I couldn't help myself. I had to take a quick look at the headlines to see what had happened while Air France was flying me home. Imagine my surprise when I saw this one in the Washington Post:
If we just give them another few days, they'll put together a deal for sure! Sure they will.
It's ok. Democrats now have an issue (GOP obstructionism, and water-carrying for the NRA) they can use to effectively rally voters to a huge turnout in November.
(Do I need to include an "/s" ?)
Let's hope the /s is unnecessary. Per Josh Marshall, another hot button "cuture" issue is abortion/birth control. By hitting hard on these two, Dems could activate a younger base.
Well, they COULD. We ought to give them some help. Drop the "pro-life" moniker: these folks are "forced birth." Unless it's used sarcastically, as in "Candidate XXX is 'pro-life' [sneered] unless a gun is involved. Then baby killing is not only just fine, it's a symbol of 'freedom.'"
Surely such harsh words are inappropriate and offensive in the context of a good faith bipartisan response. Mitch McConnell is a reasonable and fair man. Like the majority of his fellow Republicans he only wants what is best for the country. We need to have patience because these are good people who are beginning to see that something must be done, albeit nothing actually effective but incremental changes after each massacre are all we can really hope for.
The snark is strong in this one.
😉
Or they could move significantly to the center on guns and crime and social issues and win easily of course
Democrats are already solidly in the center on guns; the measures Democrats would enact - universal background checks, no high-capacity magazines, ‘red-flag’ laws - are favored by large majorities.
The problem with this Ken is how the GOP paints these solidly center proposals. They use the phrase "taking away our guns" and people rebel against the legislation
Dems have to be better about guns, and a lot more honest. DEMs own guns too. They need to embrace that fact. Once the public sees, and believes this - then propose the legislation.
The republicans have won the war of words on gun legislation up until this point
I think you are being naive about it. The Democrats have been taking about "sensible gun measures" for over 20 years and look where it's gotten them - nowhere fast. There's been a ton of political ads where Democratic pols pose with guns or show themselves going hunting.
If there comes a window where enough pro-gun control Democrats are elected to support overturning the filibuster for it, we could get better laws on the books and demonstrate their efficacy.
Of all issues (besides abortion), I think the gun issue loses Democrats the most voters who otherwise would vote down Republican crazies
I spent time working in a rural manufacturing setting for a while and the #1 byline I heard from otherwise sane people who still vote MAGA was about gun rights. And this was in Minnesota, not some Republican stronghold
It’s just not worth fighting. A better compromise would be to figure out a way to limit gun ownership in urban jurisdictions where people don’t care and let the suburbs, exurbs, and rural places have their guns. Gun rights are a red line for a lot of people. Bad strategy
have we gained a new troll?
Not trying to piss people off
I just think our options are (1) we keep going like this and our country blows up or (2) some party moves to the center and dominates for 20-30 years
I would prefer #2 and I would prefer Democrats since they have an easier path to non-crazy and the racially homogeneous streak in R’s disturbs me. Sucks to make a devil’s bargain on some important issues but the core stability of our country is at stake so it’s an easy choice for me
that didn't piss me off, you're just factually and strategically wrong and about 30 years out of date.
1) dems and their policies are in the center on on guns and crime and social issues, but on guns in particular
2) GOP is unwilling to compromise on any gun laws (or pretty much any other issue) that will have any effect
3) trying to "compromise" when their compromise offer is nothing is politically idiotic and counterproductive
If Dems were near the center and Republicans are crazy right wing (I think the second is true) then Democrats would be winning every election
Instead they’re probably going to lose both houses of Congress in a few months. Course correction is needed. If you’re losing against MAGA you’re doing something seriously wrong. It shouldn’t be hard
How do you compromise with Nazis? Answer - you don't!
Well sorry to say, you live in the same country with whatever so-called Nazis you’re referring to. Unless you plan to kill them all, disenfranchise them, or outnumber them enough to steamroll them, you’ve got no choice but to compromise
Better to accept that you don’t like them and pick the most tolerable ones you can find to cater to. Otherwise you’re just spinning your wheels and we’ll get more of the same
we do outnumber them.
Depends on your definition of a Nazi I guess. If pro-gun people are all Nazis then eh maybe not
But then again that’s a stupid definition
Can you name a “compromise” that Republicans would accept? They appear to think that they have already “compromised” by accepting (for now) laws against fully automatic guns and rocket propelled grenades.
Say loudly and often that you don’t want to ban AR-15’s or anything that is legal now, you just want to stop crazy people and criminals from buying them
The #1 fear of gun nuts is that criminals will have guns and they won’t. You’re never going to convince the people who stockpile guns for some revolution, but otherwise normal people who are unreasonably scared of people breaking into their home or hunters who use an AR for some reason could be convinced to go blue
How about we call the GOP the "Pro School Shooting Party"?
Democrats should shout "Pro-Life My Ass!" every time some GOPer tries to dissemble on guns.
Well, that would be an improvement over the last several lefty slogans...
The Progressive Case for Forced Birth & Classroom Death.
by Elizabeth Bruenig
I thought Chris Cizzila wrote that piece.
You are easily surprised, mr. Drum . Welcome back .
Nah, the few more days is not for anything other than to convince the Democrats that they have to support the Republican "do nothing" legislation or they will have to run against the fact that the voted against the 'bipartisan' gun legislation.
Working hard to do as little as possible while not appearing to do nothing. And as a bonus the next-to-nothing will be bipartisan.
It's important to remember the disagreement they're having is over aspects of the law that will be utterly ineffective, and everyone knows it.
yeah, as far as i know nothing effective was ever "on the table", and what left now is complete BS.
That is what makes this all so maddening. How many more souls have to die for things to change?
enough to get republican voters to punish their congressional representative. and that number may not exist.
However once the black panthers took up arms in California Ronald Reagan was suddenly for gun control. Maybe BLM needs to go all in on the 2nd amendment?
pretty sure all that would accomplish is a bunch of black people legally carrying guns getting murdered by police.
If I were a Democrat in Congress, I would actually just target ammo with an excise tax based on the length of the ammo. Ex: L<1" = 10%; 1"<L<2" = 25% ; 2"<L<3" = 500%; 3"<L = 1000%.
It meets the plain language qualifications of the Second Amendment -- the right of the people to keep and bear Arms -- while making it economically difficult for most people to load up several magazines and play Rambo.
chris rock advanced that idea 25 years ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Db0Y4qIZ4PA
It meets the plain language qualifications of the Second Amendment -- the right of the people to keep and bear Arms -- while making it economically difficult for most people to load up several magazines and play Rambo.
Sure. Because Alito would totally NEVER be able to find a bullshit reason why such an idea is unconstitutional.
I've said it before: I'm not pessimistic about the longer term prospect for bringing standard issue, high income country sane gun regulations to America (no really, I'm not).
But the numbers simply aren't there this decade, because Democrats have to win (in addition to the presidency) numbers sufficient in both chambers to pass substantive gun control legislation and reform/pack the Supreme Court.
I think we've got another fifteen years or so of this craziness.
PS: Your proposal is a good one, and as part of comprehensive gun control, would make mass shooting events less common. But the "white noise" day-in, day-out lethal gun crime that America suffers from is what drives most of the country's excessive death toll. And the vast majority of these killings involve only one or two victims, and don't require rapid shooting capacity. So we really do need the kind of comprehensive system other high income countries have in place—a system that focuses on firearms in general.
McConnell put John Cornyn in charge. What do you expect? That's your go to guy when you want to spike any deal on guns. Which was the plan. In an election year, make enough noise about reform for it to fade from the headlines and then go home.
Politics ain't bean bag but it also ain't rocket science.