Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumGun Control Can Swing the 2016 Election
For two decades now, the conventional wisdom in Washington has been that any focus on gun control helps Republicans and hurts (if not dooms) Democrats, not just in presidential races but down the ballot in all but the bluest states. Fear of the wrath—and deep campaign coffers—of the NRA has led Democrats to make often-ridiculous displays of their love for hunting, and to avoid running on policy prescriptions for gun violence. This defensive stance first took hold after the 1994 midterms, when an assault-rifle ban pushed by President Bill Clinton was blamed for Republicans’ winning majorities in both houses of Congress. In 2000, Al Gore’s loss in his home state of Tennessee, which made Florida the pivotal state that cost him the presidency, was also attributed to his support for gun control. Noam Scheiber reported for the New Republic in 2001 that Gore’s team of advisers had worried that “gun control would hurt the vice president in the states he needed most,” particularly among rural voters in Pennsylvania, western Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa. “After the election,” Scheiber wrote, “the Gore campaign’s hunch became Democratic gospel.”
President Obama treaded carefully on the issue in his first run for office in 2008, calling (with little detail or emphasis) for “common-sense reforms.” His position on guns, he often said on the campaign trail, was not “an excuse not to vote for me.” During his first term, the Democrats’ fear of the gun lobby still prevailed; after his first year, in fact, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence gave Obama seven out of seven F’s on a report card for repeatedly failing to stand up to the gun lobby.
After he won re-election in 2012—with no more campaigns to run—Obama began to change his tune, a process that culminated in last week’s executive actions to broaden background checks and expand enforcement of gun laws. At a CNN town hall on gun violence that followed later in the week, Obama went after the gun lobby directly, calling out the NRA for skipping the event: “Since this is a main reason they exist, you’d think that they’d be prepared to have a debate with the president,” he said, archly. Later, he called the group’s views on gun confiscation a “conspiracy.”
https://newrepublic.com/article/127473/gun-control-can-swing-2016-election
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
elleng
(136,063 posts)We have a candidate who has experience passing and implementing such, in a contentious environment, and with a plan to do so nationwide.
PREVENTING AND REDUCING GUN VIOLENCE
https://martinomalley.com/policy/preventing-and-reducing-gun-violence/
derby378
(30,261 posts)O'Malley wants to require that I get a permit before I can legally own a gun. Not even Clinton is that extreme.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)And has been for years, as you well know. Not a single one of the Democratic candidates for president has put forth any proposal that would actually impact gun violence in any significant way.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Even when the 'gun lobby' was outspent 5 to 1 by Bloomberg.
Oh, that's not what you meant? 
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)Yes, thats actually a good example of how anti-gunners all claim they want 'compromise' and then when actual compromise happens, they get all pissy.
It shows they're not at all interested in compromise.
DonP
(6,185 posts)... the anti gunners never actually say they want compromise.
What they say is things like; "Why won't you gun people just compromise a little ... for the children".
Then when we suggest some compromises that include things we want, like universal CCW reciprocity or taking suppressors out of Class III items, they go ape shit screaming about how intransigent we are and how selfish. Then a few get so mad, they tell us what they really, really mean with demands for Australian Style gun control, e.g. forced confiscation.
Their version of "compromise" is; we give up something now and they'll tell us what we need to give up next week.
GreydeeThos
(958 posts)I sure hope our candidates drop the gun control issue like a hot potato before our Republican adversaries capitalize on it and turn it into a losing issue for Democrats.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,577 posts)The problems with this approach:
1- I say this is what I believe to be right but I'll wait til I'm close to being a lame duck to say it. (note A)
2- I avoided saying this for 7 seven years because it was politically incorrect. (note B)
3- Politicians make statements for 3 reasons, which reason motivated the EAs a few weeks ago? (note C)
(note A) IMNSHO that sounds like: "I'll say what think since I can't run and won't lose any votes."
(note B) "Politically incorrect" really means saying "this might lose votes for me".
(note C) One reason you might say something is to influence voters but, since Obama isn't running, that's not it. A second reason you might say something is to get media attention. A third reason you might say something is to get donation for your party. If you can add two and three and then check your bank balance, you'll know whether he's talking to you or not.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)Right into the arms of the GOP.
