dagblog - Comments for "Don't Cry For Background Checks"

Yes, I agree, the GOP has

MrSmith1 — Fri, 19 Apr 2013 17:53:01 +0000

In reply to Yet the GOP has been playing

Yes, I agree, the GOP has been playing the long game brilliantly. So well, in fact, they've ruined it for anyone else that wants to play that game by shutting down the ways it can be played. Their gerrymandering in 2010, for example.

Hey, I never claimed Gephardt was LaFollette. LOL

I was wondering whether some

LULU — Fri, 19 Apr 2013 15:20:49 +0000

In reply to They were blissfully ignorant

I was wondering whether some of those NRA members who are said to support new control legislation might be withdrawing their support for the NRA. A quick google search revealed nothing I could believe with confidence, but there are claims that membership is spiking upwards. One claims 250k new members. Formatting right now does not want to let me post a link.

They were blissfully ignorant

Michael Wolraich — Fri, 19 Apr 2013 14:41:44 +0000

In reply to I thought of your post when I

They were blissfully ignorant of public opinion polls back then, but many assumed that Congress was out of sync with popular opinion, particularly the Senate. Senators were still elected by state legislatures, which were controlled by corrupt party machines, so democracy was a bit of a shambles.

It's still a shambles, I suppose, but for different reasons. First off, I assume that 90 percent is concentrated in blue states and liberal districts, so conservative areas are likely to be more balanced. Second, gun rights advocates are much more likely to be single-issue voters. That is to say, background check supporters are more likely to vote for anti-background-check politicians than background check opponents are to vote for pro-background-check politicians. Third, the NRA and other gun rights organizations contribute a lot more money to elections than gun control organizations.

I thought of your post when I

artappraiser — Fri, 19 Apr 2013 09:05:09 +0000

In reply to Don't Cry For Background Checks

I thought of your post when I saw this just now on the NYT home page:

Room for debate

Why the Gun Bill Fell

If 90 percent of Americans support background checks, why wouldn’t the Senate?

It's a really good question. Did Fighting Bob ever have 90% of the public agreeing with him in one of his "fights"?

Yet the GOP has been playing

Michael Wolraich — Fri, 19 Apr 2013 05:06:04 +0000

In reply to LaFollette's strategy, as you

Yet the GOP has been playing the long, patient game very well. You think they took Michigan and Wisconsin overnight? They've been laying the groundwork for decades. Remember Macomb County, Michigan? That was what, 1980?

PS Gephardt was no La Follette

My brother-in-law was

Michael Wolraich — Fri, 19 Apr 2013 04:57:41 +0000

In reply to The second amendment says

My brother-in-law was recently arrested for carrying a collapsible baton. He bought it years ago to defend himself from bears in the woods or something and forgot that it was in his backpack when he went to the airport. Now he has to go to court. Guns are legal in New York but not collapsible batons. Go figure.

LaFollette's strategy, as you

MrSmith1 — Fri, 19 Apr 2013 02:00:07 +0000

In reply to Way to read the subtext. Over

LaFollette's strategy, as you suggest, was a brilliant one. But just as assault weapons aren't muskets, yesterday's tactics won't work to solve today's machinations. Nowadays, after one election cycle of doing that, LaFollette would be "Gephardt-ed" or have some primary opponent secretly funded by the opposing party, or he would be set-up and 'scandalized'. Or all of the above. But he would be gone. And given how swiftly the GOP can destroy states like Michigan and Wisconsin, the long, patient, waiting game is too costly and painful in today's world. I think the Heritage Foundation's long term plan for turning the judiciary Conservative is probably the last really long-term strategy we'll see ... at least for a while. Why? Because the GOP has done too good a job of nailing the "back door" shut. Do you remember the internet before websites found the way to make it so you couldn't hit the 'back' button to reverse what you did and leave their sites? We're never going back to a time before that.

There is common ground......

Resistance — Fri, 19 Apr 2013 00:44:29 +0000

In reply to Don't Cry For Background Checks

There is common ground...... I dont know of anyone that believes, those ajudicated mentally unfit, should have a gun. Get both the Democrats and Republicans to put more money into mental health care. Put their money where their mouth is. There are multitudes of people, who once they've been entered into the data base of mentally unfit, it would be an easy step, to also get these people on SSDI; a program currently under attack; box the Republicans in. Support Mental health care and reduce the risk of the mentally ill getting guns. A win win for all sides, would be a good start for good legislation, with far reaching favorable outcomes other than taking guns from law abiding citizens. Every true gun rights, 2nd amendment advocate, saw Obamas overreach, as the Camel's nose under the tent.....Im waiting to see if Obama will take the survivors of the Boston Marathon back to Washington, to pressure Congress,, to push for legislation, to end the senseless killing of civilians, when the US conducts drone strikes. Someone hates us for who we are; why else would an 8 year old die with two others and many wounded at a maarthon? Eliminate the reason for hate. Has Obama taken the bully pulpit since the gun bill failed; to push for more mental healhcare or are we still hung up on chained benefits?

What's mine is mine! That's

Richard Day — Thu, 18 Apr 2013 20:05:32 +0000

In reply to The second amendment says

What's mine is mine!

That's what I always say.

Oh, and you have the right to bear arms and even bare arms I suppose; but buy arms?

The second amendment says

The Decider — Thu, 18 Apr 2013 19:23:37 +0000

In reply to Don't Cry For Background Checks

The second amendment says that Americans have the right to keep and buy arms. Not guns. Arms. Arms include means of defense besides just guns. You can use explosives or bazookas or lots of other weapons to defend yourself and some of them make more sense for certain kind of attacks. For example, I could plant mines outside my bedroom window in case a burglar wanted to break in that way.

My thinkin' is that the next step in gun rights advocacy is to recapture the freedom to buy arms to the literalist intepretation that was meant by the literalist wrighters of the document.

--W