Wed Feb 6, 2013, 10:48 PM
onehandle (50,465 posts)
Biden to Dems: Don't Let Politics Foil Gun Control
When Democrats in 1994 passed an assault-weapons ban, then lost control of both the House and Senate months later, members of both parties said it was no coincidence. Almost two decades later, Vice President Joe Biden says the political calculus is different, and Democrats can safely back gun-control measures without fear of losing their jobs.
The world has changed, public opinion has evolved, and Democrats have new tools at their disposal, Biden told House Democrats assembled Wednesday for their annual retreat in Lansdowne, Va.
"I'm not asking you to vote for something you don't believe, but I don't want to hear about, "Well, we can't take it on because it's too politically dangerous,'" Biden said.
He admonished lawmakers for learning the wrong lesson in 1994: that some fights are too risky to take on. "It's the reason in part why it didn't get reauthorized" in 2004, Biden added.
Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/biden-dems-dont-let-politics-foil-gun-control-012534230.html
The tipping point continues to be the tipping point.
Rachel just emphasized it.
8 replies, 2016 views
Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Biden to Dems: Don't Let Politics Foil Gun Control (Original post)
Response to onehandle (Original post)
Wed Feb 6, 2013, 11:46 PM
spin (16,805 posts)
1. If we had term limits that argument might work. ...
We don't and most congressional politicians hope to have a LONG career.
Even if an elected Democrat from a Red state actually favors reinstating another assault weapons ban (and not all do) he realizes that he is possibly committing political suicide by voting for it it.
The media blames the big bad NRA as the reason that strong gun control has not become law in our nation despite all their efforts to pass it. The real factor is the 80,000,000 gun owners in our nation and the voting age members of their families.
Gun owners refuse to accept that they are responsible for the recent mass murders and the gang related violence in cities like Chicago. They own and handle their firearms responsibly and see no reason to not be able to purchase a semi-auto rifle merely because it has cosmetic features that make it look like a rifle used by the military. They do agree that we need to pass some truly effective legislation that will stop violent criminals and those with severe mental issues from obtaining a firearm as easily as they can today.
Many fear the government plans to ban and possibly confiscate all firearms in the future and that firearm ownership will be as limited as it is in the UK.
Consequently they WILL show up at the polls to vote against any candidate who supports strong gun control such as bans or registration. In gun unfriendly states they may not make a significant difference but in gun friendly states there are so many gun owners that they can cause any politician who supports gun control to lose badly.
I am not trying to argue for either side of the gun control debate here but to merely point out why any politician from a gun friendly state is hesitant to support strong gun control. It could also be pointed out that if a politician is elected to Congress he is supposed to represent the views of his constituents. If the majority of the people who elected him oppose an Assault Weapons Ban, should he vote for it?
But perhaps Joe Biden is right and "the political calculus" is different. Elected officials have ways of getting feedback from the voters in their districts. If so they may vote for another AWB.
Time will tell.