Skip to main content

View Diary: We are winning! Voters Rejecting the NRA! (151 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Yep. I saw some figures earlier this week (21+ / 0-)

    that gave NRA membership at around 3 million.  Now, that is not a number to be sneezed at, but one must remember that a lot of those are Democrats and progressives who only join to get the insurance.  Knock the real numbers down to maybe 2 to 2.5 million that actually drink the Kool Aid the NRA is selling.  

    The same source cited about 80 million people who own firearms.  That makes the five percent figure sound about right.  So if we put the NRA's ≦3 million up against the total demographic, you start to get into serious numbers that can influence elections all the way from city council to the White House.  Serious politicians and their advisers know this.  Talking head pundits and echo chamber blogs have not gotten the memo.  

    What the NRA does better than almost any organization is fund raising.  Personally, I wish they paid crazy Wayne LaPierre megamillions of dollars in salary.  That would be that much less they have to spend on trying to buy or influence politicians.  

    The NRA is not a toothless tiger, but the demographic every politician must fear is the millions of people who are ordinary firearms owners. Those folks who go quietly about their daily lives without making any waves, but will resist any attempt to take what they own at the ballot box. Progressives and Democrats will find it wise to heed the famous words attributed to Admiral Yamamoto about arousing a sleeping giant.

    The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

    by Otteray Scribe on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 08:40:18 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  "Ordinary gun owners", at least not any that I've (9+ / 0-)

      ever seen, are never single issue voters. That would be more like the RKBA NRA style "pry it out of my cold dead fingers" types.

      There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

      by oldpotsmuggler on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 09:21:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, people forget how many Democrats used to (16+ / 0-)

      split ther tickets based in part on gun rights. It's been a long time since the Democratic Party actually made a serious issue about gun control, & people have forgotten why. There's a little "historical revisionism" on our side of the aisle lately.

      -7.25, -6.26

      We are men of action; lies do not become us.

      by ER Doc on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 09:43:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Doc, we are both professionals (11+ / 0-)

        Does it not chap your ass when we have all the armchair psychiatrists and psychologists making clinical diagnoses of "Paranoia" and "PTSD causes crime?"  Most of the folks making those pronouncements have no idea what they are talking about and could not do a "rule out" algorithm if they had the Sword of Damocles hanging over their collective heads and a large print copy of the DSM-IV-TR in their hands.  It is the "appeal to authority" logical fallacy combined with a true ignorance of voter demographics and how they lean back in the hinterlands.  

        The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

        by Otteray Scribe on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 04:45:26 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't know why you chose to introduce (0+ / 0-)

          that straw man here?
          Wish I had seen it last night.

          Maya Angelou: "Without courage, we cannot practice any other virtue with consistency. We can't be kind, true, merciful, generous, or honest."

          by JoanMar on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 10:13:54 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  More paranoia: (8+ / 0-)
      Those folks who go quietly about their daily lives without making any waves, but will resist any attempt to take what they own at the ballot box.
      No one is coming to take your precious firearms, okay?  No such proposal is on the table.  It exists only in your fevered imagination.

      Of course, if you think the Democratic Party is getting too "radical" on gun control by proposing a few modest regulations, you can always support the Republicans.  They're more than willing to play to your utterly irrational fear of gun "confiscation."'

      In that case, however, you don't belong on a Democratic site.

      "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

      by FogCityJohn on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 11:05:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Explain this, on our "democratic site" (9+ / 0-)

        From a well known poster here the other day:

        We want to ban the assault rifles and big magazines RIGHT NOW.  The hand guns can be banned later.  

        The fact that handguns can kill is IRRELEVANT to the fact that assault rifles are the most dangerous weapons for mass murder.

        Seems to me that there are quite a few Democrats ON this site that want ALL the guns and it ain't about saving lives.

        -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

        by gerrilea on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 06:16:24 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  AMAZING! (5+ / 0-)

          In a group of tens or hundreds of thousands, there are individuals who hold just every opinion imaginable under the sun.

          Yes. I am sure you are correct. I am sure there are plural readers of this site who wish to see every gun banned. Of course they are vastly outnumbered by Democrats who don't. But now we are into that stuff called 'nuance'.

          •  Pshaw, when we present our "nuanced" position (4+ / 0-)

            we're accused of being paid trolls for the NRA, spouting NRA talking points, misdirection (from what has me dumbfounded),  etc, etc, etc.

            The poster, whom I will not identify, has had many diaries on the rec list and it seems there's quite a large vocal group here that agrees with the position.

            How about we "nuance" something that will lower crime for all Americans?

            That's always been my position.

            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

            by gerrilea on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 08:11:32 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  If you are willing to risk the Dem party for a ban (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            KVoimakas, Tom Seaview, gerrilea, ER Doc

            on something that is used less than half as often in murders as bare hands are, you are willing to ban as many firearms as you can.

            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

            by FrankRose on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 08:34:34 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  So let me see if I understand. (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Beetwasher, tytalus, JoanMar, BeninSC

          I said there are no proposals to take away your guns, and you respond by quoting an anonymous poster on a blog.  Although you haven't identified the person, I suspect this poster is not an elected official.  So I really don't see how this has anything to do with my comment.

          If you search the Internets, you'll almost certainly find someone who will express almost any opinion you can imagine.  But the comments of people posting on blogs are not legislative or regulatory proposals.  You might want to take note of the difference.

          "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

          by FogCityJohn on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 09:49:58 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Funny, I live in New York. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ER Doc, KVoimakas

            Can't pull the wool over my eyes.

            http://assembly.state.ny.us/...

            "voluntary confiscation"...

            Our rights are now defined under "Penal Laws".

            S 37. Subdivision 22 of section 265.00 of the penal law, as  added  by
               37  chapter 189 of the laws of 2000, is amended to read as follows:

            "Assault  weapon"  means  [(a)  a semiautomatic rifle

            Any firearm that has a magazine capacity over 7 rounds is illegal.  Meaning if you own any firearm that doesn't take a smaller magazine and if the manufacturer decides not to make smaller ones, your firearm is a useless piece of metal.

            Modern day confiscation doesn't have to mean taking them in and giving them to the government.  

            I guess it's how one defines "confiscation", doesn't it?

            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

            by gerrilea on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 11:33:38 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  "Confiscation" isn't in your link. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              BeninSC

              I did a search of the linked document, and the word "confiscation" doesn't appear in it.  In addition, the idea that "confiscation" can be voluntary seems entirely inconsistent with any commonly accepted definition of that word.  If one voluntarily gives up a piece of property, it hasn't been confiscated.  

              In any event, looking at the link, it appears for the most part to deal with cases in which people have been adjudicated ineligible to possess firearms, such as those who are mentally incompetent, convicted criminals, or violators of civil protection orders.  Those are precisely the kind of people who shouldn't possess weapons.  

              "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

              by FogCityJohn on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 03:48:17 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  So, not addressing the point and bringing up (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Otteray Scribe, andalusi

                something I didn't, means what again?

                Did you miss the part about having your property made inert?  A ban without taking the item, ie a "voluntary confiscation".

                Or the bigger point, an unalienable right is now defined under PENAL CODES.

                All semi-automatic weapons that can take a magazine of 8 or more rounds is illegal.

                As for the "adjudicated" part. Yep, without any due process, I have been stripped of the right to keep and bear arms by the simple fact I'm a recovered alcoholic with 24+ yrs sobriety AND a transgendered woman, both conditions are defined in NYS Statutes as a mental illness.

                If I wish to now exercise said right, as I've been told, I must pay $4000 or more for a private psychiatrist to "certify" I'm sane.  Then petition a court to grant me reprieve.  But here in NY, the "authoritarians" among us have fixed that too.

                A defacto ban considering I cannot afford fees such as that.  A law designed to "protect" and ensure the po' people are forevermore disarmed.

                These "regulations" must be deemed unconstitutional.  And we have case law regarding "poll taxes", don't we?

                -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                by gerrilea on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 11:07:40 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  You don't seem to have a point. (0+ / 0-)

                  You just throw incoherent nonsense into a comment, and you think it's an argument.  

                  BTW, if you've been "adjudicated" as something, then you've had your due process.  The adjudication is the process.  Due process does not mean "getting the result you want."

                  As for the cost, yeah, lots of things in life cost money.  That will sometimes put those things out of the reach of many people.  But being expensive isn't a ban.  I can't afford a Rolls Royce, but that doesn't mean Rolls Royces are banned.  

                  "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                  by FogCityJohn on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 11:16:28 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You've failed to address anything I've stated. (0+ / 0-)

                    You decided to tell me what you read but never addressed what I pointed out.  That's called MISDIRECTION AND a RED HERRING.

                    Answer the questions put to you.  Is it not confiscation when the item you've owned becomes inoperable through arbitrary restrictions? The 7 bullet magazine capacity IS confiscation.  Confiscation without compensation.

                    Now since your red herring/misdirection does directly effect me, I will address it.

                    If you are diagnosed with a mental illness you cannot exercise a right.  That isn't anything more or less than dictates. The NYS Legislature has made itself into the judge and jury and deemed sentencing.  That's "due process" today?

                    If I wish to exercise said privilege, I must pay thousands of dollars to prove my "innocence", after conviction.

                    That's the "adjudication" you defend here.

                    Address these things.  Address the fact that it has already been decided that "poll taxes" are unconstitutional, how is this any different from a poll tax?  You can't vote unless you pay.  You can't bear arms unless you pay.

                    Your false comparisons don't work.  "lots of things in life cost money.  That will sometimes put those things out of reach for many people".  

                    IN THIS CASE, it's an unalienable right, not a privilege to drive an expensive car.  Clearly NYS does not believe the US Constitution applies here.  

                    From Pg 778

                        "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms".

                        This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed.

                    Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.

                    NYS has just destroyed the constitution itself by declaring those "mentally" scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.

                    Take note I changed one word, "mentally" with "religiously".

                    Will the next step be that you have a mental illness if you want to keep and bear arms? Wanting to keep and bear arms as prima facie evidence of a mental illness?  

                    MANY HERE have said that already.  Many MSM pundits have said it as well.

                    We're all "gun nuts" already, right?!

                    It's a very dangerous game you're playing and supporting here.

                    -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                    by gerrilea on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 12:26:36 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

          •  I'll quote a specific DKos member, (now banned) (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            The Baculum King, KVoimakas

            in the title of the diary that got 27 recs: All The Guns Are Going To Go. It's not clear to me how many of these recs were received before the title was changed. I've seen the same expression in sig lines as well.
                  And, to be honest, if you truly mean to decrease gun deaths as much as possible, that has to be your goal. Eliminating "modern sporting rifles," the trade term for military-style semiautomatic rifles, will have a statistically negligible effect on gun deaths, (rifles in total, including typical deer-hunting rifles and .22 caliber plinking rifles, are involved in less than 4% of homicides.) The vast majority of criminal homicides are committed with handguns; clearly, they have to go next. And, since the anti-gun forces here are always eager to include suicides among the preventable gun deaths, hunters must lose their shotguns and rifles too. Suicides are committed with what's at hand, and a large number are committed with typical hunting weapons. Condescending reassurances that you aren't after hunter's guns will not last. All the guns have to go... for our own good. That's something I'm going to oppose, and I'm starting with the AWB.

            -7.25, -6.26

            We are men of action; lies do not become us.

            by ER Doc on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 01:18:03 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Again, a poster on a blog. (0+ / 0-)

              I'm not sure how many more times I can say this, but posts by anonymous users on blogs are not the same as draft legislation or regulations.  If this is the best you can come up with, it's pretty weak tea.  In fact, it's not even weak tea; it's at most a few drops of tepid water.

              "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

              by FogCityJohn on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 03:38:32 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  Dude, do you live in a blue bubble? (11+ / 0-)

        Seriously, do you live in an area that's hard core blue?

        I don't. My congressional district elected a Democrat for year after year and it's mostly red/conservative. He was pro-gun and anti-abortion. Other than the abortion item, he was a pretty damn progressive Rep. Now, he's gone (didn't run so we have a GOP idiot) and quite frankly, I'd much prefer the Blue guy in the seat and not the Red one.

        Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

        by KVoimakas on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 06:17:55 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  This is utterly unresponsive to my comment. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Beetwasher, mrblifil, JoanMar

          If you'd read it, you'd have seen that I said there are no proposals for gun confiscation on the table.  That's certainly not what President Obama is talking about, but then you knew that already.

          So my point stands.  This claim that big gubmint is coming to take away your guns is based soley and entirely on an irrational fear.

          "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

          by FogCityJohn on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 09:46:21 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  If you live in New York... (9+ / 0-)

        ...you have twelve months to get rid of any gun that can't be equipped with a 7-rounbd or smaller magazine, and any magazines for those guns.
        Democrat Andrew Cuomo came for those guns in the dead of night with a couple of state legislators, and effectively took them away.

        Of course, lawsuits will be filed... but don't piss on New Yorker's heads and tell them it's raining, John.

        Things are more like they are now than they've ever been before...

        by Tom Seaview on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 06:21:34 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  and never mind cuomo's 15-point drop in polls (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KVoimakas, Tom Seaview, gerrilea, ER Doc

          http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/...

          Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York was actually spending political capital on guns.

          On Monday, he signed one of the toughest gun-regulation laws in the country, including a ban on assault weapons and on magazines that can hold more than seven rounds. On Wednesday, a Qunnipiac poll found a 15-point drop in his 74 percent approval rating.

          Mr. Cuomo’s approval among voters in households with guns was 50 percent with 40 percent disapproving. Among Republicans, Mr. Cuomo’s approval rating fell to 44 percent, from 68 percent.

          and that's in blue, blue NY.  

          Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

          by Cedwyn on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 08:35:51 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  In the "dead of night"??? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Beetwasher, tytalus, JoanMar

          OMG!  Now that does sound scary.  Andrew Cuomo and a couple of state legislators showed up at people's houses in the middle of the night and took their guns?  I wonder why I didn't read anything about the governor's nocturnal activities.

          Oh, wait, I now see you say he "effectively" took them away.  Presumably this weasel word means that he did something other than "actually" take them away.  

          I'm sorry, but your "dead of night" melodrama just serves to prove my point.  

          "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

          by FogCityJohn on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 09:54:10 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  And thank you, Andrew Cuomo. (0+ / 0-)

          Maya Angelou: "Without courage, we cannot practice any other virtue with consistency. We can't be kind, true, merciful, generous, or honest."

          by JoanMar on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 10:16:10 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Then of course, we have VP Biden's words: (9+ / 0-)

        http://outfront.blogs.cnn.com/...

        "Nothing we are going to do is fundamentally going to alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down to a thousand a year from what it is now," Biden said.
        So why are we pushing gun control again?

        How about living wage jobs?
        How about Universal Health care, NOT for-profit health insurance?
        How about ending the racist drug war?
        How about ending continual war?
        How about ending poverty that kills 133,000 Americans each year?

        How about anything that will stop the despair that dehumanizes us creating the conditions that lead to more violence?

        -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

        by gerrilea on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 07:03:07 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site