Skip to main content

View Diary: Frank Rich "State-Sponsored Terrorism!" (197 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You're gun stance got state senators recalled in (9+ / 0-)

    Colorado that allowed anti-choice, anti-union, GOPers in office.

    Soften you gun stance.

    •  Their gun control stance got them recalled. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FrankRose

      Guess they should soften their gun control stance.

      •  the laws are still on the books (31+ / 0-)

        the democrats still control the state senate. it was worth it.

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

        by Laurence Lewis on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 07:40:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Their gun votes got universal background checks (27+ / 0-)

        and magazine limits - that's what their support of gun safety yielded. And they and I would do it again.

        And a fluke of a recall from a group of deranged loons who think the recall process is a way to settle policy differences is the response they got.

        The gun lobby could only get two of the 19 who voted for gun safety legislation. TWO and one of them was recalled by less by 300 votes. Turnout for the vote was about 10%.

        What a pathetic showing by the so-called big bad gun lobby.

        I thought there was supposed to be a wave of fear and the gun supporters were going to crash like a mighty wave over the country side and sweep the Constitutional trampling scum out of office.

        Honestly, I expected more from the raging gun supporters.

        What happened?

        The pro gun folks read far too much into those recall elections.  

        •  So you didn't support Walker's recall? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FrankRose, Norm in Chicago

          I know I did.

          If it's an overestimation, it looks like it's not just the pro-gun folks who are doing it. Gun control at the federal level and in states that aren't Cali/NY style looks DOA.

        •  "group of deranged loons" otherwise known as (0+ / 0-)

          "voters".

          Shocking you cost the Democratic Party so much of those.

          But yeah.....the first & second recalls in a state that has never had so much as a single successful recall petition in its 137 year history;
          Managing to lose Democratic incumbents in Democratic precincts in an election in a non-election year.....with a 6-1 spending advantage.
          Big deal, amirite?

          "What happened?"
          You.
          Glad to see you are proud of losing elections. In 2014 you will be positively beaming.
          Fortunately, the party will be somewhat less impressed with your 'big winner' of an issue.

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 08:14:35 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  What happen? Universal background checks (0+ / 0-)

            happened - that's how politics works, Frank. And we've already establisehd you're an utter hypocrite - you're claim that you don't want to take liberties away from innocent Americans is a crock - you vote for politicians (Kerry, Obama and I;m sure others) who take innocent Americans liberties away. So, you think you can decide for everyone what liberties are important and which are not.

            Grow up and leave the delusion libertarian utopia that only exists inside your own head.

            Those who would sacrifice integrity for a cheap tagline deserve neither.

            •  Magazine ban happened & then recalls (0+ / 0-)

              happened - that's how politics works, WeShallOvercome.

              "you're [sic] claim that you don't want to take liberties away from innocent Americans is a crock"
              No, it isn't. But you are right to be ashamed that you do.

              "leave the delusion [sic] libertarian utopia"
              Oh sure. If there is anybody libertarians admire its FDR.

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 09:36:21 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Sure, just blow past the BS that is your (0+ / 0-)

                "position"

                If you can't square your hypocritical contradiction about "taking innocent American liberties away" you can't really have a serious opinion on gun safety. I'm sure that won't stop you though in your confused FDR/libertarian/Rand Paul universe that bears no resemblance to reality. Rand Paul is a big pro gun supporter, remember. You can Rand seem to be like two peas in pod.

                •  I can & I do. (0+ / 0-)

                  Further there is nothing hypocritical nor contradictory about my position.

                  "confused FDR/libertarian/Rand Paul universe"
                  Somebody is confused. Very confused.
                  Do tell how you just juxtaposed FDR & libertarians.

                  Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                  by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 09:45:58 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Right on cue, move on to denial .... (0+ / 0-)

                    I'm not a hypocrite - you are. Great argument.

                    You say you support politicians who don't take liberties away, and then you vote for politicians who take liberties away.

                    You can't pick and choose what liberties are important and what liberties are not.

                    Those who would sacrifice liberty (ie, FrankRose) for security deserve neither.

                    •  I never called you a 'hypocrite'. (0+ / 0-)

                      Way to start off on the right foot, big-guy.

                      "You say you support politicians who don't take liberties away"
                      I don't.

                      "then you vote for politicians who take liberties away."
                      I won't.

                      "You can't pick and choose what liberties are important and what liberties are not."
                      But you can?

                      Brilliant post.
                      Really.

                      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                      by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 09:57:53 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I'm not the one harping on taking away people's (0+ / 0-)

                        liberties - EVERY politician takes away liberties, jeez, Frank, grow up and join the real world.

                        Yeah, you do say you won't support politicians who take liberties away - I can understand the selective memory now that you see the contradiction of your ways.

                        So, you're just not going to vote anymore then, because ALL politicians take away liberties. Grow up.

                        You suck, Frank.

                        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security (ie, FrankRose) deserve neither.

                        •  "I'm not harping on taking people's liberties" (0+ / 0-)

                          You are simply insisting on doing so.

                          "You suck, Frank"
                          You have made your opinion of, not only me, but of all your fellow citizens very clear.
                          Which explains why 20%-30% of Democrats voted for the recall.

                          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                          by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 10:16:17 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Frank, you make no sense - you say you will (0+ / 0-)

                            only support politicians who do not take "innocent American's liberties away" - but you vote for politicians who do exactly that.

                            I on the other hand, understand the real world isn't a libertarian fantasy land.

                            Could you tell us which liberties are OK to trample on and which are not?

                            Based on your voting record you are a big proponent of taking away people's right to privacy. In fact, you seem insistent on taking innocent American's right to privacy away.

                            Those who would sacrifice the right to privacy for security (ie, FrankRose) deserve neither.

      •  So if Republican legislators (7+ / 0-)

        lose their seats for their intractable positions on gun control (definitely possible in the wake of Sandy Hook and the Navy Yard), what conclusion will you draw?

        "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

        by raptavio on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 07:48:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  "If" (0+ / 0-)

          Gun Control is such a loser Democratic incumbents in Democratic districts are losing elections in non-election years.

          The converse of your hypothetical question is already happening in the real world.

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 08:18:44 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  If you're referring (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Glen The Plumber, Smoh, coquiero

            to the two recalls in Colorado, that's a lot less than it seems to be.

            That said, that was what KVoimakas was referring to, which is why I asked him the converse question.

            "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

            by raptavio on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 08:20:16 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  It seemed to be two utterly humiliating loses (0+ / 0-)

              where two Democratic Senators, with a 6-1 spending advantage, in a state that had never had so much as a single successful recall petition managed to lose in districts that were Democratic & voted for Obama by 19 points, where somewhere between 20%-30% of Democrats that voted for the recall.

              It seems that way primarily because it was.

              Honestly, if it was GOPers that lost 2 unprecedented elections in a GOP district, that voted for Mitt, had a 6-1 spending advantage and 20%-30% of Republican voters voted for their recall because they voted against a background check what would your conclusion be?

              What would be your opinion of RedStaters that claimed that voting against B/Cs was an electoral winner, in the aftermath of such a vote?

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 08:36:14 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Noting you're dodging a direct response to my (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Smoh, Glen The Plumber, coquiero, JVolvo

                question, here's some facts:

                The NRA very, very strategically selected the two most vulnerable Democrats in the Colorado Senate for their campaign, out of the 20 they could have chosen to target. They gauged based on the margin of their victory, the activity of the NRA's voting base, and the relative likelihood of their supporters turning out for a mid-year recall election.

                And they have some powerful number crunchers working for them, to make sure that they were going to have their best shots at victory, spending margins notwithstanding.

                In a regular election cycle, it's very likely that neither of these candidates would have been threatened, and it's very likely that at least one of these two seats will flip back to the D column in the next cycle.

                The NRA is playing a game of 'hit the weak points and make people think we can inflict the same damage anywhere.' They showed they have some strength, but are pretending they have far, far more.

                "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                by raptavio on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 09:39:41 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I didn't 'dodge' anything: (0+ / 0-)

                  However you have. If this exact same situation happened with GOPers becoming the first recalled legislators in state history despite being in friendly districts & having a 6-1 spending advantage with 20%-30% of Republicans voting for their recall because of their vote for background checks, what would be your conclusion?

                  "The NRA...."
                  Did they mastermind this devious plan in a hollowed-out-Vol-ca-no lair?
                  Because the NRA only gave $985 to the recall petition.

                  "In a regular election cycle..."
                  Excuses are for losers.
                  Results are for winners.

                  "flip back to the D column"
                  Exactly. A pro-gun-rights Democrat.

                  Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                  by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 11:03:29 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  That's no hypothetical, you realize. (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Glen The Plumber, coquiero

                    We've already lived that scenario, only over union rights instead of background checks, in Wisconsin.

                    So we don't need to pretend. We saw the results, and what happened in the next election cycle. And what I described is pretty much an identical scenario with the issue changed and the parties reversed.

                    And yes, you're still dodging my question because it continues to go unanswered.

                    "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                    by raptavio on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 11:49:29 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  1) No you didn't answer. I wonder why....;) (0+ / 0-)

                      2) If gun control actually managed to not humiliate the party with unprecedented electoral losses then the party would continue to pursue it.......
                      Of course, the contrary is true.

                      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                      by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 11:54:50 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Uh, (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Glen The Plumber, coquiero

                        I just DID answer it. With the real-world scenario where it happened.

                        You also seem to have tried to answer my question but answered a significantly different one.

                        Methinks you're not listening. But KVoimakas answered my question quite directly, and so I'm cool with that. Have a nice day.

                        "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                        by raptavio on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 12:03:19 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  That wasn't my question. (0+ / 0-)

                          Which is fine. Both of us know exactly why you won't;)

                          "Answered my question directly"
                          As did I.
                          The only one who didn't answer a question directly is you.

                          Glad you've managed to stay consistent in your inconsistency.
                          Irony.

                          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                          by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 12:14:32 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

        •  That their areas want more gun control. (0+ / 0-)

          I don't expect to see that happen, but good for the goose...

    •  If "our position" on guns was any softer (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      coquiero

      it'd be the  Flying Spaghetti Monster's overcooked "wobbly bits".

      All that was proposed was extending the "Background Check" that applies to in-store sales to "casual sales" -- and a"sales of assault weapon ban. "

      We lived with that piece of foolishness for years before .... in which time the AR-15 design became the most popular single  American firearm -- and then the ban expired.   (So now you can buy Soldier Gun look-alike with factory-installed  bayonet mount, folding stock and flash suppressor, instead of buying the accessories from a catalog and fitting them yourself.)

      So what you mean is "drop this gun safety bullshit -- it's a bigger vote-loser than Negro Equality was in 1964"

      ( LBJ  predicated that the Voting Rights Act would "lose the South  for a generation"  -- and it DID.  (Well,  more like "two generations and still counting")

      Is that how you see it?

      Or is it more a matter of  guns don't harm enough (of the right sort of) people to matter.  Registering the weapons and licensing the owners won't help -- half the dead are Suicides, anyway.

      •  I have no problem with UBCs as long as there (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FrankRose

        isn't a registry.

        I do have a problem banning firearms based on how scary they look, which is what the AWB is.

        So, drop the gun control bullshit, since if you were interested in safety and fixing violence in our society, firearms would not be the first place you look.

        •  I'd agree with the "ugly gun" meme (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          coquiero, Eddie C

          If the ONLY thing "wrong" with Modern Sporting Rifles is that they look so much like military equipment.

          But that's not exactly true, is it ?

          The features that make the AR-15 design so desirable to so many are the features that also make it an easily concealable, rapid fire, high capacity killing machine.

          Granted, I don't think it matters a hoot in hell if there's a bayonet mount AND a bipod AND a flash suppressor AND a muzzle brake on a hobby gun.  Why not ?

          It's the "tactical"stock, pistol grip, and   70 round magazine that make the AR the tool of choice if one wants  to depopulate an elementary school.

          But I think we can agree that Mass Killings are "just the price we bay for Freedom" ... more Americans die of bubonic plague than are killed in "mass killings" -- so who cares?  Right?

          But the opposition to Registry and research that I have believing is entirely in good faith.

          Now, it is generally believed by law enforcers that it is the probability of apprehension, rather than the severity of punishment that dominates people's decisions whether or not to break laws.  In NY, running a red light is, thanks to robot cameras, is almost certain to result in a summons.  Getting caught smuggling a hand gun from Virginia into NY City -- not so much.

          It's the "registry" that allows local law enforcement to
          to trace the weapon found at the crime scene back to the lawbreaker that sold the gun to the criminal.  Sometimes that's a straw-buyer in a licensed shop ... a "casual buyer" at a garage sale or swap meet ... sometimes a burglar who stole the weapon from a "responsible law abiding owner" who didn't bother to report the theft.

          Now ... why would anybody NOT an illegal gun trafficker object to THAT?

          •  Registration leads to confiscation. No thanks. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FrankRose

            Tactical stock and pistol grip? Are you serious? So yeah, let's put a thumbhole stock on an AR15 and it'll be ok then.

            The problem with AWBs is that they're based on COSMETICS.

            •  "Registration leads to confiscation." (5+ / 0-)

              Eek!  Just look at all those confiscated automobiles, houses, pets, and newborn children.  All of those things (and many more) are registered with the state, but I don't think we've seen a rash of confiscations, have we?

              At some point, you need to address the irrationality of your fears.

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

              by FogCityJohn on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 12:46:48 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  It's a start: a 7-round clip, and a rigid stock (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JVolvo

              Because  we both know these aren't "cosmetics" ... they're  features that allow the AR-type to be concealed under a mid-length raincoat and fired one-handed -- 70 times without reloading.

              Get rid of them, and all you've got is a military-looking "varmint rifle " ... which I think we can all live with.

              BTW:  Did we ever get into how easily the Bushmaster brand AR can be converted to full-auto operation by any apprentice gunsmith with a milling machine and a set of (downloadable) specifications?  And how much THAT, and the availability of the street-legal-as-hell "Bump Fire Stock" (that sort-of  simulates full-auto fire on the range, anyway) have to do with the popularity of this design.

              "It makes the Laddies feel brave,"   like bagpipes.

            •  Oh ... the Great Australian Confiscation ? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JVolvo

              Actually, that was a voluntary buy back program ...

              The people who really LIKED their rifles , or actually had NEED for rifles registered and KEPT their weapons.

              Or are we talking about how Adolph Hitler is supposed to have disarmed the German citizenry ?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site