Zika funding stalls due to RW riders. UBC fails due to gun-control riders...

[Eleanors38]

The objective in both examples of the same tactic is to kill the "mother" legislation.

No one expects a mythical "clean bill." No one expects the "riders" to be adopted. A perusal of the histories of this tactic should confirm this. What remains? To kill the original bill is what is at stake..

Only the motivations differ.

The GOPers have a mechanistic ideology which is corrosive to any funding outside of military, incarceration, policing, and some road project bills. Zika only represents federal "over reach" in support of centralized welfare spending. So it's worth it to try to put the squeeze on the "wussy Democrat Party," even though the effectiveness of bullying the Party on that basis is less effective. But the GOP is nothing if it ain't ideologically mechanistic.

The gun-controllers, on the other hand, have a different motivation. They, too, know the GOP won't even bend on gun-control (or ANYTHING that fits its ideology). But again, the objective is to kill the "clean" legislation of UBCs. So many Democrats load up the legislation with the dead-fish-smellin' AWB and other appendages. So what is behind the tactic, here? For many Democrats, it is a signal that they want to continue full-bore with gun bans, keep it on the front burner, and cultivate a passion (for culture war) which cannot be found in the Party's other murky issues, and certainly cannot compete in the same league as the GOPer's relentless issue campaigns. By now, most here on this site -- and in the country at-large -- know gun control is a self-defeating issue. But much of the Party structure is still cemented to the issue, and much of MSM has picked at the scab so long, that both see compromise as nothing more than an effort to weaken resolve, and to diminish the future of gun control as An Issue. And the Party, for some forty years, now, has cultivated a non-ideological and technocratic stance that it is singularly to inexperienced to deal with this community of rather extreme prohibitionists.

Same tactic, same dug-in inflexibility, same result, different motivations.

[deathrind]

1. It is only.

"know gun control is a self-defeating issue"

Self defeating here because of the lack of rational/mature debate with compromise. Many other countries have had very good success with the issue when those qualities were exercised.

[beevul]

2. Bull.

Self defeating here because of the lack of rational/mature debate with compromise.

Bull. EVERY gun control law on the books was a compromise. But compromise is never enough for the anti-gun crowd.

Want an example, a recent one?

The AWB in MA was a compromise. But it wasn't enough for anti-gun ideologues.

I think by "rational/mature debate with compromise", you really mean capitulation and agreement with your position.

[deathrind]

10. You mean the laws that were passed.

Pre 1977 when the NRP was actually a value added lobby for gun rights and safety. Back then both sides of the debate showed a level maturity and compromise that the NRA has not had since.

Even though most favor BGC the zero tolerance for compromise stance by the NRA is against it.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/most-americans-agree-with-obama-that-more-gun-buyers-should-get-background-checks/

[beevul]

17. If you weren't referring to laws, what did you mean by compromise?

You mean the laws that were passed.

If you weren't referring to laws, what did you mean by compromise?

What do you want, and what are you willing to give up to get it?

Pre 1977 when the NRP was actually a value added lobby for gun rights and safety. Back then both sides of the debate showed a level maturity and compromise that the NRA has not had since.

You're more right than you know, in fact, I'm delighted that you brought it up.

Back then nobody was really trying to ban semi-auto rifles because they bear a military resemblance. Back then nobody counted suicides as 'gun violence'. That only happened when gun homicides dropped significantly, in spite of the fact that they dropped significantly , as a way of propping up an argument against the hated gun. Back then we didn't have background checks at all, let alone on private sales. Back then there wasn't absolutely false anti-gun propaganda like "weapons of war" or "weapons that belong on the battlefield" being floated by anti-gunners. I could go on a whole long ways here, believe you me.

So kindly spare me your false narrative and finger pointing.

People like you who push for more and more and more made the nra what it is today, because you neither consider alternatives outside gun control, nor leave any alternative but to fight it as it gets more and more and more extreme.

[Eleanors38]

5. What do you think of Feinstein's riders to the UBC proposal, post Sandy Hook?

[flamin lib]

3. How much more shit can you pack into one OP?

UBC, gun bans, culture war, prohibitionists.

Has it occurred to you that you are posting on a Democratic website and extolling the virtues of Republican obstructionism?

Murky issues? Can't Compete with the GOP?

"By now, most here on this site -- and in the country at-large -- know gun control is a self-defeating issue. But much of the Party structure is still cemented to the issue,"

No, by now most on this tiny sub group of this website are hopelessly inflicted with cranial rectal inversion.

Sure you wouldn't be more comfortable at Breitbart?

[Eleanors38]

4. You want to compare your liberalism with mine? Tell me.

I stand by what I said. You, however, choose not to deal with my contentions; only some strange anatomical speculations you seem unusually expert on.

[flamin lib]

9. Is that a personal call out? nt

[Eleanors38]

18. After asking about Breitbart "comfort" levels, I coulda sworn it was the opposite.

[flamin lib]

19. The things you posted are identical to what I see at Breitbart. Just sayin . . .nt

[Eleanors38]

20. Hell, they may agree with me on who was the first president, too.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

11. "only some strange anatomical speculations you seem unusually expert on."

You know what's really weird about his constant anatomical references (and by "weird" I mean "creepy&quot ?

He put me on ignore long ago. So a girl leaves him angry and frustrated and is to be ignored while he makes incessant phallus insults to the guys.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

12. I'm pretty sure I'm being ignored as well

If not via the DU function then maybe the old fashioned way.

I think you make your point better than most. Maybe he feels threatened.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

13. If the rationale is, "You just can't reason with these gunners!"

Then I can't help but wonder why they don't simply move past that whole consensual, democratic government thing and just move straight to taking action to do the one thing they assure everyone shall cure all evils for all time.

They should stop tip-toeing and just do what they want to do.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

14. 'Tis a question of the ages and as old as time

"To be, or not to be- that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them. To die- to sleep-
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heartache, and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to. 'Tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd."

[friendly_iconoclast]

7. "Sure you wouldn't be more comfortable at Breitbart?" He hasn't advocated voting GOP like you did:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028123984#post28

Don't vote party, vote gun violence. That's why Gabby Gifford's has endorsed two Republicans for senate. The two have consistently voted against the NRA and for her that's the most important issue for the short term.

Even if it is for only one or two election cycles, if the NRA's mythological omnipotence can be defeated and shown for being a mile deep and an inch wide it is worth it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/126211463#post2

Vote like you are a single issue voter if only for an election cycle or two.

[Duckhunter935]

16. Ouch, that will leave a mark

[Duckhunter935]

15. This group is enormous

Compared to that little bansalot group you host. People in glass houses......

And what group is applauding supporting Republicans because of the gun issue? It is not this group. So are you against supporting those Republicans?

[JonathanRackham]

6. Isn't this typical of how all legislation is put together?

Vague, convoluted and incoherent. No wonder nothing can ever get done.

10 pounds of crap in a 5 pound legislative bill. 🔥

Toxic legislation.

[Eleanors38]

8. Actually, imo, compromise usually comes with measure of degree and authority-sharing...

...within the context of an issue. This can include spending, sun-setting, even deceptively-limiting effects. And there are riders from outta no where which fund some congresscritter's dam or bridge. But here, we have riders which are within the ball park of an issue's scope, but are so irrelevant to the legislation at-hand, there can only be, imo, the purpose to kill the overall proposal. And as stated, that is a tactic we have seen from the GOP often. Seems, the Democrats want to use it, too. The question then remains: Why?