Skip to main content

View Diary: Assault Weapons Legal, Live Chickens Not So Much (36 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Seriously, I hate these shitheads (14+ / 0-)

    Some day a bunch of guys are going to show up at a public event with AR-15s, be ignored by the police because of these insane statues, and then open fire on the crowd.
    And you know what? That still wont result in any gun laws being changed.

    •  if so, they'll claim someone called them a chicken (5+ / 0-)

      Righteousness is a wide path. Self-righteousness is a bullhorn and a blindfold.

      by Murphoney on Sun Sep 22, 2013 at 05:25:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  ^^^THIS^^^ (3+ / 0-)

      Political compass: -8.75 / -4.72

      by Mark Mywurtz on Sun Sep 22, 2013 at 05:28:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Is it any worse (0+ / 0-)

      than someone showing up at a public event with a backpack, be ignored by the police, and then the bomb explodes?

      I worry more about the mental disease that is "My way or the highway" that infects EVERYONE. On the right they demand we live according to their views on abortion and contraception and sex. On the left my fellow liberals demand I submit to their views and allow someone to kill me and become a 'noble martyr' sacrificed on their altar of disarmament.

      I'm not a fan of either of those, as they both force me to have things done to me that I reject.

      .

      There's this guy Kos, you may have heard about him.
      He looks like this.

      Kos said

      "On the flip side, E.J. Dionne effectively argues that gun control is a winner issue in urban and suburban areas -- which are growing rapidly as a percentage of the electorate. Yet rural voters will continue to be a sizeable and motivated constituency -- ready to vote to protect their "right" to own the weapons of their choice. Gun control, despite all the Columbines in the world, will not have that "single-issue" effect on suburban voters (though that might change in a generation or two).

      The country's new wave of southern Democrats are all pro-gun, and in a closely watched election last November, a Democrat captured the governorship in Virginia -- one of the nation's most reliably GOP states -- by specifically campaigning on his pro-gun bona fides. Now Dean and Edwards are proudly touting their pro-gun records as they launch nascent presidential bids.

      National Democrats should encourage this trend, boosting their candidates' chances in the South and Mountain states, while keeping an eye on 2004.

      True, the gun issue might be a foil for other social issues, as Kevin of Lean Left noted in the comments section of a previous post. Yet, by seeking NRA support, or dancing to Hank Williams, or sponsoring a NASCAR car, or by plucking a banjo, Democrats can effectively remove the gun issue from the table, exposing what's left -- hostility to racial tolerance, multiculturalism, and gay rights. If a Republican wants to run on those issues, all the power to him. If he wins, then his constituents are truly hicks, in the most negative connotation of the word.

      But not all southerners are hicks. I know plenty of non-racist, non-homophobic, rodeo loving southerners who will happily vote for a Democrat -- but only if s/he is pro-gun. We need these people aboard if the Dems are to grow beyond their New England and West Coast strongholds and make inroads into the nation's many red states."

      Where did Kos say that? Right here:
      http://www.dailykos.net/...
      •  Oh my God! We're in a Time Loop! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mark Mywurtz

        See, I thought that, thanks to the forward progression of time in a linear fashion, we were past the 2004 elections and into a new political paradigm where districts are redrawn, the most potent gun control bill on the books has been abandoned, mass shootings are plaguing the nation, and Kos has embraced the idea that defeating the NRA and its agenda is actually of critical importance for the nation. I thought that recent statements like this:

        We can't let the NRA push candidates around for passing sensible gun safety legislation like expanded background checks and magazine-size restrictions, particularly in states like Colorado that have suffered a disproportionate number of gun-fueled mass killings.
        ...would trump a post from a decade ago in terms of analyzing what Kos thinks on an issue.

        You would think that maybe the increasingly radicalized NRA agenda would change the calculus, given the changing views of the public that oppose them, and that kos would also recognize that shift, writing stuff like this in December:

        It's hard to believe that at one time, the NRA had something to do with gun safety and the rights of hunters. Nowadays, they're merely an industry trade group, designed to foster the kind of paranoia that drives gun sales, and a regulatory scheme that protects the rights of gun manufacturers to maximize profits.

        If 20 first graders and tens of thousands more have to die in the process, oh well.

        Did I miss a Timequake or something? Man, sleep until noon one time and you miss everything!

        "Speaking for myself only" - Armando

        by JR on Sun Sep 22, 2013 at 10:24:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not defending the nra. (0+ / 0-)

          I'm just saying that there is wisdom in acceptance of alternate lives, and that the whole DiFi "My way or the highway" method of forcing her views on others is a losing angle.

          •  You're also quoting a view that's obsolete. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Mark Mywurtz

            Citing to Kos as to why gun control is a losing issue doesn't really make sense when he's put so much of his efforts, and this community's infrastructure, into fighting against those opposed to it.

            The real lesson you should be taking is that context matters, and the context today is different than it was ten years ago. Pretending that nothing's changed does what, exactly?

            "Speaking for myself only" - Armando

            by JR on Sun Sep 22, 2013 at 02:14:14 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Obsolete, like the colorado recalls? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              andalusi

              Recalls are seriously hard. It's a hell of a steep hill to climb. The incumbent has many advantages.

              First there is the inherent advantage of already having a election organizational structure in existence - the campaign apparatus.

              Second there is the inherent advantage of already having won the election at least once.

              Third there is the resources of the party itself to assist.

              Fourth there is the campaign contribution aspect where the incumbent has a large lead on any challenger.

              These advantages are a hindrance to any challenger from the moment someone begins to collect signatures all the way through the ballot counting and certification. The incumbent has party friends to come out and stump for the officeholder - even on national television- for example.

              We all have seen the way the entire political party system tilts the playing field heavily in favor of those who will both play ball with the moneyed interests and will also toe the party line.

              For john morse's results to even be close is a neon billboard showing that there is enough fire in the eyes of the general public of colorado that the advantages of being outspent and out-organized did not succeed in keeping those two in office.

              Seriously, the folks who wanted morse and giron kicked out spent about half a million dollars, while the folks who wanted morse and giron to stay in office spent about three million dollars.

              That's a LOT of being outspent. But remember when romney tried throwing his money around in states, rather than build up an actual state-level campaign organization? Remember how we pointed out at the time that you can't buy an on-the-ground organization, it has to be grown and staffed by people with the emotional investment to keep the thing going? Bloomberg and others tried to throw their money into creating an organization, and it didn't work for them just like it didn't work for romney.

              So morse was ejected despite having the deck stacked in his favor. Giron was absolutely crushed. C-R-U-S-H-E-D in spite of bloomberg's 350K check.

              The context in colorado doesn't seem to have changed all that much in the past ten years. If john morse and angela giron had remained in touch with the people that consented to them being in office, they would still have that job.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site