04-12-2017, 03:42 PM
(This post was last modified: 04-12-2017, 03:49 PM by Eric the Green.)
(04-12-2017, 03:20 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:(04-12-2017, 12:21 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:(04-12-2017, 11:31 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:(04-11-2017, 10:29 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:(04-11-2017, 05:08 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: Look, Eric. Why the fuck are the "urban Liberals" having such a cow on the 2nd amendment?
Now, if the Democrats want to achieve anything, they need to let go of all of these culture wars issues.
If you want Democrats to win in say , Oklahoma, concentrate on economics like Sanders did. He won Oklahoma, remember. If you want Red States to have Democratic wins, the party needs to defer to local wishes on crap like gun control and unite on economic issues. Here's the thing, Red states can be in the Democratic column is they discard the losing deuce of clubs [gun control] and keep the Ace of economic issues. I know this. A practical economic issue campaign will be the winning formula. I'd also include anything that reduces the costs of jail birds. IOW, just buy off the gun folks with a common economic agenda and the Democrats will go far.
No, the question always is, why are rural conservatives having such a cow over it.
Gun control is not a culture war issue. Duh.
I don't expect Democrats to ever win in OK, and if they did, they would very likely be DINOs anyway like Manchin.
The conservative idea of "compromise" on the gun issue is just to have their way. They are not interested in any rural/urban deference. It won't work. Massacres continue, and many concerned citizens will continue to demand action. Democrats must answer these concerns, like it or not. The NRA is really the main culprit here. Politicians bow to this pressure group in spite of a strong majority in favor of gun regulation.
I have to wonder, in fact, whether if Trump can have such a rapid and total turnabout on Syria's use of chemical weapons, what happens when the next Newtown hits? Will Trump have a change of heart on that too? I wouldn't bet on it; but with Trump, just about anything is possible, even if unlikely.
The NRA used to be non partisan. But the urban left have irrational gun phobia, and over time, the NRA became more and more aligned with the Alt-Right. Things came to a head in 2016. On the one side you had Clinton, professing her hatred of the 2nd Amendment, which was inviting the NRA to embrace an "anti Clinton."
The "anti Clinton" was Trump.
If the Left do not want to face the NRA every election, the Left should stop giving the NRA "ammo" (pun intended) that will be used to shoot the Left.
I guess there's something about a gun that transfers to its lovers, that makes them exaggerate. Clinton made no proposals to overturn the 2nd; just some sensible gun control proposals.
Fear of guns is perfectly rational. Such a killing machine should be restricted to the battlefield. I understand your approach; people disagree. But I can hope someday that the Right and the NRA will regret giving the Left ammo. It's only a matter of time, perhaps, before sense prevails on this issue.
Define sensible gun control.
Is California an example?
In order for my Mom to pass along some family heirlooms she'd need to get a FFL.
In order for me to buy a box of ammo I need to pay for an annual license then undergo a background check as if I were buying a complete firearm.
These are examples of non sensible controls.
To listen to the gun grabbers' schtick, California is the benchmark. So, I conclude the gun grabbers want to nullify the 2nd, without having to win enough support for a Constitutional Convention.
From my point of view, California is making great progress, and those procedures you have to observe seem fine and sensible to me. Everyone who wants a gun should be as thoroughly vetted as immigrants, perhaps. Mr. X must be licensed! Well and good. Inconvenience for gun buyers does not nullify the 2nd's requirement for a well-regulated militia, and I think "gun grabbing" in CA is limited to those who should not have guns. But, I'm a green liberal, ya know.
But California IIRC has now gone further than the "sensible gun control" that Hillary Rodham Clinton proposed nationally.
As with most things rightist and alt-rightist, right-wing legal approaches to guns are more available in red states than in blue states.