Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumHas the N.R.A. Won?
And the answer is ... yes they/we have a long time ago.
I do have one problem with the article though, is that it gives the NRA way too much credit.
What's omitted, ignored or neglected is the grass roots movement that has been taking place
online amongst the numerous 2nd amendment advocates, firearms related forums and blogs.
Certainly the NRA has some impact and influence, but it's the little people in the trenches
(the vast majority aren't even NRA members), that fight the hardest.
I see the the NRA as useful (but effective), idiots. But as long as the Micheal Bloomburgs,
Brady Campaigns, Demanding Mom's, VPC's, Sandy Hook Promise's, etc exists, I'll do whatever
I need to to do align myself with those that support our 2nd amendment rights.
Gun control advocates have tried to use the horror that exists in the wake of mass shootings to catalyze the public into action around sensible gun restrictions. But rather than these tragedies being a cause for pause in ownership of guns, gun ownership has spiked in the wake of these shootings.
A striking report released Friday by the Pew Research Center revealed that “for the first time, more Americans say that protecting gun rights is more important than controlling gun ownership, 52 percent to 46 percent.”
One of the reasons cited was Americans’ inverse understanding of the reality and perception of crime in this country. As the report spells out, in the 1990s, people’s perception of the prevalence of crime fell in concert with actual instances of violent crime. But since the turn of the century, things have changed: “A majority of Americans (63 percent) said in a Gallup survey last year that crime was on the rise, despite crime statistics holding near 20-year lows.”
More @ http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/20/opinion/charles-blow-has-the-nra-won.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
AuntPatsy
(9,904 posts)VScott
(774 posts)just to watch him die.
Seriously... yes. In a crowed bar less than 6' away from me.
Had a gun pointed at me during an armed robbery twice.
As a 30 year firefighter/EMT have responded to numerous gun shot wounds/homicides/suicides.
If you think that would convince me to change my mind on gun control issues, you'd be wrong (obviously).
AuntPatsy
(9,904 posts)AuntPatsy
(9,904 posts)VScott
(774 posts)but if it ever does, I hope I'm prepared for it.
AuntPatsy
(9,904 posts)I seriously hope you never find out ...
I don't look for trouble, and I try to walk away from it when it finds me.
Being armed (option B), is only one part of being prepared.
Situational awareness and being observant is the first order of business, but if
option A doesn't work out as planned, time to go to option B.
ileus
(15,396 posts)We need as a party to be progressive on 2A rights, and lead the way instead of working to destroy or deny a basic human right because of emotions.
Last edited Tue Apr 21, 2015, 02:29 AM - Edit history (1)
This country is nuts for guns, and the NRA will always be there in the mix to justify any mass shooting as a reason to sell more iron, regardless of how many children have to die in the process.
I got tired of this a long time ago.
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)It appears to be an extreme example of unintended consequences, or a boomerang: the more people talk about gun control, the more people buy guns. And not only do gun sales surge, but apparently so does N.R.A. membership.
Glad to see some are taking notice... Gun Control is EXTREMELY unpopular in most of the nation, and as general rule, the gun laws are getting relaxed more and more, as a result, gun control, when they do manage to get something passed, is the exception rather than the rule..
Gun Control advocates are blissfully sowing the seeds of their own destruction, the more they scream on the nightly news about it, the more politicians demand it, the more the needle gets pushed the other way, and in the end of the day, they lose even more....
...O well...
Just noticed on the news that now Ohio, will honor ANY states concealed weapon permits, without question... And with nary a notice in the MSM, it's simply another loss for the gun control movement, no news here...
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)As VirginiaMountainman has noted, you heard it first in the Gungeon.
This group is not only the place to see sound argument in the instant issues of gun control, but in the frankly learned speculations on future trends in gun culture and politics, long before the NYT, Huffpo, Christian Science Monitor, etc. (Gun-control media, all) deigned to deal with them. While some have striven to paint this group as a bunch of troglodytes little different from the Nugents of the world, the folks here have persistently pursued an aggressive, yet intelligent, defense of a fundamental individual right. I think many on DU now realize that GC&RKBA is a first rate Source of sound information and speculation. All of this should inform anyone in how to approach a social "problem" and (better yet) how not to. Perhaps the realities of this "era" of gun control will filter upstream to MSM, and engender not just a new approach to gun control, but a complete reassessment of Why this is "an issue."
Liberals are best when being liberal.
__________
"I've been putting out the fire -- with gasoline" -- David Bowie.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)I noticed an interesting trend - more often than not my net searches turned up discussions on DU! I've actually told people that if they want to find out the truth about a particular gun restriction/gun rights issue to add 'Democratic Underground' to their search phrase.
Great post, E38! I particularly love this:
Liberals are best when being liberal.
Ala carte liberalism sucks.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)DonP
(6,185 posts)I've pointed it out before.
In spite of a lot of pressure from the control minded folks who have "demanded" several times, that he shut down this "den of right wing iniquity" and boot all of the regular participants out the DU door, he lets it stay. DU is a better and bigger place for it and a whole lot more interesting.
The Gungeon is about the only place on the whole damn web that I've found that allows both sides of the gun discussion a place to post.
There are very few gun control sites to begin with and none of them allow unscreened postings or delete any alternative POV. Just like our own so called "Activism" group.
No shortage of pro 2nd sites, but they all tend to muffle any gun control discussion.
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)Thinking about posting about Cleveland now, they just don't understand that they cannot have their own "gun control island" in Ohio... A state with full preemption, they lost a major lawsuit a while back, over their own gun control laws, and yet, knowing full well that it is a settled matter, they go and pass more "cleveland only" gun control laws again...
They just love "REPEATEDLY" losing taxpayer money in court i guess.
But the real kicker is that it is not about "stopping gun violence", it's about values..
http://www.cleveland.com/cityhall/index.ssf/2015/04/cleveland_city_council_adopts_1.html#incart_m-rpt-1
Funny thing is, today, the first lawsuit was just filed....LOL!!!! They literally have no defence, so it's time to make them pay.
DonP
(6,185 posts)Rahm is still writing 7figure checks to the SAF and ISRA lawyers and still trying to fight gun stores and ranges in the city limits.
After all, it's not like the millions of $ they have to fork over to the SAF and NRA for legal fees comes out of their own pocket? IIRC Cleveland already lost to the Buckeye Firearms Association once on this and concealed carry a few years back and had to pay off.
So they keep doing the same thing, that even the head of the Cleveland City Council admits will have; "no real impact of crime and violence, but it's important to let people know where we stand".
Throw a few million bucks of taxpayer money to the lawyers of the other side then tell the voters "you tried. but those mean guys in the state capitol won't let me protect you."
Like I said, it's not their money anyway, so why not?
Of course ... if the voters figure out they are being use as patsies, it won't go well and then they can blame the evil NRA for being kicked out of office. Even if the NRA has nothing to do with the lawsuit.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,482 posts)...to buy these folks (Rahm and the various folks unable to define preemption) a tool that helps in pulling one's head out his ass. 
DonP
(6,185 posts)I really think the political types are totally relying on consultants and advisors that are utterly out of touch with the real world. They live, eat and breathe the beltway and the Northeast corridor, as if it that were an valid sample of the entire country. (Think, Pauline Kael and the "Nobody I know voted for Nixon" comment.)
Many of the advisor types are still stuck in the '90's, are about as intellectually deep as a bumper sticker (based on working with several on local Chicago elections over 4 decades) and keep trying to recycle the same old campaign memes that were in place over 20 years ago. Their idea of "updating the message" is "Hey! let's put it in Spanish too.".
They just can't imagine recognizing gun owners as a viable voting bloc for their candidates, so it's just one less group they need to focus on.
DonP
(6,185 posts)Funny how that works?
Predict that major gun control is coming after every high profile incident ("tide is turning" etc.) and that violent crime is rampant, (caused of course, by the guns themselves).
At the same time, feature story after story that the police are corrupt, violent and not to be trusted.
Then act stunned when public attitudes toward gun ownership change and people start buying guns to defend themselves and families.
Wow, who could have seen that one coming?
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)Yeah Don -- never underestimate how blind hate and blind ideology tend to blind!
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)vscott: Certainly the NRA has some impact and influence, but it's the little people in the trenches (the vast majority aren't even NRA members), that fight the hardest.
Huh? the 'little people in the trenches' fight the hardest? daffy reasoning; they're certainly not 'well regulated' to accomplish much, just a scattered & Unorganized militia. 'Little people' generally don't contribute to the nra, they generally support background checks, a significant percentage even support hi-cap magazine bans, & a significant percentage of 'little people' who own guns are dems who support gun control & oppose the nra. These 'little people' don't buy off congressmen with bought & paid lobbyists, it's the gun lobby which does that.
vscott: I see the the NRA as useful (but effective), idiots. But as long as the Micheal Bloomburgs, Brady Campaigns, Demanding Mom's, VPC's, Sandy Hook Promise's, etc exists, I'll do whatever I need to to do align myself with those that support our 2nd amendment rights.
Those groups are all your enemies, eh? an enemy (the nra) of your enemy is your friend, eh? Which of those gun control groups suppresses research into gun injury & gun possession?
... Does doing whatever you need to do, include support of suppressing research on gun injury & gun related problems? like the gwbush admin suppressed funding for gun research, gun injury causes & affects? WHY did they do that if guns are so instrumental in lowering the violent crime rate? (a faulty reasoning, since gun ownership fell dramatically ~30% during the highest rate of decline in violent crime rates, the period from ~1993 to 2000 - it was the decline in gun ownership which played an instrumental part in the violent crime drop, not the increase in national gunstock, which went largely to existing gun owners).
Charles Blow, NY Times (whom I usually enjoy reading):rather than these tragedies being a cause for pause in ownership of guns, gun ownership has spiked in the wake of these shootings.
Gun SALES have spiked, Charles, largely amongst existing gun owners, not spiking gun ownership (except slightly perhaps in some areas, but not significant overall); gunnuts answering some 2ndA fantasy cattle call to thwart threatened gun control efforts by stocking up on ammo & new firearms, esp those termed assault rifles.
Charles, apri 2015: A striking report released Friday by the Pew Research Center revealed that “for the first time, more Americans say that protecting gun rights is more important than controlling gun ownership, 52 to 46.”
Charles not up to speed on this; the report was released dec 3, 2014, over 4 months ago, & it was admitted by pew that their wording was misleading in some fashion. Also, it's only one poll & needs be corroborated by another reputable source (which pew certainly is).
Shamash
(597 posts)Quinnipiac:
"Do you support or oppose stricter gun control laws in the United States?"
% Support/Oppose/Unsure
6/14 50/47/3
3/13 53/42/4
7/08 54/40/5
Gallup:
"In general, do you feel that the laws covering the sale of firearms should be made more strict, less strict or kept as they are now?"
% More/Less/Same
10/14 47/14/38
10/13 49/13/37
10/08 49/08/41
Support for stricter gun control laws down in both cases and opposition to stricter gun laws up in both cases. The numbers fluctuate, but the trend is towards less restrictive laws. As far as the Pew wording being misleading, a quick check shows it is the exact same wording they have been using for the many years they have been asking it. If it gives bad results, it seems that no one on the gun control side seemed to care as long as it was bad results that supported their point of view...
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)shamash: Support for stricter gun control laws down in both cases and opposition to stricter gun laws up in both cases.
That's not what the pew poll queried; you make the same type of error. The pew question asked whether protecting gun rights was more important than controlling gun ownership, not whether people supported gun control. There's a difference, both implicit & explicit.
Charles, apri 2015: A striking report by the Pew Research Center revealed that “for the first time, more Americans say that protecting gun rights is more important than controlling gun ownership, 52 to 46.”
Shamash
(597 posts)As you are someone who is in favor of controlling gun ownership, tell me how here on DU, you have suggested we go about that?
I'll bet it was through stricter gun laws.
Sounds like a distinction without a difference. Gong, indeed. You are of course free to look up the polls on your own rather than hope other people do your homework for you and then criticize them for doing it.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,482 posts)
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)online amongst the numerous 2nd amendment advocates, firearms related forums and blogs."
Couldn't agree more! Fair-minded people can't help but notice a pattern w/regard to internet debates - supporters of the RKBA base their arguments on facts, while restriction supporters play to emotion and sling insults. That's not to say that RKBA supporters (like myself!) always behave like angels -- but typically caustic comments from them are the result of having to deal with the constant flow of bigoted comments directed at them.
It's well past time for Democrats to hurl the rotting albatross that is "gun control" from their necks.
loooneranger
(34 posts)Anti-gun people have turned the NRA in to a boogeyman to focus on, but the NRA's total spending on lobbying in 2015 was only $895,000, and they have about 4 million members. It is not the NRA that "wins" these fights over the 2A, it is the 100,000,000+ gun owners and rights supporters in the US.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)
