Favorite War Room poster

[My Spot]

Well, that's just my point. Over here guns are barely an issue, gun ownership largely a rural phenomenon with an overwhelmingly urbanised population, so all it takes is a few weeks of attention following a mass shooting to institute knee-jerk gun control (by the conservative government I should point out).
In the US, under the same circumstances, you get a similar short lived reaction, predominantly from elements of the urban, left-wing, and a MASSIVE concerted and ongoing reaction against that from the conservative right. Overwhelmingly so, to the point where gun laws were liberalised across the nation. Combine that with the election campaigning explicitly addressing gun ownership (unthinkable over here), the special interest groups, funding and lobbying, and it certainly appears that the American conservative right cares a whole lot more about gun ownership, as a political issue and an element of identity politics, than the American left cares about gun control.

I know, right? It's almost like people actually give a shit about the second amendment in our bill of rights. Crazy!

 

[Cmart]

Speaking of guns, I remember people saying the Colorado cinema and Charleston church shootings were orchestrated by the Obama administration as part of a campaign to enact stricter gun laws.

Yeah, I also remember some silly stories about Obama's ATF selling guns to Mexican cartels and such. Good thing that story's been buried.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Is there an anti-gun version of the NRA which is in any way comparable in terms of funding and membership? My understanding has always been that it's an extremely lopsided issue in America, both in terms of support and political significance.

Don't let Jack's ignorance on the subject influence you. If it's just the right concocting a boogeyman we wouldn't have the current amount of restrictive legislation and the two Presidential candidates for the Democratic nomination wouldn't be making it such an issue. Hilary is using guns to paint Bernie in a bad light to the primary voters (which indicates that at least her campaign gurus think that's something that will sway the votes). If the liberal voters didn't care then you'd think they'd be smart enough to jettison gun-control from their platform since it hurts them at the polls with those who cherish these rights.

We've also had the Brady Campaign since the 80's and lately Bloomberg is dumping in more wealth (50 million pledged) than almost all of us will ever see. Gun-grabbing is one of the main things the Democrats aspire to and that's been the case during all of my voting years. They are the only reason guns are constantly a significant topic politically. The amount of lobbying money the NRA spends is fairly small in the scheme of Washington politics (an NRA record of 3.5 million in 2015) and the reason they have influence is because there's enough voters out there to make a difference.

This shows gun-grabbers starting to throw more money at campaigns than the NRA post-Sandy Hook.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/28/gun-control-groups-nra-cash-newtown-shootings


I will agree that the average democratic voter probably isn't making the issue the number one priority, but it doesn't sound like the Republican candidates are campaigning in such a way that indicates it to be the most important single topic for those voters either.

 

[in the]

Speaking of guns, I remember people saying the Colorado cinema and Charleston church shootings were orchestrated by the Obama administration as part of a campaign to enact stricter gun laws.

What if they were?

Spoiler: TOP SECRITZ: DON'T OPEN!!!

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Yeah, I also remember some silly stories about Obama's ATF selling guns to Mexican cartels and such. Good thing that story's been buried.

There's no connection.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Gun rights have never been stronger in America. We recently incorporated our second amendment as an individual right. There never was an individual right to guns here in our entire federal history, until 2010 I believe.

That's not correct at all. There was a time I could own any gun I wanted. Now I can't. How is that "stronger"? And yes, there was an individual right as understood by the people and confirmed by SCOTUS via Miller. If there was no individual right then the argument/ruling in Miller would have had nothing to do with the particular weapon and if it were appropriate for militia activities. The argument wasn't about whether Miller could have guns, it was about which guns he could have. Since Miller's side didn't show up to court the ruling went against him.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Im liking @Banchan posts of late

 

[Cmart]

There's no connection.

Of course not. Nothing to see here. Look, a dinner with Beyonce and Jay-Z!

 

[Jack V Savage]

Don't let Jack's ignorance on the subject influence you.

Me-ow.

It is well-known (and Rup knows the dynamic--he's not getting this from me) that there is what the New Yorker calls, "a conspicuous asymmetry of fervor" on the issue.

I understand that you don't want to feel like a sucker, but if you really look into the issue, I think you'll see what I mean. It's an argument between people who really, really are passionate and people who kind of disagree with them but don't really care.

 

[Greoric]

When did Jack turn from a psychopath to a cat?

 

[Ruprecht]

Don't let Jack's ignorance on the subject influence you. If it's just the right concocting a boogeyman we wouldn't have the current amount of restrictive legislation and the two Presidential candidates for the Democratic nomination wouldn't be making it such an issue. Hilary is using guns to paint Bernie in a bad light to the primary voters (which indicates that at least her campaign gurus think that's something that will sway the votes). If the liberal voters didn't care then you'd think they'd be smart enough to jettison gun-control from their platform since it hurts them at the polls with those who cherish these rights.

We've also had the Brady Campaign since the 80's and lately Bloomberg is dumping in more wealth (50 million pledged) than almost all of us will ever see. Gun-grabbing is one of the main things the Democrats aspire to and that's been the case during all of my voting years. They are the only reason guns are constantly a significant topic politically. The amount of lobbying money the NRA spends is fairly small in the scheme of Washington politics (an NRA record of 3.5 million in 2015) and the reason they have influence is because there's enough voters out there to make a difference.

This shows gun-grabbers starting to throw more money at campaigns than the NRA post-Sandy Hook.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/28/gun-control-groups-nra-cash-newtown-shootings


I will agree that the average democratic voter probably isn't making the issue the number one priority, but it doesn't sound like the Republican candidates are campaigning in such a way that indicates it to be the most important single topic for those voters either.

I don't know, I mean the Guardian is trying to paint a pro-legislation picture there about the Gifford campaign (Americans for Responsible Solutions), but their own stats illustrate the American spending on gun control lobbying and advertising in the 2012 election cycle was 99:1 in opposition to gun control. To the tune of 31.5 Million versus 400K.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Of course not. Nothing to see here. Look, a dinner with Beyonce and Jay-Z!

Do you think the shooters were employed by the Obama administration?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Me-ow.

It is well-known (and Rup knows the dynamic--he's not getting this from me) that there is what the New Yorker calls, "a conspicuous asymmetry of fervor" on the issue.

I understand that you don't want to feel like a sucker, but if you really look into the issue, I think you'll see what I mean. It's an argument between people who really, really are passionate and people who kind of disagree with them but don't really care.

You've already stated you don't pay attention to gun issues so "ignorance" seems like the correct term.

Sure. People who like a right tend to want to keep it. Brilliant observation. Kind of like how I'd bet gays are far more passionate about how they are treated then the rest of us. This fact of life however doesn't prevent some people from trying to tell other people what they can and can't do.

So which is it then, the right is making all the anti-gun laws so that they can play both sides of the fence or the left is passing laws that are highly divisive when even their own constituents don't care one way of the other? That would make the Democratic politicians pretty fucking stupid I'd say.

I don't know, I mean the Guardian is trying to paint a pro-legislation picture there about the Gifford campaign (Americans for Responsible Solutions), but their own stats illustrate the American spending on gun control lobbying in the 2012 election cycle was 99:1 in opposition to gun control. To the tune of 31.5 Million versus 400K.

Who spent that 31 million of the NRA has annually spent less than 1/10th of that? And what does it prove? If anything it goes to show what gun rights groups are up against if they need to spend that much money and there's still legislation continually introduced that would infringe upon our civil liberties? How does 3 million make the NRA such a force when other industries and individual companies are spending orders of magnitude more?

Also, it was pointed out that the media does much of the lobbying on their own dime with their biased, one-sided coverage of crime and gun usage.

 

[2DUM2TAP]

I question your taste...

Wood

 

[Cmart]

Do you think the shooters were employed by the Obama administration?

Gosh no, that would be devious. Obama, sorry to say, doesn't seem capable of that kind of guile. He's a knee-jerk reactionary type who makes a lot of mistakes. Fast and Furious was one big gun related mistake, his botched, foolish, counterproductive gun grab attempts are another.

 

[2DUM2TAP]

Young attorney clinton, not young college student clinton.

You can say that, but there's not really any reason to believe it

Wood more

 

[Ruprecht]

Who spent that 31 million of the NRA has annually spent less than 1/10th of that? And what does it prove? If anything it goes to show what gun rights groups are up against if they need to spend that much money and there's still legislation continually introduced that would infringe upon our civil liberties? How does 3 million make the NRA such a force when other industries and individual companies are spending orders of magnitude more?

Also, it was pointed out that the media does much of the lobbying on their own dime with their biased, one-sided coverage of crime and gun usage.

No, that's the NRA spending. They just don't spend as much on lobbyists and direct contributions, compared to advertising etc. The WaPo article I linked to breaks down the 2012 spending.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You've already stated you don't pay attention to gun issues so "ignorance" seems like the correct term.

I don't pay attention to gun issues, but I pay attention to political discussions. I read the WR, for example. Do you see anyone with as much passion on the anti-gun side as, for example, you have on the pro-gun side? And you're not the only one. Is there anyone who would even claim that their vote would be influenced by a politician not being anti-gun enough? I remember some nuts in the WR sending letters about Garland because they heard some rumor that he wasn't pro-gun enough!

So which is it then, the right is making all the anti-gun laws so that they can play both sides of the fence or the left is passing laws that are highly divisive when even their own constituents don't care one way of the other? That would make the Democratic politicians pretty fucking stupid I'd say.

Well, except that it's not really happening that the left is passing laws that are highly divisive on the issue. More something coming from the imagination of the fringe right media.

 

[Thunderflash500]

Appreciate the mentions and in the interest of clarification I'm not "new" to the war room but i did take a looong break from it and changed my name soon after coming back ...... but i kept the coolest AV on the forum for continuity

Lots of excellent posters , ill try and make a list when i have time .

It is a nice AV. I didn't actually like that movie very much, but I enjoyed that scene.

 

[Rex Kwon Do]

Don't let Jack's ignorance on the subject influence you. If it's just the right concocting a boogeyman we wouldn't have the current amount of restrictive legislation and the two Presidential candidates for the Democratic nomination wouldn't be making it such an issue. Hilary is using guns to paint Bernie in a bad light to the primary voters (which indicates that at least her campaign gurus think that's something that will sway the votes). If the liberal voters didn't care then you'd think they'd be smart enough to jettison gun-control from their platform since it hurts them at the polls with those who cherish these rights.

We've also had the Brady Campaign since the 80's and lately Bloomberg is dumping in more wealth (50 million pledged) than almost all of us will ever see. Gun-grabbing is one of the main things the Democrats aspire to and that's been the case during all of my voting years. They are the only reason guns are constantly a significant topic politically. The amount of lobbying money the NRA spends is fairly small in the scheme of Washington politics (an NRA record of 3.5 million in 2015) and the reason they have influence is because there's enough voters out there to make a difference.

This shows gun-grabbers starting to throw more money at campaigns than the NRA post-Sandy Hook.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/28/gun-control-groups-nra-cash-newtown-shootings


I will agree that the average democratic voter probably isn't making the issue the number one priority, but it doesn't sound like the Republican candidates are campaigning in such a way that indicates it to be the most important single topic for those voters either.

If the left wasn't trying to grab guns, the right wouldn't talk about it. There'd be no issue. It'd simply be one more right Americans have as guaranteed by the Constitution that no one talks about. It's only an issue because the left is trying to take them. Seems pretty obvious. It's the same reason abortion is an issue: it's legal, yet some on the right want to change that. If those on the right didn't raise a stink about it, the left wouldn't care. It'd be a non-issue.