hope of erasing the Second Amendment". Don’t think I recall anyone saying any such thing.
I’m guessing that you include within that group those people who’s interpretation of the 2nd Amendment differs very much from your own. I further surmise that because their interpretation differs from yours, you have simply lumped them in with people who hope to “erase” the 2nd Amendment.
Could be wrong, of course, could be that you have a list of Democratic legislators, officials and spokespersons, a list as long as your arm, all publicly and firmly stating a desire to “erase” the 2nd. Yeah. That could happen.
Cowards, the lot of them. At least we know exactly who is paying for their votes.
Seriously?
Come on. At least the bulk of responses in this thread admit the general truth of these claims. Insisting I provide a cite that the sky is blue before you’ll concede any such thing?
Well, maybe this will defuse the panic buying, and I can get on with my retro builds. 
It’s my impression that many Democratic-leaning voters, and some Democratic legislators, never gave up on their WISH for stronger gun control laws, but decided that it simply wasn’t a battle worth fighting, so by default the gun nuts were indeed “safe,” as you put it. Sandy Hook seemed, to some, to have turned the tide of public opinion (or apathy) just enough to make it once again worth fighting for.
(Whether that fight involves attempts to legislate within some legally accepted interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, or an attempt to overturn it, is unimportant with regards to your question.)
Who might that be?
I’ll tell you who is paying for their votes: they are, if they vote in favor of the AWB. Every one of them wants to be re-elected, and only those in a “safe” seat will ever vote in favor of gun-control legislation. Gun control is a political third rail.
Since when was I denying anything? Clearly some number of people have said things somewhat similar to what you’re talking about… but there’s a huge difference between someone having said something about INTENT vs something about PRINCIPLES, etc. And of course if part of what you’re saying is that people were WRONG (and quite possibly some were), well, who, precisely?
But if it makes you feel better, then, sure, some number of SDMB liberals posted some number of things about some number of issues that were wrong. You got us!
As all good Democrats know, the political positions you hold are the only ones that it’s possible for an honest person to have, and anyone who disagrees has been bought off by shadowy forces.
I don’t see how its “cowardly” to reject a law that has been empirically shown to not be effective in reducing crime and which would have spent up a whole lot of political capital on one aspect of a single issue that can be better spent on workable gun control measures and other issues.
Yes, I’m saying some people were wrong, but that’s not exactly the topic for debate.
What I am saying happened is:
-
Prior to Sandy Hook, an oft-repeated message was: it’s foolish to refuse to vote for Democrats based on your Second Amendment support; the Democrats aren’t a danger to gun rights.
-
After Sandy Hook, that statement was exposed as incorrect: many Democrats showed their willingness to sponsor and/or support restrictive (and cosmetic!) gun control legislation.
-
Despite that willingness, the combination of a near-united Republican opposition and a fear of political suicide by Democrats from more moderate states led to the defeat of the most visible such measure.
So what I am now asking is: going forward, will the Democrats, and/or their vocal proxies here, again attempt to claim that electing them is safe from a Second Amendment supporter’s perspective?
Note that your distinction between intent and principles is not exactly relevant. I certainly understand your desire to empathize that nothing in the above was underhanded – you claim that when the Democrats said they weren’t going to enact any gun legislation, they were being honest; then circumstances changed. That may well be true, but I’m not accusing the Democrats of bad faith. I am just pointing out that their prediction – for what very possibly might have been good, albeit unforeseeable, reasons – was not accurate. Will they return to it, even so?
What a strange question to even discuss. The Democrats held one position, shared by the majority of their constituents, and then when the views of a significant number of those constituents changed, they moderated their position (although not to a huge degree) to reflect that. Is this not what we want from a representative democracy? Would you prefer representatives who never change their position regardless of circumstances and the views of their constituents?
The AWB enjoys popular support among the US public, although the margin there (about 7 to 10%) is among the smallest margins. Other gun control efforts are favored by the most lopsided margins I’ve ever seen (e.g. 92% favoring universal background checks).
The political reality that drove the failure of this AWB is the entrenchment of the gun manufacturers advocacy group. Gun owners are declining in number, and incidents like Sandy Hook, far from being a movie of the week, have shocked the conscience of those who still have one.
Whether Bricker had a promise that no gun control efforts would ever be undertaken is another question, an exceptionally dubious one, to be sure.
Banning guns is like banning abortions. As far as actual laws, they are political dead issues that are never going to happen. So if you’re worried about a Democrat passing a law banning guns or a Republican passing a law banning abortions, stop worrying.
You know, if that message had just started circulating during the run-up to the 2012 election as a justification for voting for Dems in that election, you might have a point.
But given that that message had been circulating for a dozen years prior to Sandy Hook, the fact is that that message was correct for almost all of that time.
And then a massacre even more horrific than the usual run of mass murders happened, and that message was superseded by events.
(What? It didn’t remain accurate until the heat death of the universe? Hypocrites!! :D)
You know, Bricker, your obtuseness is really something impressive to behold.
You do realize that ALL of that legislation is headed for the trash heap, including background checks, right? Polls show that 91% of Americans favor universal background checks, yet these yabbos are most likely going to vote against it because they’re fucking cowards.
Really??
Damn, counselor, understanding you is beyond my abilities.
First of all, try, “safe from the perspective of supporters of an expansive interpretation of the Second Amendment,” okay? Just because some people believe that gun control of various sorts is consistent with the Second Amendment doesn’t make them opponents of the Amendment.
I, for one, strongly believe that it should continue meaning exactly what it did in the time it was ratified, and that nobody should be denied the possession or use of any firearm that was available in the United States of America on December 15, 1791. 
Second, now that we’ve got that caveat in place, I repeat: really?? Gimme a break here. I’m not going to say it’ll never happen again, but sheesh. No, between now and the 2014 midterms, nobody with a clue is going to make the claim that Dems aren’t going to try to pass gun control laws, so even if you’re against such laws, it’s safe to vote for Dems.
-
Wow, one out of 100 Senators has never given up on gun control!
-
Try “legislation consistent with a more conservative interpretation of the 2nd amendment than you hold.”
-
Feinstein has good reason to be passionate about gun control. She came face to face with the effects of gun violence in a way that, thank God, most of us won’t.
Well, I’d actually prefer leaders that recognize the difference between situational outrage that leads to temporary public support for a poor idea and long-term public support for an idea in the tradition of a representative democracy.
Doesn’t this comment belong in the Iraq thread? 