Comments

1
Goldy you assume that Dems are something other than spineless bandwagon jumpers, and not leaders. Its sad, you are absolutely correct, but it will never happen because we dont have any Dem leaders in this state who are willing to put the public good ahead of their own selfish weasely political agendas.
3
Not all gun enthusiasts vote republican-no-matter-what. Also, many of them would be ok with having a real discussion about responsible and reasonable gun control laws.

The problem isn't with the rational, responsible people, the problem is with the anti-gun and pro-gun zealots that shout down all the reasonable proposals.

Pretty much the same problem exists with every controversial issue out there.
4
It sounds like someone might be learning that guns do not kill people!
5
Many of the gun owners who adamantly refuse to believe that the democrats are not taking their guns have this Randian/warped Jeffersonian fantasy that the government is going to come take their guns, and they are going to blaze away invincibly, protect their rights, and....well, I do not know what comes after that.

They believe that the democrats want the guns because they have to in order to keep this bloody fantasy alive. They want to shoot people, and want a heroic excuse.

Not talking about all or even most gun owners, just the gun nuts who believe Obama/democrats secretly want all the guns.
6
It's really about the public. Apparently the public chooses to live in a shooting gallery. Until there is a serious groundswell of support to do something about it, guns will rule our lives.
7
I feel the same way about separation of church and state. They think you're a godless heathen anyway, please start acting like one.
9
@8: no liberals are trying to take the guns. that's point.

even though this nation could really use fewer guns.
10
What @6 said. But in the short term I'd take @8's bargain.
11
Any union worker who votes Republican is a dumbshit.
12
I currently have four guns. It will be a cold day in Pat Robertson's Non-Existent Hell before I ever vote Republican. I also support stricter gun laws. "Reasonable people may differ" but scared, ignorant people shout loudest. You'd probably get a fair amount of support for certain kinds of gun control among the more quite gun owners.
13
*quiet*
damn.
14
I suppose they're worried about getting shot.
15
@9
"no liberals are trying to take the guns. that's point."

You should read some of Goldy's old columns.
There are liberals who wish they could take away all the guns.
Goldy is one of them.

I'm sure that there will be other posts here that echo the same sentiments.
16
The binary view of American politics is false. It is true that the GOP exhibits a high degree of party discipline-one cannot receive support from the RNC unless they vote along a certain lines or govern in a narrowly defined way. But the DNC is not as highly disciplined, and many Democrats openly defy their party platform on issues such as gun control.

The binary view is that Republicans stand for A, and because Democrats are not Republicans, they therefore stand for Not A. This impression is drilled home by Faux News and other conservative media outlets.

Now, we can either do as Goldy suggests, and play along with that narrative. However, you will find that much of the electorate will not fit neatly into the two party platforms, since many might support the GOP platform on Issue 1 and the Democratic Party platform on Issue 2. Asking everyone to buy the Blue Plate Special will result in lower voter turnout and increased voter apathy, since neither of the two parties will be able to completely match every individual voter's preferences.

Goldy's approach would work if we didn't have a two-party system, since Third Parties could offer more choices as far as issue positions in their platforms. Countries that use the Westminster System (e.g., Canada, Australia, the UK) do allow for Third Parties, which is why all of the parties in these countries exhibit very high degrees of party discipline, much higher than even the GOP does. Our electoral laws systematically disfavor Third Parties, though, so such a response would be disastrous here.

Goldy, if we did what you suggest here, where would the voter who favors GLBT equality and opposes gun control go? Or the person who believes that a woman should have the right to choose and holds to the neoliberal theory of economics? There would be no political home for these individuals. So most of them wouldn't vote at all.
17

Goldy, some Democrats might be "deliberately pandering to the gun-rights camp," but I don't think that's the real reason Democrats dropped it as an issue. I think they decided that, in a Republican-dominated system where they had to fight like hell for any progressive change, and even just to avoid losing ground, the gun issue just wasn't worth it.

You can only fight on so many fronts. Sure, it would be nice if the NRA voting block actually woke up and noticed that nobody is trying to take their damned guns away, sheesh, are you stuck in 1982 or what. But even if they don't, after fighting them for gay rights and reproductive rights and voting rights and environmental protections and the safety net and the infrastructure, I don't have any ounce of fight left for guns.
19
I'm not sure I would simply label it "gun enthusiasm." The right to firearms shall not be restricted not because of the desire to hunt or the desire for personal self-defense; the single most important reason that the right to firearms was enshrined in a federal amendment is to ensure the polity has good access to the means with which to overthrow government, should it ever come to that.

The only way to keep government honest is to keep them in constant threat of being hurled off the Tarpeian Cliffs. The fact that the government has done so much to restrict the sale of military-grade, contemporary firearms to civilians makes me think they're aware of the role of the Second Amendment and want to do everything they can to prevent the everyman from overthrowing their systems of control and manipulation.

Add to that, Obama has failed to close Guantanamo Bay, and, even further, he has instituted several policies increasing the reach of the executive branch beyond what is sensible, going so far as potentially indefinitely detain American citizens without even indictment. Obama's a fucking fascist. Blows my mind you people don't give a shit.
20
@19: People might listen to you more if you didn't just throw around terms like "facist" without any regard to what those words actually mean.

Nothing you said in that comment had anything to do with facism. Facism does not mean "does not agree with me" or "violates the constitution."
21
Just after Obama's election, I went to.. well, I was dragged to a gun show in Monroe.. the first I'd ever attended. I was curious, I'll admit.

But not a bit surprised to see the entire place jam-packed with mostly white guys, all of them freaking out over the fact that a Democrat now sat in the Oval Office. Several of the booth vendors were capitalizing on that fear, which they no doubt shared: "Obama's coming for your guns - Make your purchases NOW' They were selling guns like hotcakes, shiny lethal hotcakes....

Now it's four years later and we've had no new legislation regarding access to or sales of guns... NONE. But you can't bring that up to 'those people', as they are incapable of rational thought....
22
@15 Conflating comment thread commenters or even columnists with actual elected Democrats is just plain silly.
23
If the NRA hadn't recently sued it would still be illegal to own a handgun in DC and Chicago. In NYC the permit process is so onerous and expensive just to keep a handgun in ones own home that's it's a defacto ban. The NRA will also soon hand them their ass in court. I like most gun owners welcome sensible gun reform but when so many on the other side blatantly disrespect our basic rights to own any firearm there's no reason to bargain. We know we've won the war and hold all the cards so who cares?
24
Let gun control and gun issues be local.
25
@22
And now I have to give political lessons to Goldy.
No. I'll just quote what you wrote.

"At Drinking Liberally last night, a Boeing machinist pointed out that a lot of his fellow union members vote Republican because of the Second Amendment."

You talked to one guy who told you about the political leanings of other guys. But they don't matter because they're not elected.

"In fact, it's why most Democratic leaders refuse to even discuss gun control, ..."

So the opinions and votes of individuals DO have an effect upon elected representatives.

Do you understand it now?
26
1994 was just a tad over a decade and a half, so your "decades of inaction" is factually incorrect. And even with the effect of banning badly defined but scary looking "assault weapons", there was not enough public support to keep the law alive just 10 years later.

This is a losing issue for the Democrats and they know it. There is no upside for them and it would only mobilize their opponents on a single issue that, outside of large cities, doesn't have much traction with the public.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.