Parkland School Shooting

And, yes, I will say unequivocally that the Democratic Party punted on guns. No question about it. I was and am disappointed by that fact. The pertinent question, though, is why?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jaw
Julio3000 said:
I take that to mean that you've have supported gun control measures if they were introduced in 2009?
Click to expand...

No. More that the angst directed at NRA and GOP should be shared with the Dems. And that its surprising they didn't change it when they had filibuster proof control....since they're so willing to cast blame on others now.
 
Julio3000 said:
And, yes, I will say unequivocally that the Democratic Party punted on guns. No question about it. I was and am disappointed by that fact. The pertinent question, though, is why?
Click to expand...

I think to a large political reasons in terms of wanting to win voters. I still remember seeing John Edwards make a campaign appearance in semi-rural Georgia and a third of the speech was about how integral guns had been in his life. It was one of the most disingenuous things I've ever witnessed and led to me the conclusion that he was a fake sack of **** before he was outed as such.

I don't think the organization's influence stops at the Republican Party at all.

It's practically a political slur to have anything less than an "A" from the NRA.
 
Julio3000 said:
And, yes, I will say unequivocally that the Democratic Party punted on guns. No question about it. I was and am disappointed by that fact. The pertinent question, though, is why?
Click to expand...

Likely because they realize the NRA isn't some evil consortium of guns manufacturers, but an association of people who are fond of their right to guns. And that angering that association of people would likely result in a red wave in the next election.
 
Hawk said:
Well, so has the Supreme Court of the United States.

I wonder how much the NRA is paying them.
Click to expand...

Well, if you look at the composition of the court and some of the people who have been on there the last decade or so, it isn't difficult. I've long lamented the court has become a political tool for both sides.
 
I am personally in favor of reforms to gun laws and measures that effect the power of industry lobbies to affect the political process, yet I am unwilling to countenance criticism of the people who advocate and vote for the exact opposite of what I believe.

Nice place to hang your hat.
 
bravesnumberone said:
Well, if you look at the composition of the court and some of the people who have been on there the last decade or so, it isn't difficult. I've long lamented the court has become a political tool for both sides.
Click to expand...

Wait, so you are saying the NRA owns SCOTUS judges?
 
Julio3000 said:
I am personally in favor of reforms to gun laws and measures that effect the power of industry lobbies to affect the political process, yet I am unwilling to countenance criticism of the people who advocate and vote for the exact opposite of what I believe.

Nice place to hang your hat.
Click to expand...

It's high ground in this debate.
 
I think the Heller decision threw the Democrats' messaging into flux. Until then, it was relatively easier for a D politician to take a federalist position. And, honestly, there's some logic to that. I don't really care that much about what people are packing in sparsely populated areas of the Great Plains and the west. There are valid reasons for those folks to be carrying, just as (IMO) there are valid reasons to restrict what people are carrying in more densely populated areas.

Now, the Heller decision was essentially based on Scalia having a seance with the founding fathers, but that's a discussion for another day.
 
Julio3000 said:
I am personally in favor of reforms to gun laws and measures that effect the power of industry lobbies to affect the political process, yet I am unwilling to countenance criticism of the people who advocate and vote for the exact opposite of what I believe.

Nice place to hang your hat.
Click to expand...

Would definitely stop psychos from getting a weapon and killing people.

Have we considered the gun free schools idea yet?
 
Hawk said:
But I like how we've couched accusations of murder as "criticism".
Click to expand...

Moral culpability and legal culpability? Not my province, exactly, though I have my opinions. But, again, if you think that, for example, the type of weapon used in the most recent massacre shouldn't have been legally in the hands of the shooter, it would seem to follow that you could be arsed to apportion a measure of blame for the folks who've actively and successfully campaigned for its availability.
 
sturg33 said:
Would definitely stop psychos from getting a weapon and killing people.

Have we considered the gun free schools idea yet?
Click to expand...

Yes, you've made yourself clear. I wait with bated breath for your suggestion of how ending gun-free zones will also mitigate mass shootings.
 
Julio3000 said:
Yes, you've made yourself clear. I wait with bated breath for your suggestion of how ending gun-free zones will also mitigate mass shootings.
Click to expand...

If we just post signs at every school, every mall, every movie theater, every concert venue, every office, that say, "Armed people here," that will stop it all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top