|
It doesn't matter if 50-60% of the country are in favor of something as vague as "stricter gun laws" without accounting for all the people who drop out when you propose a stricter law that isn't what they might specifically have in mind or do it in a way they see as inefficient and counterproductive. The percentage split has pretty much always been that way going back decades and even if 50-60% could be counted on being OK with any gun control increase, it doesn't matter because they're waaaaay less motivated that pro-gunners.Pope Guilty posted:It doesn't matter what the democrats actually do about guns. They could renounce gun control and the NRA would just start telling people that it was a trick so you better buy more guns. If Republican congress critters suddenly said, "Hey guys you know what we're cool about abortion. Let's move on," would you immediately take them at their word tomorrow or would you look at their home states over a few years to see if they're leaving their restrictive laws as-is, increasing restrictions, or reducing restrictions in deep red areas they have supermajorities in and in no way have to compromise with the other side? The NRA absolutely will change their mind about Dems waging a culture war when the day comes that NY, NJ, and CA pass bills to reinstate private ownership of larger magazines and machine guns which are all statistical background noise in terms of crime.
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2016 03:19
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 12:13 |
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Yeah most gun owners arn't libertarians poo poo stains though. I can't tell who you're agreeing with or not. NNick posted:It isn't that they lack an ideology. It is that they both represent the same ideology. Ok but you posted the wrong video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsOMEUamYkc
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2016 04:45
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:Hasn't there been at least one mass shooting where the shooter rolled up with some kind of stupid 100 round mag he bought off the internet that promptly jammed? Aurora theater shooting. Got about 20 rounds into his 100 drum on his AR15, jammed so hard he had to lose the gun, and made almost all of his hits with a pump action shotgun and a Glock using multiple 15 round magazines. Colorado Democrats responded by limiting magazine capacity to... 15 rounds.  Nobody outside of (maybe) downtown Denver enforces it.On the topic of the thread though, I think Dems could be focusing harder on Goldwater style conservatives/independents with the Medicaid/care expansion. Pointing out that money for state expansions are federal tax dollars that came from the states in the first place, and that opposition governors are refusing to get that money back in the state when given the chance, is a good point. Not doing enough to save the blue dogs because they wanted to make deep blue holdouts feel good about themselves/stay ideologically pure in the culture war sure has enabled the Republicans to gobble up most seats out there.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2016 04:01
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:it's creepy as gently caress that these people's hobby revolves around deadly weapons of war Ban selfloading/bolt-action/pump-action/lever-action/breechloading/muzzleloading rifles/pistols/shotguns. You did mean guns that had been issued by armies, right?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2016 04:03
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Pretty much. I started this thread to have an insightful discussion. So far its just been people yelling "guns, guns, guns!" since page 2 or so. DeusExMachinima posted:I think Dems could be focusing harder on Goldwater style conservatives/independents with the Medicaid/care expansion. Pointing out that money for state expansions are federal tax dollars that came from the states in the first place, and that opposition governors are refusing to get that money back in the state when given the chance, is a good point. Not doing enough to save the blue dogs because they wanted to make deep blue holdouts feel good about themselves/stay ideologically pure in the culture war sure has enabled the Republicans to gobble up most seats out there. People just can't keep bringing up how pushing gun control really should be a priority though.  AWBs can have an effect outside of gun issues as well. Makes you wonder what other topic they'll try to pass laws on after reading two sentences about it on Wikipedia.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2016 05:58
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Gun control doesn't matter. The right will just make up some other culture war poo poo to get people who don't understand why they're poor and isolated all paranoid and angry about something just like they did with abortion and gays and Mexicans and terrism and welfare queens and evolution. They'll just go anti vax or anti zoning restrictions or anti elementary school or some other drat thing which will be the new Threat To Freedom and the new Thing Elitist Democrats Want to Force On You/Take From You. Being against more gun control doesn't tell you anything about that person's stance on gay marriage or the NSA reading all your emails. There is no logical, necessary connection between the two. There is no sworn package deal ultimatum that everyone who has ever voted Republican signed onto in a blood compact. So yes, it does matter and the whole reason it matters is that you can peel off voters and make a difference in who gets elected that way.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
NNick posted:How, precisely, would the national Democratic party stop supporting gun control when that is what base wants? Why not stop supporting another issue like Abortion (which is even more divisive?) DeusExMachinima posted:Not doing enough to save the blue dogs because they wanted to make deep blue holdouts feel good about themselves/stay ideologically pure in the culture war sure has enabled the Republicans to gobble up most seats out there. And now your ability to support abortion rights, ironically, has been weakened as a result. The base should probably realize that they aren't large enough to win an election on their own. When your Moving LeftTM includes creating more possession crimes it's probably going to motivate the opposition harder than your side, as has been the case with gun control. This shouldn't be surprising because it's your opposition who'll notice the difference directly if your idea passes. Your supporters who already aren't engaging in the bad activity you want to get rid of won't notice a difference in their lives at large and so are almost invariably less motivated.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2016 00:55
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:What narrative? I don't recall any serious, mainstream politician pushing for a total national gun ban. Not even Mitt "I don't think people have the right to own assault weapons" Romney. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who thought Romney was remotely ideal, and 2012 led directly to the Great Primary Rebellion of 2016. Anyway when someone unironically says "assault weapons" I don't go "Oh OK we may disagree on whether this is right but at least you're using your brain." Assault weapon poo poo is purestrain stupid in the same intellectual void (though not remotely as offensive, obviously) as "a woman's body shutting that whole thing down." It's not even wrong. They're both the kind of things that make you wonder, "OK what other issues is this idiot going to read five lines into on Wikipedia then rush off to pen a law in excitement?" skeet decorator posted:Even if it's not the most important issue among blacks and Hispanics, there is still a large amount of support for it. It would seem prudent to cater to the interests of the groups who are poised to become the majority of voters. From a purely pragmatic viewpoint? Same way I'd try to get social cons to loosen up. Tell 'em they like guns but this gay marriage thing (or anti-abortion thing, depending on where they are) are going to sink everything for them. They can't have it all but they can have some of it and hey, if you're concerned about abortion here's some ways that sex ed and conception can help bring down demand for abortions. In the same way, Dems have more social ideas that may address disparate racial outcomes and/or poverty whereas sticking to the gun control ship will usually get them nothing. And hey, reducing poverty is the #1 predictor of if you'll have tons of gun violence.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Perhaps you need to brush up on your understanding of the differences between "accident" and "not accident". Accidents kill the body whereas non-accidents kill the soul, amirite? Death isn't a qualitative experience duder. If your stated position is that Thing X is bad because it causes death then it's totally reasonable to question why you're apparently less angry about and/or mentioning X before Thing Y, when Thing Y causes even more death. VitalSigns posted:You don't need a flash suppressor to hunt or send rounds downrange, it's for fantasizing about how you'll take out For the 9000th loving time, it's not about changing the other guy's supporters. It's about not giving them a reason to turn out when they might stay home on election day instead.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2016 05:02
|
|
|
GyroNinja posted:On the other hand, if you say that pizza is your favorite food, but call every pizza you see an attempt by jackbooted UN thugs to take away our freedoms, you might just be a loving liar? More saliently, the poll is still wrong under this explanation. Either way it doesn't tell us the pro-gun control types prioritize it higher than gunners do so it doesn't tell us much on election day. anne frank fanfic posted:Remember when we got to the answer on the first page but the op kept asking the question over and over trying to get it to not be guns? I tried to bring up other issues. Ironically this thread has done a great job demonstrating why deep blue attitudes running the party has destroyed Dems in most positions besides the President.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
skeet decorator posted:Is this the evidence you're talking about? Did the Colorado recalls not happen in your timeline? It's entirely possible Hispanics for example continue to be in favor of gun control but you're making a similar assumption about future politics as anti-immigration types. At one time the Irish were an immigrant demo who were totally going to destroy American values... and then they became more successful and accepted. Now they're considered white by everyone in America. Political views aren't racially inherited and change based on how people (and post 1st-gen immigrants especially) feel they're doing over time. I shouldn't have to tell you this.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
skeet decorator posted:No I get what you're arguing for, what I don't understand, and what I have yet to see is any evidence whatsoever that supports your arguments. Just so you're clear on what I'm actually arguing. Support for gun control is strong among black and hispanic Dems, both groups which have historically low voter turn out. Both groups are poised to form the largest voting bloc over the next few decades. There is evidence to suggest that when Dem's ignore their minority base they lose elections, because the minority voters simply don't vote (see 1994 midterms). You have not presented a single piece of evidence to suggest that dropping gun control from the platform will prevent more Republican voter turnout than it will discourage minority Dems from turning out. DeusExMachinima posted:Did the Colorado recalls not happen in your timeline? gently caress this poo poo is looping on itself. Look, if you're positive that minorities really are going to make or break elections for you on gun control, AWBs won't cut it because long guns aren't what's killing them. It'll have to be assault
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2016 01:14
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Do you have any evidence that Democrats would control the house if they decided to abandon their base on this issue and all become devout anti-regulation advocates? They had more seats when the Blue Dogs existed, yes, excellent point. Part of their disappearance was going to happen in the Tea Party wave no matter what, I'll give you that, but the others didn't get much support from those living stereotypes who do exist in NYC/San Fran. I really question whether the minorities voting for gun control strategy will ever break even. If they're poor, they're going to vote less than your progun competition. If they become better off and vote more, violence will also go down and support for gun control unsurprisingly bears relation to the violence rate. BitcoinRockefeller posted:From a way back and not about guns but I agree with this. I really think the democrats should be pushing for a GMI. I have family in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and it's always such depressing place where no one has any money or jobs, if they frame a GMI as letting people who like living there be able to support themselves and not have to abandon the towns they grew up in and love because there's no more copper or whatever I could see them making inroads in rural areas as well as energizing their younger base. Yep, you could peel off what used to be Goldwater conservatives (e.g. modern independents who aren't consumed by WELFARE QUEENS GETTIN' MAH DOLLAH!  ). You can argue that it's going to be fiscally conservative and you could majorly simplify the 1,001 welfare agencies and their budgets if you had a negative tax or whatever you want to call it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:Ever notice how when there's a gun-control thread, pro-gun posters whine about the focus being on guns rather than more important issues like healthcare? How come when we have a thread that doesn't have to be about guns, they insist on making the discussion about guns rather than those other, more important issues? I have tried a few times myself, but you should probably go back to page 1 and see that like everyone was in agreement on not pushing gun control and were discussing other things. Then a few pro-control posters poo poo their pants about their culture war issue not getting enough respect and here we are. Chomskyan posted:"Hey bud, I know I never cite any evidence in defense of my views, but you better provide evidence for yours!" Relatively minimal obstacles by world standards overall, although depending on how you go about the former I think you may run into some due process issues although that doesn't have to be the case. It's too bad for Dems national credibility that deep blue states don't just go for these laws and avoid AWBs! I asked early on and I'll ask again, if Republicans told you tomorrow that they were done chasing abortion bans and really just are thinking of the mother's health with a few minor checks beforehand, would you trust them automatically or would you check to see what laws they're passing/repealing in states where they have a supermajority? DeusExMachinima fucked around with this message at 02:10 on Feb 16, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2016 02:08
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Pro-choice Republicans do exist and do get elected in liberal areas eg Governor Mitt Romney so yeah it seems like it's not necessary for northeastern Republicans to come down to Texas and Arkansas and make all Republicans shut up about abortion forever to get a pro-choice candidate elected in a liberal state. Well if you want to go that way there's Dems in every state legislature. I meant in terms of trusting R's to respect abortion rights with a majority in national Congress since that's the thread topic. This guy feels like a zero effort easy button by now but sure why not since you asked 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
Thread delivers little info on how Dems can reclaim the House. Thread delivers a certain type of Dem self-righteously extolling the virtues of shooting themselves in the foot while explaining that they're not really shooting themselves in the foot and even if they were it doesn't really hurt. Besides even if it did hurt, shooting yourself in the foot is morally superior to being able to walk into town to do things that will help the people there right now. We can help people later because that day will definitely come after we finish shooting our feet off. History is inevitable. You're so far from self-awareness that if the word 'introspection' was engraved on each nanoangstrom of your synapses it would not equal one one-billionth of the ignorance you've shown at this micro-instant. If you were an AI, Dr. Turing would delete you. 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2016 07:08
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well yes, appealing to white supremacists is probably a viable strategy for taking the house away from Republicans. A valid argument except that dropping AWB doesn't hurt minorities because that's not what they're being shot with.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
gohmak posted:banning handguns is a non starter. Then allow me to suggest, at the risk of becoming too abstract here, that you spend your time on something you can accomplish but that has also quantifiable significant public safety results?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
rudatron posted:I disagree that Trump's tactics can't be used progressives, his simple showmanship and ability to grab the media cycle isn't tied to his racism or whatever, it's simply turning the outrage-cycle on its head, by using it to suffocate coverage of your political opponents. That, combined with the loss of faith in the main political institutions (which includes the media) means that they end up doing free advertising, under the misconception that it will finally sink him or whatever. It's actually fairly ingenious. I doubt you can just turn it around like that. Trump's ability to grab the media cycle with his "outrage-cycle" is inherently rooted in the fact that building a wall and banning Muslims are outrageous. When you stop saying that kind of thing you're no longer outrageous and thus stop getting an outsized share of attention. None of what you said matters. As someone who hates gun control, I won't worry about Obama banning anything unless the split is ever 80/20 or 90/10 in favor of more control (it won't ever be). Motivation matters. You can have whatever pro-control opinions you like as far as I'm concerned, just be sure to stay home playing DOTA when election day comes around and/or don't be willing to credibly threaten to burn down your own party if they regularly or significantly abandon you on the issue. DeusExMachinima fucked around with this message at 02:36 on Mar 1, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Racism isn't the only way to grab attention. The trick is to find the right avenue that doesn't alienate the public, but still positions you as an 'outsider'. Bernie is probably the closest you'll get to this, at least in the near future. As much as BernBros can be annoying and/or retarded, it's hard to say they're not as much believers as many Trump fans are. But there's not nearly as many of them which suggests that either Bernie's rhetoric doesn't have the same outrage-per-pound ratio or the audience isn't there. Chomskyan posted:Where is the evidence for this large army of gun-owning single-issue voters who will vote religiously against the Democrats unless they weaken their stance on guns? Where is the evidence? The pro-gun posters in this thread have provided no evidence they exist. Only just-so stories about how the Democrats lost the election and it must have been due to the assault weapon ban because *furious hand waving*. Not all Dems are from San Fran, dude. In the 2013 Colorado recall, the gun control side spent $3 million and the NRA spent $500,000. The pro-gun side won both recalls and forced another senator to resign so the Dems wouldn't lose the senate majority. Anyway, one of the Dem senators lost in a heavily Latino urban district in a purple state by 12%. That same district then replaced the Republican who won the recall with a Democrat at the next normal election. Seems almost like they were trying to say something about the issue without jumping onto the destroy-all-social-programs train.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2016 02:59
|
|
|
Whoa whoa hold up there gun bunny, I think you'll find that it's better to threaten people with hard time for possession crimes (BTW FYI I think the drug war is bad) and also give people the impression that we think they're poo poo because of where they're from. I don't see how we'll lose voters doing this and any voters we gain who love the two aforementioned selling points will definitely be people whose politics will take America to good places.  I'm not obsessing about this, YOU'RE obsessing about this!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2016 03:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 12:13 |
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Ah yes, I too remember when Obama tried to ban all guns, which only rural poor people have any interest in. Fortunately, the Republican champion Mitt "gun-freedoms-lover" Romney was there as an alternative to the evil evil freedom-hating Democrats, so freedom triumphed. Somehow. Even though B Hussein "gonna ban all the guns" Obama won two elections in a row, the total ban on all personal firearms that gun lobbyists and hobbyists have forecasted for the past eight years has failed to pass, which is clearly proof of the Democrats' diabolical scheme to ban guns! You don't have to literally ban 100% of all guns 5eva in order to warrant the full brunt of the NRA steamroller. You also still deserve to be associated with gun bans if it didn't happen post-Sandy Hook purely due to elements outside of your team's control. Your hyperbole doesn't have much to do with what I said anyway. Gun control is often perceived as an identity issue (and just as often delivered by its proponents in such a way, rhetorically) by rural folks whether or not they're the only gun owners out there. And beyond success or failure in the moment, assault weapon bans introduce a possession crime over a statistically insignificant issue. Nobody's immune to falling into the moral panic trap. Any voter who falls for it can just as quickly turn on issues you care about. Thread continues to deliver live demonstrations of why the Dems won't retake the house. Voted 5.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2016 20:03
|
|