Off Topic · OT Florida shooting (page 10)
The real reason the NRA’s money matters in elections
Direct contributions to candidates aren’t the only way to wield clout.
By Charlotte Hill Feb 27, 2018, 8:50am EST
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/2/...
At that now-famous televised town hall debate last week, Sen Marco Rubio (R-FL) made a statement about the NRA that didn’t go over well with the live audience. The group’s influence, he claimed, “comes not from money,” but “from the millions of people who support the agenda” of gun rights.
A chorus of boos erupted from the crowd, which included both grieving families and gun control advocates. But what’s striking is that Rubio’s remarks aren’t just a right-wing talking point. That basic view of the cause of the NRA’s clout is shared by many political scientists, journalists, and pundits, on both the right and the left. It’s the counterintuitive argument du jour.
The small problem is that it’s wrong — or at the least, only a very partial truth.
Advocates of this view have been circulating on Twitter a graphic, drawn from data from the nonprofit group OpenSecrets. It shows that when industries are lined up in order of how much money they donate to federal candidates, the gun-rights industry is toward the bottom of the pack.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics’ database, the NRA donated less than $14 million from 1998 to 2016. That’s not chump change, but given that the average winning House candidate now spends around $1.5. million in a single election, it’s not a ton, either.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/10296327/gunlobbygraph.jpg)
The graphic’s tweets and retweets almost all included the same commentary: The NRA doesn’t gain its power through political spending. One journalist lamented the focus on money rather than the NRA’s mobilized voting bloc. A scholar contrasted the NRA’s small donations with its successful approach to building community through a massive grassroots operation, including providing services and leadership development.
A heavily shared New York Times article published over the weekend has the same gist: It purports to debunk the idea that “the NRA has bought its political support” by highlighting how the NRA’s political action committee “over the last decade has not made a single direct contribution to any current member of the Florida House or Senate.”
Now, it is true that the gun lobby’s direct campaign donations to politicians, in isolation, probably haven’t played a big role in shaping policy outcomes. (Though at least one study suggests otherwise.)
But in rebutting this overly simplistic story, these journalists and scholars have gone too far in the other direction. Money plays a critical role in the story of NRA influence, just not in the way many people think.
The popular “money doesn’t matter” talking point is ignoring something that’s absolutely crucial: outside spending. Rather than giving money directly to politicians, the gun lobby spends the bulk of its money independently of political candidates, running TV and internet ads urging voters to reject anyone who supports gun reform. From 1998 to 2017, the NRA distributed $144.3 million in outside spending, or 10 times more money than it spent on direct donations to federal candidates.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/10305139/Screenshot_2018_02_18_09.45.40.png)
In 2014, one of these ads targeted US Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA). Landrieu had supported a bill that expanded federal background checks to include gun purchases made at gun shows and over the internet. It was a modest policy proposal; background checks are supported by 90 percent of American voters. The NRA ad, however, showed a mom putting her daughter to bed while her husband was away from home.
An intruder enters, the police don’t arrive in time — and suddenly, the house has become a crime scene. “Mary Landrieu voted to take away your gun rights,” a narrator says in ominous tones.
Landrieu lost the election.
Politicians like Sen. Rubio know how this process works. It shapes their political calculus following a mass shooting like the one in Florida. Embrace reform and incur the televised wrath of the gun lobby. Reject reform and benefit from free political advertising praising your candidacy during the next election cycle.
Of course, the story doesn’t stop with money. The NRA does effectively mobilize voters; all the political ads in the world wouldn’t matter if people flat-out ignored them.
But the NRA likes to frame itself as a grassroots organization, powered by 5 million members across the United States. While it’s true that about half of the NRA’s funding comes from membership dues, because of federal restrictions, relatively little of that money is spent on political activity.
Both the NRA’s main lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action, and the NRA Political Victory Fund “must continuously raise the funds needed to sustain NRA’s legislative and political activities,” reads the NRA website. “The resources expended in these arenas comes from the generous contributions of NRA members — above and beyond their regular dues.”
America’s woefully inadequate campaign finance disclosure laws make it hard to determine who exactly pays for the Political Victory Fund’s attack ads, but past funders appear to have included corporations, conservative Super PACs, and the Koch brothers.
Gun control advocates, meanwhile, are in the unenviable position of having the more popular policy stance but not the funding to mobilize voters around it. There’s no anti-gun industry waiting in the wings to fund groups like Everytown for Gun Safety or Gabby Giffords’s Americans for Responsible Solutions. Without rich, corporate backers, these groups are inherently at a disadvantage.
If anything, the NRA’s complex web of political spending is more pernicious than direct campaign donations from interest groups to politicians. It doesn’t fit into a clean narrative of rich people corruptly buying policy.
Instead, we see something that almost looks like democracy at work: people organizing around shared policy preferences, consolidating their resources, and mobilizing to pressure lawmakers into doing what they want. We’ve all done some version of this when we’ve made a $5 or $10 contribution to an advocacy organization.
But the NRA spending ultimately leads to policies that run counter to the expressed preferences of the majority of Americans. A small group of extreme, sometimes profit-motivated donors funnels money to an (ostensibly grassroots) group. That group then blankets our electoral cycles in political ads meant to scare Americans into opposing laws that would actually protect them, laws most of them claim to want. Red-state legislators who might otherwise support commonsense gun restrictions instead live under the constant threat of NRA attack ads; all it takes is one small step toward gun reform.
Most scholars get this. When they say the NRA’s influence doesn’t come from money, they mean that it doesn’t come from face-to-face bribery. But this overly simplistic argument, made in good faith, is dangerous. Our country desperately needs to reckon with the complex relationship between money and political power — and yet our intellectual and political leaders are telling us that money doesn’t matter in the case of guns. No wonder we can’t solve our paralysis on gun policy. We can’t even properly diagnose its causes.
Independent expenditures are a large and growing part of our nation’s campaign finance system, regulated (and deregulated) by the Supreme Court through decisions such as Citizens United v. FEC. There are remedies at hand. We could require groups running independent political ads to disclose their donors; research suggests that this reduces their influence relative to candidate-sponsored advertisements. The next president could appoint Supreme Court justices committed to overturning these decisions, clearing the way for new restrictions on outside spending.
More radically, we could amend the US Constitution to, as the think tank Demos puts it, “clarify that the people have the right to democratically enact content-neutral limitations on campaign contributions and spending by individuals and corporations in order to promote political equality.”
But we won’t get there if we refuse to acknowledge how the gun lobby gets its way. The story of the NRA’s influence is, in large part, the story of how economic power buys political power in modern America. The methods may not be as obvious as bribery, but that doesn’t mean they’re not corrupt.
martin wrote:Some interesting information here:
The real reason the NRA’s money matters in elections
Direct contributions to candidates aren’t the only way to wield clout.
By Charlotte Hill Feb 27, 2018, 8:50am ESThttps://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/2/...
At that now-famous televised town hall debate last week, Sen Marco Rubio (R-FL) made a statement about the NRA that didn’t go over well with the live audience. The group’s influence, he claimed, “comes not from money,” but “from the millions of people who support the agenda” of gun rights.
A chorus of boos erupted from the crowd, which included both grieving families and gun control advocates. But what’s striking is that Rubio’s remarks aren’t just a right-wing talking point. That basic view of the cause of the NRA’s clout is shared by many political scientists, journalists, and pundits, on both the right and the left. It’s the counterintuitive argument du jour.
The small problem is that it’s wrong — or at the least, only a very partial truth.
Advocates of this view have been circulating on Twitter a graphic, drawn from data from the nonprofit group OpenSecrets. It shows that when industries are lined up in order of how much money they donate to federal candidates, the gun-rights industry is toward the bottom of the pack.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics’ database, the NRA donated less than $14 million from 1998 to 2016. That’s not chump change, but given that the average winning House candidate now spends around $1.5. million in a single election, it’s not a ton, either.
The graphic’s tweets and retweets almost all included the same commentary: The NRA doesn’t gain its power through political spending. One journalist lamented the focus on money rather than the NRA’s mobilized voting bloc. A scholar contrasted the NRA’s small donations with its successful approach to building community through a massive grassroots operation, including providing services and leadership development.
A heavily shared New York Times article published over the weekend has the same gist: It purports to debunk the idea that “the NRA has bought its political support” by highlighting how the NRA’s political action committee “over the last decade has not made a single direct contribution to any current member of the Florida House or Senate.”
Now, it is true that the gun lobby’s direct campaign donations to politicians, in isolation, probably haven’t played a big role in shaping policy outcomes. (Though at least one study suggests otherwise.)
But in rebutting this overly simplistic story, these journalists and scholars have gone too far in the other direction. Money plays a critical role in the story of NRA influence, just not in the way many people think.
The popular “money doesn’t matter” talking point is ignoring something that’s absolutely crucial: outside spending. Rather than giving money directly to politicians, the gun lobby spends the bulk of its money independently of political candidates, running TV and internet ads urging voters to reject anyone who supports gun reform. From 1998 to 2017, the NRA distributed $144.3 million in outside spending, or 10 times more money than it spent on direct donations to federal candidates.
In 2014, one of these ads targeted US Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA). Landrieu had supported a bill that expanded federal background checks to include gun purchases made at gun shows and over the internet. It was a modest policy proposal; background checks are supported by 90 percent of American voters. The NRA ad, however, showed a mom putting her daughter to bed while her husband was away from home.
An intruder enters, the police don’t arrive in time — and suddenly, the house has become a crime scene. “Mary Landrieu voted to take away your gun rights,” a narrator says in ominous tones.
Landrieu lost the election.
Politicians like Sen. Rubio know how this process works. It shapes their political calculus following a mass shooting like the one in Florida. Embrace reform and incur the televised wrath of the gun lobby. Reject reform and benefit from free political advertising praising your candidacy during the next election cycle.
Of course, the story doesn’t stop with money. The NRA does effectively mobilize voters; all the political ads in the world wouldn’t matter if people flat-out ignored them.
But the NRA likes to frame itself as a grassroots organization, powered by 5 million members across the United States. While it’s true that about half of the NRA’s funding comes from membership dues, because of federal restrictions, relatively little of that money is spent on political activity.
Both the NRA’s main lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action, and the NRA Political Victory Fund “must continuously raise the funds needed to sustain NRA’s legislative and political activities,” reads the NRA website. “The resources expended in these arenas comes from the generous contributions of NRA members — above and beyond their regular dues.”
America’s woefully inadequate campaign finance disclosure laws make it hard to determine who exactly pays for the Political Victory Fund’s attack ads, but past funders appear to have included corporations, conservative Super PACs, and the Koch brothers.
Gun control advocates, meanwhile, are in the unenviable position of having the more popular policy stance but not the funding to mobilize voters around it. There’s no anti-gun industry waiting in the wings to fund groups like Everytown for Gun Safety or Gabby Giffords’s Americans for Responsible Solutions. Without rich, corporate backers, these groups are inherently at a disadvantage.
If anything, the NRA’s complex web of political spending is more pernicious than direct campaign donations from interest groups to politicians. It doesn’t fit into a clean narrative of rich people corruptly buying policy.
Instead, we see something that almost looks like democracy at work: people organizing around shared policy preferences, consolidating their resources, and mobilizing to pressure lawmakers into doing what they want. We’ve all done some version of this when we’ve made a $5 or $10 contribution to an advocacy organization.
But the NRA spending ultimately leads to policies that run counter to the expressed preferences of the majority of Americans. A small group of extreme, sometimes profit-motivated donors funnels money to an (ostensibly grassroots) group. That group then blankets our electoral cycles in political ads meant to scare Americans into opposing laws that would actually protect them, laws most of them claim to want. Red-state legislators who might otherwise support commonsense gun restrictions instead live under the constant threat of NRA attack ads; all it takes is one small step toward gun reform.
Most scholars get this. When they say the NRA’s influence doesn’t come from money, they mean that it doesn’t come from face-to-face bribery. But this overly simplistic argument, made in good faith, is dangerous. Our country desperately needs to reckon with the complex relationship between money and political power — and yet our intellectual and political leaders are telling us that money doesn’t matter in the case of guns. No wonder we can’t solve our paralysis on gun policy. We can’t even properly diagnose its causes.
Independent expenditures are a large and growing part of our nation’s campaign finance system, regulated (and deregulated) by the Supreme Court through decisions such as Citizens United v. FEC. There are remedies at hand. We could require groups running independent political ads to disclose their donors; research suggests that this reduces their influence relative to candidate-sponsored advertisements. The next president could appoint Supreme Court justices committed to overturning these decisions, clearing the way for new restrictions on outside spending.
More radically, we could amend the US Constitution to, as the think tank Demos puts it, “clarify that the people have the right to democratically enact content-neutral limitations on campaign contributions and spending by individuals and corporations in order to promote political equality.”
But we won’t get there if we refuse to acknowledge how the gun lobby gets its way. The story of the NRA’s influence is, in large part, the story of how economic power buys political power in modern America. The methods may not be as obvious as bribery, but that doesn’t mean they’re not corrupt.
Or we could amend the constitution to say we don't need self appointed idiots running around with guns. I love how this article is talking about he NRAs influence. I think teh NRAs influenece is what it is becasue people keep legitimizing it by making a big deal about it. Do you see a counter argument to the NRA? Anyone ever step up and say they are flat out wrong and we don't need guns?Anyone try to run on those issues? They'll get ridiculed and lose horribly. THAT is the source of the NRAs power, the concept that gun ownership in America cannot be overturned.
Unless people start formulating a position aginst the NRA and pushing it through nothing will ever change. You can go find all the data you want but data isn't going to change culture. Data isn't going to sway opinions and data isn't going to run for president. We need high profile people to have the courage to speak out against the NRA and keep speaking out against them. We need large brand names to denounce the NRA we need LeBron James and Angelina Jollies of the world to take a stand against the NRA. This isn't easy and it won't work unless there is structure and organization behind it. But before any of that can happen we need someone with name recognition to at least stand up and take a position or stand down and take a knee. In Amerika you are not going to win political battles with data and reason. Anyone who keeps trying to do that isn't paying attention. The landscape has changed. Every message the NRA sends equates gun rights with freedom in the eyes of their followers. No you need a stronger platform and a lot more focused messaging to fight that established and entrenched belief system. No amount of data and appeals to decency will break down the belief system of the self obsessed selfish people who are willing to put gun ownership rights before lives of children. Ther's a pervasive lack of decency and morality in our society now. People have evolved into a level of selfishness where the pain of others no longer permeate their conciense. If it dared to do so those poeple would be called out for being angry and ranting.
When children die, and children pick up a weapon, we are all culpable.This young man had been expelled, his social media had many cues, and kids around him knew he was troubled. What was the reality? He was an adopted child, and his father died thirteen years ago. His adoptive mother tried to give him and his brother up as she felt unable to raise them. He was autistic and was always in "trouble" in school. She used to call the police to counsel her son, as long as she was alive. She stood between this boy and violence. She died last November of flu, a curable situation. Since then, this young man was making by on his own, working in a dollar store. He used 215 dollars of that meagre income to buy that gun and nobody noticed. How do I know this? He asked about how to buy this particular gun on his fb page. Nobody raised a flag.
An uncaring society failed all the children in this town. The emphasis on me myself and mine, ignores people around us who need help. Unless that desperation becomes weaponized, nobody takes note. God forbid our narrative of pleasure, joy and fun get tainted by one instance of pain. God forbid people give up their desire to own guns. God forbid people care for the one who falls off the treadmill.
Then they term the incident evil, as a final way to distance themselves from the monster that was created by a lack of awareness. Evil is nothing but the place that was left dark.
Unless people realize our wellbeing is connected to everyone's wellbeing, it will take this kind of horror show to demonstrate that interconnectedness.
This is from facebook - but such eloquence just goes to waste in the barren world of gun right activists.
martin wrote:Some interesting information here:
The real reason the NRA’s money matters in elections
Direct contributions to candidates aren’t the only way to wield clout.
By Charlotte Hill Feb 27, 2018, 8:50am ESThttps://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/2/...
At that now-famous televised town hall debate last week, Sen Marco Rubio (R-FL) made a statement about the NRA that didn’t go over well with the live audience. The group’s influence, he claimed, “comes not from money,” but “from the millions of people who support the agenda” of gun rights.
A chorus of boos erupted from the crowd, which included both grieving families and gun control advocates. But what’s striking is that Rubio’s remarks aren’t just a right-wing talking point. That basic view of the cause of the NRA’s clout is shared by many political scientists, journalists, and pundits, on both the right and the left. It’s the counterintuitive argument du jour.
The small problem is that it’s wrong — or at the least, only a very partial truth.
Advocates of this view have been circulating on Twitter a graphic, drawn from data from the nonprofit group OpenSecrets. It shows that when industries are lined up in order of how much money they donate to federal candidates, the gun-rights industry is toward the bottom of the pack.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics’ database, the NRA donated less than $14 million from 1998 to 2016. That’s not chump change, but given that the average winning House candidate now spends around $1.5. million in a single election, it’s not a ton, either.
The graphic’s tweets and retweets almost all included the same commentary: The NRA doesn’t gain its power through political spending. One journalist lamented the focus on money rather than the NRA’s mobilized voting bloc. A scholar contrasted the NRA’s small donations with its successful approach to building community through a massive grassroots operation, including providing services and leadership development.
A heavily shared New York Times article published over the weekend has the same gist: It purports to debunk the idea that “the NRA has bought its political support” by highlighting how the NRA’s political action committee “over the last decade has not made a single direct contribution to any current member of the Florida House or Senate.”
Now, it is true that the gun lobby’s direct campaign donations to politicians, in isolation, probably haven’t played a big role in shaping policy outcomes. (Though at least one study suggests otherwise.)
But in rebutting this overly simplistic story, these journalists and scholars have gone too far in the other direction. Money plays a critical role in the story of NRA influence, just not in the way many people think.
The popular “money doesn’t matter” talking point is ignoring something that’s absolutely crucial: outside spending. Rather than giving money directly to politicians, the gun lobby spends the bulk of its money independently of political candidates, running TV and internet ads urging voters to reject anyone who supports gun reform. From 1998 to 2017, the NRA distributed $144.3 million in outside spending, or 10 times more money than it spent on direct donations to federal candidates.
In 2014, one of these ads targeted US Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA). Landrieu had supported a bill that expanded federal background checks to include gun purchases made at gun shows and over the internet. It was a modest policy proposal; background checks are supported by 90 percent of American voters. The NRA ad, however, showed a mom putting her daughter to bed while her husband was away from home.
An intruder enters, the police don’t arrive in time — and suddenly, the house has become a crime scene. “Mary Landrieu voted to take away your gun rights,” a narrator says in ominous tones.
Landrieu lost the election.
Politicians like Sen. Rubio know how this process works. It shapes their political calculus following a mass shooting like the one in Florida. Embrace reform and incur the televised wrath of the gun lobby. Reject reform and benefit from free political advertising praising your candidacy during the next election cycle.
Of course, the story doesn’t stop with money. The NRA does effectively mobilize voters; all the political ads in the world wouldn’t matter if people flat-out ignored them.
But the NRA likes to frame itself as a grassroots organization, powered by 5 million members across the United States. While it’s true that about half of the NRA’s funding comes from membership dues, because of federal restrictions, relatively little of that money is spent on political activity.
Both the NRA’s main lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action, and the NRA Political Victory Fund “must continuously raise the funds needed to sustain NRA’s legislative and political activities,” reads the NRA website. “The resources expended in these arenas comes from the generous contributions of NRA members — above and beyond their regular dues.”
America’s woefully inadequate campaign finance disclosure laws make it hard to determine who exactly pays for the Political Victory Fund’s attack ads, but past funders appear to have included corporations, conservative Super PACs, and the Koch brothers.
Gun control advocates, meanwhile, are in the unenviable position of having the more popular policy stance but not the funding to mobilize voters around it. There’s no anti-gun industry waiting in the wings to fund groups like Everytown for Gun Safety or Gabby Giffords’s Americans for Responsible Solutions. Without rich, corporate backers, these groups are inherently at a disadvantage.
If anything, the NRA’s complex web of political spending is more pernicious than direct campaign donations from interest groups to politicians. It doesn’t fit into a clean narrative of rich people corruptly buying policy.
Instead, we see something that almost looks like democracy at work: people organizing around shared policy preferences, consolidating their resources, and mobilizing to pressure lawmakers into doing what they want. We’ve all done some version of this when we’ve made a $5 or $10 contribution to an advocacy organization.
But the NRA spending ultimately leads to policies that run counter to the expressed preferences of the majority of Americans. A small group of extreme, sometimes profit-motivated donors funnels money to an (ostensibly grassroots) group. That group then blankets our electoral cycles in political ads meant to scare Americans into opposing laws that would actually protect them, laws most of them claim to want. Red-state legislators who might otherwise support commonsense gun restrictions instead live under the constant threat of NRA attack ads; all it takes is one small step toward gun reform.
Most scholars get this. When they say the NRA’s influence doesn’t come from money, they mean that it doesn’t come from face-to-face bribery. But this overly simplistic argument, made in good faith, is dangerous. Our country desperately needs to reckon with the complex relationship between money and political power — and yet our intellectual and political leaders are telling us that money doesn’t matter in the case of guns. No wonder we can’t solve our paralysis on gun policy. We can’t even properly diagnose its causes.
Independent expenditures are a large and growing part of our nation’s campaign finance system, regulated (and deregulated) by the Supreme Court through decisions such as Citizens United v. FEC. There are remedies at hand. We could require groups running independent political ads to disclose their donors; research suggests that this reduces their influence relative to candidate-sponsored advertisements. The next president could appoint Supreme Court justices committed to overturning these decisions, clearing the way for new restrictions on outside spending.
More radically, we could amend the US Constitution to, as the think tank Demos puts it, “clarify that the people have the right to democratically enact content-neutral limitations on campaign contributions and spending by individuals and corporations in order to promote political equality.”
But we won’t get there if we refuse to acknowledge how the gun lobby gets its way. The story of the NRA’s influence is, in large part, the story of how economic power buys political power in modern America. The methods may not be as obvious as bribery, but that doesn’t mean they’re not corrupt.
This idea of money is still nonsense. The NRA has spent 203Million including since 1990s. Priorities USA has spent more than 60% of that in the 2016 election cycle alone. The same goes for organizations like PLanned Parenthood, teachers unions, and labor unions. Saying the NRA impacts people because of outside spending and using 1 piece of anecdotal evidence to prove a point dosen't cut it. Opensecrets.org. Look at this sight and compare Lobbying, Outside Spending, and Campaign donations combined and compare them to NRA. you will be very surprised.
As I said, NRA isn't powerful because of money. They just know how to mobilize and excite voters.
fishmike wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:LOL I just read this. You are funny. All I have said is it's clear what isn't working so else ya got? Hoffrsta easily picked that up and he cant stand me. I am glad you are so passionate about the subject. Do you take any action aside from tilting on message boards? Just wondering.fishmike wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:Oh I have. I have listened to you. But my BS realism keeps getting in the way of hearing you. If you want to skip that we can meet up for a couple beers, smoke a J and hash out how great the world would be with no guns and if Santa Claus was real. Ill provide the beer and weed. Good stuff to, I promise.fishmike wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:Here is the problem and here is where you have listened to nothing I have said. You keep saying "my approach" you keep saying "what laws have I passed" you are taking your agenda and you are making me the face of it. I am not offering wisdom. I am suggesting you broaden your understanding of those you are trying to change. You continue to utterly fail to do that. That is on you... not on me.fishmike wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:Posts like this are what the NRA puts into their pamphlets that they use to get more donations to back more politicians that will fight gun laws. Fuck compromise! Great job getting your message across.fishmike wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:So here is a classic example of when someone doesnt see things your way the next move is shut down dialogue and resort to name calling. You have proven my exact point about why these discussions go nowhere and nothing changes.fishmike wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:fishmike wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:My phone is not letting me "quote" the last post.ignorance is a lack of knowledge and information. Thats from Webster.
But this is why discussions disintegrate. When you start calling people ignorant and accusing them of knee jerk reactions. The majority of the country at one time owned and wanted slaves, that was a much more deeply rooted part of the culture and it was the law. Someone then started to see the error in their ways because a small minority at first started pushing back on the establishment ideology. Then it gained momentum and became a movement. Yes the other side won't give up without a fight but it doesn't have to be "fought" with weapons.I guess MLK, didn't get the memo that culture cannot be changed, because he must have sounded pretty stupid, right?
No one said it's going to be easy or the other side can be sweet talked or will be willing to cave in. What I am asking for is movement to start the fight and to take it to the other side. This is not a knee jerk reaction. I don't have a colleague charged out plan to convince the other side. I think it's stupid to think like that.
Culture change is hard but you need an idea to fight another idea. Our side hadn't articulated a common idea or a goal. Incremental hacking at something else is not an idea. It's why nothing ever changes. Is why we keep having the discussion on the NRA's terms and context.
No you start a movement by focusing on what seems impossible, it takes faith, it takes trust and it takes a village. Then over time it evolves naturally into a movement that CAN change the world. But you can't chart it's course ahead of time or define how it will work. You can only set it up and let it run its own course.
I am not an idealist, anyone who reads my posts here will see a heavy dose of cynicism. But I can absolutely guarantee we are not going to win the fight against guns by incremental progress and dicking around with mental health issues.
knee-jerk
1.(of a response) automatic and unthinking.
"a knee-jerk reaction"
synonyms: impulsive, automatic, spontaneous, instinctive, mechanical, unthinking, hasty, rash, reckless, impetuous, precipitateI really have not heard anything but the above. That is meant as a challenge. Not as an attack.
I cant think of something more different than civil rights. Throwing MLK out there an example of the above.
Are guns responsible for infringing on the constitutional rights of 18 million people? I am sorry but comparing gun control to civil rights strikes me as slight to the civil right movement. One was the (and is) repressing the rights of American citizens. Civil rights is about fighting for the equality the constitution promises. How are you correlating that to gun control?
Also all the evidence points to the fact that most gun owners are responsible. Who is the enemy here? When you talk about changing the culture who are you even talking about?
I am not saying guns and slaves are the same thing
I gave you an example of how ingrained culture against something that has constitutional support can be changed. You are intentionally creating a strawman to change the subject.If anyone here is providing knee jerk reactions with right wing talking points it's you.
When I am talking about changing culture I am talking about people who need to own guns to feel safe. Because people everywhere else on the world are doing without them.I gave you an example of how ingrained culture against something that has constitutional support can be changed.Not really. You gave me two examples. Slavery ended with war that killed more people than every other war combined.The other example was civil rights, which did NOT have constituional support. The exact opposite. Jim Crow was literally unconstitutional. Thats is eventually why the civil rights movement was successful in eliminating Jim Crow.
If anyone here is providing knee jerk reactions with right wing talking points it's you.Name one. Please.Yes I gave two examples of two different things-
One was Slavery - the example was it's possible to overturn ingrained cultural beliefs and constitutional rights, I don't support war but if it takes war then war needs to happen. The lives of inncoent children are more important that whackjobs and their gun rights. Fuck anyone who says anything else.
Second example was MLK - because he articulated a position against it the predominant cultural narrative of the time. And yes according to you people who articulate views against guns are the problem. So fuck that as well.
Example of knee jerk reaction -
Are guns responsible for infringing on the constitutional rights of 18 million people? I am sorry but comparing gun control to civil rights strikes me as slight to the civil right movement. One was the (and is) repressing the rights of American citizens. Civil rights is about fighting for the equality the constitution promises. How are you correlating that to gun control?Completely irrelevant bullshit. Because I wasn't correlating civil rights to guns, I was presenting evidence that people who speak up against cultural norms are not the problem and they are not stupid because you say so.And as for the stuff you posted about why you bolded one part of the sentence and not the other. what was your comment? One is plain language the other is hard to follow? So it's your position we should cherry pick fragments of sentences from the constitution that meets the pervasive level of redneck illiteracy to inform our legal system? Fuck that.
I ask you questions to clarify your points, you curse at me.
And yes according to you people who articulate views against guns are the problemYou have yet to articulate anything. That is what I am pushing you on. You opted NOT to articulate, and resort to name calling.So far the level of understanding you have demonstrated is about as deep as the guy on this site who posted videos of black people doing bad things with the message that Americans would be less racist if blacks were just better behaved. How did that sit with you? I am challenging you to come up with something deeper than point the finger.
So there is a problem, with a large group of people who's view is backed by law and the constitution. Your tact to change that culture is call them all dump phucking rednecks? Sorry if you think that is a solution. Your attitude IS part of the problem. You are literally the voice for non change. The types of things you have posted are fuel for non-change. You sound like a Russian bot posting on an NRA message forum.
42% of American households own a fire arm. 42%. Very close to half.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/2497...
42% of American households are listening to you. What is your message?Sorry to call you our specifically. Honestly I am.
I dont own firearms and have no intention to. If you polled me on every political position I would test out as liberal democrat. I can stomach the 2nd amendment and have some respect for its origins. I think (especially in rural areas) people should have the right to protect their homes with a firearm, especially in a nation where so many are armed. I am dead set against military style weapons and equally so handguns. If could choose to ban one I would pick handguns... easy. I also understand neither of those are going away anytime soon, and its pretty easy to understand why, if you choose to.
My goal in this "discussion" was to ask questions and make people think a little bit.
My hope was for something a little bit deeper than VMart's "all gun owners have murder in their heart" or your own comments about phucking rednecks which not only yield nothing, but actually fuel to cement opposing views and are used to fund that opposition.
42% of households.
Stop spinning your wheels, calling names and start learning. Do you know what the Dickey Amendment is? Start with a google on that one. Go from there. If you want to start change it starts with education and awareness, not name calling and not labeling 42% of America as idiotic rednecks or murderers waiting to happen. Unless you want that name calling. For many its more important to voice their disgust and trash those who do not see it their way. Its your internet. If that is what you want its your right as well. Again... my point is if you want the change you claim stop pointing fingers and start learning. Start with the Dickey Amendment. Start with data and information. Its not happening with this generation. Until YOU change your attitude and approach you will lose the next generation as well.
How will you change the culture?
How will a ban on AR-15s keep us safe when there are already 5-10 million sold?
How will a ban on ALL assault rifles stop a kid from walking into school with 5 handguns and 200 rounds strapped on under his coat?Are these not common sense questions? How hard to you want to fight for rules that have no impact? How can you make them more impactful?
Funny how quick you were to say things like "fishmike's interpretation" of the 2nd amendment. All I am doing is asking questions and you call me names, misquoted me and stomped around like a virtual toddler with phuck this and phuck that. Is that going to get you closer to the change culture change you say is so possible? Was that MLK's approach to changing culture during civil rights?
Names? What names? Fishmike's interpretation is name calling?
I did articulate my position very early on. Guns don't have a place in civilized society and they should be banned. Second amendment should be repealed or replaced. And Demicrats need to start taking the fight to the NRA instead of trying to find compromise. They are weak ass scumbags that are corrupt and in bed with the NRA, and they don't do anything to move the needle. Tell me I am repeating myself and this isn't news to you???I don't actually care if you disagree with me, I want to be clear I am not trying to find common ground, that I think is the problem. The NRA doesn't try to find common ground, it's why they are successful. Democrats make the mistakes of taking marginal improvements as moral victories that's no way to fight systemic corruption and abuse of power. Start with the problem, build support to overturn the second amendment. It won't be easy but it has to be started. When and if they come in power make sales of all kinds of guns taxable at 800%. Do I need to draw a diagram? Do you realize the second amendment taken literally, the way you stated it actually gives people the right to own homemade nuclear bombs as well? Should we make uranium legal as well? There's already black market for it.
I am annoyed at people trying to broker compromise with fuckheads that talk about how many guns they own when children are being shot to death.
Do you have data on how many kids are being massacred using cars in countries that do ban guns? That was your point right? Guns don't kill, people do, should we ban cars....blah blah blah. Any data on number of school children killed in those other countries in a year?
Nope, all you got are empty talking points. And this politically correct bullshit about compromise. Fuck compromise.
How do we implement this? Well we do what all these other countries did, where is the rocket science? Are you gonna sit and listen to people who tell you it won't work in the US? That's bullshit and you know it. It works everywhere else. And you start by putting people in jail for owning guns and making examples out of them. Like I said it's not going to be popular or politically correct. If that's what keeps you from doing the right thing, God help you.
One last clarification, I am NOT talking about banning AR15s, I am talking about banning guns. I said this before and I will repeat it again, I am not looking for specific policies at this time. I am looking for Democrats to start and lead a large scale movements to permanently ban guns in the US. You can't change culture unless you force the conversation. All I want right now is for people to force the conversation, I am not asking for everything to be banned starting tomorrow.
Do you have data on how many kids are being massacred using cars in countries that do ban guns? That was your point right? Guns don't kill, people do, should we ban cars....blah blah blah. Any data on number of school children killed in those other countries in a year?No that was not my point. You are too angry to read and learn anything. You just want people who think and feel how you do. That is not how laws are passed and laws are changed. The emotion you bring to the issue strengthens the other side and weakens your own.As someone that would value seeing meaningful gun legislation passed you are as big an obstacle for change as the NRA itself. If you dont want to hear my message that is on you. I dont have to tell you that your anger and ranting is useless and fruitless. Thats easy to see.
Did you even google the Dickey Amendment yet? Or are you too angry to use your brain? When your done rattling your can and banging your head against rocks while blaming others come back to the discussion.
I wasn't going to respond to this - because you and I are basically talking past each other. But I think you are at least one of the more balanced posters here so I will give it one more shot. While it will read like an attack on your premises, it's meant to help you see things from different POV. The democrats that think like you have been trying to bring in "serious gun legislation" for twenty five years and they don't have jack shit to show for it. Trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different outcomes s the definition of insanity.
You are worried about posts like this being used by the NRA to fan their base? See taht's exactly my point. You are worried about what the NRA will say to their base and I am not. The NRA has made it clear again and again they don't give a rat's ass about dead kids, as long as they can sell guns. The republicans have made it clear they will block any legislation of any type that will try to controlguns in teh US. This isn't anger and ranting it's basic common sense.
Let me ask what have your "discussions" and "adult conversations" yielded over the last 10 years? How many gun control laws did you get passed through "seriouse discussions", and "compromise"? I'll help you out here the answer is ZERO. The biggest school shootout in the history of the US just happened. How many legislations in states, cities and Federal govt have brought forward gun control bills to vote? ZERO. While you are imparting your endless wisdom and "discussing gun control like a serious adult" (fukk these memes) - here is one very real bill that have been proposed - Florida GOP has asked to vote for MORE GUNS to be sold now to teachers. Trump has made this his new top issue - let's sell even more guns to people completely ill equipped to handle any kind of situation. See how this works? Democrats are showing outrage and "having adult discussions" while the right wing filth are creating lwas to sell more guns.
You think I am the problem FISHMIKE? Because without me posting this here the NRA was going to come to the table with you to compromise? That's all you got? Your level of naivete and denial are sad and delusional. No dear wise one, YOU are the problem with your eternal bullshit about adult discussions and endless compromise. You say you want gun control and then you sign up to do the NRA's work for them by attempting to "compromise" with them - while they are giving speeches about why they would never compromise on their "rights". Wisdom is not about having "adult conversations" it's about being able to wake the fukk up and smell the coffee.
I am not asking for compromise, I am asking for leadership from Democrats in starting a movement that takes on the NRA. Because the NRA is not going to be part of the solution, the NRA IS THE PROBLEM. I have had it with compromise, not because I am angry but because I can at least see through this transparent ruse to manipulate the electorate over the years. I guess you can't or won't see that but I don't need to get into that. This is the last you will hear from me. Carry forward with your "enlightened discussions and compromise".
You are wrong about nothing changing. Laws have changed and areas with tougher gun laws have less gun violence. This has been proven. Is it enough? Am I saying its enough? Seems you need to believe I am saying this. I have never said this is enough, I have NOT said its working. I have simply said YOUR proposal of smashing through this wall in front of you with "no comprimise" is laughable and demonstrates your lack of understanding of the issue from top to bottom. You will take that as an insult. It is not meant to be one. MY HOPE is that people that appear as passionate about this as you do actually do some work to understand HOW and WHAT they can change rather than just spouting anger has long been proven to be counterproductive, especially when the law is not on your side.
I am not "worried" about your posts being used by the NRA. They are. Its a fact. Keep hammering away. Keep rattling your can and keep blaming.You say you want gun control and then you sign up to do the NRA's work for them by attempting to "compromise" with them - while they are giving speeches about why they would never compromise on their "rights". Wisdom is not about having "adult conversations" it's about being able to wake the fukk up and smell the coffee.Let me be blunt. You have listening to nothing I have said. You are quoting opinions that I dont have. I have never mentioned compromising with the NRA. They do not make the laws.Let me be more blunt. You have no idea what your talking about. Your best talking point is for everyone that doesnt think like you do to "wake the phuck up."
You do not have the law on your side
You do not have the law makers on your side
You do not have the those to interpret the law on your sideI am not asking for compromise, I am asking for leadership from Democrats in starting a movement that takes on the NRA.Why do you think that doesnt happen?This is what happens when you mix feelings into a discussion on how to change a bureaucracy. I get that your upset. I honestly respect your feelings on the subject. I am not trying to change them either. I am trying to generate a discussion that involves solutions and real change.
You read about the Dickey Amendment yet? Or you to busy writing angry posts to start working on the problem which starts with understanding the specific roadblocks involved? I am very interested attacking those hurdles.
You are waiting for the democrats to make something happen? Thats your solution man? Considering how strongly you feel on the subject I would hope for more than the democrats need to fix this.
OMFG - You want me to listen to you? Have you listened to anything I said? No you have taken fractions of statements and spin them into arguments that I don't even engage in. Along the same way you"choose" to read fragments of sentences of the Constitution - when you make broad generalized commitments.
Let me be blunt with you as well.
I never said they Constitution is on my side
The law is on my side
The lawmakers are on my sideI said they are wrong and they need to change. THAT is why I have slavery as an example. Get your head out your ass long enough to understand that. The first thing I posted on this thread is that the Constitution is a framework and it's not infallible.
And yes I am waiting for someone to articulate a vision of a society with no guns and then to keep hammering that message. But that will never happen because people like you get in the way with your BS realism. I am not even asking for that to become reality - I am asking for someone to fight this idea that the "Constitution gives them this right and so it cannot be changed" with an idea of their own.
And no you haven't listened to anything I have said either.
Sorry.. I thought we were trying to have a real world discussion about a real world problem that requires real world change and has real world complications.
If you want to live in a fantasy land enjoy... I get it. I got there often. If you have some ideas on how to change the culture and start moving towards this vision you covet I would love to hear and discuss those. That was my whole point in pushing your buttons in the first place. To see if anyone was willing to look past their knee jerk emotional reactions and look at the complexity of the problem and how to start changing it. I wanted to see if people were willing to think about that and look into it. I guess realism got in the way of that as well.
Yes except in your reality you are an adult and anyone who doesn't subscribe to your version of reality lives in fantasyland. And yeah - I am the one making all the accusations. Very mature, and deep. And hit find replace on your statement and change "Real" for "Adult" and it's word for word what I said your position is. The idea that only you have this supreme understanding of this problem, this country and everything about how this can be fixed reeks of such sanctimonius horsheshit that it's kinda funny. Thanks for playing Mike. You can go Fish now.
He seems to do this on every topic. I think it's mostly the Melo hate vacuum effect.
jrodmc wrote:only you Would take a serious topic/issue and turn it into a "poor melo" bridgadefishmike wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:LOL I just read this. You are funny. All I have said is it's clear what isn't working so else ya got? Hoffrsta easily picked that up and he cant stand me. I am glad you are so passionate about the subject. Do you take any action aside from tilting on message boards? Just wondering.fishmike wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:Oh I have. I have listened to you. But my BS realism keeps getting in the way of hearing you. If you want to skip that we can meet up for a couple beers, smoke a J and hash out how great the world would be with no guns and if Santa Claus was real. Ill provide the beer and weed. Good stuff to, I promise.fishmike wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:Here is the problem and here is where you have listened to nothing I have said. You keep saying "my approach" you keep saying "what laws have I passed" you are taking your agenda and you are making me the face of it. I am not offering wisdom. I am suggesting you broaden your understanding of those you are trying to change. You continue to utterly fail to do that. That is on you... not on me.fishmike wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:Posts like this are what the NRA puts into their pamphlets that they use to get more donations to back more politicians that will fight gun laws. Fuck compromise! Great job getting your message across.fishmike wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:So here is a classic example of when someone doesnt see things your way the next move is shut down dialogue and resort to name calling. You have proven my exact point about why these discussions go nowhere and nothing changes.fishmike wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:fishmike wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:My phone is not letting me "quote" the last post.ignorance is a lack of knowledge and information. Thats from Webster.
But this is why discussions disintegrate. When you start calling people ignorant and accusing them of knee jerk reactions. The majority of the country at one time owned and wanted slaves, that was a much more deeply rooted part of the culture and it was the law. Someone then started to see the error in their ways because a small minority at first started pushing back on the establishment ideology. Then it gained momentum and became a movement. Yes the other side won't give up without a fight but it doesn't have to be "fought" with weapons.I guess MLK, didn't get the memo that culture cannot be changed, because he must have sounded pretty stupid, right?
No one said it's going to be easy or the other side can be sweet talked or will be willing to cave in. What I am asking for is movement to start the fight and to take it to the other side. This is not a knee jerk reaction. I don't have a colleague charged out plan to convince the other side. I think it's stupid to think like that.
Culture change is hard but you need an idea to fight another idea. Our side hadn't articulated a common idea or a goal. Incremental hacking at something else is not an idea. It's why nothing ever changes. Is why we keep having the discussion on the NRA's terms and context.
No you start a movement by focusing on what seems impossible, it takes faith, it takes trust and it takes a village. Then over time it evolves naturally into a movement that CAN change the world. But you can't chart it's course ahead of time or define how it will work. You can only set it up and let it run its own course.
I am not an idealist, anyone who reads my posts here will see a heavy dose of cynicism. But I can absolutely guarantee we are not going to win the fight against guns by incremental progress and dicking around with mental health issues.
knee-jerk
1.(of a response) automatic and unthinking.
"a knee-jerk reaction"
synonyms: impulsive, automatic, spontaneous, instinctive, mechanical, unthinking, hasty, rash, reckless, impetuous, precipitateI really have not heard anything but the above. That is meant as a challenge. Not as an attack.
I cant think of something more different than civil rights. Throwing MLK out there an example of the above.
Are guns responsible for infringing on the constitutional rights of 18 million people? I am sorry but comparing gun control to civil rights strikes me as slight to the civil right movement. One was the (and is) repressing the rights of American citizens. Civil rights is about fighting for the equality the constitution promises. How are you correlating that to gun control?
Also all the evidence points to the fact that most gun owners are responsible. Who is the enemy here? When you talk about changing the culture who are you even talking about?
I am not saying guns and slaves are the same thing
I gave you an example of how ingrained culture against something that has constitutional support can be changed. You are intentionally creating a strawman to change the subject.If anyone here is providing knee jerk reactions with right wing talking points it's you.
When I am talking about changing culture I am talking about people who need to own guns to feel safe. Because people everywhere else on the world are doing without them.I gave you an example of how ingrained culture against something that has constitutional support can be changed.Not really. You gave me two examples. Slavery ended with war that killed more people than every other war combined.The other example was civil rights, which did NOT have constituional support. The exact opposite. Jim Crow was literally unconstitutional. Thats is eventually why the civil rights movement was successful in eliminating Jim Crow.
If anyone here is providing knee jerk reactions with right wing talking points it's you.Name one. Please.Yes I gave two examples of two different things-
One was Slavery - the example was it's possible to overturn ingrained cultural beliefs and constitutional rights, I don't support war but if it takes war then war needs to happen. The lives of inncoent children are more important that whackjobs and their gun rights. Fuck anyone who says anything else.
Second example was MLK - because he articulated a position against it the predominant cultural narrative of the time. And yes according to you people who articulate views against guns are the problem. So fuck that as well.
Example of knee jerk reaction -
Are guns responsible for infringing on the constitutional rights of 18 million people? I am sorry but comparing gun control to civil rights strikes me as slight to the civil right movement. One was the (and is) repressing the rights of American citizens. Civil rights is about fighting for the equality the constitution promises. How are you correlating that to gun control?Completely irrelevant bullshit. Because I wasn't correlating civil rights to guns, I was presenting evidence that people who speak up against cultural norms are not the problem and they are not stupid because you say so.And as for the stuff you posted about why you bolded one part of the sentence and not the other. what was your comment? One is plain language the other is hard to follow? So it's your position we should cherry pick fragments of sentences from the constitution that meets the pervasive level of redneck illiteracy to inform our legal system? Fuck that.
I ask you questions to clarify your points, you curse at me.
And yes according to you people who articulate views against guns are the problemYou have yet to articulate anything. That is what I am pushing you on. You opted NOT to articulate, and resort to name calling.So far the level of understanding you have demonstrated is about as deep as the guy on this site who posted videos of black people doing bad things with the message that Americans would be less racist if blacks were just better behaved. How did that sit with you? I am challenging you to come up with something deeper than point the finger.
So there is a problem, with a large group of people who's view is backed by law and the constitution. Your tact to change that culture is call them all dump phucking rednecks? Sorry if you think that is a solution. Your attitude IS part of the problem. You are literally the voice for non change. The types of things you have posted are fuel for non-change. You sound like a Russian bot posting on an NRA message forum.
42% of American households own a fire arm. 42%. Very close to half.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/2497...
42% of American households are listening to you. What is your message?Sorry to call you our specifically. Honestly I am.
I dont own firearms and have no intention to. If you polled me on every political position I would test out as liberal democrat. I can stomach the 2nd amendment and have some respect for its origins. I think (especially in rural areas) people should have the right to protect their homes with a firearm, especially in a nation where so many are armed. I am dead set against military style weapons and equally so handguns. If could choose to ban one I would pick handguns... easy. I also understand neither of those are going away anytime soon, and its pretty easy to understand why, if you choose to.
My goal in this "discussion" was to ask questions and make people think a little bit.
My hope was for something a little bit deeper than VMart's "all gun owners have murder in their heart" or your own comments about phucking rednecks which not only yield nothing, but actually fuel to cement opposing views and are used to fund that opposition.
42% of households.
Stop spinning your wheels, calling names and start learning. Do you know what the Dickey Amendment is? Start with a google on that one. Go from there. If you want to start change it starts with education and awareness, not name calling and not labeling 42% of America as idiotic rednecks or murderers waiting to happen. Unless you want that name calling. For many its more important to voice their disgust and trash those who do not see it their way. Its your internet. If that is what you want its your right as well. Again... my point is if you want the change you claim stop pointing fingers and start learning. Start with the Dickey Amendment. Start with data and information. Its not happening with this generation. Until YOU change your attitude and approach you will lose the next generation as well.
How will you change the culture?
How will a ban on AR-15s keep us safe when there are already 5-10 million sold?
How will a ban on ALL assault rifles stop a kid from walking into school with 5 handguns and 200 rounds strapped on under his coat?Are these not common sense questions? How hard to you want to fight for rules that have no impact? How can you make them more impactful?
Funny how quick you were to say things like "fishmike's interpretation" of the 2nd amendment. All I am doing is asking questions and you call me names, misquoted me and stomped around like a virtual toddler with phuck this and phuck that. Is that going to get you closer to the change culture change you say is so possible? Was that MLK's approach to changing culture during civil rights?
Names? What names? Fishmike's interpretation is name calling?
I did articulate my position very early on. Guns don't have a place in civilized society and they should be banned. Second amendment should be repealed or replaced. And Demicrats need to start taking the fight to the NRA instead of trying to find compromise. They are weak ass scumbags that are corrupt and in bed with the NRA, and they don't do anything to move the needle. Tell me I am repeating myself and this isn't news to you???I don't actually care if you disagree with me, I want to be clear I am not trying to find common ground, that I think is the problem. The NRA doesn't try to find common ground, it's why they are successful. Democrats make the mistakes of taking marginal improvements as moral victories that's no way to fight systemic corruption and abuse of power. Start with the problem, build support to overturn the second amendment. It won't be easy but it has to be started. When and if they come in power make sales of all kinds of guns taxable at 800%. Do I need to draw a diagram? Do you realize the second amendment taken literally, the way you stated it actually gives people the right to own homemade nuclear bombs as well? Should we make uranium legal as well? There's already black market for it.
I am annoyed at people trying to broker compromise with fuckheads that talk about how many guns they own when children are being shot to death.
Do you have data on how many kids are being massacred using cars in countries that do ban guns? That was your point right? Guns don't kill, people do, should we ban cars....blah blah blah. Any data on number of school children killed in those other countries in a year?
Nope, all you got are empty talking points. And this politically correct bullshit about compromise. Fuck compromise.
How do we implement this? Well we do what all these other countries did, where is the rocket science? Are you gonna sit and listen to people who tell you it won't work in the US? That's bullshit and you know it. It works everywhere else. And you start by putting people in jail for owning guns and making examples out of them. Like I said it's not going to be popular or politically correct. If that's what keeps you from doing the right thing, God help you.
One last clarification, I am NOT talking about banning AR15s, I am talking about banning guns. I said this before and I will repeat it again, I am not looking for specific policies at this time. I am looking for Democrats to start and lead a large scale movements to permanently ban guns in the US. You can't change culture unless you force the conversation. All I want right now is for people to force the conversation, I am not asking for everything to be banned starting tomorrow.
Do you have data on how many kids are being massacred using cars in countries that do ban guns? That was your point right? Guns don't kill, people do, should we ban cars....blah blah blah. Any data on number of school children killed in those other countries in a year?No that was not my point. You are too angry to read and learn anything. You just want people who think and feel how you do. That is not how laws are passed and laws are changed. The emotion you bring to the issue strengthens the other side and weakens your own.As someone that would value seeing meaningful gun legislation passed you are as big an obstacle for change as the NRA itself. If you dont want to hear my message that is on you. I dont have to tell you that your anger and ranting is useless and fruitless. Thats easy to see.
Did you even google the Dickey Amendment yet? Or are you too angry to use your brain? When your done rattling your can and banging your head against rocks while blaming others come back to the discussion.
I wasn't going to respond to this - because you and I are basically talking past each other. But I think you are at least one of the more balanced posters here so I will give it one more shot. While it will read like an attack on your premises, it's meant to help you see things from different POV. The democrats that think like you have been trying to bring in "serious gun legislation" for twenty five years and they don't have jack shit to show for it. Trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different outcomes s the definition of insanity.
You are worried about posts like this being used by the NRA to fan their base? See taht's exactly my point. You are worried about what the NRA will say to their base and I am not. The NRA has made it clear again and again they don't give a rat's ass about dead kids, as long as they can sell guns. The republicans have made it clear they will block any legislation of any type that will try to controlguns in teh US. This isn't anger and ranting it's basic common sense.
Let me ask what have your "discussions" and "adult conversations" yielded over the last 10 years? How many gun control laws did you get passed through "seriouse discussions", and "compromise"? I'll help you out here the answer is ZERO. The biggest school shootout in the history of the US just happened. How many legislations in states, cities and Federal govt have brought forward gun control bills to vote? ZERO. While you are imparting your endless wisdom and "discussing gun control like a serious adult" (fukk these memes) - here is one very real bill that have been proposed - Florida GOP has asked to vote for MORE GUNS to be sold now to teachers. Trump has made this his new top issue - let's sell even more guns to people completely ill equipped to handle any kind of situation. See how this works? Democrats are showing outrage and "having adult discussions" while the right wing filth are creating lwas to sell more guns.
You think I am the problem FISHMIKE? Because without me posting this here the NRA was going to come to the table with you to compromise? That's all you got? Your level of naivete and denial are sad and delusional. No dear wise one, YOU are the problem with your eternal bullshit about adult discussions and endless compromise. You say you want gun control and then you sign up to do the NRA's work for them by attempting to "compromise" with them - while they are giving speeches about why they would never compromise on their "rights". Wisdom is not about having "adult conversations" it's about being able to wake the fukk up and smell the coffee.
I am not asking for compromise, I am asking for leadership from Democrats in starting a movement that takes on the NRA. Because the NRA is not going to be part of the solution, the NRA IS THE PROBLEM. I have had it with compromise, not because I am angry but because I can at least see through this transparent ruse to manipulate the electorate over the years. I guess you can't or won't see that but I don't need to get into that. This is the last you will hear from me. Carry forward with your "enlightened discussions and compromise".
You are wrong about nothing changing. Laws have changed and areas with tougher gun laws have less gun violence. This has been proven. Is it enough? Am I saying its enough? Seems you need to believe I am saying this. I have never said this is enough, I have NOT said its working. I have simply said YOUR proposal of smashing through this wall in front of you with "no comprimise" is laughable and demonstrates your lack of understanding of the issue from top to bottom. You will take that as an insult. It is not meant to be one. MY HOPE is that people that appear as passionate about this as you do actually do some work to understand HOW and WHAT they can change rather than just spouting anger has long been proven to be counterproductive, especially when the law is not on your side.
I am not "worried" about your posts being used by the NRA. They are. Its a fact. Keep hammering away. Keep rattling your can and keep blaming.You say you want gun control and then you sign up to do the NRA's work for them by attempting to "compromise" with them - while they are giving speeches about why they would never compromise on their "rights". Wisdom is not about having "adult conversations" it's about being able to wake the fukk up and smell the coffee.Let me be blunt. You have listening to nothing I have said. You are quoting opinions that I dont have. I have never mentioned compromising with the NRA. They do not make the laws.Let me be more blunt. You have no idea what your talking about. Your best talking point is for everyone that doesnt think like you do to "wake the phuck up."
You do not have the law on your side
You do not have the law makers on your side
You do not have the those to interpret the law on your sideI am not asking for compromise, I am asking for leadership from Democrats in starting a movement that takes on the NRA.Why do you think that doesnt happen?This is what happens when you mix feelings into a discussion on how to change a bureaucracy. I get that your upset. I honestly respect your feelings on the subject. I am not trying to change them either. I am trying to generate a discussion that involves solutions and real change.
You read about the Dickey Amendment yet? Or you to busy writing angry posts to start working on the problem which starts with understanding the specific roadblocks involved? I am very interested attacking those hurdles.
You are waiting for the democrats to make something happen? Thats your solution man? Considering how strongly you feel on the subject I would hope for more than the democrats need to fix this.
OMFG - You want me to listen to you? Have you listened to anything I said? No you have taken fractions of statements and spin them into arguments that I don't even engage in. Along the same way you"choose" to read fragments of sentences of the Constitution - when you make broad generalized commitments.
Let me be blunt with you as well.
I never said they Constitution is on my side
The law is on my side
The lawmakers are on my sideI said they are wrong and they need to change. THAT is why I have slavery as an example. Get your head out your ass long enough to understand that. The first thing I posted on this thread is that the Constitution is a framework and it's not infallible.
And yes I am waiting for someone to articulate a vision of a society with no guns and then to keep hammering that message. But that will never happen because people like you get in the way with your BS realism. I am not even asking for that to become reality - I am asking for someone to fight this idea that the "Constitution gives them this right and so it cannot be changed" with an idea of their own.
And no you haven't listened to anything I have said either.
Sorry.. I thought we were trying to have a real world discussion about a real world problem that requires real world change and has real world complications.
If you want to live in a fantasy land enjoy... I get it. I got there often. If you have some ideas on how to change the culture and start moving towards this vision you covet I would love to hear and discuss those. That was my whole point in pushing your buttons in the first place. To see if anyone was willing to look past their knee jerk emotional reactions and look at the complexity of the problem and how to start changing it. I wanted to see if people were willing to think about that and look into it. I guess realism got in the way of that as well.
Yes except in your reality you are an adult and anyone who doesn't subscribe to your version of reality lives in fantasyland. And yeah - I am the one making all the accusations. Very mature, and deep. And hit find replace on your statement and change "Real" for "Adult" and it's word for word what I said your position is. The idea that only you have this supreme understanding of this problem, this country and everything about how this can be fixed reeks of such sanctimonius horsheshit that it's kinda funny. Thanks for playing Mike. You can go Fish now.
He seems to do this on every topic. I think it's mostly the Melo hate vacuum effect.