2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumAre we tilting at windmills re: national gun laws?
It seems pretty clear that the more central the role guns play in an election, the worse the election goes for us.
Not hard to see why--the areas where we're the most fragile or vulnerable to swings against us on the gun thing are in the small towns and rural areas. Areas that are already disproportionately powerful due to the electoral college and the Senate and the concentration of our voters in urban areas.
The moral and policy arguments for increased gun regulations are self-evident to most here. But, what kind of regulations can we enact while in the minority? Zero.
So, it seems that either we do next to nothing in the majority or we do absolutely nothing in the minority.
In retrospect, Clinton's strong stand on guns in the primary and the general election may have hurt her chances in the general election.
It seems we're better off trying to legislate on the state level and appointing better SCOTUS justices.
Hard to see the argument that what we're doing is working.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
TygrBright
(20,987 posts)Then, I think we have a pretty good chance at national gun laws.
But we won't necessarily like them.
ironically,
Bright
bravenak
(34,648 posts)If we get a black and mexican and arab NRA going, guns will get banned quickly.
Grey Lemercier
(1,429 posts)
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)on the NRA board of directors than work on Huff Po's editorial staff. Also, one of the most respected, if not THE most respected, firearms trainer and expert is an Arab.
jack_krass
(1,009 posts)jack_krass
(1,009 posts)Yes yes and hell yes! guns for all races. The more the better.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)
Cosmocat
(15,030 posts)nm
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Everyplace is different. Nobody woukd vote for it up here, too much wilderness and booze
forthemiddle
(1,435 posts)Last week was hunting season here and multiple times I heard the same refrain.
"Wisconsin had over 600,000 armed people walking around last week and nobody was killed"
In rural areas guns are tools, and anybody that tries to change that will be vilified. After Hillary praised Australia's gun control earlier this year, you would have been hard pressed to find anyone that didn't point out that the gun buyback was mandatory, and Australia "took the guns away".
Amishman
(5,828 posts)It's an issue that costs us with swing voters and doesn't gain us anything, as most committed supporters of gun control would strongly lean Democrat anyway.
Fixing poverty, improving mental health care, and ending the drug war will do more to reduce gun violence than any gun law we might pass.
That being said, I still would like to see background checks and safe storage laws pushed. Even in my very conservative area those ideas don't get much opposition
To echo forthemiddle: I also heard many comments against Hillary's perceived support for Australian style gun control / bans.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Abandon what makes us Democrats.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)to put it another way, is losing elections because of guns preferable to winning them because of economic policy?
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)
We should all read Senator Sanders' (I-VT) new book - it will guide us to true Democratic core values.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)Faith-based, rather than reason-based beliefs. It's the one area where Democrats show absolute contempt for empirical evidence, and spout pathetic nonsense like...."THE ONLY STATISTIC I NEED TO KNOW IS 30,000!!!"
benEzra
(12,148 posts)The Third Way/DLC convinced Bill Clinton to go hard for gun bans as a way to look more "law-'n-order" to right-leaning authoritarians. Prior to that, it was primarily just a cultural divide between urban and suburban/rural.
John F. Kennedy was an avid target shooter who owned an AR-15 and a M1 Garand; Eleanor Roosevelt was also an accomplished target shooter with a concealed-carry permit. Both of them would probably be kicked out of the tent these days.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Do we really need a few more elementary school massacres? More nightclub slaughters?
Target shooting is not the problem.
We want common sense gun reform.
benEzra
(12,148 posts)These days it's a core Democratic value.
No, it's still not. About 50% of Dems support, and 50% oppose banning so-called "assault weapons".
Between a quarter and a third of Dems personally own a gun, and of that number, probably half or more own the guns and magazines you want to criminalize. The ownership percentage among independents is much higher.
Target shooting is not the problem.
We want common sense gun reform.
You say that, but the party's #1 message on the gun issue is to outlaw the most popular target guns in the nation, and their magazines.
There's also the problem that the overwhelming majority of gun owners own guns for defensive purposes; target shooting is #2, and hunting a distance third. When you go after defensive use *and* the most popular target guns (which the Third Way has been doing with a vengeance since circa 1993), you immediately alienate about 80% of gun owners, as well as a large fraction of the remaining 20% who hunt.
Do we really need a few more elementary school massacres? More nightclub slaughters?
The measures being proposed---legislating rifle handgrip shape, criminalizing ergonomic rifle/shotgun stocks, criminalizing post-1860s magazine capacities---do not address mass shootings in the slightest. The worst mass shooting on record was carried out with a straight-stocked rifle that is legal in New York City and San Francisco, and the second-worst in the USA was carried out with a pair of pistols and a backpack full of small magazines.
What such bans *do* is threaten half of ordinary gun owners with prison. And some wonder why such policies drive gun owners out of the party.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Jesus!
You're opposed to the concept of gun reform, regardless of the proposals.
Shall we try some facts?
2016 Democratic Party Platform
Preventing Gun Violence
With 33,000 Americans dying every year, Democrats believe that we must finally take sensible action to address gun violence. While responsible gun ownership is part of the fabric of many communities, too many families in America have suffered from gun violence. We can respect the rights of responsible gun owners while keeping our communities safe. To build on the success of the lifesaving Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, we will expand and strengthen background checks and close dangerous loopholes in our current laws; repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) to revoke the dangerous legal immunity protections gun makers and sellers now enjoy; and keep weapons of war—such as assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines (LCAM's)—off our streets. We will fight back against attempts to make it harder for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to revoke federal licenses from law breaking gun dealers, and ensure guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists, intimate partner abusers, other violent criminals, and those with severe mental health issues. There is insufficient research on effective gun prevention policies, which is why the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention must have the resources it needs to study gun violence as a public health issue.
https://www.demconvention.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Democratic-Party-Platform-7.21.16-no-lines.pdf
benEzra
(12,148 posts)Open your mind and look at the FBI data; many states have *zero* rifle homicides in any given year, and the vast majority of states are in the single digits.
You may not *intend* to threaten 60 million potential voters with prison if we don't comply with your beliefs, but by using those scare terms and trying to craft legislation based on them, you are doing exactly that. That paragraph in the platform was written by someone who has no earthly idea what guns are prevalent in U.S. homes, or what Federal gun law currently covers, or how many cartridges a typical gun holds.
If you equate "reform" with "ban the most popular guns and magazines in U.S. homes", then yes, I object. So does over 50% of the U.S. population.
Clinton lost my state on those gun-404 talking points and legislative proposals, even as a pro-gun Dem (Roy Cooper) won the governor's race---elected by the *same* voters. Those talking points also swung MI, PA, FL, and other close races to Trump.
I saw this happen in 2000, and 2004, and wrote about it here on DU. The Third Way's experiment with elitist authoritarianism on this issue has not been helpful to the party since it was first floated in September 1994.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)You certainly have a single-minded fixation on this.
Unexplainable and inexplicable.
Truly not a Democratic position, real or imaginary.
benEzra
(12,148 posts)I live in NC, which you might notice just elected a Dem governor who is pro-choice on guns, but rejected an anti-gun candidate for president.
There are between two and three million owners of "assault weapons" or "high-capacity magazines" in North Carolina, many of whom are Dems and independents (as am I). What was Clinton's margin of loss in my state, again?
If you simply wish to kick gun owners out of the party and equate them with racists/bigots/nazis, that's your prerogative. I'm just pointing out that the single-minded fixation with criminalizing rifle handgrips and other such irrelevant miscellany *is* hurting the party outside of the little blue bubbles on the 2016 map, and it is helpful for all Dems (even those who don't personally like guns or gun ownership) to understand why and how.
This forum is called "2016 Postmortem". If you would like to point out how threatening gun owners was not an issue in my state, or MI, or PA this election, I'm listening.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)then you should know "threatening gun owners" is bullshit, a rightwing NRA talking-point, and not worthy of discussion.
No exit polling data I am aware of even mentions this as a deciding factor anywhere in the US.
Thanks for ginnin' it up, though. 
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)The disinterested reader is invited to read that rather long thread
And, BTW:
Something is not bullshit or a 'talking point merely because it's inconvenient to you
benEzra
(12,148 posts)The NY SAFE Act makes possession of the most popular magazines in U.S. homes nationwide a Class D felony, comparable to rape. Ditto the most popular rifles in U.S. homes. Promising to take that bullshit nationwide, thereby criminalizing 60+ million peaceable citizens and subjecting them to life-destroying criminal penalties if they refuse to bow to your beliefs, is damn sure a threat. Ditto for those who promise to take CA/NJ/MD laws nationwide.
If you don't think it is an issue, you weren't paying attention to the 2014 Senate midterms, or the 2016 races (not just the Presidency, but downticket in swing states). The party leadership cloistered in their DC/NY/CA bubbles simply don't comprehend how this crap plays nationwide. Again, it's not the *only* issue where the party leadership has made some major missteps, but it is perhaps the most egregious.
The party ran a gun-control activist in fricking Montana in 2014, for Pete's sake; WTF were they thinking?
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Banning cosmetic features? Banning the manufacturing of new large capacity magazines when billions are in civilian hands?
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Keyword: gun.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Nice non answer though. Did not surprise me you fail to answer a simple question. Very typical i have found
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)
Response to yallerdawg (Reply #61)
Duckhunter935 This message was self-deleted by its author.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,593 posts)
derby378
(30,262 posts)It's a dog whistle. We all know it.
hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)When I was a little kid I asked my mom about the difference between a Democrat and a Republican.
"Democrats are for working people and Republicans are for Big Business " she said.
I think we need to give gun control a rest. Obama won, twice because there had not been any since Clinton admin.
The fact that Clinton pushed gun control again helped her LOSE.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)It gives me hope that some folks get it.
spin
(17,493 posts)iron and steel mills in Pennsylvania. Most owned firearms and most owned them for hunting and home defense. Several used their firearms in legitimate self defense and to stand up to company thugs when the union movement was first starting.
Over the years the Democratic Praty has morphed into the Gun Control Party. While many gun owners do indeed support reasonable improvements to our NICS background check system and even for proper secure storage of firearms they do not support legislation such as gun bans and limits on the number of rounds a magazine can hold. Attempts to pass a new Federal Assualt Weapons Ban have caused a lot of gun owners to desert the Democratic Party.
I've enjoyed target shooting at a number of pistol ranges over the years. I find I am considered somewhat unique as I am a registered Democrat. You don't find many of us at gun ranges. The sad part is that many gun owners that I have met at the range said they could no longer vote for any Democrat at the local, state or national levels and while they don't always agree with the Republican Party they have become one issue voters.
Obviously continuing the effort to eventually pass gun laws like those in Great Britian is a lot like tilting at windmills. Unfortunately I fear not enough people at the highest levels of our party are willing to face the fact that when we push gun bans we effectively are shooting our party in the foot. It looks like the effort to pass draconian gun legislation will continue to cost us many close elections in the future. It may work great in the more liberal big cities but we need to pick up seats in the House and Senate from the more conservative areas of our nation.
I've lived in both urban and rural areas. Once an intruder set off the burglar alarm in our house in Tampa by trying the force a sliding glass door open. He continued the effort and was half way through the door when my daughter confronted him. He ran when she pointed a large caliber revolver at him and said, "If you go any further and enter this house I will shoot you." He ran. She then called the police and they arrived just a couple of minutes later but were unable to catch the man. If our home would have been in a rural area she would have had at least a half hour wait. Perhaps that is why people in the more rural areas of our nation value their gun rights.
Kilgore
(1,753 posts)Our county is very large and very rural. Response time easily can approach over one hour. Our Sheriff is very frank that you may be the first line of defense during that time.
spin
(17,493 posts)arm themselves.
Ashtabula judge says people may want to arm themselves since budget cuts have slashed law enforcement
Sandra Livingston, The Plain Dealer
on April 19, 2010 at 4:00 AM, updated April 19, 2010 at 9:26 AM
ASHTABULA, Ohio -- Budget cuts have whacked Ashtabula County so hard that just one sheriff's cruiser now patrols 720 square miles, raising a troubling question: Who will protect residents of this sprawling, rural Northeast Ohio county when sheriff's deputies are miles away?
A county judge has a suggestion: Concerned people may want to arm themselves.
"We are living in a large county, and you cannot count on the availability of your sheriff to come to your home if you are in danger in a prompt manner," Ashtabula County Common Pleas Judge Alfred Mackey said after his comments were broadcast in a television news interview.
The judge said he's not advocating a Wild West mentality and stressed that anyone who wants a gun's protection also has a responsibility to keep it safe and to know how to use it.
***snip***
Incident reports show how stretched deputies have been as they try to deal with overlapping emergencies separated by miles and miles of country roads. One night they were delayed getting to a woman who claimed her knife-wielding husband had threatened to kill her because they were handling an arrest in another case of domestic violence.
Another night they couldn't get to a burglary at a community center for about 13/4 hours because they were arresting a man accused of beating up his girlfriend. And the list goes on.
The situation is "absolutely terrible," said Johnson. "We're just keeping the peace as best we can."
http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/04/ashtabula_judge_says_people_ma.html
Kilgore
(1,753 posts)Its a very large county with a population of ~3,000
As a blessing, we have an extremly low crime rate.
spin
(17,493 posts)crime can and does happen. If you are unlucky enough to find yourself in trouble an hour is a long time to wait for the police to show up.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)I can't help but wonder if a more nuanced approach might work. Some strategy that draws a clear distinction between rural and urban gun owners, and makes crystal clear that the aim is not to take the guns out of the hands of hunters and sportspeople, but just to focus very specifically on urban gun owners.
How to do it while staying within the bounds of the constitution however, could be a very different story.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Kentonio
(4,377 posts)I meant to try and find a nuanced position that should play well, and then try and build a real clear and focused message around it. Sure the rEpubs are always going to lie their asses off and shout 'They want to take your guns!' every chance they get, but they do that anyway and will regardless of what we do.
benEzra
(12,148 posts)Some back-of-the-envelope facts to inform said nuance:
-- The vast majority of gun owners are nonhunters (>80%).
-- The primary reason for gun ownership is defensive purposes; target shooting is in second place, with hunting a distant third.
-- Approximately twice as many Americans own "assault weapons" as hunt.
-- Approximately 3.5 to 4 times as many Americans own "high capacity magazines" as hunt.
-- The label "assault weapons" denotes the most popular centerfire rifles in U.S. homes, and the most popular target rifles in both sanctioned centerfire target competition and recreational target shooting.
-- Many states have *zero* rifle homicides in any given year, and the vast majority of states are in the single digits.
Murder, by State, Types of Weapons, 2015
[font face="courier new"]Total murders...................... 13,455
Handguns............................ 6,447 (47.9%)
Firearms (type unknown)............. 2,648 (19.7%)
Clubs, rope, fire, etc.............. 1,671 (12.4%)
Knives and other cutting weapons.... 1,544 (11.5%)
Hands, fists, feet.................... 624 (4.6%)
Shotguns.............................. 269 (2.0%)
Rifles................................ 252 (1.9%) [/font]
-- The overwhelming majority of gun homicide is committed by a very small cohort with violent criminal records, most of whom are already legally prohibited from ownership.
--------------------------------
Given the above, can you see how demanding a ban on the most popular rifles in U.S. homes, or threatening owners of common magazines with jail time for peaceably possessing same, is *not* in fact a "nuanced" position? Or how the DNC leadership's obsession with legislating rifle stock shape comes across as both ludicrous and authoritarian?
hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)Lets look at Brady and AWB.
With the mass killing back then and the crime rate there was enough public sentiment to pass those.
However gun crime is way down and there is not the grassroots support for these issues.
We are still having mass shootings but with the overall chances of being shot going down so much compared to the past it gives gun grassroots the upper hand.
I think we should leave it alone.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)The problem isn't urban target shooters or collectors, or someone realizing that when seconds count, the cops are minutes away. The problem is a few people with criminal records. It reminds me of a gang shootout in Toronto. One of the shooters was on parole for illegal gun possession. He was also charged with possessing a handgun without a PAL, not having it registered, and having full capacity magazines. The mayor, IIRC Bob Ford, thought the solution was to confiscate registered guns from licensed target shooters in the city.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)Too many people know that we're telling stupid, obvious lies on this issue. Just farking drop it. It's an absolute KILLER, owing to the facts that.......
1) These rifles are not more lethal than other semi-auto rifles that fire .223/5.56 Nato ammunition.
2) They absolutely DO NOT fire said ammunition at a faster rate than other "acceptable" rifles.
3) They are rarely used to commit crime.
Contrary to what Rachel Maddow has hilariously claimed, you really can find the truth on gun-related issues on the internet. There's no such thing as a Super-Duper NRA Internet Truth Suppressor.
http://www.assaultweapon.info/
frazzled
(18,402 posts)We need federal gun safety legislation. Support it. The more people come out openly about it, the more it becomes an accepted issue. And the vast number of Americans support such legislation.
What next? Want to disavow black and Latino Americans in order to win some more white working class votes? Bah humbug.
Instead of armchair criticizing how we should dismantle our positions to be more like Republicans, go out and convince more people to vote for those positions.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Most people don't have the slightest idea what current federal laws are. Like Bernie saying that we should ban automatic weapons and make straw purchasing a federal crime. Both of those have been the case for decades, the latter signed by LBJ as part of the Gun Control Act.
False choice. How are the interests of blacks and Latinos different than working class whites? The concerns of the working class, regardless of color, is the same. The concerns of a wealthy black is the same as a wealthy white. The interests of a working class black isn't that much different than a working class white. The division is really economic and urban vs rural, not race.
How do you convince people to do this? One thing we don't do is let racists like Symone Sanders get on CNN without being disavowed by us.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Popular or not we have segments of society that are living in fear of guns. It is the role of government to protect the people. The current gun situation in this country has left large swaths that need to be protected. With a failing mental health system it is a necessity in my opinion.
I do know it might not be helping us politically. I don't think that is how we should come to our decisions.
How about this instead. The NRA will love it. Let's start subsidizing gun purchase relevant to income. End the fear of guns by arming everyone. I'm sure that will work.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Stuff like AWB plays well with our base, but realistically it's never going to get passed again, and even when it was passed how many lives did it save?
Bigger issue is free flow of handguns. But as long as it's a wedge issue we're really never going to make headway on that.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I disagree with that. I believe hearts and minds are changed over time. Our foes are strong in this area. We are up against a lot.
"how can we help them without winning elections?"
We can and have won elections. We didn't just stop winning. Many Republican positions are less palatable to a strong majority of the country than our sensible ideas with respect to guns. They still win. I don't think the absolute nature of your statement stands up to scrutiny.
I don't think this is as far out of the norm as you are making it.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/gun-violence-prevention/
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Not coincidentally we won those years.
I think issues advocates have to move hearts and minds in rural and small town areas before the national party should stick its neck out yet again.
Clinton made a strong public stand on guns during the primary and the general election. Probably helped her in the primary, probably hurt her in the general.
benEzra
(12,148 posts)From the link:
As senator, she co-sponsored and voted for legislation that would close the gun show loophole, voted against the dangerous immunity protections for gun dealers and manufacturers, and co-sponsored legislation to extend and reinstate the assault weapons ban.
"the assault weapons ban" - This is *the* single biggest blooper that the party has has made on guns in the last 25 years, and they have made many. Here's why: "assault weapon" is scare-speak for the most popular civilian rifles in U.S. homes, as well as the most popular target rifles in both sanctioned competition and informal target shooting. They are rarely misused (all rifles combined account for less than 300 murders annually out of 13,500), but are immensely popular. A ballpark guess is that twice as many Americans own "assault weapons" as hunt. They are not automatic weapons; they are Title 1 civilian non-automatics, mostly small-caliber.
The other issue is that bans on "high-capacity magazines"----usually meaning anything over 10 rounds, but sometimes as few as 7 or 5---are often sneaked into "assault weapon" legislation as well. To see why this is considered extremist, consider that the very first Winchesters ever made in the 1860s held 15 rounds, the most popular civilian rifles in U.S. homes hold 20 to 30, and most full-sized 9mm pistols hold 15 to 20. You are talking 60 *million* owners of probably half a billion magazines, nationwide. And you are telling those 60 million people that you consider them morally equivalent to violent felons (the NY SAFE Act makes possession of a loaded 13-round magazine a Class D violent felony, comparable to second-degree rape or luring a child, and even with those penalties Cuomo and Bloomberg only got 5-10% compliance). If you want to motivate millions of people to vote against you, tell them you'll throw them in prison with murderers and rapists unless they let you take away their civil liberties. You may not see it that way, but that's how it comes across.
"The gun show loophole" - there is no loophole; the Gun Control Act of 1968 applies just as strongly to gun shows as it does to storefronts. The real issue here is whether or not to institute background checks on private sales, or whether to criminalize private transfers altogether. There are ways to do the former without harassing lawful ownership, but most recent proposals at the state level have been aimed at the second, and that generates pushback. This isn't the biggest issue, though.
"voted against the dangerous immunity protections for gun dealers and manufacturers" - Sanders thought Clinton's position on this was a terrible idea, and explained why. But this isn't the biggest issue, either.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)just deem it an infringement on the 2nd.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Sadly, this particular windmill tilts back.
Buckeye_Democrat
(15,058 posts)I worked with a couple guys who seemed pretty reasonable and liberal about many things, but they told me they were voting for that idiot because they were convinced Bill Clinton's gun regulations wouldn't be renewed under him. They never struck me as racist. They weren't religious. They just loved their freakin' guns.
Regulations might be better at the local level.
ebbie15644
(1,235 posts)
madinmaryland
(65,179 posts)Buckeye_Democrat
(15,058 posts)... to me that "independent" voters in Ohio were more gun nutty on average than even the Republicans.
benEzra
(12,148 posts)
Calculating
(2,996 posts)I firmly believe that Hillary would have won this election if not for her Anti-Gun platform. Her bashing on Bernie for not being anti-gun enough was cringe worthy. Suing gun manufacturers for misuse of their products? I'm liberal in almost all areas, and that made no sense at all to me. It would be like suing ford because somebody drove drunk and hit a school bus in their mustang.
I believe a Gallop poll right before the election showed an assault weapon ban as having very little support. Hillary talking about suing gun makers and how she liked Australia's gun control program obviously lost her a lot of votes. Who votes Dem just because they want gun control? Almost nobody. Who votes R because they're afraid of the Dems instituting an AWB or other gun control? Lots of people.
Thanks to freaking gun control we probably ended up with GWB, and now Trump! The issue is a net vote loser and should be dropped from the Party platform.
ebbie15644
(1,235 posts)It has been the whole movement. It's seen as a democratic movement and President Obama helped. I'm not saying I don't believe in tightening gun laws, I do, but this was seen as an attack against gun owners
dsc
(52,672 posts)they were being sued for conspiring to undermine gun laws of various states and cities. To site one example. VA literally became the gun running capital of the east coast because VA gun shops were selling thousands of guns at a time to individuals who would then sell them up and down the east coast. When this was brought to their attention they did nothing. When VA tried to clamp down the gun manufacturers fought every step of the way, first spending money to prevent the law from passing, then when it did pass via referendum they sued to block it, and finally they were forced to abide by it. No one buys 1000 copies of the same gun without intending to sell to those who shouldn't have it.
benEzra
(12,148 posts)It blocks suits intended to curtail lawful sale of handguns and "assault weapons", and such suits were the primary reason it passed.
Prior to its being passed, the Brady Campaign et al were trying to curtail handgun and "assault weapon" sales and alter gun design (e.g. mandate straight stocks over pistol-grip stocks, mandate 10-round magazine capacities, etc.) by suing gun companies, to try to get them to sign up to settlements that would impose such draconian rules. Smith & Wesson was the only one to take the bait (they were owned by a clueless UK holding company at the time), and the backlash by gun owners almost destroyed them until they backed out.
The biggest things hurting Dems on the gun issue aren't the stance on the PLCAA, as bad as that was. It's the attempts to criminalize "assault weapons", which is scare-speak for the most popular civilian rifles in U.S. homes, and "high-capacity magazines", scare-speak for any magazine with more than two thirds the capacity of an 1860s-vintage lever-action.
Saying "we don't want to ban your guns, we just want to ban your AR-15 and your Glock/Ruger/S&W pistol magazines" is ludicrous. It's like some Dems seriously believe that most gun owners just own bolt-action or pump-action "huntin' gunz", and refuse to listen to any information that challenges that fantasy.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)There are six exceptions that allow lawsuits.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)And in fact even if they were there are more than enough federal laws on the books to handle it.
It's illegal to sell firearms for profit without an FFL.
On top of that, it's illegal to sell ANY firearm across state lines without an FFL.
On top of that it's illegal to sell a gun to a prohibited person, FFL or not.
So not only is your idea people were buying thousands of the same gun at a time and reselling them fantasy, if it were true it would be an easily prosecuted crime on the Federal level.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)
okieinpain
(9,397 posts)Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)In rural areas, it's terribly important. Not least so, because some people hunt and fish for food.
I do think it affected the outcome in several states - definitely in Pennsylvania.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Thats why we'll win in the court of public opinion if they seriously go after roe v wade or let pence and his dominionist buddies try and outlaw birth control.
We win in the court of public opinion if the Gail Dines/Christian right alliance tries to censor adult sex and nudity on cable or the internet.
We will win in the court of public opinion if Sessions pursues a misguided crusade against immensely popular state-level marijuana law reforms.
Conversely, we lose in the court of public opinion when people think we're trying to outlaw sodas, and we sure as shit lose when they think we want to outlaw their guns.
Americans like their porn, they like their weed, and despite what the Christian right would have you believe, they like their reproductive choice. Yes. But in large number they also like their big gulps, and a lot of them- for better or worse- really like their guns.
We ought to stop poo-poo'ing notions of personal freedom, or approaching them on a case-by-case basis instead of a consistent ideological frame. Personally, I think it is INSANE that AR-15s are sold in sporting goods stores down the street from where granny gets sent to prison for 20 years because she had a plant in her basement to help her glaucoma. But I recognize that gun control on the federal level is a loser.
If we're going to drop it on the federal level- and we probably will need to- we should at least adopt the increasingly popular mantle of consistently standing up for personal liberty across the board in the process.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)do.
We have an opening as the party of liberty now that the Republicans have embraced a statist buffoon as their leader.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Because of the GOP's knee-jerk reflexive authoritarianism, we may have an opening. But it will require shutting down the control freaks in our own ranks.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)the personal lives of others (guns and drugs are the only areas where one sees Democrats consistently in favor of such legislation), but rather the thornier issues like land use and water rights regulation out west.
The most intrusive government anywhere tends to be local zoning boards and building inspectors
US electorate has two general modes:
1) get the government off our backs!!! (when a Democrat is in office)
2) why isn't the government doing something about this?!?! (when a Republican is in office)
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)However, when people on our side want to censor the internet, outlaw 'blasphemous' cartoons, or tell people they can't buy a 32 oz. slurpee at 7-11, I do feel it gives people the wrong impression of what "progressivism" actually is about.
And regardless of how I, personally, feel about guns, it's consistently apparent that those kinds of personal freedom issues feed into that perception on that issue, as well. On the Federal level, it consistently clobbers us, and that doesn't look to change.
Now, I personally am of the opinion that in the grand scheme of things, the pseudo-authoritarianism espoused by a tiny but vocal minority on the left holds no candle to the genuine pseudo-fascism one finds on the right. But since, as you point out, we've had a (D) at the top of the DC food chain for the past 8 years, the larger voting populace may be a bit misguided as to which side genuinely has their personal freedom at heart. I suspect the truth will become apparent, before long.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)even in places like Colorado or even if it is prescribed to her, it is a ten-year federal rap for granny to buy or possess said rifle.
flying rabbit
(4,775 posts)Well said.
sarisataka
(21,234 posts)supported a quixotic stand on gun control even if it meant losing the election. Of course they assumed we would win the election, get to appoint a bunch of SCOTUS seats and then go door to door #meltemdown
I don't think GC cost the election by any means but it sure didn't help. I am aware of some liberal gun owners who simply chose not to vote because they didn't think either candidate was going to be good for them. Promises about reinstating the AWB and repealing the PLCAA were big factors in their choice to not vote.
radius777
(3,814 posts)as it is supported by the vast majority of Americans, especially metro areas and their surrounding suburbs, which are the voting base of the modern Dem party, and which are the ones who tend to be affected most by gun violence.
There are many more untapped votes to be had if we turn out our base areas/demographics, than in trying to pander to rural gun-nut conservatives who will never vote Dem anyway.
We do need to reach out to working class whites, but the more non-religous/non-socially conservative types who are more pragmatic about bread-and-butter issues, the types that Bill Clinton (strong on gun control) and Obama (also strong on gun control) was easily able to attract.
benEzra
(12,148 posts)Bill Clinton was swayed in 1994 into signing non-sensible gun control (some petty restrictions on rifle stock shape, and raising the price of handgun magazines and a few rifle mags, all aimed squarely at responsible owners). He himself admitted that that mistake cost him the House and Senate that November. It ultimately cost the whole trifecta when Gore lost TN and WV (among others) on guns in 2000; misunderstanding the issue also hurt John Kerry badly in 2004.
Obama largely defused the issue in 2008 by stating that he couldn't ban "assault weapons" even if he wanted to, and implied he didn't care to try. It wasn't until after the 2012 election that the Third Way wing of the party went after gun owners hard, which backfired again in 2014 and 2016.
Proposing to ban popular guns and magazines may play fine in places where gun ownership is well below average, but it plays horribly in flyover country. I live in NC; we just elected a pro-gun Dem as governor, even as Hillary just lost this state on an anti-gun-owner message.
Calculating
(2,996 posts)He didn't even talk about the issue much until sandy hook occurred. Campaigning on gun control=Lost voters because hardly anybody is gonna actually vote dem just to get gun control. Anybody who feels that strongly about gun control is probably a hardcore dem voter anyway.
radius777
(3,814 posts)and metro areas/demographics are the base of the modern Dem party.
It is part of a constellation of issues, that Dems should double-down on, IMO, which appeal to metro voters and metro identity, the way the NRA (and other rw groups) appeal to rural identity.
We need to stop pandering to rural/retro voters that are holding the country back, and drive up our base turnout, with policies tailored especially for our base areas/demographics. IOW, not just about the simplistic left vs right, but about appealing with policies to voters who are more likely to vote and identify with the modern (metro) Dem party. This is the correct path to growing the party and ensuring such voters turn out for the mid-terms and local/state races.
Hillary won the popular vote, and lost a few swing states narrowly, without Comey she wins easily.
benEzra
(12,148 posts)It is part of a constellation of issues, that Dems should double-down on, IMO, which appeal to metro voters and metro identity, the way the NRA (and other rw groups) appeal to rural identity.
So what happens if you get your wish?
Let's say you magically manage to pass a law making 60+ million citizens, and a 20-25% of registered Dems and indies, felons for refusing to submit to your enlightened urban beliefs on icky rifle handgrips that stick out, or post-1860s magazines, or whatever. They salute you with a carefully chosen finger, and keep on living their lives as they choose. Then what?
The Third Way is so out of touch on the issue that the NY SAFE Act got an estimated 90% noncompliance rate in deep-blue New York, even though the law makes simple possession of a loaded magazine a Class D felony. How do you think such laws would play in Ohio, Maine, New Hampshire, Colorado, or Tennessee? Even *Canada* has rejected NY/CA style bans, for Pete's sake.
Meanwhile, I think you greatly underestimate the number of urban Dems and independents who own guns and enjoy shooting, and greatly overestimate the support for taking away personal choice on the issue. New York City, Chicago, and SoCal are not the only urban areas in the whole country; I dare say that a whole lot of Dems/Indies in Austin, Denver, Charlotte, or St. Louis who would raise a hell of a lot of objection if you try to ban their guns. You would, in fact, see pretty much the same pushback at the polls you are seeing right now, just more so.
The United States is a free country; as such, its institutions are not structured to enable 51% of the population to rule the other 49% with an iron fist, and that does not change if you manage to make it 60/40 or even 70/30. Peaceful coexistence is the *only* path forward, and that means taking a pro-choice position on some deeply personal issues like gun ownership or abortion, and agree to live and let live. You can vigorously target gun misuse without controversy, but when you cross the line and start infringing on responsible ownership/use (especially of the least-misused guns), you will get pushback at the polls.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)It's sad, but entirely predictable: Gun prohibitionists piss all over a group of people that
vote at demonstrably high rates, then fail to notice when said group retaliate at election time...
benEzra
(12,148 posts)
Response to geek tragedy (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Calculating
(2,996 posts)In addition to Republicans tearing down numerous other social safety nets is better? Gun control is the left's version of abortion. It's not the hill to die on.
0rganism
(24,728 posts)back to the coal mines peasant!
oh what's that you said? more gun laws? for white people?
Hekate
(95,091 posts)....the Yosemite Sams in the South and rural areas count for more than the most populous state in the nation, and they are willing to believe any amount of shit if it starts with Wayne LaPierre saying "The gubmit is gonna take your guns away."
benEzra
(12,148 posts)...the Yosemite Sams in the South and rural areas count for more than the most populous state in the nation, and they are willing to believe any amount of shit if it starts with Wayne LaPierre saying "The gubmit is gonna take your guns away."
So you don't, in fact, want to ban AR-15's and over-10-round magazines? You do realize that "our guns" are predominantly those that the activists wish to criminalize, yes?
Claiming that nobody wants to ban the most popular guns is not ludicrous, but transparently ludicrous. Demands for such bans are right there in the DC-Beltway-authored party platform, put there in the '90s after the Third Way authoritarians hijacked the issue. Such bans are law in New York, California, and a couple other states, and gun control activists have pushed legislation to do so nationwide. And many of them have praised Australia's ban on pump shotguns and most rifles.
Thing is, in California, you *have* your gun-ban utopia; so does New York. A Canadian citizen could travel to either CA or NY with Canada-legal rifles and magazines and get decades to life in prison for mere *possession* of same. You are literally trying to pass gun bans in the U.S. Midwest, South, Southwest, and rural New England that have been rejected by Canada and much of Europe, and you don't think the DC/NY leadership is out of touch on the issue?
Hekate
(95,091 posts)...to possess military-style weaponry for home use? Expecting an invasion from some place? Belong to the National Guard? (If I understand the situation correctly, the State National Guards all keep their weaponry in armories, as do the various military services, not in homes.)
Just want to know where you're coming from, because it's not entirely clear.
As for California, where you correctly surmise I live, I know various folks who possess firearms, some of them related to me. My sister in law taught her sons to hunt, which I only found out when I saw the bloody haunch of a deer in her freezer. Well, maybe less than a haunch, and it was well-wrapped, but you could definitely see where it had leaked. You see, she didn't boast about it or even find it to be a topic of conversation. My next-door neighbor apparently has one or possibly more, which he mentioned when we had a rash of neighborhood burglaries. All I said to him was, "There's a time and place for everything, John." My brother has a sideline dealing in cut gems, and his peers in the trade were being stalked and robbed, so in addition to his other precautions he got a gun to carry on his travels, which he keeps out of reach of his 3 kids in a safe.
I could go on. I'm not trying to disarm everyone in the country. But I have known only one person who boasted about having a personal arsenal, or found it necessary to insert his fascination into ordinary conversation. He told me that if the government were to come looking to seize his guns he would bury them 6 feet deep in his back yard. All I said was "Good place for them."
Maybe I just look like someone who's not interested and so people don't tell me. Who knows?
Just a few last questions: Did the Democratic Party's platform and Hillary Clinton's statements tick you off sufficiently that you didn't vote for her? Do you think there's enough in your cohort to swing an election? Do you listen to Wayne LaPierre?
Response to Hekate (Reply #78)
Duckhunter935 This message was self-deleted by its author.
benEzra
(12,148 posts)Do you personally want to possess military-style weaponry for home use? Expecting an invasion from some place? Belong to the National Guard? (If I understand the situation correctly, the State National Guards all keep their weaponry in armories, as do the various military services, not in homes.)
This is *exactly* the type of misunderstanding that is so harmful to Dems on this issue; I am talking about the most common civilian (NFA Title 1, non-automatic) rifles in U.S. homes.
AR-15's are legal for civilians to own in Canada, most of Europe, and New Zealand, and are no more and no less "military-style" than a Winchester Model 70 bolt-action or a Winchester 1866 lever-action. The fact that they are restricted in CA/NY/MA, the UK, and Australia doesn't mean that they aren't mainstream civilian guns.
And no, I'm a competitive shooter in local USPSA-sanctioned matches and derivatives. I shoot a civilian non-automatic Rock River LAR-15, made in Illinois. Like most AR's, mine is a centerfire .22 (.223 Remington)---low-powered, low recoil, and supremely accurate.
The National Guard uses NFA Title 2 restricted machineguns like the M16, which would be a 10-year Federal felony for me (or you) to possess without proper authorization.
As for California, where you correctly surmise I live
You live in a state whose laws match your beliefs. That works for you.
Just please stop trying to impose your laws on the ~43 states that have explicitly rejected them over and over and over and over----if for no other reason than that it hurts Dems nationwide.
FWIW, rifles are the *least* misused category of weapon in the United States; many states have no rifle homicides at all in any given year, and most are in the single digits.
Murder, by State, Types of Weapons, 2015
[font face="courier new"]Total murders...................... 13,455
Handguns............................ 6,447 (47.9%)
Firearms (type unknown)............. 2,648 (19.7%)
Clubs, rope, fire, etc.............. 1,671 (12.4%)
Knives and other cutting weapons.... 1,544 (11.5%)
Hands, fists, feet.................... 624 (4.6%)
Shotguns.............................. 269 (2.0%)
Rifles................................ 252 (1.9%) [/font]
I could go on. I'm not trying to disarm everyone in the country.
If you're trying to take CA-banned rifles and CA-banned magazines from the 60+ million people who own them nationwide, then you are trying to disarm the majority of gun owners, to that degree.
About 20% of gun owners hunt; 80% don't. Many hunters also own nonhunting guns that the gun control lobby wishes to criminalize. And for those in the NY/CA bubble who are wondering how any Dem or indie could possibly sit this one out, there is one of many explanations for it.
derby378
(30,262 posts)And yes, I did vote for Hillary because, overall, she had the better ideas for America. But there were a few ideas she had that hurt her.
Flavius Aetius
(33 posts)My union Democratic family voted republican and not only that but some voted straight ticket, in Michigan. The reasons were economic, guns and when Democrats started fighting for John who thinks he a woman to be able to go into a restroom with their daughters and grand daughters they walked away from the entire party this election.
These things may play well in some states but a conservative Democrat in the rust belt is not on the entire same page as a Democrat from New York and certain policies will flip them to the Republicans. This is what did and has been happening, gun control is a total disaster for us and some other policies.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)"...assault weapons do not belong on our streets. They are a danger to law enforcement and to our communities. Clinton supports keeping assault weapons off our streets."
IF no one is going to take them from their owners, how do we intend to keep them off the streets?
What's the goal of the ban?
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)Isn't there a special forum for gun guys?
benEzra
(12,148 posts)which would be this forum.
I live in North Carolina, which was a notable swing state this election. Perhaps you've heard of it.
The gun issue was big here in 2016. And 2014, when Hagan lost her Senate seat over it. I grew up here, though I lived in Florida for a decade in between, and I have some passing familiarity with both states...
hueymahl
(2,655 posts)Never going to happen
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)
killbotfactory
(13,566 posts)If you want less violence, you make people less desperate. That means a living wage for anyone who works for a living, healthcare as a right, and a way for anybody to reach their full potential through education.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)and Gary Kleck have argued. Go to the source of the problem rather than stigmatizing an object. But we don't want to do any heavy lifting. We want the quick/easy fix -- which turns out to be no fix at all!
Perhaps the tragedy of Nov. 8th will shake off our ideological blinders.......perhaps not. After suicides are removed from the overall homicide figures, (60%) 2/3 of the rest of the homicides are criminal-on-criminal -- which suggests that our "War on Drugs" exists only to maintain the Drug Law Enforcement Salary Complex. Good luck trying to kill that beast!
Edited to add: The saying I've seen posted somewhat regularly here at DU goes something like this:
"If Democrats were to fight as hard for the working class as Republicans fight for the leisure class, the GOP would be toast within a few election cycles."
I'd amend that thought thusly:
"If Democrats were to fight as hard for the working class as Republicans fight for the leisure class while dumping dishonest and worthless gun restriction measures, the GOP would be toast within a few election cycles."
CBHagman
(17,150 posts)...political Kryptonite. In fact I see too many in the media who automatically assume the NRA and the gun manufacturers are going to hold sway forever. That's assuming defeat beforehand.
I'm all for making efforts at the state level and in fact there have been multiple successes there. But gun violence, including suicides (most gun deaths) and accidents, is a nationwide problem, and weak laws in one state affect the other states, given the way guns will be taken over state lines.
benEzra
(12,148 posts)Change in ownership demographics is not favorable to gun control advocates, who primarily seek a return to straight-stocked rifles, larger calibers/lower capacity, less carry licensure, and a hunting-centric focus. Ownership has long been trending toward more modern stock styles, smaller calibers/higher capacity, more focus on defensive use, and a downward trend in hunting due to less opportunity.
Changes in the murder stats aren't trending in favor of gun control advocates either; homicide is down 50% since its peak in the early '90s, and rifle homicide is down 43% since the expiration of the much-hated Clinton handgrip and magazine restrictions in 2004. Less homicide equals less support for throwing your peaceable neighbors in prison because they own the wrong shaped rifle/shotgun handgrip or a non-reduced-capacity magazine.
Ban advocates are not just losing the population at large, they are losing registered Democrats, for exactly the reasons listed above.
CBHagman
(17,150 posts)Gun owners may be stocking up, but their numbers aren't increasing.
[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/29/american-gun-ownership-is-now-at-a-30-year-low/?utm_term=.418c783e9a78[/url]
Gun owners remain a potent political force in the U.S., due largely to the successful efforts of advocacy groups like the NRA. But survey data showing declining gun ownership suggests that the NRA has been successful largely by channeling the energy and intensity of an existing gun-owning base, rather than by broadening that base and bringing more supporters into the fold. If declines in ownership continue, the group could have a hard time replicating recent successes in the coming decades.
benEzra
(12,148 posts)Pretty much the *only* survey reporting a long-term decline has been the General Social Survey conducted by the University of Chicago, which is expressly non-anonymous, conducted via in-person interviews, funded by gun control advocates (Joyce), and run by a gun control advocate. Ownership rates assessed by Pew, Gallup, and others in anonymous surveys are much higher, and actual hard data (e.g. firearms possession licenses, in states that require them like IL and MA) show increases, not decreases.
Boston Globe - Gun licenses on the Rise in Massachusetts
Illinois FOID License Holders Up 33% 2009-2013
FWIW, the FOID numbers have kept rising; I believe the number of active Illinois FOID cards as of 12/15/2015 was 1,942,008, which would be a 54% increase in FOID cards since 2009, if I have that number right. And since FOID cards correlate 1:1 with on-the-books legal ownership in IL, a 33% (or 54%) increase in valid FOID's is a commensurate increase in licensed ownership---in the GSS's own backyard.
I'll point out that these are both heavily Dem, deep-blue states, but the same trends are at work in other blue states, as well as purple swing states and red states, whether you look at all the available proxies for ownership or at anonymous self-reported ownership.
As of 9/2016, a Pew Research Center poll put the number at 44% admitting to a gun in the house, 51% saying no gun, and 5% refusing to answer the question. A 1/2016 CNN poll put the numbers about the same, with 40% saying yes and 9% refusing to answer.
Carry licensure, which isn't correlated 1:1 with ownership but is still loosely correlated, has more than doubled since 2007 and IIRC roughly quadrupled since 1999.
WSJ - Permits Soar to Allow More Concealed Guns
Here in eastern NC, my local shooting range is now jam-packed every time I go there, when it used to be fairly sparse years ago, and I have a lot of coworkers and friends who bought their first gun within the last few years, including a longtime coworker who bought his first two months ago.
It is an article of faith among gun control advocates that the GSS is the only reliable measure of gun ownership, but if you look the totality of the metrics, including hard license data, overall ownership trends do not appear to be moving in the prohibitionists' favor. And it is incontrovertible that the styles of guns people have been buying in the last 25 years are not favorable to gun control advocates' handgrip-shape and magazine-capacity crusades, either. As I mentioned upthread, the market has been moving strongly away from larger calibers and straight stocks, toward the modern-looking centerfire .22's and double-stack 9mm's that the gun control lobby wishes to ban or severely restrict.
Perhaps it is hard to see from within the cloistered DC/NY/CA bubble, but Bloomberg et al are trying to outlaw guns and magazines that are legal in Canada and much of Europe, the banning of which would be considered a serious violation of the social contract across much of the United States. If your bans have gotten only 5% to 10% compliance among owners in New York and Connecticut, just how well do you expect those bans to play in NC, WV, Texas, Ohio, Tennessee, Florida, or Michigan? It is hard to express just how repellent the NY SAFE Act and similar crap is in states with a strong culture of lawful ownership.
FWIW, there were warnings of the flaws in the current approach in Virginia's 2015 state senate races, which IIRC handed control of the Virginia legislature to the repubs:
Washington Post - Did gun control cost McAuliffe and Democrats the Virginia election?
Too bad no one inside the bubble was listening.
MarvinGardens
(781 posts)Since 9/11, I have seen the Republicans move toward authoritarianism, rapidly accellerating toward it with Drumph. Since Obama's first campaign, my perception is that gun control has not been a major issue for Democrats, and this is a good thing. The party of civil liberties should not embrace prohibition for people who are not criminals. Reasonable regulations might include stricter laws on sales and registration/licensure, but gun owners will not support these if they are seen as a stepping stone to prohibition.
derby378
(30,262 posts)This is your way forward, guys. Just look at the electoral maps for the last few Presidential elections.
This is why I started the Gun Owners Caucus down in Texas. This is why I ran that little website for a few years. Because I wanted Democrats to win.
aikoaiko
(34,204 posts)And focus on universal background checks and individual disqualifying attributes with due process. And stop attacking PLCAA.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)They will say the dems are coming for your guns anyway.
Then they will steal the election, and we pretend we can't talk about that.
Had Russia and their de facto arm of our government not been involved in this election, we would have won handily. Down ballot too.
HoneyBadger
(2,297 posts)Time to move forward and have a more enlightened approach as part of a more progressive platform.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,593 posts)They only generate black market economies.
How long has it been since the Senate, House and Presidency have all been controlled by the same party along with a majority of state governors?
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)Seems as though a number of your fellow members disagree.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Unpleasant, doctrinaire, and unable to see that they're nowhere near as popular as they believe themselves to be...
Crunchy Frog
(27,081 posts)I personally hate guns, and in my perfect world, there would be strong gun control, but the reality is that it doesn't sell in this country.
FreeStateDemocrat
(2,654 posts)Most voters do not understand the nuance of Democratic Party gun policy.
Basically they mistrust any discussion as Hillary is going to take our guns away, period.
I was on the road yesterday and passed a late-model large pick-up with a tailgate wrap that read "Come on and try to take'em away!"
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)Is what abortion is to Republicans..
They can't help, but to get utterly destroyed by the issue..They just can't help themselves, like a moth to a flame, they literally cannot control themselves, they must get closer, and closer, and closer only to get burned up by the flames..
Tell me again, how gun control is a winning issue, when we see how Concealed Carry has spread practically nation wide over the past few years...Notice the green starting to spread... That is concealed carry, with NO permit needed... Tell me again how talk of gun control will win those areas over...
The writing for national gun control has been on the wall for a long time now, some folks just can't see the forest for the trees..The trends are for LESS laws now.