The Liberal Gun Club Forum

"...dropping longtime reticence"
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-g ... story.html

Democrats running for president have thrown off years of caution to aggressively advocate tough new gun laws, a response to a shocking series of mass shootings as well as changes in the country’s political makeup.

The turnabout has been on clear display since last week’s massacre in San Bernardino. In the aftermath, Democratic Senate leaders immediately forced votes on several gun control efforts, knowing they would lose, but wanting to draw a sharp, public line. The party’s presidential candidates have also emphasized the issue at every opportunity.

The advocacy breaks with more than two decades of belief that gun control was a losing issue for Democrats.

This shows, for those who have not noticed this twenty years ago, that the neo liberals have taken over the Democrats. They are authoritarian, and they prefer profit over people. I reject nearly all their premises.

I fear they will try and toss Bernie into the ideological wood chipper. I'm still in Bernie's camp, though, as he's not yet been chipped.

CDFingers

Warning: I'm grumpy cat this morning.

In the aftermath, Democratic Senate leaders immediately forced votes on several gun control efforts, knowing they would lose, but wanting to draw a sharp, public line.

From my vantage, that "sharp, public line" went over like a lead balloon....like a dull thud.

beaurrr wrote:Warning: I'm grumpy cat this morning.

In the aftermath, Democratic Senate leaders immediately forced votes on several gun control efforts, knowing they would lose, but wanting to draw a sharp, public line.

From my vantage, that "sharp, public line" went over like a lead balloon....like a dull thud.

Same here. And Bernie's decent down the hole is just as disappointing.

That's because Trans nationals are in the can for the neo liberal.

http://www.freepress.net/media-consolidation

http://www.stateofthemedia.org/media-ownership/

All's we see from the Big 6 is Trump,Trump,Trump and Hillary. Bernie is not shown because he knows about media ownership consolidation.

Oddly, the most connected generation in the history of Humankind is in the can for Bernie.

University's Institute of Politics.
The survey showed 41 percent of millennials who gave themselves at least a 50-50 chance of voting in the Democratic primary support Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), while 35 percent prefer Hillary Clinton. Just 9 percent say Sanders' description of himself as a Democratic socialist makes them less likely to support him.

link:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ber ... 90e5222a60

You millennials reading this had better vote! Sure, I'd like you to vote the same a I do, for Bernie, but I'd rather you vote against my ideas than not to vote at all.

Get out the Vote!

CDFingers

Don't get me wrong CDFingers I'm voting for Bernie and seeing what comes next. I'd have hoped Bernie would have shown as much backbone one the second as the other amendments.

sikacz wrote:Don't get me wrong CDFingers I'm voting for Bernie and seeing what comes next. I'd have hoped Bernie would have shown as much backbone one the second as the other amendments.

Yes, a collective "sigh" on that point.

CDFingers wrote:This shows, for those who have not noticed this twenty years ago, that the neo liberals have taken over the Democrats. They are authoritarian, and they prefer profit over people. I reject nearly all their premises.

I fear they will try and toss Bernie into the ideological wood chipper. I'm still in Bernie's camp, though, as he's not yet been chipped.

CDFingers

I don't like the term neo-liberal since I think it conflates the economic term with the political philosophy. Didn't we use to call these people neo-conservatives?

Call 'em what they are then; authoritarian and statists. They are not liberals.

And not all that fucking bright. Good way to lose elections.

Almost like they believe "90% of Americans favor background checks"

Merkwuerdigliebe wrote:

CDFingers wrote:This shows, for those who have not noticed this twenty years ago, that the neo liberals have taken over the Democrats. They are authoritarian, and they prefer profit over people. I reject nearly all their premises.

I fear they will try and toss Bernie into the ideological wood chipper. I'm still in Bernie's camp, though, as he's not yet been chipped.

CDFingers

I don't like the term neo-liberal since I think it conflates the economic term with the political philosophy. Didn't we use to call these people neo-conservatives?

I miss Fukshot riding me about that. ;-)

It's strange: both sides of "neo" have very very similar features with very tiny social issues being the difference. The neo liberals I critique put profit over people, and that's also something conservatives champion as well as neoconservatives doing it. The actual definition of neoliberal indeed does look at economic theory. I claim that the same people championing those neoliberal economic ideals also share the philosophical darkness that shows up in the profit over people feature.

In my mind these two have become synonymous. Neat academic papers could be written about subtle differences. I don't find much utility anymore in "neat academic papers." Most likely this is because I have been polluted with a healthy dose of realpolitik, finding the spinelessness of neoliberals leaves me cold.

CDFingers

When they lose do y'all think they'll blame gun control, or the unwashed masses' racism?

CDFingers wrote:That's because Trans nationals are in the can for the neo liberal.

http://www.freepress.net/media-consolidation

http://www.stateofthemedia.org/media-ownership/

All's we see from the Big 6 is Trump,Trump,Trump and Hillary. Bernie is not shown because he knows about media ownership consolidation.

Oddly, the most connected generation in the history of Humankind is in the can for Bernie.

University's Institute of Politics.
The survey showed 41 percent of millennials who gave themselves at least a 50-50 chance of voting in the Democratic primary support Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), while 35 percent prefer Hillary Clinton. Just 9 percent say Sanders' description of himself as a Democratic socialist makes them less likely to support him.

link:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ber ... 90e5222a60

You millennials reading this had better vote! Sure, I'd like you to vote the same a I do, for Bernie, but I'd rather you vote against my ideas than not to vote at all.

Get out the Vote!

CDFingers

While Bernie was out firing up the crowds Hillary Clinton was quietly working on securing the backing of the Democratic Party's superdelegates ( the DLC's gatekeepers ), which means that without a HUGE victory in the primary election for Bernie, she will win the nomination.
So, when is the last time you stood in line to vote in a primary election?


http://cfr.org/elections/role-delegates ... /p15414#p3

I like the term "corporate Democrats" myself.

In the news today, Bernie debates gun control with NRA member "Killer Mike":

"Bernie Sanders and Killer Mike Spar on Owning Assault Weapons"
KM: “I say yes,” the rapper declared. “I really believe the part of the Constitution that says that’s our last defense against tyranny* …. I don’t want the people I pay to be able to own something I don’t.”
BS: “Well, that’s something we disagree on."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... apons.html

*doesn't actually say that in the Constitution, but the intention is clear.

SilasSoule wrote:"Bernie Sanders and Killer Mike Spar on Owning Assault Weapons"

No bias there.

Hillary mentioned gun restrictions as a means of combating terrorism in her speech yesterday.

But some of her biggest applause lines came when Clinton directly connected terrorism and the need for gun control. Acknowledging that Republicans would disagree with her, Clinton said it was simple: "Terrorists use guns to kill Americans. I think we should make it harder for them from to do that."

Saying "the phrase 'active shooter' should not be one we have to teach our children," Clinton said, "It defies common sense that Republicans in Congress refuse to make it harder for potential terrorists to buy guns."

Maybe she'll do somethiing via an EO.

Interesting that Sanders, who supposedly has no real commitment to the Democratic party's gun restriction bullet points, got into a debate on the ownership of "assault weapons" with Killer Mike instead of avoiding the topic.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/g ... nra-216764

The new wave of attention to this issue from the left, which has watched closely as Hillary Clinton embraced gun control from the bully pulpit of a presidential campaign, signals a strategic shift for Democrats in some parts of the country. The party once let its moderate members off the hook on gun-related votes, understanding that Democrats from swing districts needed to hew closer to the NRA’s positions in order to survive politically.

Rep. Robin Kelly, a Chicago Democrat whose first race for Congress in 2013 focused on guns, credits the new power of the issue for her place in the House. “It helped that my opponents were ‘A’ rated by NRA,” Kelly said in an interview. “If we were all ‘F’ rated [by the NRA], maybe, who knows what would’ve happened.”

“It’s now a wedge issue, not just between Democrats and Republicans, but between Democrats, over who can be the strongest on this issue,” said Shannon Watts, the founder of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, the grass-roots arm of an advocacy group backed by former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Everytown for Gun Safety.

said Shannon Watts, the founder of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, the grass-roots arm of an advocacy group backed by former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Everytown for Gun Safety.

"grass roots"...

Getting good data on public beliefs on gun control is not easy and is a moving target, but Americans seem to want gun ownership, or at least the right to own.

http://www.thetrace.org/2015/09/background-check-polls/

Rational Americans can simultaneously overwhelmingly support expanding background checks, out of their general bias towards personal responsibility and public safety, yet have doubts as to whether expanded background checks will be foolproof. They can have beliefs one way or the other about broad principles like “gun control” and “gun sense,” which suggest allegiance to a larger political program or attitude, even as they have nuanced thoughts on specific policies and how those will work.

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

How much do you think stricter gun laws would do to help prevent gun violence? Would stricter laws help:
12/4-8/15 a lot: 26% some: 24% not much: 15% not at all : 33%
10/21-25/15 a lot: 29% some: 30% not much: 15% not at all : 25%

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... un_control

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 63% of Americans with a gun in their household feel safer because someone in that household owns a gun. Just two percent (2%) say having a gun in the house makes them feel less safe, while 32% say it has no impact on their personal safety.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... un-control

The latest Gallup survey released on Monday said that 55 percent want more restrictive gun control guidelines, a total up from 49 percent the year before.

This is a year old, but demonstrates the problem with polls. What controls do people see as favorable? Confiscation, or UBC. Liberal polls see "confiscation". Conservatives see "more practice".
And now the numbers have changed back, with many seeing laws as ineffective. Does that mean "take the guns" or "we are okay the way we are".


I've noticed how, after a shooting event, the media seems to seek out a few terrified people, and after feeding them specific words or asking semantically loaded yes/no questions, determine that the whole country is terrified. There seems to be a little media bias showing.
My personal experience makes me believe that unless it happens next door, most don't really care. We are a big country, it's hard to feel involved in something that happened hundreds of miles away to people you didn't know existed, and if you miss the 6 o'clock news, you didn't see any blood.

There's "The People" and then there's "The Politicians." The way things end up is this:

Imagine a marching band composed of those two groups. The People fill the first sixteen ranks of a twenty rank band. The last four ranks--The Politicians. The band is followed by the Drill Team in scanty outfits and carrying flags.

The Drum Major steps off the band. The People in the first few ranks step off in time. About five ranks in, the ranks start to fear that the ones in front of them won't start marching; they don't want to walk into them. So they hesitate a tad. Each subsequent rank does the same.

This is called "the accordion" in marching band parlance. Squeeee. The band unfolds like that. It's ugly. These bands never win competitions.

Let's consider The Politicians at the end of this unfolding drama. They're waiting for the Drill Team to come marching along, when they'll offer them all unpaid internships writing legislation for more paid marching practice time.

Civil Rights activists, which includes gun rights folks, march in the first four ranks. We're pissed the band never wins. We go to the new paid practices anyhow. Then we drink beer.

CDFingers

dougb wrote:I've noticed how, after a shooting event, the media seems to seek out a few terrified people, and after feeding them specific words or asking semantically loaded yes/no questions, determine that the whole country is terrified. There seems to be a little media bias showing.
My personal experience makes me believe that unless it happens next door, most don't really care. We are a big country, it's hard to feel involved in something that happened hundreds of miles away to people you didn't know existed, and if you miss the 6 o'clock news, you didn't see any blood.

The media has been trying to sell the idea the entire country is living in abject terror since the San Bernardino shootings, dragging out their nation gripped by fear headlines and graphics. I asked some coworkers if they were gripped by fear, and all the non-Cantabrigians replied "about what?' fairly uniformly.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/de ... s-35866176
ABC video of the candidates talking up gun restrictions during the debate.

SilasSoule wrote:I like the term "corporate Democrats" myself.

In the news today, Bernie debates gun control with NRA member "Killer Mike":

"Bernie Sanders and Killer Mike Spar on Owning Assault Weapons"
KM: “I say yes,” the rapper declared. “I really believe the part of the Constitution that says that’s our last defense against tyranny* …. I don’t want the people I pay to be able to own something I don’t.”
BS: “Well, that’s something we disagree on."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... apons.html

*doesn't actually say that in the Constitution, but the intention is clear.

Bringing this back up- I finally watched all 6 videos, and two things.
1) Despite the assault weapons topic, I agree with Mike. I'd still rather have Bernie as my president than not.
2) Killer Mike is an NRA member. He should also be an LGC Member given his views.

I have a hard time convincing myself that Bernie has any heart in gun control. It doesn't surprise me that he's making at least some comments about gun control, disappointing as it is. It's just presidential election noise. It would surprise me greatly if he spent any time at all on it after being elected. Count me as one who is dismayed at the Dems insistence on making gun control a highlight this election year; I can only think someone smells blood in the water over this issue. Despite a great deal of media hysteria, and the puzzling focus on some internet wanker's made-up mass shooting definition, I don't see it.

Bernie's the dude.