Democrats backing away from gun control

[Simon_Jester]

Frankly, at this point a (D) from anywhere has influence by virtue of having a seat somewhere. That confers leverage when trying to build a majority. Especially since a Montana Democrat has relatively little to lose by canvassing with Republicans on a particular vote.

[MKSheppard]

If the Democrats move away from gun control, will they have any new policies for dealing with gun related deaths, or are they just deemed "not popular enough to address?"

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryla ... story.html

At 24, David Warren is no stranger to Baltimore's criminal justice system. Starting when he was 14, he was charged five times with attempted murder, and all five times the charges were dropped.

This week, he went to trial on five more attempted-murder charges as well as 29 other counts — all stemming from a quintuple shooting at a Memorial Day cookout in North Baltimore last year. Friday, a jury decided he was not guilty of any of it.

...

The state's latest case relied on just one witness, a 61-year-old woman who was handing food to her husband to grill in front of their home in the Pen Lucy area when she said a vehicle pulled up and a gunman opened fire. The woman testified that she was familiar with Warren and had identified him from a photo lineup as the shooter.

Assistant State's Attorney Linda Ramirez told jurors the witness was brave to testify against Warren and her identification was enough to convict him.

"This is Baltimore City in 2017," Ramirez said. "Police tried to find other witnesses, and no one would say anything or could say anything. ... That's how the criminal justice system works. It sometimes has to rely on one single witness."

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryla ... story.html

As Baltimore police and prosecutors race to tamp down a sustained spike in violence, many of the charges against people caught with illegal guns aren't sticking, or defendants are only jailed for a fraction of their sentence.

About one-quarter of such gun cases are dropped before defendants go to trial, according to a Baltimore Sun analysis. Even when convicted of illegally possessing a firearm, prosecutors say, defendants are sentenced on average to 16 months in jail, with a substantial portion of their sentences suspended.

At the same time, police data show that fewer people arrested with illegal guns are ordered held without bail.

In one case, a 23-year-old man was granted bail after being arrested in the city with a fully loaded revolver and is now accused of fatally stabbing a man in Baltimore County five days after his release. The arrestee had a felony record and faced a mandatory five years in prison on the gun charge.

[Zaune]

I don't believe that this is politically necessary. From what I recall of the polls on this issue, the majority, the vast majority, of the American public supports some degree of greater gun control. And it is absolutely galling that the Democratic leadership is apparently trying to once more run to the Right in the face of defeat, especially when the opposition here does not have popular support- this is just a case of the gun lobby having the Congress by the balls.

On the other hand, the Right has been almost openly threatening to use deadly force if they don't get their way, and not just on this issue. Didn't Trump himself use some variant of the phrase "Second Amendment solutions" in a speech a while back?

This might be a good time not to make it any harder to shoot back. Or shoot first, for that matter.

[FireNexus]

I don't believe that this is politically necessary. From what I recall of the polls on this issue, the majority, the vast majority, of the American public supports some degree of greater gun control. And it is absolutely galling that the Democratic leadership is apparently trying to once more run to the Right in the face of defeat, especially when the opposition here does not have popular support- this is just a case of the gun lobby having the Congress by the balls.

The slim majority of Americans theoretically support gun control. They're heavily concentrated in places that are safe for Democrats anyway. The Americans who stand firmly against gun control are far more likely to live in places that are able to be swung one way or the other. And those voters are also fanatically single-minded on that issue. They represent about 5 points nationally, by that five points will absolutely always vote for the pro-gun rights candidate, and they will do so in districts that are separated by 5-10 points. Anti-gun control is a deal breaker issue. Pro gun control, to the extent that it is, is not changing the outcome of any elections due to the level of support and the location of the supporters.

We lose on gun control and never actually get it passed. When we abandon it, we get close to or achieve getting hard red districts to elect folks (like Kander or Manchin) who can be whipped to vote with Democrats. Even Bernie Sanders is weak on guns, and it works because his constituency is a gun constituency. If he went hard after gun control,he'd be less successful. He clearly supports it, but he is the elected official example of the point I'm making. The Atlantic wrote an article about it a few years ago:

https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/266417/

Even supporting the issue publicly is a risky move, because t'll put the NRA types against you despite there being zero possibility of it happening. It's putting a principle you admit yourself you only care about in a theoretical way against every other legislative priority.

That's not to say that this is an essential issue that the Democrats must not compromise on ever, but its also not, to my mind, one we need to completely retreat from. Frankly, I think that its become a somewhat less crucial issue of late, at least at the national level (it may be very crucial in some areas, I'll allow). So follow your conscience, and hold whatever position you damn well please on it. The single-issue gun voters are not likely to vote Democrat, ever.

How do you know? Democrats are historically terrified of stepping away from the issue because the ideological purity set will fuck them up if they try not to support it. "Marching to the right" blah blah blah. Heaven forbid we give up on "principles" that won't change anything to maybe get people who are on our side for most issues in power.

And again, I also don't think that we lost 2016 on any single issue, or group of issues. Certainly every little bit helps, but we lost, frankly, because of a biased system, unprecedented interference, and because, however qualified she might have been to be President, Hillary Clinton's personal baggage and lack of charisma made her a God-awful candidate.

We lost 2016 on many single issues. We lost it in places that are heavily stacked with gun rights types by a few thousand votes. Maybe if Clinton had been pro gun rights and otherwise identical she'd have had less fervor from the parts of the NRA crowd who love guns and hate trump. We can't know, but we can know that "background checks but otherwise gun rights" types like Kander get a hell pf a lot closer where they don't win outright. So even if it didn't install President Fuckface, it has clearly helped the GOP in a wide geographical range.

Also, while off the main topic, I can't help but note the OP's completely gratuitous referencing of the "Bernie Bros" narrative (a slur that was promoted expressly for the purpose of portraying Sanders supporters as misogynists). So speaking of losing issues that (some) Democrats need to drop... gratuitously insulting Sanders supporters is definitely one of them.

Fuck off. Your Bernie Bro bullshit will always be the key example of cutting off your nose in support of left wing ideological purity. I don't give a shit if you cry about it. Nor am I going to take the bait to relitigate the issue. You disagree with the characterization of "Bernie Bros". I don't give a shit and will continue to do so. So you can stop derailing the thread to once again opine about your butthurt, and you can just fuck off outright and opine on your butthurt somewhere where it is relevant and/or where anyone at all gives a shit about what you think on the subject of Bernie Sanders. That is all.

[Soontir C'boath]

Fuck off. Your Bernie Bro bullshit will always be the key example of cutting off your nose in support of left wing ideological purity. I don't give a shit if you cry about it. Nor am I going to take the bait to relitigate the issue. You disagree with the characterization of "Bernie Bros". I don't give a shit and will continue to do so. So you can stop derailing the thread to once again opine about your butthurt, and you can just fuck off outright and opine on your butthurt somewhere where it is relevant and/or where anyone at all gives a shit about what you think on the subject of Bernie Sanders. That is all.

Hook, line, and sinker. Not anyone's fault but your own that you fell for that crap. Ok, so you don't give a shit, then don't be butthurt when you're called out on it.

Clinton lost because she offered no hope and the only token you'd get is that'd you be voting for the first female President and if you didn't vote for her, you were sexist et al. "I'm with Her" was so narcissistic compared to "Make America Great Again" that I don't blame anyone who didn't jive with her messaging. Not to mention her campaign as described by people running it was an utter clusterfuck.

[Simon_Jester]

There are so many ways the Democrats could have won the 2016 election that we really, really ought to pick a grab-bag of half a dozen of them, and pursue all of them at once.

[The Vortex Empire]

And it is absolutely galling that the Democratic leadership is apparently trying to once more run to the Right in the face of defeat, especially when the opposition here does not have popular support- this is just a case of the gun lobby having the Congress by the balls.

The right to carry arms is not a right wing position. Hell, look at what Marx had to say on the issue: “… the workers must be armed and organized. The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition… Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.”

[His Divine Shadow]

Donald trump should wall up all the large cities and declare them gun control zones, and make the cities pay for the walls.

[The Romulan Republic]

I don't believe that this is politically necessary. From what I recall of the polls on this issue, the majority, the vast majority, of the American public supports some degree of greater gun control. And it is absolutely galling that the Democratic leadership is apparently trying to once more run to the Right in the face of defeat, especially when the opposition here does not have popular support- this is just a case of the gun lobby having the Congress by the balls.

On the other hand, the Right has been almost openly threatening to use deadly force if they don't get their way, and not just on this issue. Didn't Trump himself use some variant of the phrase "Second Amendment solutions" in a speech a while back?

This might be a good time not to make it any harder to shoot back. Or shoot first, for that matter.

Only terrorists and tyrants shoot first. I would not condone a preemptive war against a foreign country, and I certainly will not condone it in my own.

And frankly... your obsession with arguing on behalf of domestic terrorism is disturbing. There are times that I honestly find myself hoping that you are on a law enforcement watch list.

[The Romulan Republic]

The slim majority of Americans theoretically support gun control. They're heavily concentrated in places that are safe for Democrats anyway. The Americans who stand firmly against gun control are far more likely to live in places that are able to be swung one way or the other. And those voters are also fanatically single-minded on that issue. They represent about 5 points nationally, by that five points will absolutely always vote for the pro-gun rights candidate, and they will do so in districts that are separated by 5-10 points. Anti-gun control is a deal breaker issue. Pro gun control, to the extent that it is, is not changing the outcome of any elections due to the level of support and the location of the supporters.

Perhaps, but I also think that many of the single-issue gun voters are so conditioned to think that Democrat=anti-gun that they'll likely never vote anything other than Republican (or maybe Libertarian).

We lose on gun control and never actually get it passed. When we abandon it, we get close to or achieve getting hard red districts to elect folks (like Kander or Manchin) who can be whipped to vote with Democrats. Even Bernie Sanders is weak on guns, and it works because his constituency is a gun constituency. If he went hard after gun control,he'd be less successful. He clearly supports it, but he is the elected official example of the point I'm making. The Atlantic wrote an article about it a few years ago:

https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/266417/

Even supporting the issue publicly is a risky move, because t'll put the NRA types against you despite there being zero possibility of it happening. It's putting a principle you admit yourself you only care about in a theoretical way against every other legislative priority.

Its still frustrating that we allow the gun lobby to dictate to us against something the majority of voters want.

Will it cost us some votes? Maybe. But I am not convinced that it is as crucial and decisive an issue as you say.

How do you know? Democrats are historically terrified of stepping away from the issue because the ideological purity set will fuck them up if they try not to support it. "Marching to the right" blah blah blah. Heaven forbid we give up on "principles" that won't change anything to maybe get people who are on our side for most issues in power.

You... seem to be arguing against your own point here. If our own "ideological purity set" will turn on the Democrats if they abandon gun control, then how do you know that the votes gained will be enough to off-set that? Or am I misunderstanding your point here?

In any case, as I'll get to in a minute, I suspect that there are other issues where we can gain more ground, without compromising our principles.

We lost 2016 on many single issues. We lost it in places that are heavily stacked with gun rights types by a few thousand votes. Maybe if Clinton had been pro gun rights and otherwise identical she'd have had less fervor from the parts of the NRA crowd who love guns and hate trump. We can't know, but we can know that "background checks but otherwise gun rights" types like Kander get a hell pf a lot closer where they don't win outright. So even if it didn't install President Fuckface, it has clearly helped the GOP in a wide geographical range.

Perhaps. But I think there is other ground we could shift on that would be more productive. Like greater emphasis on the economic needs of the working class, not Wall Street donors.

I'm not saying that we can't pick up a few votes in key districts on gun control. I just don't think its as crucial an issue as you perceive it to be.

Fuck off. Your Bernie Bro bullshit will always be the key example of cutting off your nose in support of left wing ideological purity. I don't give a shit if you cry about it. Nor am I going to take the bait to relitigate the issue. You disagree with the characterization of "Bernie Bros". I don't give a shit and will continue to do so. So you can stop derailing the thread to once again opine about your butthurt, and you can just fuck off outright and opine on your butthurt somewhere where it is relevant and/or where anyone at all gives a shit about what you think on the subject of Bernie Sanders. That is all.

And you were so close to having an intelligent and mature post here.

I will try to keep this brief, but I do feel that a brief clarification is in order.

1. I did not attempt to bait you, or to reignite the issue. You brought it up by injecting an insulting slur for Sanders supporters into the OP for absolutely no reason, when it had nothing whatsoever to do with the topic, so if anyone here is "butthurt" about the primary, I'd say that its you. If anyone here derailed the thread, its you, though if you disagree, you are, as always, free to put your money where your mouth is and report me. But why should you be able to randomly insult Sanders supporters whenever you like, but us not be permitted to speak a word in our own defence?

2. You talk about the need for the Democrats to abandon or compromise on losing positions in order to win. This is not entirely without merit. Yet you pointedly refuse to stop going out of your way to abuse tens of millions of mostly Left-leaning voters who supported Bernie Sanders, for no other reason than the fact that they supported a candidate you don't like in a primary that's been over for a year. Which is, in my opinion, pathetically petty, whatever one thinks of Sanders and his supporters.

That you then blame me for being divisive is a masterpiece of hypocrisy.

So forgive me if I find your arguments on the importance of compromise less than convincing, or consistent. Because it seems to me that you would rather compromise with the Right than with the main faction of the Left wing of your own party.

[Zaune]

Only terrorists and tyrants shoot first. I would not condone a preemptive war against a foreign country, and I certainly will not condone it in my own.

And frankly... your obsession with arguing on behalf of domestic terrorism is disturbing. There are times that I honestly find myself hoping that you are on a law enforcement watch list.

I almost certainly am, if that makes you feel better.

But the thing is... Look, have you ever dealt with bullying? Real, persistent, committed bullying over a period of multiple years? Because I have, and I learned to my cost that trying to rise above it and trying to be the better person and generally not fighting back doesn't work. The bullies just see you as a soft target who they can be even more physically and verbally abusive towards without fear of any consequences. What does work is making the bullies scared; if you're lucky you only need to use the threat of violent retaliation, but that threat has to be credible and it has to be worse than anything they've done to you so far. (How I know this is related to why I'm almost certainly on that watchlist. I don't want to discuss it any further here.)

And this is precisely the sort of person we're dealing with in Trump. It's probably the sort of people we're dealing with in every Cabinet-level position he's been able to fill and the core of his supporters in Congress as well, because that sort tend to stick together. And unlike in the schoolyard there's even less prospect of seeking the assistance of higher authority because for the most part they are the higher authority.

[The Romulan Republic]

My sympathies regarding the bullying, and yes I have had experience with bullying, if only at the school-yard level. I can't say weather my experiences in any way compare to yours', of course.

However, even if we allow that it is sometimes necessary use force, there are still lines that can't be crossed, not if you're going to be any different from the people you're fighting. Even in war, we acknowledge that there are certain things that you are not supposed to do, like raping/murdering prisoners, for example. To my mind, one of those lines is generally preemptive attacks.

I do support, as I have said before, the right for individuals to use force in self-defence against an act or immediate threat of violence. But for society to function, the situations where that is permissible have to be fairly limited and narrowly defined, the bar quite high.

As to Trump... the man's administration is an on-going train wreck, but by the same token, he is laughably incompetent and governance, facing increasing opposition from his own party, and stands a very real chance of being either impeached, and if not that, an excellent chance of being voted out in four years. So talk of the necessity of violence is highly premature. I think that all it would do, at this point, is alienate people who would otherwise side with the Left against Trump, and give Trump more fodder to distract people, muddy the waters, and vilify the opposition.

[Zaune]

For your sake I really hope your experiences weren't comparable to mine. But I appreciate the sentiment.

But I don't really see how preemptive action in the face of a credible and quite serious threat is in any way immoral, and I think that the longer we progressives wait before at least making the necessary preparations, the greater the risk that we won't be able to act if and when the shit finally hits the fan. And it almost certainly will; I very much doubt that Trump is going to leave office gracefully if he loses the election fair and square, much less if a motion of impeachment is passed, and for all we know his successor will be someone even worse. And here in England the propspects are looking even bleaker; if I were to make a post entitled "RAR: Tories Go Full Norsefire" it would include a number of things they're actually doing for real right now.

[The Romulan Republic]

Prepare, yes, by all means, within the limits of the law. But there is a difference between preparation in case you have to fight, and launching a preemptive attack. The former can risk escalation, but is not necessarily illegal and can even be considered prudent under some circumstances. The latter is aggression.

The question, then, is weather the threat is sufficiently server to justify immediate action, and weather alternatives are available. Considering that we are certainly not yet at the point of murderous purges of minorities or dissidents by the state*; and that we still have elections, independent courts, and a mostly free press, I'd say that the answer to those questions is "yes" and "no", respectively. "But someone worse might come after Trump" is very tenuous grounds for arguing for the necessity of violence, as I hope you realize. By that reasoning, you could argue for almost anything.

Trump might be stupid enough to try to hold on to power by force (although I think its at least equally likely he'd simply try to cut a deal or flee the country), but his support to try something like that, what of it there would have been to begin with, is eroding. The intelligence establishment fucking hates him. I honestly think he'd be arrested or assassinated by people in his own government if he tried it, before a popular Leftist uprising could accomplish anything.

I also think that at present, you will loose more support than you gain through acts or threats of violence. Hell, I'm my own example. I probably agree with you on most political issues, at least broadly. The main reason we have to ever disagree is your sympathy for political violence. I dare say that with a lot of other people, you'd find yourself in the same boat.

*I set the bar here in part because any sort of political violence on a scale large enough to accomplish much will inevitably entail the possibility of a large numbers of death. Thus, it can only be reasonably considered a “lesser evil” if it is necessary to prevent a similar or greater loss of life.

[Zaune]

You know, I think the main difference between our points of view is that you see murderous purges of minorities or dissidents as something that might happen if things get worse, whereas I see them as something that will happen because things always get worse.

This may have something to do with the fact that the last time I really let optimism factor into my decision-making process I ended up moving to Luton.

[FireNexus]

Perhaps, but I also think that many of the single-issue gun voters are so conditioned to think that Democrat=anti-gun that they'll likely never vote anything other than Republican (or maybe Libertarian).

When Dems tack right (even though they rarely abandon party orthodoxy due to primary concerns, even in deep red places) thy do better in red states and districts. Sometimes winning, but always outperforming the top of the ticket. Not all pro-gun voters are conservative. But they're going to be much more sympathetic to conservative views if their key issue is mocked by the liberals in service of preventing problems that they don't believe affect them (the bulk of gun violence is in urban districts, which is why Dems seize on the issue in the first place).

Its still frustrating that we allow the gun lobby to dictate to us against something the majority of voters want.

Will it cost us some votes? Maybe. But I am not convinced that it is as crucial and decisive an issue as you say.

We don't allow shit. They dictate policy on the issue no matter what we do, because their voters care more than that majority and live where They get an electoral boost. Majorities don't decide laws in this country, period. Appeal to popularity on it all you like. Gun control is still not getting passed into law.

You... seem to be arguing against your own point here. If our own "ideological purity set" will turn on the Democrats if they abandon gun control, then how do you know that the votes gained will be enough to off-set that? Or am I misunderstanding your point here?

Because those who go against the orthodoxy to the most extreme degrees that won't get them crucified do better than the top of the ticket despite being well to the left of the normal GOP types on most other issues.

And for the rural swing voter, guns can be a "la la la I can't hear you" issue.

In any case, as I'll get to in a minute, I suspect that there are other issues where we can gain more ground, without compromising our principles.

The only principle is "greatest good for the greatest number" and if gun control isn't a key issue killing Dems, it's certainly not an issue we're gaining ground on. Abandoning it is not going to cause any extra suffering, so if it does any good at all to abandon it, it should be abandoned.

Perhaps. But I think there is other ground we could shift on that would be more productive. Like greater emphasis on the economic needs of the working class, not Wall Street donors.

See, that sounds like it works, but I have yet to see it do any good. Republicans gain ground despite being transparently pro-Wall Street in their policies. And nobody says "we need to empower Wall Street!". If having the best policies for the working class was a winning issue, we'd be winning. No matter how much you like to say "Wall Street shill" even the most pro-Wall Street Democrat is not seen as the Wall Street candidate by anyone but the far left.

I'm not saying that we can't pick up a few votes in key districts on gun control. I just don't think its as crucial an issue as you perceive it to be.

But you do buy that attacking Republicans on their policies toward the working class being worse will be effective if we just make ours a little better. And it's clear that people are not voting on whether someone has the best policies for the working class, or we're not talking about Democrats needing to change their messaging at all.

We don't need to tack left. Or convince people that liberal policies are better. There is zero evidence that red districts will be swayed by changing our policies toward Wall Street when they constantly vote for "deregulate everything" candidates and fucking Trump.

The GOP dominance is not about economic issues. It never has been.

And you were so close to having an intelligent and mature post here.

The arbiter of intelligence and maturity is surprisingly dumb as fuck, guys! The rest of this I took out back to avoid shitting the thread up. No need to derail it further.

[Simon_Jester]

Perhaps, but I also think that many of the single-issue gun voters are so conditioned to think that Democrat=anti-gun that they'll likely never vote anything other than Republican (or maybe Libertarian).

If what you're saying is true, then it's because the Democrats dug themselves into a hole. In which case the correct response is NOT to keep digging and hope everything works out better.

Everything is about fringe cases. You're not aiming to switch over all the single-issue gun voters. Nor to switch over the stereotypical single-issue gun voter model who lives in your head. Nor to switch over the actual median single-issue gun voter.

It's to switch over SOME of the single-issue gun voters. Even a small fraction of them would probably add up to thousands of people per state. Maybe many thousands. It could make a difference in any given election. Or it could fail to do so- but it'd still help. And the more consistently that issue is pushed and it is made clear that you don't have to be pro-gun-control to be a Democratic politician, and the more we offer Democratic candidates who are strong on economic and civil rights issues as a whole and not anti-gun to states where there are many rural voters...

The greater that beneficial effect will become.

If we'd started doing this in 2000, by now it would almost certainly have added up to an effect great enough to tip the 2016 election. Starting now may not do us enough good to tip the next election- but delaying the time at which we start does not benefit us.

Its still frustrating that we allow the gun lobby to dictate to us against something the majority of voters want.

If the majority of Americans want it that badly, then they should be stepping up to vote for it and defend it when Republicans try to remove it. That's what's starting to happen with the ACA, for instance- Americans are asking their Republican representatives hard questions because they don't want their health insurance disappearing.

People don't seem to feel that way about assault weapon bans for some reason.

As it stands, federal gun control is a weak preference for a relatively narrow majority of Americans. It's unclear to what extent the majority of citizens benefit from it. There is no massive injustice in American society that would be obviously remedied by stricter gun control laws, the way that single-payer health insurance might save millions of people's lives or fortunes.

If we have to compromise on that issue, I will do so without resentment. It is a constitutional rights issue- it's just an issue I happen to be on the opposite side I usually am from.

Perhaps. But I think there is other ground we could shift on that would be more productive. Like greater emphasis on the economic needs of the working class, not Wall Street donors.

If a significant fraction of the actual working class consists of voters so jumbled up they'll vote for a pro-gun candidate who ACTS like he represents the working class but doesn't do so when sent to Congress...

Maybe we should react by picking a candidate who isn't painted 'the wrong color' with signals that say "HEY, VOTE AGAINST ME" to the very set of blue-collar workers we're trying to protect.

Is this the magic button that saves the Democratic Party? Probably not. But why resent the fact that we have to pursue many different independent strategies, not all of which will pay off?

[Zwinmar]

See, here is my problem. I do not like being told what to do. Me 'having' a gun hurts no one, me 'using' a gun may hurt someone, just like me using a knife, a car, or anything else, may hurt someone. They are trying to limit my personal freedom because they are scared over nonsense. The current gun control debate is just that, nonsense, as the National Firearms Act of 1934 already covers what they are afraid of but they are not happy with that.

The biggest problem that I see is that they want to regulate everyone but yet it is businesses which are the worst offenders of pretty much anything you can name. Pick an industry and there is, more than likely, laws on the books which benefit the business at the expense of the people, whether this is loopholes which allow businesses to poison the environment, or allow them to fire their employees at will, or a myriad of other reasons. Yet, despite this, there is a push for deregulation while their lackeys use terror tactics to keep guns on everyone's mind while they refuse to fix the pipes (Flint, Michigan), the allow mining companies to get away with poisoning and murder (West Virginia), or even just allowing the corrupt to continue to screw over veterans (the Department of Veteran Affairs). Obviously that is not an exhaustive list by any means.

It is this smoke screen that spooks the average citizen who has a gun. The government has never shown to have the best interests of its citizens in mind, rather, whatever agenda will get the taxpayers money into the politicians pocket.

[Simon_Jester]

Thing is, the government USED TO routinely regulate industries with the goal of protecting the interests of the citizens; that's where things like our existing water and air quality regulations come from in the first place. That's where the abolition of leaded gasoline and reduction of lead exposure comes from (consequently an average rise of 5-10 IQ points due to reduced lead poisoning, consequently reduced crime and better economy). That's where all the restrictions on banks came from that mostly prevented Depression-sized economic collapses as opposed to mere 'malaise' during most of the late 20th century.

Ultimately, what changed was the Contract on with America, although some of the underlying dynamics were in play earlier than that. The Republicans shifted from being a party with a strong 'governance wing' (exemplified by George H. W. Bush) to being a party that uniformly agreed on shrinking the government and transferring more and more power to corporations.

The Democrats have to some extent fallen into the same path, in an attempt to compete with Republicans for donor money. But when you get right down to it, if you have a perception that government is ignoring business abuses and not enacting new policies that benefit ordinary citizens, it's probably the result of you watching some event that Republicans put in motion.

That said, to reveal this effect for what it is, Democrats have to be able to pierce through 'smoke screen' issues like gun control. Issues which cause voters to just focus on that one issue while ignoring more complicated/confusing policy questions.

Which seems to be what you're referring to?

[Soontir C'boath]

The fact that Democrats have been doing poorly for several years now in federal and local seats such as only a third of state legislating bodies show their campaign tactics such as tacking to the right do not work. They'll just vote for the actual Republican. The rhetoric coming out of Democrats have been mealy mouth with no actual sense of policy other than vague or little change of promises. For example, majority of Democrats and Republicans have been polled to want single payer healthcare and yet majority of Democrats refuse to endorse it. Warren, probably the second most staunch Progressive behind Bernie took awhile to finally recently stated she is behind it, it's ridiculous.

If I'm Independent and these people aren't firm on what they are willing to offer, why would I vote for these people? When Hillary said she had a public and corporate stance, people aren't going to see the pragmatic political ramifications from doing such a thing. It's an outright admittance that she doesn't work for the public and people would be stupid to vote for her as people here would complain about Republican voters going for Republicans. Republicans, while having onerous outcomes in the end, aren't exactly lying about the firm promises they make at least.

[Alferd Packer]

Maybe the Dems want to abandon gun control because they can no longer count on urban and minority turnout in swing states, due to voting restrictions in place in those states that disproportionately target such voters. Absent a reversal of those rules, maybe the next best thing is to hit moderate white voters in rural and suburban districts, whose access has not been similarly compromised. I suspect that that massive data mining operation that Barack Obama used in '08 and '12, or some new iteration of it, has crunched the numbers and shown a net gain of votes, perhaps even enough to win. And if all you care about is being first past the post, well, you do what you need to do to win.

[The Romulan Republic]

You know, I think the main difference between our points of view is that you see murderous purges of minorities or dissidents as something that might happen if things get worse, whereas I see them as something that will happen because things always get worse.

This may have something to do with the fact that the last time I really let optimism factor into my decision-making process I ended up moving to Luton.

I think that history has shown that it is very dangerous to make assumptions about the "inevitability" of future events, especially when doing so will justify your beliefs or agenda, and especially when arguing in favour of violent acts.

We are weighing probabilities, not prophecying destiny here. And one of my fears is that we will be pushed into further wars (foreign or domestic) that we did not need to have by people who decided that they were "inevitable" or necessary and pushed us more rapidly towards the point of no return.

To use a simple analogy: If I saw a man coming down the street who I thought looked dangerous, or hell, even a known violent con, and decided that he was going to rob my house, or one of my neighbours' houses, and shot him... would you expect me to get off in any court (well, outside the southern US, anyway)?

Edit: I mean... your argument appears to literally boil down to "we need to resort to threats/violence because I know that the worst case scenario is inevitable." Forgive me for saying so, but that is extraordinarily arrogant.

[Zaune]

To use a simple analogy: If I saw a man coming down the street who I thought looked dangerous, or hell, even a known violent con, and decided that he was going to rob my house, or one of my neighbours' houses, and shot him... would you expect me to get off in any court (well, outside the southern US, anyway)?

That depends on several factors, the most important ones being how many social classes above the victim you are, how good you are at telling convincing lies under pressure and how expensive your lawyer is. This is not actually a very good analogy, really...

I mean... your argument appears to literally boil down to "we need to resort to threats/violence because I know that the worst case scenario is inevitable." Forgive me for saying so, but that is extraordinarily arrogant.

Well, I'm sorry if it comes off that way. It's just that every time I've allowed myself the luxury of thinking we've finally reached rock bottom, I've been proved wrong.

[The Romulan Republic]

The analogy is an imprecise one- pretty much all analogies are, because they compare two different situations. I hope it conveyed my basic point, however.

I can certainly understand pessimism- I'm known for it myself. But I also try to keep in mind that we don't know where future events are going, and that we need to retain the flexibility to respond to changing circumstances on a case-by-case basis, rather than getting locked into one mindset, where as they saying goes, all we have is a hammer and every problem looks like a nail.

[Zaune]

Hah! I should probably talk to my therapist about that.