The American Gun Rights Thread Vol. 3

[Cubo de Sangre]

Which is no different from the gun controlls using Sandy Hook and other tragedies for their spiel.

Near as I can tell he's peddling some red herring that if you can show one side cares more about an issue than the other it means the more passionate side is letting paranoia get the better of them. Additionally, his conclusion as to where passions lie is dubious.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/margie-omero/the-myth-of-a-gun-intensi_b_3148243.html

The second is a misestimation of “intensity.” As written here and elsewhere, 90% of Americans may support background checks, but the other 10% will be more likely to vote based on gun laws. They are more passionate, the argument goes.

While it’s true the 10% may be passionate (and receive, I believe, a disproportionate amount of coverage), the polling simply does not show gun law opponents feel more strongly than gun law supporters.

In the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll, just under a third (29%) said they could not vote for a candidate who disagreed with them on guns, even if they agreed on most other issues. This number is exactly the same in gun households and in non-gun households. It is essentially identical for both Democrats (29%) and Republicans (27%).

By the way, there are likely more single-issue gun voting women (33%) than men (26%), reflecting the strong gender gap on this issue I’ve written about before. Andthis Center for American Progress poll shows candidates slightly more likely to be punished for an NRA endorsement than rewarded, overall and with younger voters.

A recent Fox News poll actually shows more than twice as many voters will move away from a candidate who is against background checks than will move toward one. Two-thirds (68%) of voters (including 57% of Republicans and 60% of those in gun households) said they’d be more likely to support a candidate who expanded background checks. Only a quarter (23%) would be more likely to support a candidate against background checks, including 29% of Republicans and 28% of those in gun households.

And unsurprisingly for specific gun laws with majority support, there is more intensity for support than opposition. As Mark Blumenthal and Emily Swansonobserved, in that recent WP/ABC poll, three-fourths (76%) strongly support universal background checks, 45% strongly support an assault weapons ban (30% strong oppose), and 44% strongly support a ban on high capacity magazines (31% strong oppose).

So no, there is no gap in intensity hurting the fight for stronger gun laws. There is simply a gap between public opinion and Senate votes.

 

[Ruprecht]

Which goes both ways.
Btw, 40% of NRA members today are women and 40% are minority. So much for your white old male narrative that you're being subtle about.

What? I haven't said or implied anything about gender or race (other than that women, and especially older women who vote democrat, are more likely to vote in favour of gun control). No, it really doesn't go both ways. While the legislation is misguided, the basic idea of doing something about mass shootings and homicide rates is nowhere near as ridiculous. The comparative toxicity of the politics is just another example of the intensity difference.

Near as I can tell he's peddling some red herring that if you can show one side cares more about an issue than the other it means the more passionate side is letting paranoia get the better of them. Additionally, his conclusion as to where passions lie is dubious.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/margie-omero/the-myth-of-a-gun-intensi_b_3148243.html

Rubbish. I'm saying the NRA's propaganda is false. Their reliance on their grassroots campaign has forced them to constantly downplay their own political power and success while peddling paranoia and identity politics.

The Huffpost is trying to talk up their team, but like I've repeatedly said. The results, the funding and the campaigns speak louder.
She's distorting her own statistics there, by talking about youth voters being more swayed against the NRA while ignoring the overlap between those that actually vote on gun issues and those that favour candidates with NRA support.
I mean her excuse is that the senators are simply voting against the will of the people, despite claiming that the NRA is a "paper tiger", that there is no "intensity gap" or funding discrepancy. She gives no explanation for the senators voting against their constituents, other than the NRA getting more publicity than she thinks it deserves... come on.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

What? I haven't said or implied anything about gender or race. No, it really doesn't go both ways. While the legislation is misguided, the basic idea of doing something about mass shootings and homicide rates is nowhere near as ridiculous. The comparative toxicity of the politics is just another example of the intensity difference.



Rubbish. I'm saying the NRA's propaganda is false. Their reliance on their grassroots campaign has forced them to constantly downplay their own political power and success while peddling paranoia and identity politics.

The Huffpost is trying to talk up their team, but like I've repeatedly said. The results, the funding and the campaigns speak louder.
She's distorting her own statistics there, by talking about youth voters being more swayed against the NRA while ignoring the overlap between those that actually vote on gun issues and those that favour candidates with NRA support.
I mean her excuse is that the senators are simply voting against the will of the people, despite claiming that the NRA is a "paper tiger", that there is no "intensity gap" or funding discrepancy. She gives no explanation for the senators voting against their constituents, other than the NRA getting more publicity than she thinks it deserves... come on.

That first part wasn't directed at me, but you did bring up gender in this discussion earlier as a way of somehow discounting my argument (by pointing out much of the anti-gun demographic is women).

What's rubbish is you ignoring every example of anti-gun legislation in an effort to sell this paranoia angle. So your ability to weigh results is questionable when you don't factor in both sides. From 1934 to 2004 the grabbers had much success. The clearly illegal AWB was allowed to sunset when it should have been struck down in the courts. You're coming in on the ass-end of things most likely and that's why you don't understand that the pushback for gun rights is the result of decades of anti-gun sentiment and legislation.

HuffPo is right wing? I thought I'd seen many anti-gun pieces on there but I don't have a hard-on for noting sources like many do.

If you believe the polls (which I'm always skeptical of) then there is a disconnect between sentiment and law. If you think the meager amount the NRA spends in comparison to industry is dictating our political winners then you must firmly believe that big business controls America in many other regards. Maybe the answer is more simple. Maybe deep down the Senators want to uphold the Constitution and after the Heller & McDonald rulings it's only the emotionally-driven extremists on the left that want to disregard logic and ethics.

 

[My Spot]

What? I haven't said or implied anything about gender or race (other than that women, and especially older women who vote democrat, are more likely to vote in favour of gun control). No, it really doesn't go both ways. While the legislation is misguided, the basic idea of doing something about mass shootings and homicide rates is nowhere near as ridiculous. The comparative toxicity of the politics is just another example of the intensity difference.

It's almost like people care about one of the few guaranteed rights left that hasn't been butchered by the government. Crazy!

 

[My Spot]

That first part wasn't directed at me, but you did bring up gender in this discussion earlier as a way of somehow discounting my argument (by pointing out much of the anti-gun demographic is women).

It's funny how coy he's being by not specifically mentioning old white guys but says "extreme paranoid right wingers" instead as if know one will notice.

 

[Ruprecht]

It's funny how coy he's being by not specifically mentioning old white guys but says "extreme paranoid right wingers" instead as if know one will notice.

It's all in your head. Guess you're on board with that paranoia. Like I said, the only argument I've made about gender was exactly the opposite. That Clinton has played to her strongest demographic by trying to differentiate her policy on firearms from Bernie's.
The NRA's pandering to the paranoia of ring-wing extremists is blatantly obvious. Just look at those CPAC speeches...

 

[My Spot]

It's all in your head. Guess you're on board with that paranoia. Like I said, the only argument I've made about gender was exactly the opposite. That Clinton has played to her strongest demographic by trying to differentiate her policy on firearms from Bernie's.
The NRA's pandering to the paranoia of ring-wing extremists is blatantly obvious. Just look at those CPAC speeches...

Sure thing.

 

[Ruprecht]

That first part wasn't directed at me, but you did bring up gender in this discussion earlier as a way of somehow discounting my argument (by pointing out much of the anti-gun demographic is women).

Yes, I edited the post. That's the opposite of what Higher Power was saying though.

What's rubbish is you ignoring every example of anti-gun legislation in an effort to sell this paranoia angle. So your ability to weigh results is questionable when you don't factor in both sides. From 1934 to 2004 the grabbers had much success. The clearly illegal AWB was allowed to sunset when it should have been struck down in the courts. You're coming in on the ass-end of things most likely and that's why you don't understand that the pushback for gun rights is the result of decades of anti-gun sentiment and legislation.

I'm not the one selling the paranoia. It's a blatant tactic. Shouldn't be even vaguely controversial to note. Their propaganda about Australia after the '96 legislation was the first time I became aware of how ridiculous they are. They haven't improved.

HuffPo is right wing? I thought I'd seen many anti-gun pieces on there but I don't have a hard-on for noting sources like many do.

No, Huffpo is not right-ring. The author of that article is clearly in favour of gun control. She obviously sees the idea of the "intensity gap" as an attack on her own depth of belief in gun control, and as something that legitimises the 2A activists. That's what she's attacking.

If you believe the polls (which I'm always skeptical of) then there is a disconnect between sentiment and law. If you think the meager amount the NRA spends in comparison to industry is dictating our political winners then you must firmly believe that big business controls America in many other regards. Maybe the answer is more simple. Maybe deep down the Senators want to uphold the Constitution and after the Heller & McDonald rulings it's only the emotionally-driven extremists on the left that want to disregard logic and ethics.

Which would still be a rejection of the narrative she's pushing in that article. Although yes, big business has political enfranchisement which represents their economic stake, rather than their demographic representation. That's essentially true everywhere. According to those polls, more than half of Republicans also supported universal background checks. So again, you have to account for a numerical minority which has a disproportionate political and economic weight . The idea that the majority of Senators felt strongly that universal background checks were more of an assault on the constitution than the raft of civil liberty curtailing legislation they've already signed off on over recent years... seems like a ridiculous argument.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

The idea that the majority of Senators felt strongly that universal background checks were more of an assault on the constitution than the raft of civil liberty curtailing legislation they've already signed off on over recent years... seems like a ridiculous argument.

I tend to agree that it's doubtful our representatives prioritize the Constitution when passing laws, but I suppose it's possible. It seems less ridiculous than them worrying about 5 million NRA members (who spent a whopping 30 million dollars or so politically) voting them all out. Maybe they realize the courts aren't so quick to overlook 2nd Amendment infringements of late and that they lack the authority to dictate the terms of private transactions not conducted as commerce. Hard to say.

What's not hard to say is that this is volume III of a thread that keeps up with proposed/passed legislation on both sides of the issue. If you need more examples of why your paranoia accusation is severely misinformed you should go back and peruse. And don't forget to keep in mind that up until 2004 the restrictions were only getting tighter and tighter and that the news is filled with only two kinds of gun stories (deaths and controversy).

 

[silicavaginitis]

How can you call it paranoia when Clinton is willing to look into an Aussie type gun confiscation?

 

[Ruprecht]

How can you call it paranoia when Clinton is willing to look into an Aussie type gun confiscation?

She's not really. American politicians on both sides of your debate just project whatever scenario they want on the Australian situation. There's really no comparison.
Australia's never had a comparable level of proliferation or a right to own firearms for common self defence. I've never seen any proposal tabled from any American politician to address that.

It's paranoia because the NRA never recognises the reality of their strength, or their victories, and constantly harps on about how it's just them and their guns, the chosen few, against the encroaching forces of darkness.

"We don't trust government, because government itself has proven unworthy of our trust. We trust ourselves and we trust what we know in our hearts to be right. We trust our freedom. In this uncertain world, surrounded by lies and corruption everywhere you look, there is no greater freedom than the right to survive and protect our families with all the rifles, shotguns, and handguns we want. We know in the world that surrounds us there are terrorists and there are home invaders, drug cartels, carjackers, knockout gamers, and rapers, and haters, and campus killers, airport killers, shopping mall killers and killers who scheme to destroy our country with massive storms of violence against our power grids or vicious waves of chemicals or disease that could collapse our society that sustains us all."

 

[silicavaginitis]

She's not really. American politicians on both sides of your debate just project whatever scenario they want on the Australian situation. There's really no comparison.
Australia's never had a comparable level of proliferation or a right to own firearms for common self defence. I've never seen any proposal tabled from any American politician to address that.

It's paranoia because the NRA never recognises the reality of their strength, or their victories, and constantly harps on about how it's just them and their guns, the chosen few, against the encroaching forces of darkness.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/03/06/five-laughably-paranoid-claims-from-nras-wayne/198385

She said herself it would be something to look into.
I know she lies her ass off but I have a feeling that had a ring of truth to it.

 

[Ruprecht]

She said herself it would be something to look into.
I know she lies her ass off but I have a feeling that had a ring of truth to it.

Nah. Nothing she's talked about is remotely comparable to the Australian situation.
Her most severe proposals are reinstating the "assault weapons ban" and repealing the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act". Fat chance, and neither of those relate to the Australian situation.
To emulate Australia, She'd have to nationalise firearms laws, institute federal licencing, permits to acquire and registration, revoke self defence as a legally recognised reason for firearms ownership, restrict access to semi-auto centrefire rifles to professional hunters, restrict handguns to club competitors (and ban compact and subcompact models), restrict pump action shotguns and rim fire semi-autos to farmers and then have the mother of all buyback schemes.
All this after failing to even manage a bill for universal background checks.
Not happening.

 

[WorldofWarcraft]

Nah. Nothing she's talked about is remotely comparable to the Australian situation.
Her most severe proposals are reinstating the "assault weapons ban" and repealing the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act". Fat chance, and neither of those relate to the Australian situation.
To emulate Australia, She'd have to nationalise firearms laws, institute federal licencing, permits to acquire and registration, revoke self defence as a legally recognised reason for firearms ownership, restrict access to semi-auto centrefire rifles to professional hunters, restrict handguns to club competitors (and ban compact and subcompact models), restrict pump action shotguns and rim fire semi-autos to farmers and then have the mother of all buyback schemes.
All this after failing to even manage a bill for universal background checks.
Not happening.

They could pass practically anything if Hillary wins and with a democrat controlled congress and then there's this

 

[DevilsLettuce]

From my cold dead hand you frigid reptilian bitch.

 

[SMEAC]

Well, the NRA used Waco as a cause celebre didn't they? They still do. Waco, Ruby Ridge, Timothy McVeigh... it's part of their narrative.

Really you think they use McVeigh?

Do you believe anything told to you that fits your narrative?

 

[Roaming East]

Why do we talk about gun control as if the matter isnt already resolved. This country will NEVER have gun control. there is too much money and the NRA and local and state governments are too enamored with the firearms rights' movements to ever budge. You could have the libbiest liberal to ever smoke a blunt sitting in the whitehouse with half the house and the senate be in his pocket and he STILL wouldnt be able to pass a gun control measure. ever. The political climate of the early 90's are long gone.

 

[Ruprecht]

Really you think they use McVeigh?

Do you believe anything told to you that fits your narrative?

Hah! Obviously they don't use McVeigh as a cause celebre, and McVeigh himself supposedly thought the NRA was too moderate. I'm talking about the escalation of LaPierre's rhetoric in 1995, just days before the Oklahoma bombing, and McVeigh's identical narrative.

 

[SMEAC]

Hah! Obviously they don't use McVeigh as a cause celebre, and McVeigh himself supposedly thought the NRA was too moderate. I'm talking about the escalation of LaPierre's rhetoric in 1995, just days before the Oklahoma bombing, and McVeigh's identical narrative.

So you are just making shit up

You do realize that the assault weapon ban was in 1994, you think that might have more to do with "ramping" things up than you trying to correlate the NRA to terrorists?

 

[Ruprecht]

So you are just making shit up

You do realize that the assault weapon ban was in 1994, you think that might have more to do with "ramping" things up than you trying to correlate the NRA to terrorists?

Making it up? Nope. LaPierre went on his anti-government bender, referring to Ruby Ridge and Waco. McVeigh parroted the same sentiments. Bush senior resigned his NRA membership over it.