Skip to main content

View Diary: The Hazards of Conflating "The NRA" With "Gun Owners" (131 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Another thing to consider is that in the last 4 (4+ / 0-)

    years, the religious right has been driving the gun rights/intimidation meme.
    This has been the case for at least the last 20 years, to some degree, but there has been an increased sense of desperation, of urgency, within the anti-abortion religious right.

    You can't make this stuff up.

    by David54 on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 09:24:51 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  they're republicans anyway (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JesseCW, a2nite, mrblifil

      they will have zero net impact.

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 09:29:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  My point was getting to an understanding of what (0+ / 0-)

        is different this time 'round, and I think the sense of desperation after the Bush fail and the idea that Pres. Obama would be defining the courts for the next 20 years was responsible for a lot of the hysteria, including over guns.

        I think there will be lots of gun owners who won't follow the religious right into "the hills".

        You can't make this stuff up.

        by David54 on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 10:00:28 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Zero net impact? (8+ / 0-)

        You can't be serious.

        There are 55 current members of the Senate Democratic Caucus.  A substantial number will not support a new AWB precisely because it will have a substantial net impact with their constituents and reelection efforts:

        Jon Tester (D-MT)

        Mark Begich (D-AK)

        Harry Reid (D-NV)

        Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)

        And the list goes on ... Kay Hagen (D-NC), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Mark Warner (D-VA), Joe Manchin (D-WV), Max Baucus (D-MT), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Tom Udall (D-NM), Mark Udall (D-CO), Mary Landrieu (D-LA).

        Show us your vote count.

        •  manchin, warner and the udalls (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          raincrow, luckydog

          have nothing to worry about. they're popular. the udalls and reid are also from states that went well for obama, and where demographics are working very much in their favor. tester and heitkamp just got elected, so they have plenty of time, and no one is going to beat baucus. it's also not clear that guns would cost hagen, in a very split state, where the single issue gun voters aren't going her way anyway.

          The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

          by Laurence Lewis on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 12:31:47 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You keep saying it ... but their statements and (6+ / 0-)

            positions refute your premise.

            They clearly are worried about the real impact with their consitituencies and reelection efforts -- whether you can admit to that or not.

            Why, for example, would recently elected Senator Heitkamp come out with such a forceful rejection of any proposed ban?  Under your reasoning, she would be one of the least motivated to take a strong anti-ban position ... and yet she has ... as has Begich who stands again in 2014.

            If I am right, the Senate shifts ... if you are right, we simply have another feel-good TSA-type assault on our constitutional rights that will have little to no impact on our security -- in this case reduced gun violence because "assault weapons" are not the firearm typically employed, even in the more rare mass or spree  killings.

            You're proposing a poorly designed high risk bet for low return relative to that risk.  I ain't buy'n and neither will a core group of red/purple state Senators in the Democratic Caucus.

            •  their statements refute nothing (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MBNYC, luckydog

              they are no more proof than was clinton's since debunked feeling about 1994.

              the constitutional rights argument is meaningless to me. it's the law, for now, because an extremist court so ruled, but that won't always be the case. the living constitution and the demographic shifts make it inevitable.

              and plenty of lives will be saved, even if it's not the weapon "typically employed." that's an incredibly weak argument. assault weapons are employed, and people are killed by them. saving lives matters.

              The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

              by Laurence Lewis on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 02:03:35 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Columbine happened during the last assault weapons (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ancblu, FrankRose, The Baculum King

                ban.  They bought their guns illegally.

                40% of gun owners are Democrat....and that number represents only those who are willing to answer the Census or a poll about gun ownership, it may be higher.

                 I don't think there is another single issue that our side defines so much as a "right" issue and yet truly is as close to a split among real voters, as this one.

                This is the one and only issue in which I align off of the hard left side, and everything that has happened so far and so quickly has made me nervous that this is just the beginning of a who knows what, in regards to gun ownership and the 2A in general.

                Would I vote for a Republican over it?  No, hardly.  Would I not vote for someone who I considered to have extreme gun control intentions...even if I agreed with them on every other issue?  I honestly don't know....I might stay home if that were the case.  I'm still not sure, as it hasn't happened yet.

                 The point is that for the first time in my life, I am actually thinking about it.  That fact is not only heartbreaking for me but scary because I wonder if I'm the only one.

                •  sure (0+ / 0-)

                  unskew the polls. and just because people own guns doesn't at all mean they oppose the assault weapons ban. i know a hunter who has disdain for people who own ar-15s.

                  real voters support gun control. the numbers right now are very solid, and demographics are going to make it even more solid, over time. and for the first time in two decades, the nra doesn't control the narrative. history moves forward. we will catch up to the rest of the developed democratic world.

                  The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                  by Laurence Lewis on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 10:22:36 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  What exactly do you mean by "real voters"? (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    FrankRose, ancblu, The Baculum King

                    Why do you assume that every "real voter" supports any kind of gun control restrictions?

                      I'm am certainly a "real voter".  I am a "real voter" who is also a black woman and a hard core progressive and who has boot marks up and down my streets from campaigning to get other "real votes" on our side. My vote counts as much as the next "real vote".

                    I am also a concerned "real voter" who owns firearms and believes that the 2A is my Constitutional right.  No gun owners can say with 100% certainty that they will support whatever ends up happening in regards to gun control until we see some proposed bills.  Thus far, I have heard anything from nothing more than the 23 exe orders already signed to a full of attempt to repeal, and everything in between.  No one really knows what will be attempted.  New York has successfully passed a monstrosity of a bill and if that is a blueprint for anything Washington will ultimately do, then I would definitely be against it.

                     I will decide when I see gun control bills come down the pike...until then, I can only hope we are talking about reasonable bills that are used only to curb violence and prosecute criminals....and that the bills contain nothing that would diminish the 2A or disarm law abiding gun owners, in any way.

                    •  I really think the hysteria being generated by the (0+ / 0-)

                      NRA over 2a rights vastly, and I emphasize vastly exceeds any actual threat to 2a rights.

                      Politically, common sense regulations, the very idea of regulation, is supported by a majority.
                      Total chaos, which is what a total ban on guns would entail, is definitely not supported politically.

                      From there we go to the actual near impossibility and the extreme cost of a total ban.

                      It's not realistic.

                      The grownups in the room are going to have a discussion about guns and gun regulations, and we'll get some basic, not-outrageous regulations out of it, and we'll also realize we can talk about this and act on it without the world coming to an end as Wayne LaPierrre prophesies.

                      I think L. Lewis' reading of polls is probably correct, that there is more support for regulation than has been hyped in the media. Certainly, I think it's a fluid situation, and things have definitely changed since Newtown.

                      You can't make this stuff up.

                      by David54 on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 01:05:54 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I'm curious why you think the "hysteria" (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        The Baculum King, Bailey2001

                        over 2A rights is solely generated by the NRA.

                        L. Lewis and upthread and a significant number here on DK vehemently argue for different forms of absolute prohibitory or confiscatory bans -- including even the repeal of the 2A itself.  

                        The merits of that extreme approach as a political agenda would seem to fully validate rather than undermine the NRA argument -- does it not?

                        The middle ground is where reform and reasonable regulatory initiatives will be achieved, but it is a mistake to ascribe extremism on this issue to only one side of the debate.

                        •  I just used them as a punching bag. Yes, others (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:

                          not directly motivated by the NRA propaganda, do also.
                          Most of it comes from the religious right.

                          There are a few who are for total bans, but there aren't that many. There are some who argue for a proper reading of the 2nd A , including the part about well-regulated militia, but that doesn't mean they see a total confiscation of weapons.

                          Most are for reasonable controls. Background checks, etc.
                          The extremism is most definitely mostly among the pro-gun side.

                          You can't make this stuff up.

                          by David54 on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 02:57:07 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

              •  My fact-based arguments are "weak" only (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                FrankRose, The Baculum King

                to those who care nothing for constructing effective policy solutions appropriately tailored to an identified problem.  The data do not support your position -- and that appears to be no concern or impediment to you.

                Likewise, you dismiss clear and unequivocal policy statements with nothing more than a fairy wand and pixie dust -- in the reality based world where political calculus matters, the majority of Senators I identified will not support a new AWB -- even if such a measure could come to the floor for a vote.

                I don't know what to say about your rejection of the constitutional basis for the Heller and McDonald decisions -- you clearly disagree with the outcome but to cloak yourself in the belief they will not serve as precedential 2A jurisprudence is pretty delusional.

                •  people have used ar-15s (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  in mass killings. banning them and guns like them would have prevented those mass killings. that matters.

                  The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                  by Laurence Lewis on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 11:24:37 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Unconstitutionally over-broad regulation (0+ / 0-)

                    and based on a factual supposition unsupported by the data, which makes your argument analogous, ironically enough, to a poorly aimed select-fire fully automatic burst ... or "spray and pray" as it is sometimes described by those who prefer precise targeting over directionless and uncontrolled shooting.

                    But yes ... sadly I do recognize your proposed regulatory response to a single guy with a bomb in his underwear approach.  

                    •  unconstitutional according to an extremist court (0+ / 0-)

                      and even that hasn't been tested. the court did open the door to some regulation. i care about saving lives. ar-15s have been used in mass shootings.

                      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                      by Laurence Lewis on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 08:09:38 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  That is about the weakest bit of logic I have seen (0+ / 0-)

                    The idea that if crazy person uses a particular device to commit murder that if you had prohibited their access to that device you would have prevented the murder is bogus.  They would have simply used something else.

                    You can't legislate away crazy or crime.  If it worked, society wouldn't have a problem with either.

            •  I don't think we've really seen this thing shake (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              out yet, in the voting public.

              The women's vote is increasing in power, and I'm fairly sure they care less about a "strict definition" of the 2nd amendment. (I know women own guns, etc. )

              Newtown changed things.

              Bloomberg is just getting started.

              We are just now beginning a serious debate over the stfu noise of the NRA. Just that is a victory.

              We may not get an assault weapons ban right away. I do think we will get some substantive common sense regulations, and we will overcome the extreme propaganda to the effect that any controls are meaningless, etc. We will start a debate about what responsible adult gun ownership looks like.

              Electorally, right now, I think it's still up in the air and it will be until the trajectory of this issue has had time to stabilize.
              The NRA realizes this, is desperate, and is pushing back hard, but they're not doing themselves any favor. They're self-marginalizing. At any rate, they're not going to get new converts to their side, all they can do is gin up the hysteria from those who have already drunk the koolaid.

              I'm hoping there will be a new gun rights/responsible gun owner group that starts up to compete with the NRA that doesn't oppose some gun regulations. I think that would be a game-changer.

              You can't make this stuff up.

              by David54 on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 06:08:07 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  This is more balanced (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                and realistic point of view than that to which I was first responded and it does serve as the more fertile soil for constructive debate and discussion.

                I agree that "some regulations" will follow -- but the devil, as always, is in the details.  What is one person's "reasonable" is another's "unreasonable."  

                The best illustration of this bad policy outcome I can think of is how we responded after 9/11 under both the Bush and Obama administrations with the litany of intrusions and assaults -- some overt but most covert -- on our constitutional rights mostly under the 4th Amendment.  We as a country are much poorer because in my opinion we crossed the line but the political consensus accepts it under the rationale of better security.

                Laurence Lewis upthread "doesn't care about the Constitutional arguments."  That is a far more dangerous concept to American liberty than any multi-million AR-15s ever could be.  And it is an opinion that will generate nothing but pure contempt and hatred by those who believe it is a Liberty issue.

      •  Uhhhhhhhhh..... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Not exactly.

        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

        by FrankRose on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 06:15:51 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I have noticed it too... (0+ / 0-)

      Most gun owners I have met who aren't Christian Taliban are fairly reasonable.  The Falange have the crazy.  They like guns not because they are target shooters, hunters, or worried about home defense.  Its that they want to use the guns to impose their will on people like us.  Preppers are in the same mental space as they think the world is going to end.  

      Its the end of them, not the end of the world ... unless they try pulling a Rwandan Genocide here and don't think they haven't though about it.  

      Not related directly related, but an interesting read:

      Under capitalism man exploits man, under communism the roles are reversed.

      by DavidMS on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 09:35:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (136)
  • Community (62)
  • 2016 (44)
  • Environment (39)
  • Elections (37)
  • Bernie Sanders (35)
  • Republicans (34)
  • Culture (34)
  • Hillary Clinton (27)
  • Education (24)
  • Climate Change (24)
  • Labor (24)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (24)
  • Barack Obama (23)
  • Media (22)
  • GOP (21)
  • Civil Rights (21)
  • Economy (20)
  • Affordable Care Act (19)
  • Texas (18)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site