Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumThe New Republic on how gun control advocates shot themselves in both feet
by fighting to ban popular guns, and going for punitive transfer bans instead of going for actual background check legislation.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112946/gun-control-failure-2013-who-responsible#
Some more thoughts from the Daily Beast:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/04/18/why-the-president-lost-on-gun-control.html
How long have I been saying this?
Response to benEzra (Original post)
Mass This message was self-deleted by its author.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)they should be aware that the New Republic is a liberal / DLC / and-now-back-to-liberal leaning publication.
The magazine's outlook is associated with the Democratic Leadership Council and "New Democrats" such as former US President Bill Clinton and Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman, who received the magazine's endorsement in the 2004 Democratic primary; so did Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton in 2008.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Republic
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Winkler pretty much stated the obvious. Controllers did not take seriously the opposition, preferring to believe that strong supporters of 2A were (despite all evidence to the contrary) paper tigers who would, to change metaphors to fit local conditions, "wilt like flowers" before righteousness. I note specifically that VPC did not merely want a mag cap ban, but wanted a retroactive ban, the mass criminalization so dearly desired by some prohibitionists. All that loud blaring about bans was a signal of weakness in itself.
Worse, strong backers of 2A HERE supported expanded widened b.g. checks before Sandy Hook. But our views had by them become NRAtalkingPoints, and other DUers who were inclined to go with realistic measures were all but drowned out by DU's Wrath of Khant.
Makes you wonder: After all the talk about the mass killing of children, what was really more important to the extreme controller/banners? Practical attempts to address social problems, or moral validation through sweeping ban proposals?
I think we have our answer.
Pullo
(594 posts)Adam Winkler's analysis is spot on.
Focusing on assault weapons played right into the hands of the NRA, which has for years been saying that Obama wanted to ban guns. Gun control advocates ridiculed that ideathen proposed to ban the most popular rifle in America.
Gun control advocates have told me the assault weapons ban was intended to be a bargaining chip. Ask for the moon, settle for lessin this case, universal background checks. If that was the strategy, it backfired. For most of February and March, gun advocates focused their criticisms on the assault weapons ban. They correctly observed that it outlawed guns but did nothing to keep outlaws from having guns. And they used the time to organize their base, comprised largely of gun owners who love the AR-15 and its variations. Many gun owners might have supported background checks had they not been distracted by the assault weapons issue, which caused them to distrust gun control proponents even more than before.
Link
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)...a "proliferation" of "military-style" weapons that she and some of her fellow gun ban enthusiasts CAUSED, both when they pushed the 1994 ban and recently.
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)Until she helped ban them in 1994, she is beyond all shadow of a doubt one the main reasons they are so popular today.
And after her latest failed push, gun control advocates have help assure that they will never be nationally banned.
premium
(3,731 posts)Slackmaster has been PPR'd.
Pullo
(594 posts)Hope not.
That would be up to the Admins., hopefully not.
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)And then they will wonder why so many turned their backs on them. I know the current jihad against anyone who disagrees on gun control, has cost them life long supporters. (I myself has helped organize a group Union brothers in New York against the SAFE act, their where many former Obama voters present, but they swore almost to the person ,"Never again" ).
But, evidently our parties leadership, like religious faithful, simply do not care about the end result of such an intensely unpopular position will be. ......So be it....
Pullo
(594 posts)It was already America's most popular rifle. Now? It is a must-have.
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)va mtn man: (I myself has helped organize a group Union brothers in New York against the SAFE act, their where many former Obama voters present, but they swore almost to the person ,"Never again" ).
These 'many former obama voters present' swore 'almost to a person' that 'never again' would they vote for obama? Bravo for believing them, I don't blame you one little bit; tell you what, I'm going on record right here & now to say that I too will never vote for obama for president again.
Shouldn't you have cheerfully piped up that obama was living up to michelle bachman's post election revised prediction 'A TWO TERM PRESIDENT!'
But, evidently our parties leadership, like religious faithful, simply do not care about the end result of such an intensely unpopular position will be. ......So be it.... Sic semper tyrannis
You do realize, mtnman, that by tacking on 'sic semper tyrannis' you said 'thus always to tyranny', somewhat condoning what you wrote immediately prior (it actually could be what he meant to write, hard to say, the phrase is often misinterpreted as being 'do away with tyranny').
va mtn man: I know the current jihad against anyone who disagrees on gun control, has cost them life long supporters.
Your usual shtick about how siding with guncontrol will cost congressmen their seats;
It's you who should be worried, mtn man, cause you might have the guns, but we got the numbers:
Why the Senate Vote May Signal 2016 Problems for the Gun Lobby ... the {bgcheck} vote suggested that, after years in which gun-control has been sublimated as a political issue, support for expanding background checks and possibly further steps has again become a political norm in almost all of the blue-leaning states that underpin the recent Democratic advantage in the race for the White House.
....examine the Senate vote on the critical amendment to offer background checks through the prism of the Electoral College. The amendment drew unified support from both senators in 21 states representing 261 Electoral College votes. By contrast, both senators opposed the amendment in 17 states representing just 146 Electoral College votes. Senators from the remaining 12 states, with a combined 128 Electoral College votes, split their vote on the amendment.
.. The contrast between the tight balance in the total number of states that unified for and against the amendment, and the broad imbalance in their Electoral College strength, underscores how the Senates structure magnifies the influence of smaller states, most of them rural, preponderantly white, and culturally conservative.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/why-the-senate-vote-may-signal-2016-problems-for-the-gun-lobby-20130418
What the article is saying is that, while redstate senators from smaller populated states get magnified in the senate, this advantage does not roll over to the popular vote for the presidential election. Au contraire.
CokeMachine
(1,018 posts)Response to benEzra (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed