Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Where the Deuce is the Median Voter

135

Posts

  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    Forum thread I tossed up a couple months ago with lots of details. I am waiting on congressional hearings to resume before doing an update. Ill probably need to double check the links as the daily show link at least is down. The number of deaths directly tied to these firearms has risen to four. Feel free to google for the last two months of updates if you really want to make yourself sick.

    http://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/143121/operation-gunwalker-if-you-do-not-think-this-is-fun-you-are-in-the-wrong-line-of-work/p1

    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • redxredx East Bumblefuck, PARegistered User regular
    edited September 2011
    First THIS IS NOT A GUN CONTROL THREAD! We may touch on issues of gun control due to the allegations this program was designed to pad the numbers and increase the attention on guns from American being used to kill in Mexico. Discussing that is fine but please do not jump in with "Guns are scary and I do not think anyone should ever be able to have them." If you want to discuss gun control make a new thread.

    I assume most folks here remember what you are talking about, but see how here you refer to allegations about padding statistics orignially, and now you are talking about it as a "stated goal"? Did some new evidence come to light?

    redx on
    All I've got is a snuggle hammer.
  • Erich ZahnErich Zahn So Wangtta~! Remember to [E]ject!Registered User regular
    edited September 2011
    The median voter is currently being convinced by paid shills that Liberals are responsible for all of the things that Republicans do on a daily basis. Of course, because the goddamn Democrats rely on disgruntled pubs to win them midterms, they will never stand in support of their actual beliefs, watering them down in order to appease "centrists" who are only voting against Republicans because they have yet to fall prey to the EVERYTHING IS UNDER CONTROL bullshit that's destroying our nation.

    Erich Zahn on
  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    Well the story has gone even higher, but as for "stated goal" I am going mostly of the testimony of the ATF agents. The last round of hearings revealed more of what we already know, including more stonewalling by the DoJ. There is some confirmation that the White House was involved, unknown if Obama knew and really did not want to open that can of worms. Right now we know that Kevin O'Reilly, then-director of North American Affairs, now assigned to the State Department; Dan Restrepo, senior Latin American advisory; and Greg Gatjanis, a national security official were updated on it regularly through unofficial back channels. There was a request by Issa to make Kevin O'Reilly available for questioning by Sept 14, but have not received an update as to if that occurred or what was said.

    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    Seriously, if your only reason for voting for the Republicans is "Dems gonna take my guns! From my cold dead hands!" You're exactly the kind of retarded voter who needs to be caged out.

  • UrcbubUrcbub Registered User
    Detharin wrote:
    Well the story has gone even higher, but as for "stated goal" I am going mostly of the testimony of the ATF agents. The last round of hearings revealed more of what we already know, including more stonewalling by the DoJ. There is some confirmation that the White House was involved, unknown if Obama knew and really did not want to open that can of worms. Right now we know that Kevin O'Reilly, then-director of North American Affairs, now assigned to the State Department; Dan Restrepo, senior Latin American advisory; and Greg Gatjanis, a national security official were updated on it regularly through unofficial back channels. There was a request by Issa to make Kevin O'Reilly available for questioning by Sept 14, but have not received an update as to if that occurred or what was said.

    If this is regarding the "nothing now" that has killed 4 people (your statement), then why are you suddenly going from saying "this is not really a party issue" to squarely blaming it on democrats. The situation, and link (which I enjoyed reading btw, well done), you provided is still not connected to any kind of Democrat Party attempt to take away your legal right to own a gun in any other way than "ZOMG this is must be a plot to take away my guns!!!!! The gubmint is coming!!!!!".

    Until we have Democrats openly talking about taking away gun rights across the board, and proposing legislation to do so, screaming about your guns being taken away is a weak argument at best, and pathetic at worst. As someone pointed out: politics is a long term game. Which means nothing happens over night (especially not now), and you will have plenty of time to see any threat to your favorite right come into existence and grow into something dangerous if you pay attention. So in effect, wait until something is actually happening before you start screaming wolf.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote:
    shryke wrote:
    Yes, I'm sure there are many Democratic voters who would like to restrict gun rights more.

    The Democratic party though has given up on the issue. They don't talk about, they don't campaign on it and they don't try to do shit about it.

    Maybe. But as long as little things like bringing back the AWB are still explicitly stated in the party platform, you're not convincing people who care about guns of this. If the Democrats truly believe in dropping the issue, they probably should consider removing this from their published platform. I guess we'll see in 2012?

    Also, let's not pretend that the usual suspects (McCarthy, Lautenberg, Feinstein, etc.) don't still rattle the sabers.

    It's a fantastically silly argument, and completely denies reality.

    There's alot of shit stated in the party platform. The vast majority of people don't know what's in party platforms if they aren't talked about.

    It's a line who's sole effect is for one-issue gun-nuts to point to so they can vote GOP.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited September 2011
    shryke wrote:
    mcdermott wrote:
    shryke wrote:
    Yes, I'm sure there are many Democratic voters who would like to restrict gun rights more.

    The Democratic party though has given up on the issue. They don't talk about, they don't campaign on it and they don't try to do shit about it.

    Maybe. But as long as little things like bringing back the AWB are still explicitly stated in the party platform, you're not convincing people who care about guns of this. If the Democrats truly believe in dropping the issue, they probably should consider removing this from their published platform. I guess we'll see in 2012?

    Also, let's not pretend that the usual suspects (McCarthy, Lautenberg, Feinstein, etc.) don't still rattle the sabers.

    It's a fantastically silly argument, and completely denies reality.

    There's alot of shit stated in the party platform. The vast majority of people don't know what's in party platforms if they aren't talked about.

    It's a line who's sole effect is for one-issue gun-nuts to point to so they can vote GOP.

    That's easy for you to say, because you don't care about guns. A lot of people do. If we're talking about appealing to the median voter, it matters. Because to a lot of median voters, it's a civil rights issue, just as much as DOMA or DADT. Only more so, because it affects them personally.

    You can bitch about how those voters should be caged, or they don't matter anyway, or they'd never vote Democratic to begin with...but whether you believe it or not, this is an issue that turns states red. You think that "throwaway" line in the platform, along with the easy-to-dig-up positions of Candidate Obama, and the grandstanding of Democratic legislators whenever convenient, couldn't have swayed a couple thousand voters in Missouri in 2008? Or, I don't know, a couple hundred votes in Florida in 2000? Everybody who gives a shit about guns knows that's in the Democratic platform, just like anybody who gives a shit about gay rights probably knows (or has some idea) what the Republican platform has to say on the matter. If you don't know, your shooting buddy will tell you. Who told him? The NRA. Because you can bet your ass they know.

    They don't talk about it? I just posted a picture of Carolyn McCarthy talking about it. They don't campaign on it? I've got Candidate Obama breaking out the "works in Cheyenne doesn't work in Chicago" line at the debates, right? Is that not the line that sits rights next to "we're gonna bring back the AWB" in the platform? And they don't try to do shit about it? You are not going to get me to believe that given the majority they needed, we'd not have seen McCarthy's legislation mentioned above introduced, and likely passed. They don't do shit about it because they don't have the votes to do anything about it, which is something a voter who cares about guns will consider when he's faced with the decision of whether to give them another one of the votes they need.

    mcdermott on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Yes and the people who care about guns alot will look for any little thing that says "some democrats might be anti-gun!" whereas the actual democratic voters will not give two shits about it. Which was my point.

    It's a "policy position" that almost exclusively exists to the only people paying attention: people who are really crazy about nonrestrictive gun rights

  • EddyEddy pale Gengars I loved beside Cerulean CaveRegistered User regular
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Seriously, if your only reason for voting for the Republicans is "Dems gonna take my guns! From my cold dead hands!" You're exactly the kind of retarded voter who needs to be caged out.

    I know this is directed at me and that hurts me

    Honestly though, I feel like the most important issue at this point lies on the economic scale of the whole graph. I think as of *right now* the median place is right of sane, and social issues won't really matter nearly as much as playing up to the whole Social Security reform / Paying for Obamacare / Paying down the deficit arguments that the right knows is resonating with the median voter right now.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    shryke wrote:
    Yes and the people who care about guns alot will look for any little thing that says "some democrats might be anti-gun!" whereas the actual democratic voters will not give two shits about it. Which was my point.

    It's a "policy position" that almost exclusively exists to the only people paying attention: people who are really crazy about nonrestrictive gun rights

    I think you greatly underestimate the number of people paying attention. Outside of Boston, New York, San Francisco, and Seattle a lot of people pay attention. And not just the crazies.

    It's an issue I have to think about every single time I cast a vote for a Democrat. I've actually had to consider, "am I going to give the Democrats the majority they'd need to pass a new AWB?" Luckily, at that time I was putting a new Democrat in a seat who I trusted not to vote for such a thing. Otherwise? I'd have rather seen the Republican keep the seat.

    I can also tell you that I'd sooner see a Republican win than ever cast a vote for Carolyn McCarthy, Frank Lautenberg, or Dianne Feinstein. So, my "reasonableness" has limits.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote:
    shryke wrote:
    Yes and the people who care about guns alot will look for any little thing that says "some democrats might be anti-gun!" whereas the actual democratic voters will not give two shits about it. Which was my point.

    It's a "policy position" that almost exclusively exists to the only people paying attention: people who are really crazy about nonrestrictive gun rights

    I think you greatly underestimate the number of people paying attention. Outside of Boston, New York, San Francisco, and Seattle a lot of people pay attention. And not just the crazies.

    It's an issue I have to think about every single time I cast a vote for a Democrat. I've actually had to consider, "am I going to give the Democrats the majority they'd need to pass a new AWB?" Luckily, at that time I was putting a new Democrat in a seat who I trusted not to vote for such a thing. Otherwise? I'd have rather seen the Republican keep the seat.

    I can also tell you that I'd sooner see a Republican win than ever cast a vote for Carolyn McCarthy, Frank Lautenberg, or Dianne Feinstein. So, my "reasonableness" has limits.

    Yes, they pay attention because to them (like apparently you) it's a HUGE issue. And to the other side of this particular aisle ... it's not. There's no NRA equivalent running around with huge political clout looking to limit gun rights. You are worried about a phantom.

    To the point where you apparently actually considered "I'd rather the Democrats didn't get a majority".

  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Harrisonburg, VARegistered User regular
    mcdermott, please name one thing Democrats have actually done to restrict gun availability. Not talked about, not introduced bills that everybody knew would never see the floor of either chamber, actual actions. Like Obama loosening gun restrictions in national parks that Reagan had approved, only going the other direction.

    Also, you don't seem to understand what the platform is, namely something that party faithfuls draft and then virtually no one ever reads. I don't know about the Republican stance on gay rights from the official platform, I know it from what nearly every single Republican official says, repeatedly. Republicans make it abundantly clear that homosexual Americans are and deserve to be second class citizens. Democrats vaguely discuss guns, sometimes, and half of that is Blue Dogs gushing about how awesome they are.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    mcdermott, please name one thing Democrats have actually done to restrict gun availability. Not talked about, not introduced bills that everybody knew would never see the floor of either chamber, actual actions. Like Obama loosening gun restrictions in national parks that Reagan had approved, only going the other direction.

    Also, you don't seem to understand what the platform is, namely something that party faithfuls draft and then virtually no one ever reads.
    I don't know about the Republican stance on gay rights from the official platform, I know it from what nearly every single Republican official says, repeatedly. Republicans make it abundantly clear that homosexual Americans are and deserve to be second class citizens. Democrats vaguely discuss guns, sometimes, and half of that is Blue Dogs gushing about how awesome they are.

    Not quite. People against those ideas like to read it too so they can find something to rage against.

  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    mcdermott, please name one thing Democrats have actually done to restrict gun availability. Not talked about, not introduced bills that everybody knew would never see the floor of either chamber, actual actions. Like Obama loosening gun restrictions in national parks that Reagan had approved, only going the other direction.

    Executive order 13581 which immediately allowed the ATF to make a requirement that the four border states now have to treat long guns similar to handguns in terms of reporting sale. Since the entire debacle is going to end up getting shot down in court for numerous reasons ill spare you the details as I am sure you can google it. Now would you like to move the goalposts some more to say "What have the Democracts actively done this month to show they are anti gun?" or admit that yes the D party has an anti gun agenda that puts off quite a few people from voting for them.

    The Democrats have actively done more anti gun legislation than the republicans have done anti gay and anti abortion legislation combined. By your own argument "well I hear them talk about it" does not matter. Just what they actually manage to get enacted into law. The reason they do not talk about it is if they made a bit issue of it they risk disenfranchising a large number of their own voters. If they had the votes the legislation would be there.

    Do we ignore McCarthy and 109 cosponsors of H.R.308? H.R. 591 and its cosponsors? Do we ignore President Obama meeting with the Brady Center as well as the NRA earlier this year to discuss future anti-gun legislation? I think you severely underestimate the amount of effort going into anti-gun legislation. Then again perhaps you are just not on the right newsletters. Do you know how I can get on the Democrats "Illegal shit we are doing right now to help undermine civil rights" and "Actions being taken on stated party goals that we do not want anyone to know about before it is to late because it will piss off our own base as well as rally the Republicans right before an incredibly tight election" newsletters?

    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited September 2011
    Google what that harmless little order gave the ATF the authority to do, and how it pertains to gun control. It really shouldn't be this difficult to get you to understand the Democrat party has an anti gun agenda. We are at the point where we are having to show you what that have done this year, and yet all you can offer that a stated goal in their 1980ish-2011 agenda is no longer valid is that you have not heard anyone talking about it. Do you believe the median voter is going to be swayed by 25+ years of anti gun regulation just because in the last year they may or may not have heard anyone talking about it? How about if you want to sway them away from that you pull it from your stated agenda, and start talking about how you no longer believe it to be a good thing. How about we see some pro gun legislation started from the far left D's as opposed to just the blue dogs. What anti gay legislation have we seen from the Republican party this year? How many fuck the gays bills are in committee right now? Should that sway me into thinking suddenly the party is no longer against homosexual marriage?

    How much time has to pass where only a couple members of a political party get to mention a controversial issue enshrined in party platform before a voter should assume that they have really changed their minds, and are not just avoiding the issue until they have the votes to pass said law? A week? A month? A year? 10 years? Is it ok if they only beat you sometimes?

    Right now a there are a large percentage of moderate voters who have a vested interest in making damn sure the D's never get a majority in congress, the white house, and 60 seats in the senate. Silence is not going to change their mind.

    Detharin on
    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Harrisonburg, VARegistered User regular
    I did. Every single site I found was paying homage to Alex Jones, wackjob extraordinaire. Quite frankly, Detharin, I don't think you're seeing this clearly at all.

  • override367override367 misogynist/MRA/socially irresponsible Registered User regular
    But I was assured by the bumper sticker on a pickup that Obama was after my guns

    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    Perhaps you would be so kind as to substantiate your own claims that gun control is not longer something the Democratic party is engaged in. When the leader of your own party is quoted as saying ""I just want you to know that we are working on it. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar." in May of this year do you have anything to show the opposite is in fact true? Really at this point I do not see how we can have any form of discussion because no amount of evidence apparently will apparently break through your wall of cognitive dissonance.

    Even if you do not believe the Executive order does say what I claim it says, it is the authority the ATF is using to circumvent the legislative branch of our government and enact new regulations that have already been voted against already this year. You have the president himself, this year, on record saying he is working on passing new gun control regulations. You have gun control bills dead in committee with 100+ cosponsors with D next to their names. What can you produce to show the median voter that gun control is not longer a D issue, has been dropped, and will never return as you claim that refutes all of this?

    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    Detharin wrote:
    The Democrats have actively done more anti gun legislation than the republicans have done anti gay and anti abortion legislation combined.

    Uh, citation needed.

    Even if you're talking on a state level, there not only has been a whole metric fuckton of anti-gay and anti-abortion legislation coming from the Republicans, but measuring my the scale of rights infringement the anti-gay and anti-abortion legislation is more repressive by several degrees of magnitude.

    But yes, if you are an obsessive gun nut who considers the AWB to be a horrible thing, you're better off voting for the GOP. You're also not anywhere near a "median voter."

  • LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote:
    shryke wrote:
    Yes, I'm sure there are many Democratic voters who would like to restrict gun rights more.

    The Democratic party though has given up on the issue. They don't talk about, they don't campaign on it and they don't try to do shit about it.

    Maybe. But as long as little things like bringing back the AWB are still explicitly stated in the party platform, you're not convincing people who care about guns of this. If the Democrats truly believe in dropping the issue, they probably should consider removing this from their published platform. I guess we'll see in 2012?

    Also, let's not pretend that the usual suspects (McCarthy, Lautenberg, Feinstein, etc.) don't still rattle the sabers.

    It's a fantastically silly argument, and completely denies reality.

    Opposing the bill to ban high-capacity magazines means you are more radical on gun control issues than Dick "Shot Some Dude In The Face With A Shotgun" Cheney.

    Just thought that's worth pointing out in a discussion of "median voters".

  • SurikoSuriko AustraliaRegistered User regular
    Detharin wrote:
    Google what that harmless little order gave the ATF the authority to do, and how it pertains to gun control.

    Why don't you just link the articles yourself?

  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    Suriko wrote:
    Why don't you just link the articles yourself?
    Because at this point I do not want to go off on yet another tangent trying to provide more information that will not be read because it does not agree with the mailing lists he is on. It is pretty conclusive that the D party continues to maintain some form of anti gun agenda. Reasonably that should not be in doubt. Why continue to throw on more examples when all I get in return is him cherry picking the ones he does not think fit, and hand waving the rest away. He has yet to provide any evidence of his own position.
    Lawndart wrote:
    Uh, citation needed.

    But yes, if you are an obsessive gun nut who considers the AWB to be a horrible thing, you're better off voting for the GOP. You're also not anywhere near a "median voter."

    We are talking at the level Captain Carrot set, which is the Federal Level. Can you tell me any Anti gay, or anti abortion bills that have successfully been passed this year? As for the second, hate to break it to you but the "median voter" does not favor stricter gun control. Support for gun control is at an all time low, and continues to fall yearly. I mean after all, if you have any knowledge at all of firearms, or understanding of just how badly designed the AWB was it is really hard to defend.

    Gun control is an agenda for uninformed voters. If the D's were smart they would drop it. Much like the far right has its god loving, and gay bashing the left has its gun grabbing. All three make about the same logical sense, but you can't convince people of things they "know". Not with facts, or a cluex4.

    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • ronzoronzo Registered User regular
    Detharin wrote:
    Suriko wrote:
    Why don't you just link the articles yourself?
    Because at this point I do not want to go off on yet another tangent trying to provide more information that will not be read because it does not agree with the mailing lists he is on. It is pretty conclusive that the D party continues to maintain some form of anti gun agenda. Reasonably that should not be in doubt. Why continue to throw on more examples when all I get in return is him cherry picking the ones he does not think fit, and hand waving the rest away. He has yet to provide any evidence of his own position.

    A) You haven't actually linked any articles for us to cherry pick or ignore

    2) It's not his job to prove a negative

  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    ronzo wrote:
    A) You haven't actually linked any articles for us to cherry pick or ignore

    Do you feel the Democratic party is not either now, or at any point in the foreseeable future going to attempt to propose any new further anti-gun legislation? Bearing in mind the president has directly stated "I just want you to know that we are working on it. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar." on the subject of gun control as of March of this year. Do you feel that McCarthy's bill currently lodged in committee with 109 congressional cosponsors is somehow an isolated incident or a mistake of some sort? Do you feel that in the 2011 party platform that lays forth their political agenda when it directly calls for more gun control that is in fact a typo of some sort, or a mistake?

    Carrots position is that the Democratic party has completely abandoned gun control now and forever because he has not heard of any Democrats talking about it. Would you say that position is true and how would you prove said position is true to voters?

    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • ronzoronzo Registered User regular
    edited September 2011
    Detharin wrote:
    ronzo wrote:
    A) You haven't actually linked any articles for us to cherry pick or ignore

    Do you feel the Democratic party is not either now, or at any point in the foreseeable future going to attempt to propose any new further anti-gun legislation? Bearing in mind the president has directly stated "I just want you to know that we are working on it. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar." on the subject of gun control as of March of this year. Do you feel that McCarthy's bill currently lodged in committee with 109 congressional cosponsors is somehow an isolated incident or a mistake of some sort? Do you feel that in the 2011 party platform that lays forth their political agenda when it directly calls for more gun control that is in fact a typo of some sort, or a mistake?

    Again, you haven't actually linked any articles for us to cherry pick or ignore. I'm not going to spend time looking up a very specific bill, especially not after the last EO you referenced turned out to not be related at all to gun control. If you know what bill it, provide us a link
    Detharin wrote:
    Carrots position is that the Democratic party has completely abandoned gun control now and forever because he has not heard of any Democrats talking about it. Would you say that position is true and how would you prove said position is true to voters?

    Again, not our job to prove a negative and we will not be doing your job for you. If you know of something that counters Carrots claim, link us to it.

    ronzo on
  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    ronzo wrote:
    Again, not our job to prove a negative and we will not be doing your job for you. If you know of something that counters Carrots claim, link us to it.

    If you cannot answer simple yes, or no questions I do not see what we have to discussion. If you would like to disprove something how about the quote from the president above. You can start there. You can also Disprove McCarthy has a gun control bill in committee (HR 308) or that the current democratic platform does not list reinstating the assault weapons ban. http://www.democrats.org/about/party_platform Page 50, halfway down.

    Your turn.



    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited September 2011
    The Democrats have actively done more anti gun legislation than the republicans have done anti gay and anti abortion legislation combined. By your own argument "well I hear them talk about it" does not matter. Just what they actually manage to get enacted into law. The reason they do not talk about it is if they made a bit issue of it they risk disenfranchising a large number of their own voters. If they had the votes the legislation would be there.

    You do realize gay marriage is banned at the constitutional level in a majority of states, right? That's a pretty significant amount of anti-gay legislation. There have also been a HUGE number of anti-abortion laws passed in the states since the 2010 election. Several states have done very, very clever (evil, but clever) things like using arbitrary size regulations to essentially ban abortion. A judge did overturn the version of that the Kansas legislature passed. Plenty of other states, like Texas, tried to force invasive medical procedures before an abortion could be performed. Some of those have also been struck down, for now. You can point to a few cases of Democratic legislatures actually passing bills on gun rights, but very few, mostly at the municipal level. When the Democrats had the House, 59 Senate seats, and the White House did you see any actual action on this issue? No. When the GOP got control of state houses did they move to remove union rights, restrict access to abortion, and fuck over the gays? Yep. (North Carolina's got it on the ballot I think this November, possibly next November)

    Elected Democrats are not interested in re-fighting the gun battle. I don't think Pelosi/Reid even brought anything to the floor. Elected Republicans are VERY interested in working to restrict abortion rights and gay rights. See also the DADT vote, who says what about the prospects of a DOMA vote, the New York gay marriage vote (obviously with a couple asshole Democrats and heroic Republicans, but that was a mostly party line vote, with Democrats siding with gays, etc. You're just wrong about this, because this is your major issue and you need someone to castigate even though you've already won. There are no, and will be no, meaningful restrictions on gun rights right now or in the intermediate future. The end.

    There are currently VERY meaningful restrictions on the right to a legal medical procedure and for gay Americans to enjoy the full rights and privileges of their straight colleagues. And an entire political party who would like to further restrict the availability of abortion and curtail the hard won rights gay Americans have achieved.

    EDIT: Alternately, if gun control were a big issue in Democratic politics, you would expect we would have seen a lot about it during the Democratic primary in 2008. It would have been a major issue the candidates had to weigh in on and were asked about in every debate. Kind of like gay rights and abortion rights are in the Republican primary right now. And yet, no one ever brought it up to appeal to the massive Democratic gun control voter base you seem to think there is. I wonder why no one tried to win those votes?

    enlightenedbum on
    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • ronzoronzo Registered User regular
    edited September 2011
    Detharin wrote:
    ronzo wrote:
    Again, not our job to prove a negative and we will not be doing your job for you. If you know of something that counters Carrots claim, link us to it.

    If you cannot answer simple yes, or no questions I do not see what we have to discussion. If you would like to disprove something how about the quote from the president above. You can start there.

    Notice how I'm using links here? It helps to actually do this when trying to make point instead of referencing a quote you made in the middle of a previous post that's not separated out of the paragraph or using quote tags.
    On March 30, the 30th anniversary of the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan, Jim Brady, who sustained a debilitating head wound in the attack, and his wife, Sarah, came to Capitol Hill to push for a ban on the controversial “large magazines.” Brady, for whom the law requiring background checks on handgun purchasers is named, then met with White House press secretary Jay Carney. During the meeting, President Obama dropped in and, according to Sarah Brady, brought up the issue of gun control, “to fill us in that it was very much on his agenda,” she said.

    “I just want you to know that we are working on it,” Brady recalled the president telling them. “We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”

    So, Obama dropped into a meeting and made a comment to this Brady fellow. Thats it. No press conference, no buying airtime to tell the public about how he wants to reinstate the AWB. He may want to, but it's certainly not even close to the same level as the anti-abortion or anti-gay legislation would compared it to.
    Detharin wrote:
    You can also Disprove McCarthy has a gun control bill in committee (HR 308)
    Again, you wanna debate something like that, you actually have to link it. If it's important enough to your point, it's important enough for you to find a link to it.
    Also, I don't think any kind of gun control legislation has actually made it to a floor vote while the dems have been running things, which run directly counter to your idea that it's a Big Deal for Dems
    Detharin wrote:
    or that the current democratic platform does not list reinstating the assault weapons ban. http://www.democrats.org/about/party_platform Page 50, halfway down.

    That's from 2008. I can't even find a direct link to it on the Democratic Party website. Googling it brings it up of course, but the only thing I see in there is about the AWB, which Obama talked about back in 2009; basically it's not currently worth pursuing.

    So yes, while it is in the "current" party platform (that no one can easily find on the website), I feel that based on the actions of the party over the last 3 year since it was written, it has not been a major issue for the party. If it had been on the same level as the anti-aboration/gay legislation, as you claim, I'm sure we would have seen/heard something about it during the time when the dems had more control of the houses of Congress
    Detharin wrote:
    Your turn.

    Hey, you goose. Notice how I left all of your post intact up there? How about not cutting out half of my fucking posts next time you quote me. The new forum software makes this hella easy compared to the old vbulletin and there really is no excuse.

    Unless you goal was to make yourself look like a goose. In which case, bravo

    ronzo on
  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    ronzo wrote:
    So, Obama dropped into a meeting and made a comment to this Brady fellow. Thats it. No press conference, no buying airtime to tell the public about how he wants to reinstate the AWB. He may want to, but it's certainly not even close to the same level as the anti-abortion or anti-gay legislation would compared it to.
    So you agree the head of the Democratic party acknowledged it is still an issue they are working on. How does this fit in with your position that the Democratic party is now a pro gun organization?
    Again, you wanna debate something like that, you actually have to link it. If it's important enough to your point, it's important enough for you to find a link to it.
    Also, I don't think any kind of gun control legislation has actually made it to a floor vote while the dems have been running things, which run directly counter to your idea that it's a Big Deal for Dems
    I gave you the Hr number, what exactly more do you need? So your position is that as long as the dems do not actually manage to bring a bill to the floor from committee they remain a pro gun organization?
    That's from 2008. I can't even find a direct link to it on the Democratic Party website. Googling it brings it up of course, but the only thing I see in there is about the AWB, which Obama talked about back in 2009; basically it's not currently worth pursuing.

    That is their current party platform, they have not issued any updates or retractions.
    So yes, while it is in the "current" party platform (that no one can easily find on the website), I feel that based on the actions of the party over the last 3 year since it was written, it has not been a major issue for the party. If it had been on the same level as the anti-aboration/gay legislation, as you claim, I'm sure we would have seen/heard something about it during the time when the dems had more control of the houses of Congress

    We are not arguing that it is a major issue. Nobody is saying that right now the democrats are pushing hard for anti-gun legislation. The position that you have chosen to defend is that the Dems have completely dropped anti-gun legislation from their platform, reversed course, and are now a pro gun organization. This is communicated to their voters via their sort of not talking about gun legislation, except when they do.
    Hey, you goose. Notice how I left all of your post intact up there? How about not cutting out half of my fucking posts next time you quote me. The new forum software makes this hella easy compared to the old vbulletin and there really is no excuse. Unless you goal was to make yourself look like a goose. In which case, bravo

    I tend to cut anything I'm not responding to. Helps on clarity and legibility. Now if you would like you can answer the many yes or no questions i asked you before. Feel free to explain your answers if you feel a simple yes or no answer is insufficient.

    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    You do realize gay marriage is banned at the constitutional level in a majority of states, right? That's a pretty significant amount of anti-gay legislation. There have also been a HUGE number of anti-abortion laws passed in the states since the 2010 election. Several states have done very, very clever (evil, but clever) things like using arbitrary size regulations to essentially ban abortion. A judge did overturn the version of that the Kansas legislature passed. Plenty of other states, like Texas, tried to force invasive medical procedures before an abortion could be performed. Some of those have also been struck down, for now. You can point to a few cases of Democratic legislatures actually passing bills on gun rights, but very few, mostly at the municipal level. When the Democrats had the House, 59 Senate seats, and the White House did you see any actual action on this issue? No. When the GOP got control of state houses did they move to remove union rights, restrict access to abortion, and fuck over the gays? Yep. (North Carolina's got it on the ballot I think this November, possibly next November)

    All of that is at the state level. Nor do I disagree with you. However Carrots position is that
    please name one thing Democrats have actually done to restrict gun availability. Not talked about, not introduced bills that everybody knew would never see the floor of either chamber, actual actions."
    My argument is in direct regards to that. In order to prove me wrong you would need to produce one Republican sponsored bill that made it all the way into law directed against gays. It has not happened. Carrots argument is flawed in the same way mine is. Currently our government is so divided that even passing popular measures is a pain in the ass. Trying to pass something unpopular is impossible. The claim is that since the Dems have stopped talking about it, sort of, that they are no longer anti-gun. While the Republicans who continue to talk about being anti gay are obviously still anti gay because they still talk about it. Despite legislation on the issue currently being impossible.

    Elected Democrats are not interested in re-fighting the gun battle. I don't think Pelosi/Reid even brought anything to the floor. Elected Republicans are VERY interested in working to restrict abortion rights and gay rights. See also the DADT vote, who says what about the prospects of a DOMA vote, the New York gay marriage vote (obviously with a couple asshole Democrats and heroic Republicans, but that was a mostly party line vote, with Democrats siding with gays, etc. You're just wrong about this, because this is your major issue and you need someone to castigate even though you've already won. There are no, and will be no, meaningful restrictions on gun rights right now or in the intermediate future. The end.

    We are not in disagreement. Once again i completely agree with you. The position I am fighting against is the claim that Dem's have completely given up on the issue. It is not politically viable right now, and I cannot forsee it being viable in the intermediate future. However after the 2012 elections who knows what the political landscape will look like. We are not arguing that the Dems have dropped the issue for now, everyone agrees on that. The problem is some people seem to think for now is forever and that people who feel strongly about the ownership of firearms should feel comfortable giving them enough control of our government to enact gun control because apparently they wont and we should trust that solely on the basis they are not talking about it right now.

    And yet, no one ever brought it up to appeal to the massive Democratic gun control voter base you seem to think there is. I wonder why no one tried to win those votes?
    Because even among Dem's it is a niche issue. They do not bring it up because it is far more likely to lose them votes, than win it.

    *As a personal note I am pro-gay marriage and pro-choice. Any above statements should not be viewed as favorable toward the Republicans continued support of gay bashing or telling women what to do with their bodies.

    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Harrisonburg, VARegistered User regular
    Detharin wrote:
    The position that you have chosen to defend is that the Dems have completely dropped anti-gun legislation from their platform, reversed course, and are now a pro gun organization.
    Bull fucking shit. Not one goddamn person has claimed that.

  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    [Bull fucking shit. Not one goddamn person has claimed that.
    shryke wrote:
    Yes, I'm sure there are many Democratic voters who would like to restrict gun rights more.

    The Democratic party though has given up on the issue. They don't talk about, they don't campaign on it and they don't try to do shit about it.
    shryke wrote:
    It's a "policy position" that almost exclusively exists to the only people paying attention: people who are really crazy about nonrestrictive gun rights

    I think Mcdermott did a wonderful job explaining why centrist pro-gun voters have a hard time trusting the Democratic party to not enact future anti-gun legislation. Perhaps you could explain why they should feel comfortable now in voting Democrat despite the above examples indicating it remains part of their long term agenda. You cannot expect any voter to believe a platform of "dont worry, we do not have enough votes currently to violate your civil liberties, so vote for us so that we can have enough votes to do it!"

    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Harrisonburg, VARegistered User regular
    Neither of those quotes addressed my contention at all. Also, HR 308 is about banning long clips like the ones Loughner used to murder dozens of people earlier this year, and portraying that as ordinary gun control is disingenuous, at best. But you'd know all about that, now wouldn't you?

  • _J__J_ Festive Pedant Registered User regular
    Thanatos wrote:
    Seriously, if your only reason for voting for the Republicans is "Dems gonna take my guns! From my cold dead hands!" You're exactly the kind of retarded voter who needs to be caged out.

    I'm trying to figure out if voting for ANY party / individual based upon only one issue is silly goosery.

    For example, voting for democrats only because republicans want to overturn Roe V. Wade. Because I've heard many people say they voted for Democrats because of the issues with Roe and supreme court justices.

    Seriously J not only are you a monumentally umpleasant person when you start uttering the nonsense that passes for philosophy in your mind (shame on whatever institution you graduated in, and shame on your tutors for creating such a monster), but your sense of humor, such as it is, is awful.
  • AtomikaAtomika YOU ARE COMPLETELY DISREGARDING THE LABOR THEORY OF VALUE YOU ARE A BARNACLERegistered User regular
    Neither of those quotes addressed my contention at all. Also, HR 308 is about banning long clips like the ones Loughner used to murder dozens of people earlier this year, and portraying that as ordinary gun control is disingenuous, at best. But you'd know all about that, now wouldn't you?

    This is generally the extent of the pro-gun argument, though, right? Bring up some ridiculous and obvious conceit and spin it like it's a repeal of the Second Amendment?

    "First they limit our use of fully automatic truck-mounted laser-sighted .50 cals with irradiated rounds and banana clips by keeping us from leaving them unattended near elementary schools, next thing you know they're taking away our hunting rifles! It's a slippery slope!"

    I actually support gun rights and concealed-carry laws, but I'm not going to pretend the typically-Democratic arguments for limiting 2nd Amendment rights are in some way on the same level as the irrational and unsupportable anti-gay/anti-abortion legislation supported by the right.

  • BagginsesBagginses __BANNED USERS regular
    Neither of those quotes addressed my contention at all. Also, HR 308 is about banning long clips like the ones Loughner used to murder dozens of people earlier this year, and portraying that as ordinary gun control is disingenuous, at best. But you'd know all about that, now wouldn't you?

    This is generally the extent of the pro-gun argument, though, right? Bring up some ridiculous and obvious conceit and spin it like it's a repeal of the Second Amendment?

    "First they limit our use of fully automatic truck-mounted laser-sighted .50 cals with irradiated rounds and banana clips by keeping us from leaving them unattended near elementary schools, next thing you know they're taking away our hunting rifles! It's a slippery slope!"

    I actually support gun rights and concealed-carry laws, but I'm not going to pretend the typically-Democratic arguments for limiting 2nd Amendment rights are in some way on the same level as the irrational and unsupportable anti-gay/anti-abortion legislation supported by the right.

    I'm still trying to remember the police state that apparently existed from 1994 to 2004. In fact, I'm trying to think of a case where a person we would want owning guns was inconvenienced in the very slightest due to the awd.

  • AtomikaAtomika YOU ARE COMPLETELY DISREGARDING THE LABOR THEORY OF VALUE YOU ARE A BARNACLERegistered User regular
    Bagginses wrote:
    I'm trying to think of a case where a person we would want owning guns was inconvenienced in the very slightest due to the awd.

    Well, some people will bring up Waco and Ruby Ridge.


    Those people are morons.

  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited September 2011
    shryke wrote:
    shryke wrote:
    Wasn't there a recent poll showing huge numbers of Republicans from some southern state were STILL against interracial marriage?

    The poll I saw didn't have it stratified that far, but I was just skimming. But seriously, 12%? More than one in ten?

    Jesus, people.

    Only 12%?

    http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/04/07/poll_mississippi_interracial_marriage
    When usual Republican primary voters in the state of Mississippi were asked if they think interracial marriage should be legal or illegal, a whopping 46 percent said it should be illegal, compared to 40 percent who think it should be legal. The remaining 14 percent were unsure.

    46% said it should be illegal and 14% weren't sure.

    In 2000, Alabama had a ballot initiative removing the law against interracial marriage from the Alabama Constitution. 545,933 voters(40% of voters) voted against it, estimated at approximately 50% of whites. Essentially the same thing happened in 1998 in South Carolina.

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    Spoiler:
Sign In or Register to comment.