The State of the Democratic Party Post-2016

[Arlenton]

I heard something about a "Better Deal" and the DNC now funding pro-life Democrats. Are they trying to recreate the New Deal Coalition?

[USS Monitor]

I'd say there's no justifications for magazine limits and "assault weapons" bans either.

Have you been to a place with high gun violence rates?

There's the justification...

Not necessarily for those specific laws. Even if you've already established that there is a need to restrict guns because there's a local problem with shootings, that doesn't settle the question of what restrictions are most effective.

If you're allowing people to carry pistols, you can allow them to carry assault rifles. They've got a gun either way, and they can shoot someone with either gun. The issue is who has a gun and where they are carrying it, not what type of gun they have. Most urban street crime uses smaller guns that are easier to carry without drawing attention to yourself.

[Ngelmish]

Have you been to a place with high gun violence rates?

There's the justification...

I have worn a bullet proof vest to work as a result of being in a place with high gun violence rates.

High gun violence could be justification for stiffened background checks, stronger enhancements for gun violence, more expansive prohibition on criminals, even cooling off periods, some of these things are annoying, but I'd consider all of them justifiable given the context. But mag capacity limits and feature based bans are only justifiable from a place of abject ignorance.

It would be like trying to prevent highway collisions by limiting gas tanks to ten gallons capacity and banning air bags and arm rests. While simultaneously loosening driving license requirements and reducing traffic enforcement. It only makes sense if you have no clue what a car is.

Which is precisely why the gun rights movement should put it's political muscle into enacting all of those measures as a new standard. It checks the gun control crowd in the sense that once the non-controversial, widely accepted safety measures have been put into place, gun control advocates have no incremental reforms to hide behind: If they want more restrictions, they have to openly argue for them in the public sphere. And support for curtailing guns that widely is dead on arrival in America.

Go to where gun control lobby is strongest, preempt them on it and own their old issue.

[USS Monitor]

Except there's no safety justification for banning holy books.

There's a perceived safety justification for banning holy books. Just as there's a perceived justification for banning pistol grips. Even though there's no objective indication that either of these things make sense.

Anti gun sentiment in 'liberal' leaning cities comes from the same place as anti-Muslim sentiment in rural evangelical Christian communities. Fear of the "others" who are perceived as far more dangerous than any factual indication supports.

There are some areas where gun crime is a real danger, not an unfounded fear of the "other."

There are also some people who are just squeamish about guns because they're unfamiliar with them, but that's more true of suburbanites who want to impose national laws based on some news story that happened 5 states away. It doesn't really apply to people who are living in fear because of the crime in their own neighborhood.

[The East Marches II]

I have worn a bullet proof vest to work as a result of being in a place with high gun violence rates.

High gun violence could be justification for stiffened background checks, stronger enhancements for gun violence, more expansive prohibition on criminals, even cooling off periods, some of these things are annoying, but I'd consider all of them justifiable given the context. But mag capacity limits and feature based bans are only justifiable from a place of abject ignorance.

It would be like trying to prevent highway collisions by limiting gas tanks to ten gallons capacity and banning air bags and arm rests. While simultaneously loosening driving license requirements and reducing traffic enforcement. It only makes sense if you have no clue what a car is.

Which is precisely why the gun rights movement should put it's political muscle into enacting all of those measures as a new standard. It checks the gun control crowd in the sense that once the non-controversial, widely accepted safety measures have been put into place, gun control advocates have no incremental reforms to hide behind: If they want more restrictions, they have to openly argue for them in the public sphere. And support for curtailing guns that widely is dead on arrival in America.

Go to where gun control lobby is strongest, preempt them on it and own their old issue.

Thats not a winning strategy, that merely accomplishes one goal for the otherside. It would be best to keep the fight over something meaningless rather than meaningful. Polarize it for generations to come. If we go the route you recommend, gun ownership would die a quiet death. Its only cool because people don't want it around.

[Victoria and Vacuna]

Which is precisely why the gun rights movement should put it's political muscle into enacting all of those measures as a new standard. It checks the gun control crowd in the sense that once the non-controversial, widely accepted safety measures have been put into place, gun control advocates have no incremental reforms to hide behind: If they want more restrictions, they have to openly argue for them in the public sphere. And support for curtailing guns that widely is dead on arrival in America.

Go to where gun control lobby is strongest, preempt them on it and own their old issue.

Thats not a winning strategy, that merely accomplishes one goal for the otherside. It would be best to keep the fight over something meaningless rather than meaningful. Polarize it for generations to come. If we go the route you recommend, gun ownership would die a quiet death. Its only cool because people don't want it around.

I don't care. Better it die quietly than scream its' way into dominance.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Thats not a winning strategy, that merely accomplishes one goal for the otherside. It would be best to keep the fight over something meaningless rather than meaningful. Polarize it for generations to come. If we go the route you recommend, gun ownership would die a quiet death. Its only cool because people don't want it around.

I don't care. Better it die quietly than scream its' way into dominance.

A great many people do care, and given how dead on arrival gun control is I'd say it's already the dominant position.

[Telconi]

There's a perceived safety justification for banning holy books. Just as there's a perceived justification for banning pistol grips. Even though there's no objective indication that either of these things make sense.

Anti gun sentiment in 'liberal' leaning cities comes from the same place as anti-Muslim sentiment in rural evangelical Christian communities. Fear of the "others" who are perceived as far more dangerous than any factual indication supports.

There are some areas where gun crime is a real danger, not an unfounded fear of the "other."

There are also some people who are just squeamish about guns because they're unfamiliar with them, but that's more true of suburbanites who want to impose national laws based on some news story that happened 5 states away. It doesn't really apply to people who are living in fear because of the crime in their own neighborhood.

I'm not trying to be critical of the often reasonable fears they have. I'm criticising the laws they pass, using that fear as an excuse. Many large cities have gun violence issues, many people in these cities have reasonable fears of gun violence. But a stock that allows adjustable length of pull, is not one of these reasonable concerns, nor is a barrel shroud which functons to prevent me from burning myself, nor is a pistol grip, etc. etc. I have no issue with 'common sense' gun regulations, but the Democrat party as a whole doesn't have the wherewithal to recognize common sense gun policy if it smacked them upside the head.

I have worn a bullet proof vest to work as a result of being in a place with high gun violence rates.

High gun violence could be justification for stiffened background checks, stronger enhancements for gun violence, more expansive prohibition on criminals, even cooling off periods, some of these things are annoying, but I'd consider all of them justifiable given the context. But mag capacity limits and feature based bans are only justifiable from a place of abject ignorance.

It would be like trying to prevent highway collisions by limiting gas tanks to ten gallons capacity and banning air bags and arm rests. While simultaneously loosening driving license requirements and reducing traffic enforcement. It only makes sense if you have no clue what a car is.

Which is precisely why the gun rights movement should put it's political muscle into enacting all of those measures as a new standard. It checks the gun control crowd in the sense that once the non-controversial, widely accepted safety measures have been put into place, gun control advocates have no incremental reforms to hide behind: If they want more restrictions, they have to openly argue for them in the public sphere. And support for curtailing guns that widely is dead on arrival in America.

Go to where gun control lobby is strongest, preempt them on it and own their old issue.

Because I'm not Neville Chamberlain.

[Ngelmish]

Which is precisely why the gun rights movement should put it's political muscle into enacting all of those measures as a new standard. It checks the gun control crowd in the sense that once the non-controversial, widely accepted safety measures have been put into place, gun control advocates have no incremental reforms to hide behind: If they want more restrictions, they have to openly argue for them in the public sphere. And support for curtailing guns that widely is dead on arrival in America.

Go to where gun control lobby is strongest, preempt them on it and own their old issue.

Thats not a winning strategy, that merely accomplishes one goal for the otherside. It would be best to keep the fight over something meaningless rather than meaningful. Polarize it for generations to come. If we go the route you recommend, gun ownership would die a quiet death. Its only cool because people don't want it around.

Not if, in Telconi's words "stiffened background checks, stronger enhancements for gun violence, more expansive prohibition on criminals, even cooling off periods" really are justified. So long as you resist restrictions that even a comfortable majority of gun rights advocates concede are reasonable, even desirable, you allow the opposition to weaponize the issue, grandstand you on your weakest, least defensible point, and give them a free opportunity to try to whip up popular enthusiasm for curbs that go much further. From a strategic perspective, checking your opponents' ability to make a reasonable (and legal) case would reap enormous electoral benefits.

Admittedly, if your position is that there really shouldn't be any restrictions, or at least no more than are currently on the books, then that's a different matter.

[Liberalter]

I don't care. Better it die quietly than scream its' way into dominance.

A great many people do care, and given how dead on arrival gun control is I'd say it's already the dominant position.

I thought we settled this long ago. Gun control is something 99% of modern practical socialists support. Otherwise any random person can get a gun and shoot people. Guns aren't simply a tool, their one purpose is to be designed to kill people. What else would you do with a gun?
Only trained professional should be allowed to have them.

[Washington Resistance Army]

A great many people do care, and given how dead on arrival gun control is I'd say it's already the dominant position.

I thought we settled this long ago. Gun control is something 99% of modern practical socialists support. Otherwise any random person can get a gun and shoot people. Guns aren't simply a tool, their one purpose is to be designed to kill people. What else would you do with a gun?
Only trained professional should be allowed to have them.

Good thing nobody cares what modern socialists support, lol.

[Telconi]

A great many people do care, and given how dead on arrival gun control is I'd say it's already the dominant position.

I thought we settled this long ago. Gun control is something 99% of modern practical socialists support. Otherwise any random person can get a gun and shoot people. Guns aren't simply a tool, their one purpose is to be designed to kill people. What else would you do with a gun?
Only trained professional should be allowed to have them.

99% of a demographic totalling zero people!

[Genivaria]

A great many people do care, and given how dead on arrival gun control is I'd say it's already the dominant position.

I thought we settled this long ago. Gun control is something 99% of modern practical socialists support. Otherwise any random person can get a gun and shoot people. Guns aren't simply a tool, their one purpose is to be designed to kill people. What else would you do with a gun?
Only trained professional should be allowed to have them.

A percentage pulled right out of your ass.

[Ngelmish]

There are some areas where gun crime is a real danger, not an unfounded fear of the "other."

There are also some people who are just squeamish about guns because they're unfamiliar with them, but that's more true of suburbanites who want to impose national laws based on some news story that happened 5 states away. It doesn't really apply to people who are living in fear because of the crime in their own neighborhood.

I'm not trying to be critical of the often reasonable fears they have. I'm criticising the laws they pass, using that fear as an excuse. Many large cities have gun violence issues, many people in these cities have reasonable fears of gun violence. But a stock that allows adjustable length of pull, is not one of these reasonable concerns, nor is a barrel shroud which functons to prevent me from burning myself, nor is a pistol grip, etc. etc. I have no issue with 'common sense' gun regulations, but the Democrat party as a whole doesn't have the wherewithal to recognize common sense gun policy if it smacked them upside the head.

Which is precisely why the gun rights movement should put it's political muscle into enacting all of those measures as a new standard. It checks the gun control crowd in the sense that once the non-controversial, widely accepted safety measures have been put into place, gun control advocates have no incremental reforms to hide behind: If they want more restrictions, they have to openly argue for them in the public sphere. And support for curtailing guns that widely is dead on arrival in America.

Go to where gun control lobby is strongest, preempt them on it and own their old issue.

Because I'm not Neville Chamberlain.

One of the more amusing facts about Chamberlain is that he was right that Britain was completely unprepared for war in the late 30s, stalling for time ultimately put Britain in a position where survival and victory were at least feasible, under different leadership of course. It's also an odd, and irrelevant comparison.

You would prefer gun control people to argue for reasonable, incremental restrictions over a blatantly illegal Australian style buyback campaign?

[Washington Resistance Army]

You would prefer gun control people to argue for reasonable, incremental restrictions over a blatantly illegal Australian style buyback campaign?

Several big gun control names have already been quite open about wanting Australian style gun control. Shit, even Clinton said it last year.

TEM is right that not a single inch should be given nowadays, we know how that's turned out in the past and it's never gone well for the gun rights side.

[Telconi]

I'm not trying to be critical of the often reasonable fears they have. I'm criticising the laws they pass, using that fear as an excuse. Many large cities have gun violence issues, many people in these cities have reasonable fears of gun violence. But a stock that allows adjustable length of pull, is not one of these reasonable concerns, nor is a barrel shroud which functons to prevent me from burning myself, nor is a pistol grip, etc. etc. I have no issue with 'common sense' gun regulations, but the Democrat party as a whole doesn't have the wherewithal to recognize common sense gun policy if it smacked them upside the head.



Because I'm not Neville Chamberlain.

One of the more amusing facts about Chamberlain is that he was right that Britain was completely unprepared for war in the late 30s, stalling for time ultimately put Britain in a position where survival and victory were at least feasible, under different leadership of course. It's also an odd, and irrelevant comparison.

You would prefer gun control people to argue for reasonable, incremental restrictions over a blatantly illegal Australian style buyback campaign?

The comparison was to Chamberlain's strategy of appeasement. There is no appeasing the grabbers, by conceding to any regulation whatsoever I have simply moved them closer to their sinister goal without putting up a fight. As long as they push for their all or nothing approach I will fight them for every inch on principle.

[Ngelmish]

You would prefer gun control people to argue for reasonable, incremental restrictions over a blatantly illegal Australian style buyback campaign?

Several big gun control names have already been quite open about wanting Australian style gun control. Shit, even Clinton said it last year.

TEM is right that not a single inch should be given nowadays, we know that's turned out in the past and it's never gone well for the gun rights side.

Clinton didn't go that far rhetorically, though there can be no doubt that that is her preferred solution. My point is simply that that is a losing argument and a losing position to take. Yes, it fires ups the most passionate gun control advocates who are a sizable block of the base, but it doesn't fly. In general, if you force your opponents to openly make a losing argument, you're winning on the substance and the politics.

One of the more amusing facts about Chamberlain is that he was right that Britain was completely unprepared for war in the late 30s, stalling for time ultimately put Britain in a position where survival and victory were at least feasible, under different leadership of course. It's also an odd, and irrelevant comparison.

You would prefer gun control people to argue for reasonable, incremental restrictions over a blatantly illegal Australian style buyback campaign?

The comparison was to Chamberlain's strategy of appeasement. There is no appeasing the grabbers, by conceding to any regulation whatsoever I have simply moved them closer to their sinister goal without putting up a fight. As long as they push for their all or nothing approach I will fight them for every inch on principle.

I understood the point that you were making about appeasement, but that's not a rational reason not to pull their teeth, it's an emotional one. Or 'principle' if you prefer.

[Telconi]

Several big gun control names have already been quite open about wanting Australian style gun control. Shit, even Clinton said it last year.

TEM is right that not a single inch should be given nowadays, we know that's turned out in the past and it's never gone well for the gun rights side.

Clinton didn't go that far rhetorically, though there can be no doubt that that is her preferred solution. My point is simply that that is a losing argument and a losing position to take. Yes, it fires ups the most passionate gun control advocates who are a sizable block of the base, but it doesn't fly. In general, if you force your opponents to openly make a losing argument, you're winning on the substance and the politics.

The comparison was to Chamberlain's strategy of appeasement. There is no appeasing the grabbers, by conceding to any regulation whatsoever I have simply moved them closer to their sinister goal without putting up a fight. As long as they push for their all or nothing approach I will fight them for every inch on principle.

I understood the point that you were making about appeasement, but that's not a rational reason not to pull their teeth, it's an emotional one. Or 'principle' if you prefer.

You cannot pull their teeth. Just as in the comparison Chamberlain could not pull Hitler's He simply carried on, using what was conceded because there was some reasonable justification as a springboard for less and less justifiable demands. Your entire strategy is reliant upon a concept that gun grabbers will at some point reach a level of control in which they will be satisifed, and I think that's foolish.

[Valrifell]

I think the gun debate is a perfect example as a microcosm of most American debate. We start out fine, we can even find common ground on a few things, but for whatever reason the big bad other side is too evil to be trusted and needs to be shouted down and our position needs to be uncompromising for fear of weakness and slippery slope fallacies.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I think the gun debate is a perfect example as a microcosm of most American debate. We start out fine, we can even find common ground on a few things, but for whatever reason the big bad other side is too evil to be trusted and needs to be shouted down and our position needs to be uncompromising for fear of weakness and slippery slope fallacies.

It's not a really a fallacy on this topic, tbh. There's a nice long list going back some 80 years of more and more gun control being passed, pro-gun people certainly have reason to be wary of claims that the control side wants just this one thing.

[USS Monitor]

There are some areas where gun crime is a real danger, not an unfounded fear of the "other."

There are also some people who are just squeamish about guns because they're unfamiliar with them, but that's more true of suburbanites who want to impose national laws based on some news story that happened 5 states away. It doesn't really apply to people who are living in fear because of the crime in their own neighborhood.

I'm not trying to be critical of the often reasonable fears they have. I'm criticising the laws they pass, using that fear as an excuse. Many large cities have gun violence issues, many people in these cities have reasonable fears of gun violence. But a stock that allows adjustable length of pull, is not one of these reasonable concerns, nor is a barrel shroud which functons to prevent me from burning myself, nor is a pistol grip, etc. etc. I have no issue with 'common sense' gun regulations, but the Democrat party as a whole doesn't have the wherewithal to recognize common sense gun policy if it smacked them upside the head.

What types of gun control are most effective is a separate issue from whether they are implemented nationally or locally. My point is just that the issue should be addressed at a local level because the risks and benefits of gun-ownership change depending on the local environment.

Wasn't specifically advocating bans on barrel shrouds as an effective policy, even in places with gun crime.

[Telconi]

I think the gun debate is a perfect example as a microcosm of most American debate. We start out fine, we can even find common ground on a few things, but for whatever reason the big bad other side is too evil to be trusted and needs to be shouted down and our position needs to be uncompromising for fear of weakness and slippery slope fallacies.

I think the gun debate is a perfect example as a microcosm of most American debate. We start out fine, we can even find common ground on a few things, but for whatever perfectly reasonable reasons the big bad other side is too evil to be trusted and needs to be shouted down and our position needs to be uncompromising for fear of weakness and slippery slope fallacies. those bastards doing exactly what they've always done and openly express desire to do again.

Fixed that for you.

[USS Monitor]

A great many people do care, and given how dead on arrival gun control is I'd say it's already the dominant position.

I thought we settled this long ago. Gun control is something 99% of modern practical socialists support. Otherwise any random person can get a gun and shoot people. Guns aren't simply a tool, their one purpose is to be designed to kill people. What else would you do with a gun?
Only trained professional should be allowed to have them.

Guns have other purposes besides killing people. Hunting rifles are designed for hunting, and some people in rural areas still use them for that.

[Telconi]

I'm not trying to be critical of the often reasonable fears they have. I'm criticising the laws they pass, using that fear as an excuse. Many large cities have gun violence issues, many people in these cities have reasonable fears of gun violence. But a stock that allows adjustable length of pull, is not one of these reasonable concerns, nor is a barrel shroud which functons to prevent me from burning myself, nor is a pistol grip, etc. etc. I have no issue with 'common sense' gun regulations, but the Democrat party as a whole doesn't have the wherewithal to recognize common sense gun policy if it smacked them upside the head.

What types of gun control are most effective is a separate issue from whether they are implemented nationally or locally. My point is just that the issue should be addressed at a local level because the risks and benefits of gun-ownership change depending on the local environment.

Wasn't specifically advocating bans on barrel shrouds as an effective policy, even in places with gun crime.

I would say the two issues are intertwined. What is reasonable in a small locality may be stricter than what is reasonable in a larger jurisdiction. And local control is certainly less if an imposition than broader control. But there is still a limit, local support should not give a gun control advocate a free ticket to crazytown.

[Hittanryan]

There are some areas where gun crime is a real danger, not an unfounded fear of the "other."

There are also some people who are just squeamish about guns because they're unfamiliar with them, but that's more true of suburbanites who want to impose national laws based on some news story that happened 5 states away. It doesn't really apply to people who are living in fear because of the crime in their own neighborhood.

I'm not trying to be critical of the often reasonable fears they have. I'm criticising the laws they pass, using that fear as an excuse. Many large cities have gun violence issues, many people in these cities have reasonable fears of gun violence. But a stock that allows adjustable length of pull, is not one of these reasonable concerns, nor is a barrel shroud which functons to prevent me from burning myself, nor is a pistol grip, etc. etc. I have no issue with 'common sense' gun regulations, but the Democrat party as a whole doesn't have the wherewithal to recognize common sense gun policy if it smacked them upside the head.

This goes both ways. Again, this comes down to urban vs. rural. Urban voters feel the effects of gun crime constantly, rural voters don't.

If gun control had been left a local issue, this likely wouldn't be a problem. The trouble is that cities have passed municipal gun control ordinances only to have them struck down at the federal level. The gun lobby and gun activists are resistant to even the slightest attempt at regulation anywhere in the country, and they demand a one-size-fits-all policy for everyone while completely ignoring the concerns of urban voters.