Skip to main content

View Diary: The gun nuttery has gone partisan (49 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  This is exactly what I am saying (5+ / 0-)

    The Assault Weapons Ban is dead in the Senate. The magazine restriction provision is also dead in the Senate. The Universal Background Check provision is dead in the Senate. All three are DOA in the House. Even if some form of gun control legislation makes it out of the Senate, the House will not even look at it. I do not understand the wishful, magical, thinking that's going on here. Everything even pertaining to gun control is DOA in the House.

    This legislation never had a chance. And no amount of pissing and moaning (or hating me) is going to change that. But continuing this debate will obliterate the Democratic Party in rural America. In the future, we may be able to elect Presidents without rural America, but control of the House and the Senate will always require the rural vote, and the Democrats who live in "the fly over places" believe a bunch of city people are trying to permanently destroy the Democratic Party in every corner of the country outside of a city.

    Let’s be crystal clear on this: Continuing this debate will make rural Republican incumbents bullet-proof (pun intended) at home, and it will crush rural Democrats trying to retain their seats. We are killing the Democratic Party in rural America over a debate that has a ZERO (0) chance of ever becoming law.

    If this keeps up, there is going to be another 1994-style, Democratic House disaster where we lost 52 seats. The Democratic Senators of Alaska, Louisiana, Arkansas, Montana, North Dakota, and North Carolina are toast, regardless of how they vote on the universal background check bill. They are toast because they have not been vocal enough about killing this bill. Stop complaining about Harry Reid. He has been trying to preserve Democratic control of the Senate. But that's a deal undone now, control of the Senate will go to Republicans in 2014.

    I keep asking: what is the end game? Because pissing and moaning on the Daily Kos about how people are stubbornly refusing to surrender what the Supreme Court has said is their Constitutional rights is not a plan.

    •  Seriously, what is the end game? (5+ / 0-)

      I keep posting this question, and no one is willing to answer it. The backlash from this debate is going to ruin the Democratic Party in every rural corner of the land and there is a ZERO (0) chance of any of it ever becoming law. I don't get.  

      •  Backlash? (6+ / 0-)

        Any backlash will be felt by the GOP not the Dems.  Rural or not, even those people in rural areas support background checks and many of the more sensible provisions that the NRA itself advocated for a decade ago. And by OVERWHELMING margins too.  Connecticut is about to pass some of the strictest laws on the books and it was REPUBLICANS advocating for it that made it possible.  The only ones against most of the legislation were NRA lackeys and gun nuts and while vocal there are decidedly a small minority.  I suspect that a few people in Texas are reconsidering their gun laws after a few of their officials and family members got gunned down by Aryan Brotherhood goons.  At some point enough is enough and we've reached that threshold.  More and more guns are being bought by less and less people and every time a massacre happens, which has happened very frequently since 1994, more and more people's opinions about guns change.  It's one thing when a massacre happens in Aurora, CO or in Newtown, CT.  It's another when it happens in your community and you know people who were affected.  

        So sorry but I don't share your 'concern' over the Dem party losing votes over this.  In large part because any Dem losses in rural areas already happened in 2010.  There simply aren't many more rural districts that the Dems can lose over a single issue, especially when the GOP is so spectacularly bad on so many other issues that affect rural voters.  The Dem Senators in Arkansas, Louisiana, Alaska, Montana and North Carolina aren't going to lose over guns.  If they lose it will be over other issues that affect the livelihoods of people.  Gun nuts already won't vote for them in those states.  And as far as all polls so far the Dems are looking pretty good in those states anyway.  As for North Dakota well I highly doubt Heidi is concerned right now with her prospects in 2018.  

        This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

        by DisNoir36 on Wed Apr 03, 2013 at 07:35:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The Democratic Party will be "The City Party" (6+ / 0-)

          Continuing this debate will make rural Republican incumbents bullet-proof at home, and it will crush >> the few remaining << rural Democrats trying to retain their seats. We are killing the Democratic Party in rural America over proposals that have a ZERO (0) chance of ever becoming law, and the backlash will last for generations.

          We may be able to elect Presidents without rural America, but control of the House and the Senate will always require the rural vote and we will never get that now.

          How tragic can this be?

          •  Democrats are already the "city party" (3+ / 0-)

            Look at election maps by county or district instead of by state.  We've been the "city party" probably since the Civil Rights/Southern Strategy realignment.

          •  "The city party" (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            tytalus, Very Long Range

            If you count cities+suburbs, you're talking about 80% of the population.  The other 20% (minus New England and coastal north California, where rural voters tend to be quite liberal and Democratic) always have been heavily Republican and conservative.

            I agree that it would be a bad move for those of us from the East Coast to be demanding ideological purity from western Democrats.  At the same time, certain modest but very effective proposals (effective and useful background checks, for example) have no political downside.

            Oh, yes.  The only place where rural voters exercise disproportionate influence within a state is in those states where the Republicans drew the districts.  It is hard to effectively gerrymander a state legislature in an average sized state -- the problem is that Democrats are reluctant to play this game (and in any event, our state-level waves never seem to happen right after the census).  And it's the state legislatures that count.

        •  Sorry, but no, the GOP will not face a backlash (6+ / 0-)

          over not promoting gun control.  That is just ridiculous.  The nation does not want gun control and neither does most of the nation want to be dictated to by the north east.

          Also, the CT committee was not really bipartisan.  Weeks of closed door "negotiations" finally revealed to rank and file members of a D controlled (both houses) legislature making the passage a given.  In a state that  already had some of the most stringent restrictions in the nation.  And yet not one of these things would have done a damn bit of good to prevent the tragedy that sparked this.

          Republicans face a backlash?  Your dreaming.

          •  noway2 (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Horace Boothroyd III, noway2

            I do think that Americans want some form of gun control. They don't like straw purchases, that makes total sense. They don't like the idea of people amassing huge arsenals when they are obviously unstable or have a history of violence. They want something done, that is why they want better background checks.

            But, turning this into a partisan tit or tat will hurt us. Most urban areas are all ready in the Dem column and will stay that way, it will cut off any inroads we can make into more rural states. Rs will reap that reward again.

            "The scientific nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can." John Prine

            by high uintas on Wed Apr 03, 2013 at 08:56:30 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The term "gun control" is really too vague to work (5+ / 0-)

              That is contributing to the problem.  I agree, people don't like straw purchases, they don't want criminals having guns, they realize that some people with mental disorders should not have access to weapons, etc.  Where I think things start to fall apart is in regards to understanding of what laws already exist and where the problems lie.  As many have said repeatedly, new laws are pointless until we begin enforcing the ones we already have.

              I also think that there is a limit to what laws can be passed.  For example, at the end of the day, I suspect that the bans and capacity limits (that go beyond standard and common OEM equipment), especially those that are unenforceable will be thrown out by the courts.  I think that too will hurt the D's because it will be rotten egg on their faces.

              Another thing that I think will hurt is that people are starting to realize the truth in that most of these "controls" will not solve the problem(s) and coming to the understanding that these were political objectives that were pulled out in response to a terrorist type attack in the hopes of ramming them through on raw emotion.

              The whole thing has been nothing but a giant cluster fuck.

              •  Well, by now you know how I feel (0+ / 0-)

                But, background checks with teeth and limiting straw purchases would satisfy many. They want them.

                I personally have a problem with some provisions of the checks and have expressed them here, but...

                I do agree for the most part with everything you said.

                "The scientific nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can." John Prine

                by high uintas on Wed Apr 03, 2013 at 01:26:21 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  The nation is so against gun control (0+ / 0-)

            that over 80% support background checks.  I guess in your math less than 20% equals most of the nation.  Is that the new fuzzy math?

            Also, I live in CT.  The negotiations were more bipartisan than they had to be considering the overwhelming Dem majority.  The House and Senate minority leaders were key in the negotiations.  The first selectwoman of Newtown is a republican and many of the parents who drove to Hartford to lobby for tougher laws were from GOP towns.

            As for the laws in CT, the guns used were legal and legally obtained by a registered owner.  Had Ms Lanza not had those guns in her house, her son would not have been able to carry out the shootings like he did.  With this bill they will be illegal and so will the clips that allowed Adam Lanza to gun down 26 people in under 5 minutes.  Oh and BTW CT is one of the safest states in the nation because of the laws.   So please inform yourself before spouting nonsense.

            This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

            by DisNoir36 on Wed Apr 03, 2013 at 11:58:50 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  "If he hadn't guns, this wouldn't have happened" (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FrankRose

              Complete and utter bullshit.  Adam Lanza wanted to be a big name in terms of mass murder.  He planned this out in exacting detail over the course of a very long time.  Even if guns did not exist in this world, he would have still achieved his objective.  

              Don't tell me that you need gun laws because of this.  The idea that if the guns were illegal it wouldn't have happened is total bullshit.  Murder is already illegal and by that line of thinking it shouldn't happened because there is a law against it.  

              While were at it, don't tell me that Liberal Gun Free Zone areas are safe because of laws.  I work in one and have seen more rapes, assaults, armed robberies and even gruesome torture-murders here than anywhere else.  I am thankful that our state may finally pass school carry so that I don't have to disarm so idiots can have a fake sense of safety.

        •  DisNoir - we won't know until 2014 (5+ / 0-)

          But I do think that gun control advocacy makes Dems vulnerable in many states. I do not think that Republicans members of Congress will suffer at the polls for a lack of federal action on new gun control legislation. In the House there will be no votes so the GOP members can tailor their view to whatever suits their district.  

          I think the Senate Dems completely missed the opportunity that was available. They should have focused exclusively on broader background checks and straw purchases and brought whatever bill could receive 60 votes to the floor, regardless of how flawed it might have been. At least that process would have resulted in a bill that would have required some response in the House. The path taken by the Dem leadership will now give us nothing and give the House a complete pass.  

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Wed Apr 03, 2013 at 08:39:36 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I disagree (0+ / 0-)

            It will affect Dems  in areas that don't vote for them anyway.  So really what's the loss there.  Over 3/4 of people polled support background checks, eliminating straw purchases, restricting mentally unstable people or people with criminal records from getting guns.  The GOP is opposed to all these and other sensible proposals that majority of the people support. Like I said, in certain places it won't help Dems, but in those places the Dems aren't going to win anyway.  That shit won't play in NJ though.  The GOP will have a hard time running on opposing background checks in NJ or in CA or even in FL.  

            I just don't buy the bullshit that backing legislation that over 80% of the people support will result in a backlash against those politicians.  It's far more likely that the politicians backing positions less than 20% support will fell it instead.  

            This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

            by DisNoir36 on Wed Apr 03, 2013 at 12:09:49 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  DisNoir - 2014 is a long way off (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FrankRose, Very Long Range

              What restricts GOP members of Congress who feel it fits their district from stating they support background checks, if it polls well in the fall of 2014? There will be no record in the House and a limited one in the Senate. My point is that the GOP will pay a small, if any, political price in 2014 for inaction on gun control and the Dems misplayed their hand in the Senate. Early in the gun control conversation in the Senate there was significant discussion about eating this apple one bite at a time and starting with those elements that had the most popular support, and bipartisan agreement among the Senators. Somehow that didn't happen.

              "let's talk about that"

              by VClib on Wed Apr 03, 2013 at 12:32:58 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  What do the people on the ground say? (0+ / 0-)

            One canvasser in Colorado has posted about this, but it's important to have more than one data point.

            What do the people who actually talk to voters and try to elect Democrats see happening to Democratic prospects?

            Knowing this would be a valuable addition to the polling data.

            Freedom isn't free. Patriots pay taxes.

            by Dogs are fuzzy on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 01:03:21 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  the endgame reveals itself (5+ / 0-)

        deep into conversation threads I've had with DK contributers.  After the forum tactics and name calling, the last two posts resemble something like this:

        ME: So, do you support a program like a national foid card?
        Them:  I support removal of the 2A/ please think of the future and give up your guns.

        A lot of people rhetorically ask, where's the middle ground?  Where's the compromise?  You gun nuts are simply obstructionists!  Then when compromise is offered, or workable solutions from blue states such as Illinois FOID card are suggested, they eventually admit that it's not about compromise after all, it's about the rest of us towing their particular view of the party line and carrying their water for them, using whatever re-branding is polling better then the term 'gun control'.

        If gun control is a hard sell in suburban/rural Illinois, a solidly blue state under full democratic party control (even the new Illinois concealed carry law is authored by Democrats!), how is is supposed to play out in redder states?

      •  Ds aren't competitive in rural areas period (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        myboo, Very Long Range

        You'd think that the "white ghetto" - with all the socioeconomic problems most people stereotype as urban minority problems: low-wage economy, weak tax base, inadequate and obsolete infrastructure, pervasive drug use, poor schools, limited health care, food deserts, poor housing, pollution, cultural alienation, etc. - would have every reason in the world to vote Democrat.

        But they keep right on voting Republican, and guns are far from the only reason.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site