Several years ago, I proposed a topic for debate: I asked readers to imagine the “Liar, Liar” condition, from the eponymous Jim Carrey movie, had afflicted all politicians in the United States. (For those that missed this cinematic classic, Carrey plays a lawyer who constantly lies, both at work and in his personal life, until a wish made by his child magically forces him to tell the precise truth on any subject he discusses). I posited that while both parties’ politicians would lose ground, the Democrats would be hurt worse than the Republicans.
This one time I was watching American Pie, and I posited that most Republicans probably have sex with pastries.
On what possible basis did you come to that conclusion? Do you think Democrats are not stupid enough to believe the things they say the way Republicans do?
So, you think they are lying when they say they are in favor of an assault weapon ban, closing the gun show loophole, and enacting common sense regulations? Is it not more likely that you just have different ideas on what is common sense?
Well, they weren’t making that assurance in 2012. And people had a chance to vote for or against them last year.
By your particular interpretation of the Second Amendment. But mine is different from yours, and Obama’s is different from mine, I’m sure.
I think it’s pretty ridiculous to describe a difference of opinion as a lie. My wife sees a color and says it’s pink, with no hint of blue in it; I see the same color, and I say it’s pinkish purple, with a very definite blue tint. Is one of us lying?
‘They’ who?
I’m sure somebody would. Even though everything I want is a good bit further than everything Obama is asking for, I’d be inclined to see what effect the one set of changes had. I expect most Dems in Congress and in state legislatures would be pretty much the same, regardless of where they’re coming from.
The question is, what’s your goal here? Why do you need or want a gun? And what’s my goal? Why do I want to regulate guns? And can we come to some place that satisfies us both? That’s the discussion that would happen in a more rational world, but apparently not this one.
That’s nice. 
The price of AR15s are dropping steadily towards pre-Newton prices. The prices of magazine and ammunition are still ridiculously high and ammunition in particularly is actually hard to find.
I prefer quad rails. Having that top rail makes it easier to install secondary sights.
The political capital has already been spent for the most part.
The context in which i heard this most often was in ridicule of Wayne LaPieere’s paranoid insistence that Obama was going to wait until his second term to push gun control. This was despite the fact that Obama had shown no interest in pushing gun control and frankly without Sandy hook, he still wouldn’t.
I think its clear that Obama wants more gun control, always has. but he wasn’t willing to pay the political price for it and when he saw an opening, he opted for symbolic gun control rather than meanginful gun control.
Assuming that gun violence is the concern, trying to ban assault weapons to reduce gun violence (when the vast majority of gun violence comes from handguns) is like passing voter ID laws to combat voter fraud (when the vast majority of voter fraud comes from absentee ballots). You aren’t really trying to address a problem, you are playing partisan politics. It backfired for the Republicans and I suspect it will backfire for the Democrats as well.
What was once politically impossible became poltiically possible. As facts change, so can your policies priorities.
It was also the most stupid of such measures.
It would probably be true. It will also not matter because Democrats have just given up any chance of regaining the house in the next election.
What made the AWB fail is that it was a stupid law. It is ineffective and does little more than poke a thumb in the eye of gun owners.
I think a universal background check (at gun shows) is going to be their fig leaf. They could have had so much more if they didn’t lose so much credibility by pursuing the AWB.
As a gun owner and a defender of the second amendment, I thought that Newton was different. The tragedy mixed with the heartwrenching heroism after what seemed like a spike in mass murders made this massacre different than the others. I didn’t hear people talking shit about how teachers are leeches anymore, so at least there is that.
I know a few folks who voted for Obama in Pennsylvania that would not vote for him after his support of an AWB.
It won’t matter. Virginia, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio will all vote more Republican than it did last year. If it weren’t for the absolute whackos the Republicans put up for election, the Democrats would take a beating.
Is it paranoia when someone is actually threatening to ban guns?
Democrats better not fuck it up next time with a retarded attempt at an AWB. theya re only going to get so many bites at this particular apple before the apetite for gun control evaporates among the rank and file democratic congressmen.
Are guns the only issue where there are single issue voters or do you just think that this particular constitutional right is not worth fighting for?
30,000 people die every year from gun violence. Assault weapons account for a teeny tiny fraction of those. How many people died at Columbine, Aurorra, Newton? And you would be willing to turn your back on those 30,000 deaths if you don’t have to see the 26 deaths in newton on TV?
It used to take less than a month to process an NRA membership. It takes closer to 3 months now. Obama and Feinstein are the best friends the NRA and the gun manufacturers ever had.
Lets see what happens in Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and other swing states.
I’m pretty sure that half the Republican politicians will be exposed as bigots or mysogynists. What do you think that Democrats will be exposed as that will lose them so many more votes?
Definitely. But my takeaway, at least, was that the push for gun control isn’t over, which seemed to be a Bricker assumption, since it makes no sense for Dems to give up on gun control as long as they’re passing laws in the states (even if not in DC) and revert back to ‘we’re not interested in that fight’ status.
In reverse order: it’s to be expected that this will happen, because the midterm elections these days trend older, whiter, and more Republican than Presidential years.
Unlike Presidential years, midterms are about turnout. What the median voter thinks is less important than whether you can get your voters to the polls. Fighting what your base regards as the good fight, win or lose, is the best way to lay the groundwork.
So I think this stuff helps rather than hurts the Dems. It’s still an uphill fight to take the House in 2014, but it’s not out of reach, and fighting for gun control helps.
It isn’t. Laws strengthening bans against straw purchases are definitely going to pass and there is a pretty good chance the background checks are going to be included in the final bill and passed also. While 91% of Americans may support it in a poll, the devil is in the details, as many of those said 91% would oppose the idea of keeping private purchase records or how to enforce the law in many cases.
With all due awe, when did you start thinking you were qualified to take my inventory?
I really would like even one citation for your claim. There can be no debate if we can’t see at least some evidence for your conclusions. If there is no evidence, as you seem to claim, then it doesn’t belong in this forum. There’s no actual debate if we have to accept your premises. You specifically set them up to essentially be rhetorical questions, saying “The Democrats lied about guns before; will they lie again?” Of course someone who lies about something once will do so again.
I have never once heard that Democrats were against increasing regulations on guns. I’ve simply heard the claim that they haven’t done so in a long time. I do predict that they will take the most favorable interpretation of events and move the goalposts to “No Democrat has voted for gun restrictions,” but I’m not too worked up about that. To those who care, on both sides, their actions will speak much louder than their words. And, while I am for reducing the number of illegal guns sold, I do not think the other side is immoral for being scared of gun regulation, and I don’t see any real chance of changing things any time soon. So I have other, more important political issues to concern myself with.
As a matter of fact, it is. I could almost understand running out and buying something with imminent legislation banning it, but jeez o peets, the gun nuts go on a buying spree every time Diane Feinstein farts. Don’t you think you might just want to wait until a bill is actually written and appears to have the votes? But they go right on paying top dollar for weapons they don’t even fucking need just on the one in a million chance that a law might get passed. Yes, I call that paranoia.
I wish I had picked up that 50 cal rifle before California banned them.
I wish I had picked up some more 20 round clips before California banned those.
There are a few other rifles I could have bought - I waited too long, and then they were sold out.
Your 1 in a million statistic is off. If you wait for the law to be passed, the others will get in line in front of you, and the store will be sold out.
Hell, just getting decent .308 and .300 Magnum rifle rounds is a pain right now. If California decides to pass an ammo tax (another favorite tactic of the extremists on the other side of the fence), I will be an idiot for not having picked up enough to handle my target shooting and zeroing in needs for preparation for hunting season.
You need a .50 caliber? What? Bambi’s Mom is armor plated, now?
I hunt moose and caribou at times - the higher caliber helps ensure a clean kill.
That and it is fun to shoot.
Come on, do you honestly think the Republican caucus in the House is going to do anything but vote 100% as the NRA tells them to? Get a filibuster proof Dem majority in the Senate AND a solid Dem majority in the House AND a president who wants to pass gun control, and you MIGHT see something done. But to be fair, Republicans haven’t always been under the thumb of the NRA, Dick Nixon himself would have preferred a total handgun ban. If I was on your side, I wouldn’t lose any sleep until the Republicans lose at least 50 House seats and have under 30 Senators.
Bush Senior signed the first Assault Weapons Ban
Ahhnold signed the current California laws
The Republican caucus is not always to be trusted on this issue.
Do I think all firearms will be banned? Nope - but some stuff will be, or will be made more expensive, or won’t be available in its current configuration.
So I understand those that run out to purchase something that they think might not be available in the future (like Bushmaster rifles).
Still seems like jumping the gun (no pun intended) to me. Bills take a LONG time to get through Congress today. Yeah, GHWB was not a reflexive NRA president, but the party of Bush Sr. no longer exists except in name.
I tripled my money by buying and selling AR 15s thanks to Bush senior. A lot of us gun types remember those days, and have told stories of them. So the tulip frenzy of purchasing (that has made ammo buying a pain in the ass) is based on fairly recent history.
Again - I am not overly concerned, and Reid caving on the new AWB is proof that he doesn’t see much of a chance. Further, I would expect the Supremes to overturn an AWB since those are the definition of a militia rifle.
But I get the concern and behavior.