Will we remain the Democratic Party...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

...or become less relevant?

In the 2016 Platform statement, an expression of ideals and goals, there are 45 pages addressing various topics. YMMV on some of these goals and issues but I have issues with part of the Preventing Gun Violence paragraph: "...we will expand and strengthen background checks and close dangerous loopholes in our current laws; repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) to revoke the dangerous legal immunity protections gun makers and sellers now enjoy; and keep weapons of war—such as assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines (LCAM’s)—off our streets."

I get it that some folks have certain hot topics on which they won't compromise. The nature of politics is compromise. There are a number of points in that gun violence section that most of us can agree on like improving background checks, protecting domestic partners from violence and abuse and funding the study of the causes of violence. I'd go further to say that public and family safety messages about securing your guns ought to be there, also.

Why should we continue to work to repeal the PLCAA?

Why are assault weapons still a topic?

Are these in the platform just because they are opposite Republican goals?

[pablo_marmol]

1. The Party will become either less relevant or irrelevant.

Why are assault weapons still a topic?

This is the sub-issue that gives me migraines. There are three options in my mind, and I'm not sure which applies.

1) Democratic Party leaders are truly so stupid and dishonest that they believe that "assault weapons" bans have merit. On the subject of gunz they take a faith-based position in contrast to the reason-based positions they take on all other issues. (Same applies to the base of course.)

2) Democratic Party leaders know that they have painted themselves into a corner with decades of hysteria and lies, and are at the point where they can't back away from the position and admit that they erred. Even if they did, the base is so hopelessly brainwashed that they wouldn't listen. (GOP equivalent --- Obamacare is an abomination) For example, a friend of mine believes that "assault weapons" fire at a faster rate than other semi-auto rifles, and no amount of proof will move him off that position.

3) Most cynically, Democrats are serving the interests of the 1%, keeping the fight going with Republicans on this hot-button social issue so as to keep attention diverted from the real problems we face.

Are these in the platform just because they are opposite Republican goals?

I think that's part of it. Democrats tend to be truly empathetic, and see "gun control" as a natural position that empathetic folks would take. An ego-reinforcing dynamic. Of course what restriction supporters stubbornly refuse to consider is that most "gun control" measures are not only misguided/useless, but self-defeating. Contempt for all things gun related drives this denial.

Given the fact that Democrats see their position (mistakenly) as righteous, they fail to see the truth -- which is that many of their areas of angst constitute culture war.....owing to the fact that laws regulating magazine capacity (one example) don't make a damn bit of difference w/regard to saving lives. More than anything else, culture war fires up the opposition, and in my view that is the chief threat to Democratic Party credibility/relevance.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

2. Just my opinion:

Last edited Sat Mar 18, 2017, 04:53 PM - Edit history (1)

There will always be some folks who object to the majority opinion of a group. This is especially true the bigger the group. For a long time our party has developed and nominated presidential candidates that have been very competitive in popularity compared to Republican opponents. Any political success or failure should be analyzed in order to apply what can learned.

IMO party leaders on all sides (to a degree) are serving to keep/put that party's candidates in office. To believe otherwise is foolish.

The assassinations of '60s lit the fire for restrictions along with the rising violence due to gangs and drugs. From then a generation of politicians developed legislative momentum on restrictions up through the AWB experiment. The level of violence has been dropping as has support for some of these 'do nothing' laws since before AWBs were on the books.

In another 10-15 years gun laws will be where they ought to be for the most part. The party will have normalized some of its positions. In the meantime elections will be lost for any combination of reasons and guns will figure among them. In that time smart guns will become more common but probably not predominate. Accidental shootings will continue to abate but there will continue to be "big news" incidents that certain diehards will point to and demand action.

We should continue to take the leading position on progress and liberty.

In truth there is no one more responsible for accidents and crimes than those involved. Bringing that message to folks about their own responsibility will do more in month that a years of laws and courts. The American people by the nature of their self-sufficiency and love of liberty have always recognized needs and developed the changes necessary to apply corrections. They adapt, they improvise and they overcome.

[pablo_marmol]

3. "We should continue to take the leading position on progress and liberty."

Yes -- and I like the generally optimistic tone of your post. This is an area where I would love to be proven wrong. I've come to realize that orthopedic issues that have been nagging me the past year have assisted in fouling my mood........so that's no doubt contributing to my pessimism and cynicism. When Schumer started yapping about maintaining Democratic values including "gun control" right after the 11/8 horror, I thought I was going to stroke out. Let's hope that you're on target with your prediction about the normalization of gun laws.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

9. I confess to avoiding some of the "doom and gloom" posts...

...bemoaning the current President and Congress. IMNSHO it's time to focus mostly on issues and local elections.
I see Democrats as wiser than Republicans. It's hard to believe we would hold on to losing ideas like AWBs and the War on Drugs but I don't expect things to change in an instant.

There is not much future nor significant benefit to crying the blues over the current state of things. I love the quote from the movie Rocky Balboa in 2006:

The world ain't all sunshine and rainbows. It's a very mean and nasty place and I don't care how tough you are it will beat you to your knees and keep you there permanently if you let it. You, me, or nobody is gonna hit as hard as life. But it ain't about how hard you hit. It's about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward. How much you can take and keep moving forward. That's how winning is done!

And a picture is worth a thousand words:

[Blue_Warrior]

4. Gun control is a losing issue - loss for the people and loss for the party

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

5. I'm not saying all aspects are without merit but...

...the party should abandon "assault weapons" laws and repealing the PLCAA like rats off a sinking ship.

[Blue_Warrior]

6. When our party pushes for gun control our party loses seats

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

7. There are many fine and commendable efforts involving restrictions on guns

Banning classes of guns because of features and appearance make no sense.

Spoons and frying pans don't make you fat. Guns don't kill. The hand of the individual takes the action. Suing gun and frying pan makers are the acts of folks in denial.

Denying reality is a sign that one isn't acting responsibly.

[Blue_Warrior]

8. Universal background checks are something I can get behind!

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

10. Or, it's just one more tax required to transfer a gun.

If I give a rifle to a relative, I don't need to run him or her through an FBI check and pay for the privilege. I can just hand it over. The check seems like an unnecessary expense.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

11. I think a BGC should be available...

...at your local law enforcement office free of charge.

[HeartachesNhangovers]

12. That's the only way I support background checks for

individuals: if the government is required to provide it free and on demand at any police station or similarly convenient location. If "the system is down", or "it's a government holiday", or there's no place to do it within 10 miles, or any other excuse for not providing a response within 60 seconds of submittal: you have fulfilled your obligation and may proceed with your sale.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

13. For private sales...

...I support only voluntary BGCs. If the seller wants the check, they go to law enforcement and make the deal. If the buyer won't cooperate, he risks losing the deal and letting the seller know he has something to hide.

Better to empower the seller to do the right thing than threaten with fines and prison.

[HeartachesNhangovers]

14. Yes, that would be the better approach.

[friendly_iconoclast]

15. I'd add: Offer a legal "safe-harbor" provision for sellers who use voluntary BGCs

Last edited Tue May 2, 2017, 03:10 PM - Edit history (1)

That would offer a powerful incentive to use the system

[spin]

16. The Democratic Party would be wise to ban the use of the word "ban". ...

Better to concentrate on making sure only honest and responsible people can purchase firearms plus improving the efforts to stop the straw purchase and smuggling of firearms to the inner cities of our nation.

Efforts to confiscate firearms should be focused on the violent criminal element in our society not honest citizens.