The Gun debate: Its a trap!

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

The last election was a pretty nice victory for democrats. Federally about the only thing Republicans didn't lose was House seats, and even there they lost by numbers, but through redistricting were able to hold on to a majority. Obama was a clear winner, and though Democrats had 3 times as many seats up for re-election in the senate, managed to actually gain two seats in the senate.

The 2012 election really gave some momentum to democrats. There were even questions as to whether the Republican party was going to survive as a major party. I think that's overly presumptive, but the point is, Democrats ended up in a good place with a lot of momentum that could be put towards worthy goals.


Then it happened, another school shooting. Now, that on it's own isn't that surprising. The US has school shootings like some countries have holidays (or civil wars). However this one has been different, politically, possibly due to timing. Perhaps due to democrats feeling like right now they have the power to make change, there's been a lot more outcry than usual that we need to make changes. We've seen people like Senator Feinstein who seem to think that they need to be seen doing *something* to address the outcry, drafting hasty bills. I worry that it's just going to get worse.

Now I want people to stop and think for a moment. Gun control may be a good idea, it may be objectively true that restricting what kinds of guns people can purchase will drastically reduce the availability of these specific guns and reduce the total successful murders in the US. It could happen. I haven't said a ton on these gun control posts because I don't think they're very important except as a distraction. I think gun control is fine, but right now not politically viable. I have to agree with squidboi here when he said this.

What have the republicans been spooking the tea party types with the for the last half a decade? Obama's going to take your guns. Do we really want to say "well actually they're right, Obama is going to take your guns"? Gun control is the proverbial Maginot line. It's exactly where conservatives have been fortifying their defenses, even before there was a possibility of it being attacked. Do we really want to throw our opportunity against that line?

Here's the thing, you have almost centuries now of conservatives creating propaganda to get people to hate the government. Are these people really ever going to trust this bogeyman with controlling what they can and can't have for defense? Gun control might be a good idea but we have much bigger fundamental problems we need to deal with. That's the argument that Democrats SHOULD be focusing their newfound political capital on. Trust of the government. If they could move that needle even just a bit, not even all that much, imagine how many things could be accomplished.

Both the Tea Party and the Occupy movement were about this exact thing, people don't feel like they can trust the government to have their best interests in mind. Now, in 2006, Democrats had the right idea. There were sweeping reforms on legislative action. This is something democrats SHOULD have been bringing up every other word. The 100 Hour Plan was mentioned quite a lot during elections, but they really should have capitalized on the success of this plan. These were some great things and exactly what we needed then and still need more of now, but the success really wasn't advertised. It should still be mentioned every other word even today!

I know its easy to get sidetracked in to these wedge issue battles people feel passionately about, but we have to be realistic of the cost of such things when political capital can be used elsewhere for much larger gains that also make those wedge issues so much easier to deal with down the road.

In the end, the US is a representative democracy. We are the government. We are U.S. That's an argument that democrats can win, but half the time it seems like they don't even realize they're fighting it. Its not hard to point out the conservative double standard of constantly supporting changes to give more power to the elite few while claiming the problem with government is it only panders to an elite few. Democrats needs to be selling the vision of democracy means government for everybody. That is what we need to be using our momentum on, and like the first 100 hours plan, spending political capital to make a reality. It would be easier now more than ever too, the previous election was completely cast as the rejection of Rmoney the out of touch elitist.

And if you're just here for kittens...

Comments

[dwer.livejournal.com]

1) Gun control =/= banning guns.
2) OWS Is about forcing the government to do something about out-of-control corporations, nit mistrusting the government like the tea party does. There are aspects of any government to be distrustful of, but the tea party distrusts the CONCEPT of government.

I agree that nothing is likely to get done on real, reasonable gun control. That in and of itself is a tragedy, but it will be little compared to the tragedies to come.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

OWS Is about forcing the government to do something about out-of-control corporations, nit mistrusting the government like the tea party does.

Which is why Occupy pivoted to the government.

Oh, wait.

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

Gun control =/= banning guns.

Well, this point was made about a hundred times, and yet somehow gun worshipers still refuse to acknowledge it. It's pointless to try to explain.

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

Unreasonable and ineffective restrictions are just as unacceptable as bans.
Either will trigger a massive wave of right wing terrorism that will make the 90s look like a cake walk.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Yes, similar to how the anti-gunner refuse to acknowledge that purchasing a Gun has a lot more in common with purchasing and registering a vehicle than it does ordering a pizza.

ETA:
Gun control advocates, in general, do not own guns. As such they are never personally effected by rules/regulations that suround legal gunownership. This makes them ignorant. The idea that guns are somehow unregulated is a crock.

Now we could debate how effectively these regulation are enforced (the ATF's incompetance is legendary) but that's not the conversation the anti's want to have.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

1) Yes I know that. And I know you know that, but that's not the argument that will be made.

2) What I said was the idea that you can't trust the government to have your interests in mind. I still think that's pretty apt. OWS was upset that corporations were getting a free pass to do what they wanted from the government and not being held responsible.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

1) my argument to that is to continue to tell the truth about it, rather than give in to the lie.
2) fair enough.

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

Unreasonable and ineffective restrictions are just as unacceptable as bans.
Either will trigger a massive wave of right wing terrorism that will make the 90s look like a cake walk.
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/publications/splc-report-return-of-the-militias

[dwer.livejournal.com]

I'm proposing reasonable and effective ones. But you'll call ANY regulations unreasonable and ineffective. Because you're that guy.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Well, if the Right turns into a bunch of terrorists, we'll find out in a hurry how much conservative white Americans care about conservative white Americans killing other Americans as oppose to Arabs. I predict a great deal of twisting facts to ensure that people who see the Left as a ZOG-AIPAC plot together with the satanic NAACP will be turned into 'Leftists' because they turn Limbaugh 'jokes' into hard reality. And zero reaction akin to that of every time some idiot with an Arabic-sounding name opens fire in a public place.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

The last election was a pretty nice victory for democrats. Federally about the only thing Republicans didn't lose was House seats, and even there they lost by numbers, but through redistricting were able to hold on to a majority.

Nope.



That's the argument that Democrats SHOULD be focusing their newfound political capital on. Trust of the government. If they could move that needle even just a bit, not even all that much, imagine how many things could be accomplished.

"Trust of the government" has effectively been the last 80 years of Democratic policies and procedure. The outcome has been an electorate moving rightward and significant distrust in the government. The goal of the Democratic Party in this regard has resulted in the opposite result.

Both the Tea Party and the Occupy movement were about this exact thing, people don't feel like they can trust the government to have their best interests in mind.

This is ridiculously simplistic. The Tea Party movement was about the government not acting in the interests of the people, Occupy was about private players. The Tea Party succeeded because of its proper focus while Occupy withered on the vine. The two couldn't be more different, both for intent and results.

These were some great things and exactly what we needed then and still need more of now, but the success really wasn't advertised. It should still be mentioned every other word even today!

That would require the Democrats to give credit to President Bush for playing ball. That would require the Democrats and the left to stop pretending Bush is a conservative.

All we hear, time and time again, is about how successful the stimulus was, how the bailouts "saved" Detroit, how health care reform is a good thing. The left tried to do this yet again in 2009 with the election of Obama, and it was soundly rejected by the electorate in 2010.

But yes, please continue assuming the electorate is just stupid. It couldn't possibly be the electorate rejecting the ideas on the ground.

In the end, the US is a representative democracy. We are the government. We are U.S. That's an argument that democrats can win, but half the time it seems like they don't even realize they're fighting it.

The Democrats represent an ever-shrinking ideological share of the pie. There's a solid argument that the Democrats wouldn't have much in the way of power today were the opposition party not smarter politically. If the Democrats want to play the "we are the government" card, they first need to start representing more of the electorate that the government consists of.

Its not hard to point out the conservative double standard of constantly supporting changes to give more power to the elite few while claiming the problem with government is it only panders to an elite few.

It's only a double standard if it's true, of course. The argument doesn't resonate because it's nonsense.

Democrats needs to be selling the vision of democracy means government for everybody. That is what we need to be using our momentum on, and like the first 100 hours plan, spending political capital to make a reality. It would be easier now more than ever too, the previous election was completely cast as the rejection of Rmoney the out of touch elitist.

Please, by all means, have the Democrats spend that political capital that way. I can't think of a better way to advance the conservative cause.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure what your graph is supposed to show.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

The graph shows that the redistricting in 2010 was not what kept the Democrats from winning the House in 2012, as the 2010 districts would have still kept the House in Republican control.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Also thank you for providing enough canned talking points to ensure my post is a successful debate. XD

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

The Democrats represent an ever-shrinking ideological share of the pie. There's a solid argument that the Democrats wouldn't have much in the way of power today were the opposition party not smarter politically. If the Democrats want to play the "we are the government" card, they first need to start representing more of the electorate that the government consists of.

This is true. The ideological pie is shifting more and more progressive if we go by polls, and Democrats should start representing them.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Actually it's the Republicans that are in deep shit, ideologically speaking. The Cotton Mather/Stonewall Jackson/Scott Roeder section of the electorate turned out big in 2012 and got swamped by the Dems making wishy-washy appeals to minorities who'd rightly not vote for the people who hail Pat "White Supremacy is God's own will" Buchanan and Pat "Genocide is my bread and butter" Robertson as moral exemplars.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

"Trust of the government" has effectively been the last 80 years of Democratic policies and procedure. The outcome has been an electorate moving rightward and significant distrust in the government.

Apples and oranges. The rightward move has very little to do with actual policies, and quite a bit more to do with media consolidation and forming the resulting corporate noise machine. This started in the 1970s, and resulted in the first extreme right-wing president in 1981 (with the help of a bit of treason from his electoral participants). GOP presidents prior to that were very different, quite a bit less beholden to corporate influence. Take a peek at the tax brackets under Ike for evidence.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

and quite a bit more to do with media consolidation and forming the resulting corporate noise machine.

There are more options for people to consume media now than there ever have been. This includes independent, non-corporate markets.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

It's more to do with adding to the McCarthy/Taft wing of the GOP the Dixiecrats and creating an unholy abomination of Reactionary Politics that hasn't existed on the national scale since 1860.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

In the hope you meant it ironically, please, one does not "spend political capital" anymore than a farmer eats his seed corn. It's self-destructive.

Bottom line: if GWB said it, it's probably wrong, mispronounced, or both.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

I'm not using it in the exact same way Mr. W used it, but I do think it actually does get spent and created. Not everything a person does spends it, but things to have a cost. Sometimes a thing needs a lot to be done but costs very little in the end, and sometimes a mistake can cost very much, a little like real capital.

version of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_capital

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I would have no problem whatsoever with people owning guns to hunt, or to *defend* themselves (which you do not need a nuke or an assault rifle of military grade to accomplish. A handgun will do just fine for self-defense and it's rather unnecessary to use an M16 to shoot a deer). The problem is all the people who delude themselves into assuming self defense = shotguns beating a modern mechanized force. Those people complicate the issue and make it difficult to differentiate the at least good/neutral ideas from the gonna get a lot of people killed and cities turned into Baghdad variety.

[merig00.livejournal.com]

I'm wondering if you said M16 instead of AR15 on purpose.

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

The 1986 FOPA law that makes sales of automatics to civilians illegal (save for pre-existing stock, and that so expensive and regulated it's defacto banned) ensured that we haven't seen a legally owned civilian automatic used in a crime in decades.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

Well, a AR-15 is illegal to use to hunt deer in many states. However it isn't illegal for the reasons you seem to think. Ar-15s aren't unnecessary, but insufficient, to hunt deer with.