Why we lost the gun debate in the Senate, and why we'll keep losing it. [View all]

[Savannahmann]

We make the catastrophic mistake of not researching our issues. Oh we do a little research. We constantly bandied about the poll that showed 90% of the people were in favor of more background checks. But we did not go beyond that. It was painfully evident while this debate was going on in Congress, in the Media, and in small groups all over the nation.

The opponents wrapped themselves in the Second Amendment. We could have easily educated them with a couple days to research our arguments, but we didn't bother. For example, we could have quoted Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. We could have pointed out that Hamilton said that the Government must command the Militia. But we didn't bother with that argument, all we did was bandy about the same tired statistic, one that nobody on the fence believed in their hearts. One that they questioned being the right thing, even if they themselves wanted it.

When questioned about the proposals and their effect on the Second Amendment, we could have highlighted the Supreme Court decisions that upheld the limitations on civilian ownership of machine guns. Instead, we let far too many use shouted slogans about just banning the guns to enunciate our argument.

We could have answered constitutional questions with discussions on the meaning of the Amendments as outlined in writings of the time, opinions of the great Justices in history. We didn't. When Senator Feinstien was questioned on the effect of her proposed ban on the Second Amendment. Her reply was to denounce the questioner, because it was insulting to think that a woman who served in Congress for so long would not take into consideration the constitution. She didn't answer the question, she didn't address the Constitutional question that would become paramount in so many people's minds. She could have given a good answer, if she didn't have any quotes in her bag that would do. She could have said that questions on the application of the constitution for legislation are better decided by those who have demonstrated an understanding of the nuances of that document the Courts. She could have tossed out an insult about how Senator Cruz didn't have the background to debate the issue if she wanted.

We didn't read the tea leaves. We didn't read those polls and see that 4% of the population considered guns to be the most important issue facing the nation. We didn't debate the questions. Instead we brought forth a parade of survivors, of victims, and of those who were affected by gun violence. However after a few victims, it loses its effectiveness on people. The first one is good, and gets the message across. The second one is OK, and the third one is fine. But after that, you start getting into the statistics that don't matter to people. Remember Stalin correctly pegged it when he said one death is a tragedy, a million are a statistic.

Granted we needed to do that, but the parade of victims should never have been the cornerstone of our presentation.

So who needs to lead the effort next time, assuming there is a next time. Whomever leads it, will need to be well read on the founders. Whomever leads the charge will need to know the constitutional questions forward and backward, and be able to discuss it intelligently, and most importantly, with brevity. Because only by pointing out the history that isn't that the Right Wing uses to win the debates, with actual facts, and quotes from the authors in question, can we hope to win.

We won't do that of course. It's easier to shout shame on you. It's easier to make threats we can't hope to follow through on. Remember the Republicans redrew the congressional district maps after the 2010 census. It gave them enough safe seats that barring a major political shift in those regions, there is little hope of taking those seats from them.

We ignored the points that the RW was making. Those points were ones that we should have addressed. We could have come up with a good answer to the claim that the bill did nothing to prevent a nut from getting a gun. That point was very damaging to our side when it was pointed out that basically all the gunmen in the last several mass shootings were either seeing a psychiatrist, or had been referred to one. One Psychiatrist even gave the name of the gunman to police BEFORE he murdered anyone. We answered with the same statistic. We needed to pass this bill because 90% of the people support it. We murdered our own cause, before it could gain any hope of passing.

Statistics have their place in the argument, but it can't be the whole of your factual information regarding the argument. At the same time, the administration was bumbling the Drone argument from the nut Ron Paul's son the Senator. At the same time, mainstream news was starting to question why the Department of Homeland Security needed more than 1 billion rounds of ammunition.

We lost, the nation lost, and we'll continue to lose. Because we don't put forth the effort to research our issues before we take the national stage. We know what the truth is, but we can't prove it in a debate. After the vote, it's too late. So we're going to get revenge in 2014. Only we won't. Those Senators who voted against it are either retiring, or essentially safe with the incumbents advantage. Especially when we realize that only 4% of the population thinks that this is one of the most important issues facing the nation.

Notice, that the statistic was not the foundation of the post, but only a part of the larger argument. The RW was able to bring distrust of the Government into the discussion with the billion bullets for Homeland Security distraction. They were able to bring drones in, and get people talking about when, or if, the Government will use Drones on American Citizens in the United States. What were we doing? We were chanting 90% and pointing to the victims of guns.

That is how we lost, and why we'll keep losing in the future. Because we don't bother debating the RW people, and we don't tell them that the question is stupid, and then showing how the question is obviously stupid to an educated individual.