American Politics IV: 1400 Reasons Why(A Stimulus Serial)

[Shrillland]

Let me introduce you to the concept of single issue voters. Guns in particular can motivate an easy 5,000,000+ people to get to the polls and vote against anyone attempting even the most minor form of gun control, and they show up consistently when they need to and spend a lot of money to spread their message.

But nearly all of those already vote for the GOP anyway. Turnout can be an issue, yes, especially in the mid-term. But compared the Democrats appearing weak and doing nothing to solve the problems, which will turn down turnout for their own voters, I'm doubtful it'll actually cost them more. The democrats shouldn't try winning by not upsetting those who oppose them in hope they'll stay home. They should try winning by delivering for the majority of voters who, on this issue like many others, mostly support them.

There's problem number two...our nation is basically like your Senate writ large. A place where "where votes" arguably matters more than "who votes". And it's ridiculously easy to spook swing voters in the "where" category into voting Republican through a combination of gaslighting and dogwhistling that's only broken too late to change the outcome.

[Kilobugya]

That's the thing though, polling shows this isn't that big of an issue for Democratic supporters. Minimum wage, the environment, healthcare, Wall Street regulations etc etc are all vastly more sought after by the base. I can go into any liberal or progressive leaning space right now and they're all filled with criticisms and attacks on Biden for focusing on guns instead of any of that.

Ah yes, on that I agree - the issues you listed are more important than gun control, if it's one or the others, it should be the others. But I don't see why it can't be both.

[Kilobugya]

This is America we're talking about, Republicans will just ban half of the Democrats from voting.

I really hope that (despite its flaws that were discussed a while ago) they manage to pass HR1. If not... USA will sink even deeper into a anti-democratic morass

[Washington Resistance Army]

That's the thing though, polling shows this isn't that big of an issue for Democratic supporters. Minimum wage, the environment, healthcare, Wall Street regulations etc etc are all vastly more sought after by the base. I can go into any liberal or progressive leaning space right now and they're all filled with criticisms and attacks on Biden for focusing on guns instead of any of that.

Ah yes, on that I agree - the issues you listed are more important than gun control, if it's one or the others, it should be the others. But I don't see why it can't be both.

Political capital is limited. It's why the ACA was Obama's crowning achievement.

[Andsed]

Biden why man? Why must you choose this hill to die on? The Dems honestly should just drop gun control at this point.

Yes lets do nothing and continue to be the only country in the world where mass shootings happen on a regular basis.

Not continuing to harp on about a policy that just drives people away from the Dems and even if done would only address the symptoms of a problem and not the actual driving force is not “doing nothing” jfc.

[San Lumen]

But nearly all of those already vote for the GOP anyway. Turnout can be an issue, yes, especially in the mid-term. But compared the Democrats appearing weak and doing nothing to solve the problems, which will turn down turnout for their own voters, I'm doubtful it'll actually cost them more. The democrats shouldn't try winning by not upsetting those who oppose them in hope they'll stay home. They should try winning by delivering for the majority of voters who, on this issue like many others, mostly support them.

There's problem number two...our nation is basically like your Senate writ large. A place where "where votes" arguably matters more than "who votes". And it's ridiculously easy to spook swing voters in the "where" category into voting Republican through a combination of gaslighting and dogwhistling that's only broken too late to change the outcome.

They dont need to ban certain guns. Merely pass things like background checks which an overwhelming majority supports.

[Paddy O Fernature]

There's problem number two...our nation is basically like your Senate writ large. A place where "where votes" arguably matters more than "who votes". And it's ridiculously easy to spook swing voters in the "where" category into voting Republican through a combination of gaslighting and dogwhistling that's only broken too late to change the outcome.

They dont need to ban certain guns. Merely pass things like background checks which an overwhelming majority supports.

Background checks already exist.. as has been pointed out to you a couple of times in the past already on different threads.

[San Lumen]

They dont need to ban certain guns. Merely pass things like background checks which an overwhelming majority supports.

Background checks already exist.. as has been pointed out to you a couple of times in the past already on different threads.

why don't any other countries have mass shootings on a regular basis?

[Paddy O Fernature]

Background checks already exist.. as has been pointed out to you a couple of times in the past already on different threads.

why don't any other countries have mass shootings on a regular basis?

This also has already been brought up and address to you already, in this very thread even and not even a page ago.

Seriously, I know you hate addressing points that inconvenience you, but you seriously need to stop pretending they don't exist all together.

[Kilobugya]

Background checks already exist..

But with loopholes such as "gun fairs" where you can buy them without background checks.

[San Lumen]

Background checks already exist..

But with loopholes such as "gun fairs" where you can buy them without background checks.

That needs to be changed.

[Washington Resistance Army]

But with loopholes such as "gun fairs" where you can buy them without background checks.

That needs to be changed.

Amusingly enough despite all your drivel about "compromise" that actually WAS a compromise, and now Dems are trying to change it. To think some people have the gall to question why people won't come to the table for more compromises.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Background checks already exist..

But with loopholes such as "gun fairs" where you can buy them without background checks.

That isn't a loophole, that's literally a previous compromise.

See, this right here is the exact reason the pro gun side isn't willing to give a single inch on the issue.

[San Lumen]

But with loopholes such as "gun fairs" where you can buy them without background checks.

That isn't a loophole, that's literally a previous compromise.

See, this right here is the exact reason the pro gun side isn't willing to give a single inch on the issue.

How is that not a loophole?

[Kilobugya]

Amusingly enough despite all your drivel about "compromise" that actually WAS a compromise, and now Dems are trying to change it. To think some people have the gall to question why people won't come to the table for more compromises.

Making a compromise one day doesn't mean it'll have to remain set in stone and never be changed in the decades to come, whatever happens and whatever the citizen want.

[Washington Resistance Army]

That isn't a loophole, that's literally a previous compromise.

See, this right here is the exact reason the pro gun side isn't willing to give a single inch on the issue.

How is that not a loophole?

It was explicitly and purposefully excluded from the bill by the Democrats because they couldn't get enough votes to pass it if they kept it so they removed it as a compromise with Republicans to make them vote for the bill. Then they immediately turned around and started calling it a loophole and calling for it to be changed, and that was the last time the GOP ever compromised on the topic.

[Paddy O Fernature]

How is that not a loophole?

It was explicitly and purposefully excluded from the bill by the Democrats because they couldn't get enough votes to pass it if they kept it so they removed it as a compromise with Republicans to make them vote for the bill. Then they immediately turned around and started calling it a loophole and calling for it to be changed, and that was the last time the GOP ever compromised on the topic.

Exactly this.

You can keep calling it a loophole San, but you would still be utterly wrong by doing so.

[San Lumen]

How is that not a loophole?

It was explicitly and purposefully excluded from the bill by the Democrats because they couldn't get enough votes to pass it if they kept it so they removed it as a compromise with Republicans to make them vote for the bill. Then they immediately turned around and started calling it a loophole and calling for it to be changed, and that was the last time the GOP ever compromised on the topic.

That doesnt mean it can't be changed. something needs to be done about mass shootings. It shouldn;t be something we just accept as normal.

[Kilobugya]

You can keep calling it a loophole San, but you would still be utterly wrong by doing so.

That it was a compromise (something that applies to the law-making process) doesn't exclude it from being a loophole (something that applies to the effects of the law). Many loopholes in laws are intentional by some lawmakers - like many of the loopholes rich people use to avoid paying their taxes, or corporations use to avoid their responsibilities in pollution or endangering workers/consumers. The same applies here. And the loopholes must be fixed, for the sake of saving lives, regardless of it being the result of a compromise long ago or not.

[Paddy O Fernature]

You can keep calling it a loophole San, but you would still be utterly wrong by doing so.

That it was a compromise (something that applies to the law-making process) doesn't exclude it from being a loophole (something that applies to the effects of the law). Many loopholes in laws are intentional by some lawmakers - like many of the loopholes rich people use to avoid paying their taxes, or corporations use to avoid their responsibilities in pollution or endangering workers/consumers. The same applies here. And the loopholes must be fixed, for the sake of saving lives, regardless of it being the result of a compromise long ago or not.

Except that this fucking LITERALLY isn't a loophole in any way, shape, or form as already pointed out.

[San Lumen]

It was explicitly and purposefully excluded from the bill by the Democrats because they couldn't get enough votes to pass it if they kept it so they removed it as a compromise with Republicans to make them vote for the bill. Then they immediately turned around and started calling it a loophole and calling for it to be changed, and that was the last time the GOP ever compromised on the topic.

Exactly this.

You can keep calling it a loophole San, but you would still be utterly wrong by doing so.

If a mass shooting happened in your town what would you say then?

[Paddy O Fernature]

Exactly this.

You can keep calling it a loophole San, but you would still be utterly wrong by doing so.

If a mass shooting happened in your town what would you say then?

Same thing I'm saying now as it wouldn't change a thing.

[Washington Resistance Army]

It was explicitly and purposefully excluded from the bill by the Democrats because they couldn't get enough votes to pass it if they kept it so they removed it as a compromise with Republicans to make them vote for the bill. Then they immediately turned around and started calling it a loophole and calling for it to be changed, and that was the last time the GOP ever compromised on the topic.

That doesnt mean in can't be changed. something needs to be done about mass shootings. It shouldn;t be something we just accept as normal.

Yeah something does need to be done, but gun control isn't it. It statistically does nothing and isn't even widely followed or respected as law anymore. Literally over a third of the landmass of the entire continental United States has pledged to ignore any new gun laws that get passed.

[San Lumen]

If a mass shooting happened in your town what would you say then?

Same thing I'm saying now as it wouldn't change a thing.

So be upset for the victims but want no action?

[San Lumen]

That doesnt mean in can't be changed. something needs to be done about mass shootings. It shouldn;t be something we just accept as normal.

Yeah something does need to be done, but gun control isn't it. It statistically does nothing and isn't even widely followed or respected as law anymore. Literally over a third of the landmass of the entire continental United States has pledged to ignore any new gun laws that get passed.

if lawmakers or sheriffs wont enforce laws passed they ought to resign.