Why did support for a new AWB slip? Those that want one made the same mistakes the teabaggers did.

[friendly_iconoclast]

To wit:

1) They mistook the enthusiasm of those who already agreed with them for a groundswell of support, and

2) They tried to get everything they wanted, instead of trying to get what they plausibly could and working
from that. In other words, they are anti-reformists or what you might call "the good is the enemy of the perfect"
types. Extremists quickly became the public face of both movements.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

1. The "extremists" on both sides...

...are the antithesis of what is normal. Democrats will lead the way in any progress on the gun control/RKBA issue. Republicans will mostly sit and watch.

[villager]

2. No. Extremists are still the face of the proliferationist side. Those fearful of, and owned by,

...the NRA oppose the most "reasonable" of changes, anyway.

And yes, polling does show a groundswell of support for common sense gun safety laws.

[nonoyes]

4. Agree completely!

There is not, and never was there a rationale for 30 bullet clips in any gun not used by military or law enforcement. Not in 1994, not in 2004, not in 2013.

There are many many many advanced industrialized nations on this planet where weapons are not as easily obtainable as in the USA, and ALL of them, ALL of them have fewer gun deaths per year per capita than the USA. ALL of them have "reasonable" gun regulations, and "common sense" gun safety laws. Only nations with less "common sense" gun safety laws have more gun deaths per capita than the USA.

[villager]

5. Exactly so, nonoyes.

Thanks!

[friendly_iconoclast]

6. The only polling that matters mostly happens in polling places, and in legislatures

You know, I'm not trying to be mean when I point out that refusing to listen to things that you do
not want to hear is not usually a good way to go through life. Neither is employing the
"I'll think about it tomorrow" approach. An example of the latter can be found here:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/03/28/the-nra-can-still-lose.html

"The NRA Can Still Lose"

Technically, this is correct-the NRA could lose- in the Senate. Which is irrelevant in the long
run, as they are certain to win in the House. You would not know this from reading the linked
article, as the author makes no mention it- or the House of Representatives, for that matter.

Pointing out incovenient truths like that will garner one of two responses from certain of the True Believers:

1) It will be ignored, as in the example given, or
2)Those that are churlish enough to do so will be called 'NRA supporters' and what they say will
be labelled 'NRA/right wing talking points' and subsequently ignored.

[villager]

12. Like saying because the GOP gerrymandered districts, they represent the "will" of the "majority."

They don't.

And neither does the NRA.

Doesn't mean we don't have a corrupt political class, though. Even if you don't like hearing it.

[sylvi]

21. With thousands upon thousands of federal, state and local laws

With thousands upon thousands of federal, state and local laws governing the manufacture, sale and use of firearms on the books, the pro-RKBA push has mainly been about liberalizing concealed carry laws. Meanwhile the anti-RKBA movement presents a laundry list of further gun restrictions to pile on top of those existing laws and always seems to want "just one more" in their fight to shred the 2nd Amendment, cloaking them under the guise of "reasonable" incrementalism.

The myth of the "2nd Amendment absolutist" or "unrestricted 2nd Amendment" is just that, a myth. I think it's evident who the extremists are.

[villager]

23. It's always the "just enforce the laws we have" crowd that inevitably wants to repeal "just one more

...of those laws already on the books, their ultimate/obvious goal being, of course, no common sense gun safety laws at all. Anywhere.

Indeed -- the extremism is obvious.

[sylvi]

25. Really?

How many of those "repeal" efforts have come before Congress or state legislatures? How many get the emotion-soaked TV play from the MSM? Which ones beside concealed carry have been pushed with the same zeal as you see from those going in the opposite direction?

[villager]

27. Really.

n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

30. "common sense gun safety laws" being the ones *you* support, no doubt. And therein lies the problem.

Oh, it's not that you support them- everyone, myself included, wants 'reasonable' and 'common sense
gun control (FTFY) laws'.

The problem comes when someone demands their value of 'common sense' and 'reasonable' be
the defining one, and won't compromise on it. So they get fought to a standstill.

[villager]

42. And "gun grabbing" being any gun safety law at all, per your NRA rhetorical edicts

n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

44. Did you forget (or deliberately elide) my support for UBC and tougher sanctions on straw purchases..

...in post #17 below?
Also:

Pardon me for not indulging your use of the Newspeak phrase "gun safety" used as a euphemism for gun control.

You lot fool very few with it- after all, the purported "gun safety" .orgs don't actually offer any gun safety
training-but the NRA does...

[villager]

46. Hilarious! The gun apologist projects the "newspeak" term unto others! I guess we just should cede

...to your usual brand of incendiary, snarky rhetoric, and call all gun safety laws everywhere "gun grabbing."

As per NRA rhetorical edicts.

But congrats on some movement toward the side of light, after all, re: UBC!

[friendly_iconoclast]

47. You elide my disdain of the NRA, as well. Once again, my observation that "Factual accuracy...

...is strictly optional for gun control advocates" is demonstrated to be true...

Also, you speak of "NRA rhetorical edicts" as if such things actually exist. Do you have a source for such a claim?
Perhaps a copy of "The Protocols of the Elders of the National Rifle Association"?

[Eleanors38]

40. Sylvi is right. The last 25+ yrs has mainly been about carry laws...

These laws corrected the old Jim Crow laws in the South, but also recognized the long-"dormant" right to carry the Second guarantees, and which the states cannot deny as per the Fourteenth. That is why the controversy over guns should really be seen as a controversy over the liberalizatiom and recognition of a

Civil right.

But there are some on D.U. who persist in standing in the school house door.

[jmg257]

3. I thought an AWB was the start of the 'slippery slope' in that NRA argument?

But now we hear it's everything the antis wanted?

If banning new production of a few semis (supposedly based on 'cosmetic features') and capacity limits are the extreme and 'everything they wanted', seems like a good deal all around.

NRA dupes should take it.

[skinnytrees]

7. lets see

IT ISNT EVERYTHING THEY WANT

1934 National Firearms Act was "all they wanted"

1968 Gun Control Act was "all they wanted"

1986 Hughes Amendment was "all they wanted"

1990s trying to ban all handguns was "all they wanted"

New York saying 10 rounds was going to be guaranteed limit then making it 7 rounds. WHOOPS

All they wanted LOL. No slippery slope LOL.

[jmg257]

8. So you are saying the OP is wrong then?

[skinnytrees]

10. half

I agree that the gun banners did themselves in as being extremists.

There is only one side that is extreme here and that is the gun control side.

[jmg257]

14. Maybe He's a 1/4 right..he mentions extremists on both sides?

Poor guy, sees his OP points slipping away.

Ya might want to be a bud, and reply directly so he knows he fucked up.

[friendly_iconoclast]

16. "Our" extremists aren't here at DU. Yours are.

Even I want to see universal background checks and increased penalties for, and enforcement of
laws against, straw sales. The Nugents and LaPierres would sooner lick a Manhattan sidewalk than hang around DU.


Your extremists here, OTOH have produced gems such as the following on multiple occasions:

Banning all guns
Banning guns designed after 1905 or so
Banning AR15s
Banning guns with detachable magazines
Seizing guns currently held legally
Taxing guns and/or ammunition to the point where only the rich can afford them.

And since there is a de facto Popular Gun Control Front, those positions are your
positions- as demonstrated upthread, it's not as if what you lot say can be accepted
at face value.

[jmg257]

19. Who cares where extremists show up? Since NONE of them are mine, I could care

Less. Or care what they say. It is mostly amusing, and often a worth-while way to kil some time, but other then that? Meh. I pointed out those related errors you made, and the ongoing bills in congress.

YOU are the one who said the AWB was everything control folks wanted. And that extremists exist on both sides...well...no shit! Skinnytrees said you were wrong in several instances in your OP. Ya might want to take it up with him.

[jmg257]

38. Uh ohh...here's one...or do you not consider this extreme?

"... Does ANYONE think there can be compromise with this mentality? They are all ignorant, stupid, and unworthy of respect. ALL gun control laws should be opposed."

[beevul]

39. Pipe up extra loud when a pro-gunner suggests turning drones loose on anti-gunners. N/T

[jmg257]

41. Ok, will do! In the mean time, hope this clown enjoyed his pizza.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=169095&sub=trans

[Peter cotton]

13. +1

[friendly_iconoclast]

9. They won't have to. It's not going to happen.

Why aren't you lot trying to get background checks and tougher sanctions on straw sales through the
Senate? That might actually happen if you work at it.

Just another example of "Better 0/3 of what we want than 2/3 of it".

It's like Lenin carping about 'reformism':

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1911/sep/14.htm

Y'all want all or nothing, and so will get nothing...

[jmg257]

15. Who says they aren't? Seems there are separate bills or some such now?

Your just a bundle of mistakes today.

I actually am not trying for anything at all, so "y'all" is yet another error.


See post 8 & 3 for pointing out where else you fucked up.

[friendly_iconoclast]

18. An AWB was definitely part of a unitary package, until it became clear it wasn't happening.

I actually am not trying for anything at all

Just out of curiosity, why not? The background checks, et al., would help...

[jmg257]

20. Oh sure they would, as would lots of other things. But other then yack about it all?

Not much else.

[jmg257]

29. Here's a good example...they're talking about boobs and tits in GD,

You guys here might not understand, but I find that 'naked Women protestor' stuff is often a bit more interesting!

[sylvi]

22. "Everything they want" in this current round of proposals

That in no way indicates it would be everything they want in perpetuity.

[jmg257]

24. But the OP notes them as "extreme"...ya mean there is a double secret extreme too?

Whew..hard to keep up with who to worry about when it is all so confusing!

Maybe these current "extremists" are just wusses.

[sylvi]

31. There are many extremes between the current state and an outright ban on all firearms. nt

[jmg257]

34. Yep...multiple extremes...very confusing notion. I guess if you consider ANY

Regulation an extremist view..that's what ya get!

[sylvi]

36. Where are these mythical creatures

Where are these mythical creatures who "consider any regulation an extremist view"? Since we already have thousands of regulations across the country and no one is marching in the streets to repeal the majority of them, the point is kind of moot.

Second Amendment "absolutists" are sort of like Bigfoot - you hear breathless tales about them from the easily excitable, maybe a grainy photograph or two, but finding one in captivity is a little more difficult.

[jmg257]

37. Mythical? Its the theme of this thread. You just said it in your last

Post...'many extremes'. Others in post after post. Nothing mystical about it, just More same old same old..but harder to follow.

NOW your saying proposed measures and regulations wouldn't be extreme?!? Or that the People proposing 'many extremes' aren't extremists? Hmmm...Maybe you guys are mythical creatures..like Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum.

Holy shit..talk about confusing!

[sylvi]

43. Confusion seems to be the default state

Confusion seems to be the default state with grab nuts. If you think guns are not already regulated, or that there is any significant number of pro-RKBA citizens who think there should be zero regulations on the 2A, or that there does not exist more than one type of extreme measure short of a total ban when it comes to new regulations, then I'm not sure you can be helped.

I could write it out for you first grade reading primer style, maybe throw in Dick and Jane and a cute little dog to help hold your attention, but I don't think it would help your particular brand of "confusion". So I'll leave you to it.

[jmg257]

48. Hmm...did I ever say guns aren't regulated? Derp.

Last edited Sun Mar 31, 2013, 08:10 AM - Edit history (1)

Or that there is a substantial number who agree with 0 regulations? Derp 2 (though there just may be..may have to underp that one after some thought...Probably some bubba militias who are all for no regulation...on them anyway...so that likely doesn't count. Rocky Mt. Gun Owners seem to be a circle jerk of gun freaks...)

Anyway, I think you should be grabbing your nuts, you seem more confused now then before.

Yes, your being a little more articulate would certainly have helped. Instead of a quick headline, Maybe painting a clearer picture of what you consider extreme, and whom you do or don't consider extremists.
You wouldn't have to be long winded, please...then the posts would be tedious AND boring.

Thanks!

[sylvi]

49. No thanks.

Troll someone else with your Jr. High School-level sophistry and willful obtuseness. I think you've displayed what you are to everyone on this thread.

Have fun stormin' the castle.

[jmg257]

52. Got it...many extremes, not sure what they are though.

Many extremists..maybe... not sure who though.

I'll try to remember those genius level nuggets of wisdom for next time.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

11. Its the extremists on both sides coupled with other shiny new things

It is clear the momentum has certainly slowed. NY is having to rethink their knee jerk law making. NRA has quit with some (not all) of their buffoonery. Soon it will be back to status quo in most areas.

I expect more rules requiring reporting into the state and local systems which will lead to better background checks. Little to no direct impact on citizens.

I expect a mixed results on mandatory background checks. I support it in most instantiations, but the systems need to be opened to other than FFL holders and be able to handle more inquiries.

[friendly_iconoclast]

17. Agreed. These are neccessary, and should pass

[kudzu22]

32. It would have been nice to have that "national conversation on guns and violence"

that Obama wanted to have, but instead we got the usual shouting match. <sigh>

[ProgressiveProfessor]

33. Neither side wants dialog except on their terms

[Jenoch]

35. If President Obama

really wanted to get gun control measures passed in congress, he would not have appointed a committee to research the issue with Vice-pesident Biden the chairman. The way to kill an issue in Washington is to send it to a committee.

[friendly_iconoclast]

45. Some of the the gun Prohibitionists haven't figured out yet they've been played:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1262&pid=1677

[sylvi]

50. Wow.

They blocked you for making that single, honest assessment.

That's really sad.

[ZombieHorde]

51. Proabably blocked for the term "gun Prohibitionists." nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

53. Those that aren't declared gun Prohibitionists don't publicly disagree with those that are.

They're sort of the "Unarmed Citizens' Councils", if you catch my drift.

I suppose they believe gun owners haven't noticed...

[oneshooter]

54. I was blocked for a "broad brush insult"!!!

I guess he doesn't read his own members posts.

Star Member ellisonz (25,494 posts)
53. ^^^^

View profile
Despite all of this to many here I am a dirty, scum sucking future murderer with dreams of shooting small children and cats.

I find this disappointing to say the least, and somewhat discouraging.


Thanks but no thanks - I blocked this poster and the one below in concurrence with the broad brush insult.

ellisonz
GCRA Host