Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
20 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Rachael: everyone says the politics of assault weapons regulation are impossible, "Why should (Original Post) patrice Mar 2013 OP
We are having to fight to save SS from our own President Demo_Chris Mar 2013 #1
The reason "we" must do that is because what calls itself "the Left" has weakened him in every patrice Mar 2013 #5
Thank you. Kath1 Mar 2013 #19
Just in case that wasn't clear enough, there isn't any we, you and yours did this, but then that's patrice Mar 2013 #7
Are you saying that Obama put SS etc. on the table because of the Left?!? tkmorris Mar 2013 #8
Politicians go where their demographic support is, remove your support, your issue LOOSES. patrice Mar 2013 #10
So, if we want Obama to shift LEFTWARD... tkmorris Mar 2013 #15
Typical, behind the curve as usual. patrice Mar 2013 #17
Wat? n/t Demo_Chris Mar 2013 #9
here: patrice Mar 2013 #14
Impossible? Crepuscular Mar 2013 #2
Because "assault weapon" is an arbitrary term. krispos42 Mar 2013 #3
Whats an assault weapon? Duckhunter935 Mar 2013 #4
Her specific point was a comparison of the extended magazines in the Sandy Hook TIME context vs. patrice Mar 2013 #6
he never emptied the Duckhunter935 Mar 2013 #11
How many small magazines would it have taken to do the same amount of shooting that Lanza did? patrice Mar 2013 #12
Ban magazines, I hear talk about this and just wonder how much we are going to have to ban Thinkingabout Mar 2013 #18
It's a poorly conceived bill. aikoaiko Mar 2013 #13
The main focus should be to get handguns away from 15 to 35 year old black and Hispanic males FarCenter Mar 2013 #16
A bill that makes sense would probably be a big political win Recursion Mar 2013 #20
 

Demo_Chris

(6,234 posts)
1. We are having to fight to save SS from our own President
Thu Mar 14, 2013, 09:43 PM
Mar 2013

And she thinks real gun control is possible?

patrice

(47,992 posts)
5. The reason "we" must do that is because what calls itself "the Left" has weakened him in every
Thu Mar 14, 2013, 10:18 PM
Mar 2013

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.

patrice

(47,992 posts)
7. Just in case that wasn't clear enough, there isn't any we, you and yours did this, but then that's
Thu Mar 14, 2013, 10:24 PM
Mar 2013

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)
8. Are you saying that Obama put SS etc. on the table because of the Left?!?
Thu Mar 14, 2013, 10:30 PM
Mar 2013

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)
10. Politicians go where their demographic support is, remove your support, your issue LOOSES.
Thu Mar 14, 2013, 10:47 PM
Mar 2013

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)
15. So, if we want Obama to shift LEFTWARD...
Thu Mar 14, 2013, 11:19 PM
Mar 2013

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)
17. Typical, behind the curve as usual.
Fri Mar 15, 2013, 12:07 AM
Mar 2013

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.

Crepuscular

(1,057 posts)
2. Impossible?
Thu Mar 14, 2013, 09:45 PM
Mar 2013

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)
3. Because "assault weapon" is an arbitrary term.
Thu Mar 14, 2013, 09:49 PM
Mar 2013

What, exactly, are the people that want to create a sub-class of weapons (termed "assault weapons&quot and then ban that sub-class trying to accomplish?

patrice

(47,992 posts)
6. Her specific point was a comparison of the extended magazines in the Sandy Hook TIME context vs.
Thu Mar 14, 2013, 10:20 PM
Mar 2013

the same context without those magazines.

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
18. Ban magazines, I hear talk about this and just wonder how much we are going to have to ban
Fri Mar 15, 2013, 12:08 AM
Mar 2013

in order to stop the mass killings.

aikoaiko

(34,183 posts)
13. It's a poorly conceived bill.
Thu Mar 14, 2013, 10:54 PM
Mar 2013

It's more about culture war than reducing gun violence.

And that's a good reason to see it flounder.
 

FarCenter

(19,429 posts)
16. The main focus should be to get handguns away from 15 to 35 year old black and Hispanic males
Thu Mar 14, 2013, 11:40 PM
Mar 2013

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)
20. A bill that makes sense would probably be a big political win
Fri Mar 15, 2013, 12:58 AM
Mar 2013

Unfortunately that's not what we have.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Rachael: everyone says th...