General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRachael: everyone says the politics of assault weapons regulation are impossible, "Why should
they be?"
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)And she thinks real gun control is possible?
patrice
(47,992 posts)way they could and they have cut their own throats in doing it, because I will never support anyone who has been a part of this murder suicide pact.
Embrace your ideological purity, I sure hope you find a way to make it pay for your medical costs, before it's too late.
Saved me some time.
patrice
(47,992 posts)probably what some of you were pulling for, so congratulations, but you'll never get an ounce of support from me.
tkmorris
(11,138 posts)That's the way it reads to me but for the life of me I cannot understand the logic implied. Could you advise me further?
patrice
(47,992 posts)It's just that simple. You can't subtract base and expect proactive advocacy on behalf of your issue at the same time. It's about NUMBERS; that makes it one or the other; if you want your issue supported you can't expect that to happen when you are also subtracting base.
What calls itself "the Left" has placed it's own "Left"-base building above issues and issue effects on real people. I hope you all enjoy your cake, because you're not going to get to eat it too. And there's no one amongst you who will say that because they're all afraid of being the shunned by the rest of the cohort.
tkmorris
(11,138 posts)We need to express support for him when he caters to the RIGHT.
OK, I see what you are trying to say now.
patrice
(47,992 posts)You don't LEAD politicians with threats. As much as any of us wish it were otherwise, IT ISN'T, and the difference between where we are and getting to otherwise is only probably about a few million lives and suffering and loss to future generations.
You can't say "do this, or else" to politicians because you're ALSO telling the opposition that all they have to do is wait, which is what you and they have done.
It's more effective to remind politicians that what they do has consequences upon how voters vote and NOT to reveal more than that, but to lead with a guarantee that if you don't get your way you will most assuredly not vote, not support Democrats in this case, ONLY results in the opposition waiting you out, which is exactly what we have seen. And people like PO can't even admit that there's pain from what calls itself "the Left", because that only informs the opposition that their waiting will be rewarded.
I'm sorry, this right now isn't even about the difference between good Democrats and bad Democrats, we don't have that luxury, you don't suddenly presto-chango multiple decades of a problem just because you're right. And If we miss this boat on health care and alternative energy and education, and so much more besides, there will be no other, or not within any time frame that will matter to millions of people, but then, I suspect what calls itself "the Left" has made common cause with others who aren't all that concerned about those millions of people, witness their starry-eyed reaction to Rand Paul's filibuster about a SETTLED legal point and now some of them are even backing legislation to make drone strikes against violent armed American combatants on American soil illegal.
Do you really think Republicans don't pay attention to where the votes are or are not, how votes are trending and moving, and that they don't act accordingly? Reveal your hand, "Do this or else I/we will not vote or work for you" results ONLY in you losing your place at the table, because you have become a KNOWN quantity and therefore a reliable base upon which the opposition stands its ground and ignores you, because you're already out as anyone who reveals how they'll vote is from the moment that they do so. All the Repubs had to do was wait. And that's what they did, because what calls itself "the Left" did all of their work for them.
Congratulations.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)Crepuscular
(1,057 posts)Probably not impossible but problematic for two reasons;
First, it would involve the expense of a substantial amount of political capital for incumbents and would also result in a certain amount of pushback at the ballot box in the next election cycle.
Secondly, if the proposed ban resembled either the previous ban or the ban that DiFi has proposed, it has almost no value in terms of actually reducing gun violence in this country. Millions of people would still own "assault weapons", which they could freely buy and sell under the proposed ban. It only limits manufactures from selling new weapons that include a few purely cosmetic features.
If it's patently obvious that the ban won't accomplish the intended goal of reducing gun violence, and if it's perceived as just a "feel good" measure, it makes it a much tougher to convince politicians to take the political heat, which is why it's increasingly doubtful that there will be enough Democratic support to see any ban enacted.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)What, exactly, are the people that want to create a sub-class of weapons (termed "assault weapons" and then ban that sub-class trying to accomplish?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)the same context without those magazines.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)magazines so it would be the same as if he had smaller size magazines
patrice
(47,992 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)in order to stop the mass killings.
aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)It's more about culture war than reducing gun violence.
And that's a good reason to see it flounder.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)The highest murder rates are for those groups in the inner cities.
Assault weapons are not much of a problem. Few murders are committed with assault weapons compared with cheap 9 mm or .380 semiautomatic handguns.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Unfortunately that's not what we have.