Skip to main content

View Diary: Tactical blunders doom universal background checks (37 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  My distinct recollection (0+ / 0-)

    from earlier discussions was that your group was also working on broadening prohibitions to include semi-automatic handguns and that your recent legislation was effectively "just the start."   Is that incorrect?

    The CT legislation has had AWB has an integral main point element together with other components (as I've also repeatedly emphasized as better policy directions) -- with no reference or indication that I can see that it carries any less importance or weight.  A public health focus dictates that your group follow elementary standards of epidemiology -- and no credible or fact-based argument for AWB supports that as any relevant independent variable for effectively all firearm related violence   ... whether you believe that is bullshit or not.  

    And my direct quotation, by the way, referred to "state-level" and not nationwide -- be careful what you assert is a distortion.

    It is hard to discuss things with people who have a particular agenda -- and this thread has been addressing the massive political failure and fall-out arising from a poorly constructed legislative package that incorporated AWB front and center ... care to address that particular observation in context?

    •  my comment seemsd to have been lost (0+ / 0-)

      but it may show up tomorrow.

      The things my group (united physicians of newtown) wants:

      research by CDC and others, unfettered by gun rights folks as happend a decade ago

      mental heal issues, including the role of health professionals addressed

      cease and desist attempts to gag pediatricians form discussing gun safety with parents (see FL and SC doc v Glock laws along with half a dozen other states)

      we want background checks and keeping guns out of the hands of those who should not have them.

      And in additon, AWB would be great but not as important as the above.

      as far as senate goes, it's slanted to small state rural constituencies, where 6-8 states might equal the population of Ca. NYC is 10 times bigger than ND. It's always an uphill battle.

      How do you win? Continue to win the hearts and minds of the public, who already support background checks, and use Bloomberg's money to counter the lies fgorm gun rights supporters about what UBC do. No registry (that's illegal).

      where it's possible to punish at the ballot box, do it. eventually we win. You cannot thwart what 85% of the public wants.

      http://www.nationaljournal.com/...

      Why the Senate Vote May Signal 2016 Problems for the Gun Lobby

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 09:13:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  As to first principles ... (0+ / 0-)
        as far as senate goes, it's slanted to small state rural constituencies, where 6-8 states might equal the population of Ca. NYC is 10 times bigger than ND. It's always an uphill battle.
        ... this is an enduring systemic characteristic of American Federalism, or a Laurence Lewis always ignorantly castigates simply as "states rights."  It embodies essential tensions, which is precisely what a system of checks and balances is designed to do ... irrespective of any demagogic outrage from time to time on either side of the political spectrum concerning a particular pet issue.

        As we've discussed before, any sensible person would support OBJECTIVE CDC research, removal of impediments to health practitioners, CAREFULLY constructed background check reform -- that resolves proper HIPPA privacy protections, does not indiscriminately broad brush entire classes of people such as Veterans with non-relevant diagnoses or perpetuate discrimination and stigma associated with mental health disorders and impede pursuit of voluntary screening and treatment.

        And you again confirm my initial and primary point:

        And in additon, AWB would be great but not as important as the above. ... How do you win? Continue to win the hearts and minds of the public ...
        It's thus perfectly clear that you, your group and the CT legislature and governor have made AWB an equally central feature of reform because of politics and not data.  And as California, New York and Connecticut adopt these types of ideologically-based reforms as "first steps," the majority of people in my state and communities observe that and are galvanized in opposition -- and not because they are NRA shills or dupes to lies.

        This site has taken the off-ramp into crazy town on this complex and constitutionally contentious issue, with Front Pagers like Hunter braying about "masturbatory fantasies" or Teacherken promoting an utterly absurd "just primary" the cowards diary ... always ignoring that those red/purple state Democratic votes also gave us better essential balance in Supreme Court and even the ACA -- as flawed and imperfect as it is.

        And as to your 85% argument ... I'm reminded of the Romney crowd that similarly misunderstood the data, believing that national polling was representative of state-level opinion.  And if cultural wars are now being promoted again by the Left, then there will be political hell to pay ... in the same manner as Obama, Reid, Feinstein and Schumer's utterly catastrophic political miscalculation and defeat this week with a terribly constructed and promoted legislative package.

        But what do I know? ... call me Cassandra.

        •  it's clear you have an agenda (0+ / 0-)

          to push.

          There's no :centrality:  of AWB to what I said.

          I am afraid I'll have dismiss any further observations on your part as obvious bias.

          sorry.

          "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

          by Greg Dworkin on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 03:01:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  This is from YOUR groups' Position Paper ... (0+ / 0-)

            the United Physician's of Newtown

            IV. Firearms

            To require firearm safety including gun locks and safes.

            To support comprehensive, universal background checks   for the purchase of firearms and ammunition.

            To prohibit the access of firearms and ammunition to high-risk individuals.

            To endorse legislation banning civilian access to assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips.

            Could you please identify how the advocacy of an AWB as a point of emphasis is any less significant or central to any other position you have advanced.

            Credibility is earned with honesty ... not self-serving dismissals of an "agenda" when it is merely pointed out that you are denying or obscuring your own.  And please recall ... the context of this entire thread -- started by Meteor Blades no less and the substance of which you have yet to address -- is that the AWB emphasis was a serious political error.  So I apparently have simply ratified his obvious "bias" and "agenda" as well.  What a bunch of bollocks ... and a real shame for someone who supposedly carries the authority of fact-based reasoning.

            http://unitedphysiciansofnewtown.org/...

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site