Why we lost the gun debate in the Senate, and why we'll keep losing it.

[Savannahmann]

We make the catastrophic mistake of not researching our issues. Oh we do a little research. We constantly bandied about the poll that showed 90% of the people were in favor of more background checks. But we did not go beyond that. It was painfully evident while this debate was going on in Congress, in the Media, and in small groups all over the nation.

The opponents wrapped themselves in the Second Amendment. We could have easily educated them with a couple days to research our arguments, but we didn't bother. For example, we could have quoted Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. We could have pointed out that Hamilton said that the Government must command the Militia. But we didn't bother with that argument, all we did was bandy about the same tired statistic, one that nobody on the fence believed in their hearts. One that they questioned being the right thing, even if they themselves wanted it.

When questioned about the proposals and their effect on the Second Amendment, we could have highlighted the Supreme Court decisions that upheld the limitations on civilian ownership of machine guns. Instead, we let far too many use shouted slogans about just banning the guns to enunciate our argument.

We could have answered constitutional questions with discussions on the meaning of the Amendments as outlined in writings of the time, opinions of the great Justices in history. We didn't. When Senator Feinstien was questioned on the effect of her proposed ban on the Second Amendment. Her reply was to denounce the questioner, because it was insulting to think that a woman who served in Congress for so long would not take into consideration the constitution. She didn't answer the question, she didn't address the Constitutional question that would become paramount in so many people's minds. She could have given a good answer, if she didn't have any quotes in her bag that would do. She could have said that questions on the application of the constitution for legislation are better decided by those who have demonstrated an understanding of the nuances of that document the Courts. She could have tossed out an insult about how Senator Cruz didn't have the background to debate the issue if she wanted.

We didn't read the tea leaves. We didn't read those polls and see that 4% of the population considered guns to be the most important issue facing the nation. We didn't debate the questions. Instead we brought forth a parade of survivors, of victims, and of those who were affected by gun violence. However after a few victims, it loses its effectiveness on people. The first one is good, and gets the message across. The second one is OK, and the third one is fine. But after that, you start getting into the statistics that don't matter to people. Remember Stalin correctly pegged it when he said one death is a tragedy, a million are a statistic.

Granted we needed to do that, but the parade of victims should never have been the cornerstone of our presentation.

So who needs to lead the effort next time, assuming there is a next time. Whomever leads it, will need to be well read on the founders. Whomever leads the charge will need to know the constitutional questions forward and backward, and be able to discuss it intelligently, and most importantly, with brevity. Because only by pointing out the history that isn't that the Right Wing uses to win the debates, with actual facts, and quotes from the authors in question, can we hope to win.

We won't do that of course. It's easier to shout shame on you. It's easier to make threats we can't hope to follow through on. Remember the Republicans redrew the congressional district maps after the 2010 census. It gave them enough safe seats that barring a major political shift in those regions, there is little hope of taking those seats from them.

We ignored the points that the RW was making. Those points were ones that we should have addressed. We could have come up with a good answer to the claim that the bill did nothing to prevent a nut from getting a gun. That point was very damaging to our side when it was pointed out that basically all the gunmen in the last several mass shootings were either seeing a psychiatrist, or had been referred to one. One Psychiatrist even gave the name of the gunman to police BEFORE he murdered anyone. We answered with the same statistic. We needed to pass this bill because 90% of the people support it. We murdered our own cause, before it could gain any hope of passing.

Statistics have their place in the argument, but it can't be the whole of your factual information regarding the argument. At the same time, the administration was bumbling the Drone argument from the nut Ron Paul's son the Senator. At the same time, mainstream news was starting to question why the Department of Homeland Security needed more than 1 billion rounds of ammunition.

We lost, the nation lost, and we'll continue to lose. Because we don't put forth the effort to research our issues before we take the national stage. We know what the truth is, but we can't prove it in a debate. After the vote, it's too late. So we're going to get revenge in 2014. Only we won't. Those Senators who voted against it are either retiring, or essentially safe with the incumbents advantage. Especially when we realize that only 4% of the population thinks that this is one of the most important issues facing the nation.

Notice, that the statistic was not the foundation of the post, but only a part of the larger argument. The RW was able to bring distrust of the Government into the discussion with the billion bullets for Homeland Security distraction. They were able to bring drones in, and get people talking about when, or if, the Government will use Drones on American Citizens in the United States. What were we doing? We were chanting 90% and pointing to the victims of guns.

That is how we lost, and why we'll keep losing in the future. Because we don't bother debating the RW people, and we don't tell them that the question is stupid, and then showing how the question is obviously stupid to an educated individual.

[DrDan]

1. do you truly believe the RW would honestly debate the issues surrounding gun control?

They were bought-and-paid for by NRA and their ilk. No amount of debate would have changed that.

[Savannahmann]

7. You don't defeat the RW by shouting slogans.

You defeat them with ideals and principals and facts.

When Senator Cruz asked his question, why didn't Senator Feinstein reply with something like this? "Senator, we always place limits on Civil Rights. The right of the people to be secure in their homes under the 4th Amendment for example, doesn't mean that the police are powerless to enter the home if someone is shooting from a window until they have a Warrant. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is not infringed by banning assault weapons which are civilianized versions of military weapons." She could have continued for another minute describing the military weapons being chosen and designed to maximize casualties. That night, the news would have been that she decimated his argument. The public would have sided with us, and potentially more than 4% would have gotten interested.

Instead she watched a slow pitch float across the plate, and swung the bat to connect with nothing.

We aren't winning against the RW with slogans and single statistic arguments. They're winning the public perception argument with the image that they are dedicated defenders of the constitution. We are left looking like clueless gun grabbing liberals.

We didn't take the RW TV shows, like Sons of Guns, and show how these people revel in the destructive potential of the weapons, and work to increase that destructive potential. We paraded a bunch of gun victims out, and figured that was the final bit of the argument we needed. We beat the NRA once, with the Brady Law, but then we had arguments that we could and did use. This time, we ignored them in favor of screaming 90% of the people want it, and you better give it or else. If that didn't convince them, we then shouted. "Look at this woman who lost her daughter and tell her you don't care." It was Cindy Sheehan all over again. Sure it got some news, but it didn't convince anyone that we needed to do this now. We won the argument with the news media, but lost it with the nation.

[loyalsister]

12. "Senator, we always place limits on Civil Rights.???

Probably not the best way to put it. Maybe referring to the SC decision right off would have been a better start.

[Savannahmann]

14. True, but the truth remains.

There are always common sense limits on civil rights. Your right to free speech does not extend to shouting fire in a crowded theater. Nor to phoning threats to people. We have even limited freedom of expression outside abortion clinics, because we as a nation realize that the rights are not absolute. I could list dozens of exceptions to Civil Rights, and in each one the country has agreed that it is a reasonable exception.

Bring the question back to the issue with a simple closing. How are people's right to keep arms violated by eliminating military weapons with one feature disabled? They can still own shotguns, rifles, and pistols. Just not ones that can take a high capacity magazine.

When someone mentions the Gun Lobby, or the NRA, ask why that organization has not taken action to eliminate the Remington 700 with it's known design defect that has made the rifle unreliable, and dangerous to the shooter, and anyone around him/her?

But here is the thing. You have to have this information, not at your fingertips, but in your head, ready to be taken out and used. You have to know the information, and we didn't bother learning it. We counted on one statistic, and a parade of victims to sell our ideals for us.

[loyalsister]

43. I still don't buy ownership of an object designed to as a civil right

Speech is human expression. Search and seizure references personal and bodily space. Civil rights to not be denied rights based on biological qualities.

The right to self protection is not limited to guns. It also involves calling the police.
The court's decision did allow for regulations which are related to personal ownership and acquisition of an object that is not in anyway absolutely necessary and is designed to kill other people. I accept the court ruling that the purchase of guns cannot be banned. But that's a far cry from a ban on discrimination practices, limiting natural expression, and limiting the invasion of personal space.

[Pelican]

78. This...

The right to self protection is not limited to guns. It also involves calling the police.

This is so out of touch to a significant portion of the populace. You might live down the road from a competent, funded and friendly police station.

Many of us don't and the idea that we completely place the safety of ourselves , our families and our property in the hands of another is anathema.

[loyalsister]

80. I didn't say it was limited to police or knives

or automobiles (which, I hear are more effective than guns), or physical offense....
The point is that the fact that it is possible to oneself using a different object or strategy blows the "civil rights" argument out of the water. If there is a civil right to own a gun, why not a knife, or a car, or some mid-evil weaponry? Self protection is not defined by the object.

[Pelican]

82. Two things...

1) You may have meant something else but the way it comes across is "You don't need a gun. Call the cops"

2) Just because there are various ways to defend oneself does not mean that there is any legitimate reason to take some of those options away because some find them unacceptable.

[loyalsister]

83. I didn't say guns should be banned

I said that there is no more a civil right to own and use one over another. Just because cars or knives can be lethal, no one suggests that there is a civil right to own them or even to have phone service to call the police for that matter.

[NewEngland4Obama]

2. Not really we lost because of the NRA money..

[JohnnyBoots]

4. Which side has a billionaire true believer on it? NT

[pipoman]

18. According to this they spent a whopping $3million lobbying...

if they can do everything that is claimed with $3million imagine the power someone like Bloomberg should have..



Oh and $1.5m in campaign contributions..

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000082

[JohnnyBoots]

3. Well thought out

and pretty spot on. I disagree with you on the RKBA, but I think this was a good post. Many will disagree and flame you. I'd steer clear of the Ivory Tower if I were you. I appreciate your thoughts on the matter though.

[Skinner]

5. When an issue has 85% support among the American people...

...the problem is not that we didn't explain ourselves well enough. That could be the case if an issue had only 50% support. Or maybe 60%. But on this one we already won the public opinion debate by a massive landslide.

[aikoaiko]

13. That statistic I think has misled you and gun restrictionists.

Last edited Sat Apr 27, 2013, 05:37 PM - Edit history (1)

Even when a majority of people support something it can still not be a important issue to them. I seem to recall data about what issues are important to people polled and gun control just wasn't very important.

On the other hand, those who were against more restrictions feel passionately about the issue.

Its those voters who will have the biggest impact come primary time in red or purple states. Even if the no vote will hurt them in the general, there is no general election vote if they can't get past the primary.

I've been looking for the polling data state by state and party affiliation on support for the gun control legislation and haven't found it yet, but I'm confident it boils down to votes.

YMMV.

[HangOnKids]

15. The Majority Of People Support Gun Control But It Is Not Important To Them?

Gee how convincing. NOT. Your recalling data does not match up to facts. You are entitled to YOUR opinion but NOT to facts. Try working some of those in next time.

[sarisataka]

19. The Majority Of People Support Gun Control But It Is Not Important To Them? Yes

here is an unscientific survey answered by a random sample of sixty-five Democratic supporters. How many of them answered gun control, crime, mass murders etc. as a major concern? I will save you the trouble; the answer is less than one:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2755971

[HangOnKids]

56. Sorry that poll is ridiculous.

And Timber Valley has been banned. Care to find another poll not started by a disruptor? Thanks and save yourself the time of replying. I don't dig the folks who hang out in the Gun Room.

[sarisataka]

59. I will reply anyway- It wasn't a poll

it was a simple question- that the poster is now banned is completely irrelevant.

The question posted here in GD:

What are the three most important issues to you?

Simple and to the point.

65 people chose to answer, not one said gun control is a top three issue. That is telling. It does not mean it is not an issue that concerns people. It does mean that among politically savvy people in 195+ answers (some slipped extra issues in comments) no one, including those from either "Gun Room", chose guns as a most important issue...

[premium]

16. Here's the Gallup poll done from 4/4 thru 4/7.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/161813/few-guns-immigration-nation-top-problems.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=All%20Gallup%20Headlines%20-%20Politics

It seems there's only 4% who think that gun control is a top priorty in the country.

[ellisonz]

72. So the vast majority is being held hostage by a small, heavily armed minority of fanatics? n/t

[aikoaiko]

79. A motivated minority is having an impact, but that is how the Senate was designed.

But then again, gun control has even worse prospects in the House. Most pro-restriction people just don't feel passionately about the issue and that's why you can't get traction even with a majority.

I think a Toomey-Manchin like bill will pass soon -- especially if the gun banners stop waiving around an AWB.

[ellisonz]

84. "I think a Toomey-Manchin like bill will pass soon"

Which is why it failed just recently?

[aikoaiko]

86. Something like it will come around soon I think.

Without the inflammatory and useless baggage of the AWB in its context it might just pass.

Better yet, should the president say that his stance on gun control has "evolved" and he now will veto any new federal gun bans, other gun control legislation might have a better chance of passing.

[ellisonz]

87. Wow that wasn't poorly phrased at all...

Better yet, should the president say that his stance on gun control has "evolved" and he now will veto any new federal gun bans, other gun control legislation might have a better chance of passing.

The President did evolve, he stopped staying silent in face of great injustice, that your side is on the wrong side of history and good conscience should in no way slow down the struggle for an end to the gun madness. BTW - if you think the gun crowd is anything but complete sync with Republican obstructionism I've got a bridge to sell you.

[aikoaiko]

88. We obviously disagree on many things, but incrementalism is your only hope.

You went for too much this time and came up empty handed. Pushing an even stricter AWB than the 1994 law was gratuitous.


The president has also been consistent on his pro-AWB stance. Nothing has evolved there.

[ellisonz]

89. You're operating on the presumption that Congress is functional.

Did you miss the last 5 near fiscal meltdowns? Congress isn't working because the GOP won't pass *any fucking bill at all* - We're going to have to win this one at the ballot box and being bold and clear is essential.

Obama didn't try to pass shit after Tucson and Aurora. That Newtown was galvanizing speaks only to the toxic nature of the President's political opposition. I swear, David Keene and Wayne LaPierre are the biggest sacks of walking, talking pig shit every to set foot on K-Street.

Ratfuckers.

[aikoaiko]

90. Ok, then its status quo on guns until then.

They're selling as fast as they can make them.

[CincyDem]

6. We lost this debate because...

...the Democratic Party is a coalition of ideals and the Republican Party is a cabal of action.

I abhor virtually everything the Republican Party stands for but I'm jealous of their efficiency and effectiveness. There is no question they are a freakin' machine when it comes to running the political process.

We're tied up in chit like the fairness of squelching rigorous debate by changing the filibuster rules. Nobody can predict the future but you know the first thing that will happen in a Republican controlled Senate is a temporary adjustment to the filibuster rules in response to the country's plea that something must be done. Just like the Supremes handed over 2000 to Bushco and then announced that their decision couldn't be used a precedent in any other proceeding, the Repub Senate will do some kind of legislative legerdemain that will make sure it's not the rule of the Senate should the Dems regain control.

Democrats play to play. Republicans play to win.

I've started out as a south side Chicago democrat before I could walk and have been every day since. I just wish we could coalesce around Democrats who could play to win because it seems like every morning I wake up, the Repubs are winning another couple inches of ground. Do that for 8-10-12 years and it adds up.

[HereSince1628]

45. "WE" Really? None of the decision makers invited me to be part of "WE"

The decisions makers and their staffs carefully and deliberately looked at people like me and decided to ignore everything people like me put forward.

[CincyDem]

50. Yep. Sux to be we.

[HereSince1628]

53. As a progressive democrat I'm tired of being blamed when my warnings go unheeded.

and my advice is ignored. DCdemocrats don't belong to a group of WE that includes ME

And they've completely exhausted my ability to support the pragmatists way out there on the right of the party with Obama and Rahm
and the Wall Street Bankers.

[CincyDem]

54. I didn't mean to imply your warnings should go unheeded

and I can see how my flippant response could sent that message.

I agree with you.

I would love to see DC Democrats actually represent the left - instead of being waterboys/girls for the right. We keep talking about Saint Ronnie isn't far enough to the right to be part of today's republican party...the same could be said about BHO or Harry Reid. These guys have crept to the right so much that, while they're still on the left of the viable American political establishment, they're nowhere near what we know as being left.

It's not like they're DINOs...it's more like they're DRTR (Democrats Relative to Republicans)...certainly NOT true democrats committed to retaining our progressive traditions.

Anyway - apologies if my sarcasm hit the wrong spot.

[MotherPetrie]

8. All those words can be boiled down to three letters: NRA

[lancer78]

9. That 90% poll

Was only conducted in the blue states of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. Noone polled places like Montana, Arkansas, North Dakota, or Alaska. Also, you can always word polls so that you can get the outcome you want.

[supernaut]

21. And not only that..

it only surveyed 1,772 people.

[GeorgeGist]

81. Gosh Sherlock ...

[BethanyQuartz]

10. There is more to it than that

Many assumed that all those of us who are opposed to more gun regulation or are just not interested in the debate are automatically Republican gun owners and nuts. Not true. You (collectively not you personally) alienated us from the get go with that assumption.

Honestly I have never considered rounding up every firearm in the United States a likely event or one that would have the desired outcome without consequences that create a worse outcome. I also see other issues in our country as far more urgent and to be honest my own anti-gun controls stance is therefore the default stance of someone who mistrusts our government, does not believe it can or will protect me, and who was raised in a culture fed stories about governments rounding up private firearms right before they brought their jackboots out. I also enjoy target shooting although I don't at present even own a gun.

Now if I thought this issue worthy of hours of discussion and contemplation every week in place of the other issues I see as more urgent you might be able to eventually win me to your side with sound logic and facts. I would certainly give up the right to go target shooting if I knew it would save countless lives. But because the real issue isn't legislation, it's how to round up the illegal guns after they are criminalized, and since such extreme measures are unlikely I'm unconvinced more gun regulations will save lives. It might cause suicidal people to get more creative and it might mean negligent parents will kill their kids in other ways, but I don't think it will stop shootings related to crime.

Anyway, in the end, it's just not my #1 concern or even in the top ten. And I suspect that a lot of Americans are the same way. Furthermore (and probably the real reason you aren't getting what you want) is that the decision makers don't see any benefit to irritating gun owners. There is no profit in it, they aren't afraid of armed revolution (and if they were they'd be even more afraid to stop one by actually rounding up the guns instead of just passing laws about them), and so nothing much will change.

[DevonRex]

24. You're pro-third party and anti-gun control on DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND.

What the motherfucking HELL?

[BethanyQuartz]

28. I'm pro-third party but eager for dems to run candidates who aren't repukes in blue

So I can vote for those candidates.

I also agree with most left-leaning democrats on most issues. Gun control is one of the few issues I'm not in agreement on. When and if more important issues get dealt with I'd love to spend weeks or months researching and debating gun control options and might even change my views. But first the other stuff.

[ellisonz]

73. They were nuked n/t

[DevonRex]

91. Do you know what did it?

I kind of wondered what it would take.

[ellisonz]

93. No exact idea.

I would guess Skinner checked IP logs.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

11. Your point about the hubris of DiFi is well made and she is not the only one

Even Harry Reid referred to it as the anti gun bill.

A recent poll torpedoed the 90% number, but dueling polls is not the answer either.

I am not so sure there are "good answers" to all of the questions raised. The divide is deep and multi faceted. Assumed constituencies are far from monolithic as well.

I support UBS conceptually, though Manchin-Toomey needed some parts cleaned up. I supported the two amendments that did pass. I did not support the amendments that banned standard capacity magazines and the DiFi AWB.

Reid killed the bill and with a recess looming, I do not expect to see it revisited again until after the next Federal election at the earliest.

[Savannahmann]

17. The purpose of this post is not to revisit Gun Control in this Congress, or the next.

It is to wake people up, and let them know we need to take the effort to win. We need to educate ourselves on the issues, not just that the issue exists, but the details that make up the devil. The Gun Control issue was one of the most recent, but hardly unique in the way it was carried out. The RW always brings up constitutional questions about every issue, and we always reply with a poll, or a victim of whatever is being debated. We never take the effort of educating ourselves to the history, the nuances, and the facts that will be mis-stated by the RW. Instead we stand there, or sit there on the TV screen and toss out more statistics, and more victims.

Take the Sequestration issue. Same thing, we paraded forth a long list of things that would be affected by the Sequestration. We quoted statistics, and after parading the victims, we got more victims to parade. We were right, the sequestration would and has affected lots of people negatively. We were wrong, the RW just waited until the public got tired of seeing the parade of victims and weary of the statistics.

We should have attempted public compromises with the RW. Let us cancel three F-35 fighter jets, and that will free up the money we need to keep these hundred programs running. Then the RW has to explain why the F-35 is more important than Head Start to the nation. The RW has to explain why one F-35 is more valuable than Medicare, or Air Traffic Controllers.

The win was right there, if we had done our homework, but instead we relied on statistics and victims to make our case. We showed little Timmy, and talked about how he wouldn't get Head Start if Sequestration went through. We pointed at National Parks with 1 million visitors a year and talked about the suffering of those 1 million. There are more than 300 million Citizens, and they don't give a damn if one out of 300 is disappointed at a National Park that 280 of those 300 have no intention of ever going to.

WE need to do the homework, and we need to learn how to counter the RW arguments. Because I'm tired of losing issue after issue while we shout slogans and statistics and parade the victims.

I'm trying to wake up enough people and get them thinking. Simply replaying our losing plan on every issue is getting tiresome.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

63. Education is also clearly called for

Many of the posts here are overwhelming in their passion and deficient when it comes to facts. You cannot win without a factual based position, no matter what the spin or emotion. When you look at the facts, some of the current feel good stuff will fall by the wayside if there is integrity in the process.

A good example is what you said about the sequester. It ignores the CR issues which are in many ways more destructive than the basic cuts. Ask anyone who understands the Federal budget process. It also turns a blind eye to the fact the administration has considerable freedom on how to implement the cuts under the sequester. If FAA controllers and Meals on Wheels are being cut, its because the administration chose to do it that way. An example, it was announced this week that all DoD civilians will take a 14 day hit. The USN worked things so they did not have to do that to meet their numbers, but the new SECDEF (Hagel) is making every service take the same hit.

[Fumesucker]

20. Not much used to "debating" right wingers, eh?

You can't prove a damn thing to someone who thinks the world is only 6000 years old no matter how many "facts" you come up with or how well they are researched.

[Savannahmann]

68. Those are a small minority

40% of the people will vote Republican. Another 40% vote Democratic. We are hoping, trying to convince the rest to join us. My point is we are turning the 20% off by just shouting the statistics and parading the victims.

We rely too much on the bullet talking point. After the defeat in the Senate everyone was saying exactly the same thing from the President to the middle of the night talking head on TV. It was the same statistic that failed to win the day already. We keep losing, and we keep using the same failed plans, and it is past time for a change.

If the elected people are going to get on TV and talk about an issue, they need to know everything about it. They need more than a couple bullet points to use. Then here is the thing, the rest of them need to be as familiar, so that press briefings are not what we've seen on cspan far too often. One representative after another using the same statistic, and another victim.

Look on this thread. After I explained that the statistics and parade of victims isn't working, look how many replied with the same statistic that didn't work. It's become an automatic response for us, to follow the play book and quote the statistic, and then parade the victims.

We have to evolve our argument, and our ability to debate.

[Fumesucker]

70. If you are expecting our politicians to be knowledgeable you might as well give up now

The politicians on both sides spend more time fundraising than anything else, they really don't have the opportunity to become true experts at more than maybe one or two subjects and most of the time not even that. Both sides shoot talking points back and forth and like it or not the Republicans are far more adept at creating and spouting talking points than are the Democrats.

Indeed, the Republicans have a major industry that does nothing but create and disseminate talking points for them, there really isn't something similar on the Democratic side.

All that aside, you are greatly underestimating the number of Americans who believe in young Earth creationism.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/20/40-of-americans-still-bel_n_799078.html

A new Gallup poll, released Dec. 17, reveals that 40 percent of Americans still believe that humans were created by God within the last 10,000 years. This number is slightly down from a previous high of 47 percent in 1993 and 1999.

[TheKentuckian]

22. In part.

More deadly was the initial strident overreach that radicalized the opposition and gave them something to run with.

I think a background check expansion would have definitely passed if that was sought from the start, it could have even been framed in a pro right to keep and bear arms fashion as a way to make sure weapons are the wrong folks do not pose a threat while absolutely not interfering with the rights of law abiding, rational, and peaceable citizens and taxpayers.

Instead, we got talks of bans and much more radical talk from individuals and non-elected folks and the whole conversation is forever tainted by the opening bids no matter if they are punted a million miles from the table later.
Some of that 90% was already raised against the effort regardless of what it morphed to now.

There are also misleading numbers in this issue that mislead at least some portion of gun control advocates which are the support numbers because you are not accounting for priority, extent of polar agreement, or passion.

Not many are white hot on the issue, either way but the pros seem to greatly outnumber the antis where there is zealotry. Then once you get past that four percent or so of the population, it may be more of a disparity in numbers with polar agreement as well as passion.

Sure, 90% may believe in background checks and some other large number generically supports gun control BUT a pretty significant majority believes in the individual right to keep and bear arms. There is no "100% take all the guns and bullets" going down so immediately after the outnumbered zealots a lot of the generic supporters of pro gun control contingent are to varying degrees fundamentally at odds with those that drive the agenda on end game which distorts the support pretty significantly.

[Bake]

51. I couldn't agree more, Kentuckian (from a fellow Kentuckian!)

And God knows, there was --and still is -- plenty of that overreaching here on DU.



Bake

[beevul]

62. Well said.

Unfortunately, the people that need to receive and understand this, are the least receptive to it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. When you got 85% support for an issue

Explaining it is not the problem.

FYI the founders would have an issue with needing super majorities to move anything in the Senate. That is a failure of government, pure and simple, and the NRA has bought these people lock, stock and barrel

[Zoeisright]

25. Oh bullshit.

We lost because repukes are pigs. Period.

[gulliver]

26. I tend to agree but would add what I think is one vital thing.

The story needed a villain for both sides to unite against. The guns and magazines themselves don't make effective villains. One side of the argument is quick to see themselves holding (or potentially holding) these weapons while not being villains. They'll never go for an argument that frames the weapons themselves as evil.

We saw the Newtown families, but that is really not effective at all politically. If anything, it allowed the gun industry to circumvent the real arguments as you note. Without a villain to punish, the whole thing turned into a sentimental gesture.

The people who should have been front and center as villains in the debate are the killers and their enablers. We should have been asking what we can do to block villains like Nancy Lanza from stocking up on weaponry and "training" her crazy son in its use. Do we want to just allow people like Cho and Holmes to buy guns? Should we allow weapons to trade freely back and forth between criminals and the law abiding using the gun shows as a background-check-free conduit?

We should have had some pictures of the Lanzas, Cho, Holmes, Loughner, etc. in front of the cameras with the families of victims and wounded survivors. We should have had pictures of armed neo-Nazi skinheads and street gangs in the background behind the families of slain police officers. Then the victims in the room would have had a villain for the audience to want to see punished.

[Savannahmann]

33. No, we should have highlighted their supporters.

I mentioned Sons of Guns. This Video shows them firing three 100 round magazines on full automatic, to determine the temperature of the weapon when it's done. This is so they can improve the weapon, and design it to be able to fire even more ammunition even more quickly. This is obviously not for a sportsman to shoot targets. This is obviously to make the weapon even more deadly, leading to even higher numbers of dead.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="

" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Parading the victims didn't get us anywhere. Because they were able to claim that all the other owners of weapons were law abiding responsible people dedicated to safe use of firearms. We didn't challenge that. We let that point go by unanswered. We asked vague questions about the need of a high capacity magazine, but we gave the point up. We didn't do our homework. We didn't have answers ready for the claims, and we never went back to answer them.

Here's another responsible user of a weapon. Why didn't we point people to youtube to see the responsible gun owners in action? Because we had a playbook, and it said we quote statistics, and we parade victims.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="

" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[gulliver]

40. These types of guys don't make great villains.

The vast majority of them are just getting a thrill out of being close to (and in charge of) something that is so deadly. A lot of guys would like to shoot the above guns. Hell, I would. It's a thrill I don't feel like I need, but think of the popularity of "Call of Duty".

To get people to back laws you need to give them someone they want to stop and/or punish. Picture Nancy Lanza doing one of the above videos with her son.

[99Forever]

27. Piffle.

Get real.

"WE" lost because almost all of the scum politicians in Washington DC are for sale to the highest bidder, this time the terrorist organization known as the NRA paid the tab.

[Savannahmann]

34. The NRA was just as powerful before

But we got the Brady Law then. The difference wasn't the NRA, it was us. We didn't make a case. We used the same losing playbook as we've used on every other issue in the last several years. Quote statistics, parade victims. We don't know how to do it any other way. We need to learn, or we'll keep losing, and I'm sick of losing and blaming special interests, or gridlock, or anything else we can come up with as an excuse.

We need to learn how to argue, how to do our homework, and how to get our evidence ready. We need to decide early in the process what our goals are, and stick to them. Blaming the NRA because we were weak guarantees our next battle is also a losing one. We need to throw away the statistic and victim playbook, and get serious.

[99Forever]

36. Hogwash.

90% of "WE" supported a bill that couldn't get thru the Senate.

It's not about "the argument," it's all how much money you can afford to spend, BUYING our CORRUPT, ROTTEN government.

[SpartanDem]

41. Yes it is the argument or really education

a poll by the DNC showed significant confusion on this issue. Bandying the about 90% support was in some way a mistake because fooled us into thinking it was a simple issues that could not lose. But as it turned out people views on this matter were much more complex.

n a nationwide poll our firm recently conducted for the Democratic National Committee, we asked 800 voters what action they want our government to take: “enforce current gun laws more strictly but not pass new laws” or “pass new gun laws in addition to enforcing current laws more strictly.” It came as no surprise to us that they chose better enforcement by 50 percent to 43 percent. (The remainder responded “neither” or “don’t know.”)

But in the same poll, 87 percent of voters, including nearly 90 percent of gun owners, said they support background checks for all gun sales. Significant majorities of voters and of gun owners also told us they support banning military-style assault weapons along with the high-capacity magazines that enable those weapons to fire dozens of rounds without reloading.

To dig deeper into this confusion, we introduced a new series of questions. We asked this same group of voters whether or not specific laws were already on the books. Of the 50 percent of people who prefer enforcement over new laws — over half of whom are gun owners — 48 percent told us that federal laws prohibit the purchase of a weapon privately or at a gun show without a background check, while 10 percent simply admitted not knowing the rules. In other words, about 6 out of 10 people who believe we just need to do a better job of enforcing existing laws don’t realize that those laws are far weaker than they think. And just under half of those who want better enforcement don’t know that military-style assault weapons are, in fact, legal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/07/opinion/sunday/dont-know-much-about-gun-laws.html?_r=0

[99Forever]

44. Save your NRA gibberish for someone else.

I ain't buyin' it.

[SpartanDem]

48. What aren't you buying? Did you even read the article

I'm not even defending NRA so I don't even get what this gibberish bs is about. What I'm saying that our own party's poll show that people views were much more complex because of ignorance about our guns laws. That a significant part of that 90% already thought universal background was already the law and we could have done a better job educating the public. Are you saying that this played no role in the bills failure?

[99Forever]

49. Blah blah blah

No sale.

[Savannahmann]

57. We beat that statistic until it didn't matter

Every objection anyone made, no matter the foundation, we shouted that reply. We wore the statistic out until it didn't matter anymore. That is what we did wrong, so how do we keep from making the mistake again?

[99Forever]

61. Good grief...

... it's like talking to a stone with some people.

I guess you've got your marching orders and won't bother listening to anything other than what you already believe. I've wasted too much time on this exercise in futility for one day.

[Hoyt]

29. These are irrational people who think they need to strap a gun or two on to venture out.

We should expect more from Congress.

[Uzair]

30. Actually, the MAJORITY voted yes in the Senate

It's the stupid, corrupt Senate rules that "lost" this debate in the Senate.

[premium]

31. Yep.

The only 2 amendments that didn't get a majority vote were Sen. Feinstein's AWB and mag. limit.
Even national reciprocity got the majority vote, 57-43.

[Skip Intro]

32. More stringent gun control failed because support fell.

I am in a minority on DU because I would rather err on the side of protecting personal freedom than restricting it, and that is fine. That is how I see the issue. Despite some barbs from the usual few, DU is a place where a variety of opinions on hot topics are respected, and that is greatly appreciated.

I've made the argument before that Senators voted their political future. That's what politicians do. That political future rides on the will of the voters in their respective states. Had Senators had the support from their constituents back home, more would have supported more stringent gun control.

This poll feeds that theory:

---------
USA TODAY Poll: Public support for gun control ebbs

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/04/22/usa-today-poll-finds-support-for-gun-control-ebbs-backing-for-immigration-bill-strong/2103419/

WASHINGTON -- Four months after the shooting rampage at Sandy Hook Elementary School, a USA TODAY Poll finds support for a new gun-control law ebbing as prospects for passage on Capitol Hill seem to fade.

Americans are more narrowly divided on the issue than in recent months, and backing for a bill has slipped below 50%, the poll finds. By 49%-45%, those surveyed favor Congress passing a new gun-control law. In an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll in early April, 55% had backed a stricter gun law, which was down from 61% in February.

----------

There are a few glaring reasons support fell, imo, and probably continues to fall.

There was a full-on media/WH push for new gun control using the Newtown tragedy as a "draw." Yes, this happened. I found it offensive to use a tragedy like that to push a political agenda. It got to the point I was having flashbacks to those scummy tv commercials selling 9*11 coins. Just wasn't right, imho, and I think others began to feel the same way.

I also think it was wrong to try to accompllish more stringent gun restrictions by plying support based on emotion. This is an important issue and should be dealt with in a fair and reasoned manner. Whipping up support by trying to manipulate people on an emotional level - well, I think people began to see through that and reject it.

I also think the time between the Newtown tragedy and the votes gave Americans time to reflect and ponder and wonder if it is the right thing to do to tweak rights many perceive to flow from the Constitution.

And I don't think the WH did itself any favors by having Biden travel around the country and make fun of people who didn't support further gun control. That didn't win any support, I'm sure.

I will also say this - pushing a vague "gun control" effort, incessantly described only as "common sense gun control," few specifics being offered, was the wrong way to go. It made it look like there was something to hide. I have no doubt those pushing new gun control would have gone as far as they possibly could, and planned to do just that. Why else would the push be so strong yet so vague?

I think the push was flawed, and I think enough people finally saw through the show to reject it.

[Savannahmann]

35. Exactly.

The nation got tired of our endless repetition of the statistics, coupled with the endless parade of victims. We had no idea what we were going for, we had no plan on how to get there. We doomed it ourselves.

[premium]

38. And don't forget Bloomberg with his dumbass gun control ad

in those 13 pro gun states.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Bloomberg+Gun+Control+Video&view=detail&mid=2A71F3FDC66BB6C1B4992A71F3FDC66BB6C1B499&first=41&FORM=NVPFVR

If you watch it, you can see that this idiot has the shotgun pointed in an unsafe manner,
his finger is on the trigger,
and the slide isn't open, so who the hell knows it there's round chambered.

When you have some moron talking about background checks while he's violating just about firearm safety rule, then it kind of takes away from the message.

Those poorly crafted ads didn't go over too well in the states they ran in.

[Progressive dog]

37. It's beginning to look as if some of the RW are backing away

from their vote on the background check issue. Might be you're a little premature about what works.
Any way, what you are saying is that we should surrender our arguments to the RW, and legitimize theirs. We should talk about drones against US citizens, we should try to convince bat crap crazy people that fighting the government that you elected is not wise.
We can't even prove to the gun nuts that the more dangerous guns are and the easier it is to get guns, the safer we all are. Why, because these are mostly the same people that don't want government hands on their SS and Medicare. Many are seeing black helicopters in the sky. You get my point, I hope.
We are not responsible for teaching these people to reason, to making them pay attention to how our government is supposed to work. It is past time to end the gun slaughter, or at least slow it.
The time for talk was before Newtown.

[Jennicut]

39. This is about the filibuster, nothing more.

The talking filibuster. Blame Reid. Or some of our cowardly Dem Senators. Rules should have been changed. If they were, we wouldn't need Consevadems or Republicans. All your other arguments mean nothing. There is no convincing the other side, or working with the Repubs on anything. We had Toomey only because he is from PA and that state went pretty blue in the 2012 elections. Doesn't matter anyway....would not have passed the House.

[Doctor_J]

42. lost the debate?

Ninety percent of the country is on our side. You gunsters get nuttier by the day.

[DeSwiss]

46. No one wants to, nor will they disarm themselves......

...voluntarily in the face of such a CORRUPT government. The USofA is the world's NUMBER 1 ARMS EXPORTER. We hold over 4,000 multiple-warhead nuclear weapons. We have aging nuclear plants with no where to put the waste (but its great if you're making dirty bombs). And we openly make our $$ by making wars on small countries and ripping-off other people's shit.

We now Drone-kill women and babies and then say ''whoopsies.'' We drop some money on the table, say we're so, so sorry and then go on justifying more of it as the ''collateral damage of war.'' Oh, and don't let me forget that Americans can now apparently be targeted and killed by a STAR CHAMBER of unknown compliment. And people are being asked to willingly disarm themselves to these people?

I would love a world with absolutely NO WEAPONS. I know it sounds crazy, but then I never thought I'd see a black President either. So I'll take a bold stance in my hopes and desires now, because why not? Such an unarmed world would mean that we will have evolved beyond our mistrust and barbarism into something greater than we are.

- But I think we'll need to disarm our leaders first.....

[DanTex]

47. Your mistake is assuming that the opposition to gun control is intelligent and interested in

a rational discussion. They're not. They are right-wing wackjobs.

90% of Americans agree about background checks. That leaves the 10% nuttiest Americans on the other side. These are not people interested in a rational debate. You may have seen a few of these crazies posting here on DU. If not, check the gungeon, and then I'm pretty sure you'll re-evaluate your belief that these kinds of people can be reasoned with.

[ellisonz]

74. +1

You can't fix stupid.

[Progressive dog]

52. This is like whack a mole

This ugly, Gun Nuts for gun control if only you"d been nice to us, garbage has been repeated as an OP multiple times just today. It has evolved slightly in wording.
This isn't new, it isn't clever, it isn't reasonable, it defies common sense.

edited to add

90% of voters support 100% back ground checks for gun purchasers
90% of voters support 100% back ground checks for gun purchasers
90% of voters support 100% back ground checks for gun purchasers

[billh58]

65. If they keep repeating it,

it must be true. The point they do NOT want to address is that the right-wingers (Republicans and Libertarians) will not budge on anything even remotely connected to sane gun regulation. Not even if we did kiss their rusty, dusty asses in the middle of Times Square at midnight.

But then again, our very own NRA-apologist Gungeoneers applaud the right-wingers because they are all on the same side of this issue.

[TheCowsCameHome]

55. Let them defeat themselves.

It's even sweeter that way.

[sarisataka]

60. That is a very good idea

Step 1- introduce a gun control bill
Step 2- have the President make a five minute speech in support
Step 3- buy two hours of prime time on every network
Step-4 break that into half hour blocks, one each night
Step 5- give that time to WLP, Ted and two Republican legislators who have the strongest anti gun control positions
Step 6- the President states to the People- "You have heard from both sides on this debate. Contact your representatives with your opinions."
Step 7- 72 hours later vote on the bill.

I will bet you a shiny new gold dollar coin the bill passes easily

[sendero]

58. Republicans fight for what they want.

.... when was the last time you saw more than a handful of Democrats fight for ANYTHING. The ACA, yeah a fight for seeping mediocrity, sure.

[billh58]

66. Let me correct that

for you: Republicans pay for what they want. I saw "more than a handful of Democrats" elect Barack Obama for two terms, and save this country from McCain, Palin, Romney, and Ryan.

[sendero]

67. So what?

What has he done? Next to nothing. He is a speed bump against the 1% agenda. Sorry you cannot see that, I used to think only Republicans voted against their own interest.

[billh58]

69. Okey, dokey

then...

[kudzu22]

64. Good points, all well made

The real hangup was that the question in everyone's mind was, "How would this have prevented Sandy Hook?" In every case the honest answer was, "It wouldn't."

That's why nothing passed.

[Savannahmann]

71. My Friends

All you need to do is look at this thread, and you see the very disposition I am talking about. All that matters is the statistic to so many of us, coupled with the parade of victims, and the debate should be over. But it isn't working. It didn't work on the ACA. It didn't work on Sequester. It didn't work on Guns. The plan of statistic coupled with the parade of victims is not a formula for victory. It manages only in boring the people, and then aligning them against us.

Yet for so many, it is the only way we can manage to discuss the issue. After they give you the statistic, there isn't anything else, and if you don't agree, you never will in their opinion.

We need to do the research, and know the answers to the questions. Because as long as the RW is able to wrap themselves in the Constitution and we don't have an answer, we will continue to lose the debate, and the votes, and the elections.

We have understand the concerns of the citizens, and we have to address them. We can't just repeat the statistic like they didn't hear us last time. Because those concerns become the foundation of their opposition to us. By ignoring their concerns, we watch the support wane until a majority oppose our plan, and that is before we even present the legislation.

Our supporters are among the best educated, and you can't tell me that the best we can do is a couple slogans, a statistic, and a parade of victims. Merely shouting slogans and dismissing the questions wins style points with those who already support you, but does nothing in gathering more support.

[ellisonz]

75. When you talk about a "parade of victims" you marginalize the issue.

It manages only in boring the people, and then aligning them against us.

Most of those people voted for Romney - how much of a toad do you have to be to vote for Romney?

Your post is hollow and in less than two minutes of googling you can turn up any number of studies that shows effective gun control saves lives.

[Savannahmann]

77. Then why didn't the elected representatives point that out?

Instead the supporters chanted 90% like it was a mantra, and paraded victims at every opportunity. We didn't debate, we didn't make any case, much less a strong one, and we lost. You proved my point, while asserting you disproved it.

[ellisonz]

85. As has been pointed out many times in this thread to you...

...the reason even a watered down compromise bill with no teeth couldn't even pass is because the right-wing gun culture in this country isn't interested in *passing any fucking bill at all* because they are bloodsucking, greedy murderous leches beholden to a vast military-industrial complex. The sooner you accept the reality here the sooner you will stop trying to tell us there isn't a 800-pound purple gorilla in the room. Your repeated phrasing that these people are "paraded victims" is incredibly fucking insulting and you should wipe that phrase from your vocabulary and especially when you use it to make a hollow argument such as the one you are continuing to make now. These people aren't "paraded," they are freely choosing to advocate for the side of good in the fight against this disease of gun nuttiness.
We've had a debate, we won the debate, that progress is impeded by a small, militant fanatical minority does not logically lead the conclusion that issue is with our side.

[Savannahmann]

92. If you are right, there is no hope.

You see, the RW will win under your scenario, and the parade of victims? It is exactly what we do. Call it what you like, putting a face on the tragedy, but it loses effectiveness after two or three. After that, it becomes a parade of victims, and it's what we do.

We did that, we had one victim give the President's Weekly address. We had a different victim with everyone who spoke about the issue. We had victims at every appearance, we had victims one after the other in the press. The first two, or three were helpful, after that the message was lost in the chorus of voices and pictures and tragic stories.

You may find it insulting, but it is descriptive of the way we have reduced our argument. In 1993, we argued about all the laws we could, and should pass, and their effect. We argued about the constitutional aspect of the Brady Law, we argued a great deal about these issues. The RW and the NRA was just as powerful. Do you remember those times? Do you remember the bastard Rush Limbaugh opening every show with "America Held Hostage" because President Clinton had been elected with a majority of the vote, but not of the people? Don't tell me the RW was weak then, or the NRA didn't fight us, because both statements would be untrue.

The NRA fought, and then they poured massive dollars into Newt and his lying Contract with America. The RW struck back, and stole the house with propaganda. But we didn't give up the fight, and the Brady Law stayed law.

Under your scenario, the RW will win because it isn't anything We did wrong, it is just that they have too much money to defeat. In a word, crap. Democrats voted against the legislation, Democrats who are certainly worried about being painted as liberal, and anti-gun. If we had sold the bill using something other than statistics, and the parade of victims, they may have been willing to risk it. But we didn't make a single argument worth the name.

We parade the victims, and anyone who raises an argument, all we do is shout the same tired statistic at them, one that lost it's effect days ago, and then shout that they wouldn't dare make those comments to the victims. We did that, and we do it. It is a debating technique that is absolutely the worst possible one for convincing those fence sitters.

So we're going to beat those who voted against it? How, by shouting more statistics? By parading more victims? If it didn't work for the Sequester, and it didn't work for the Gun Control, and it didn't work for immigration, then why do you think it will work next time? One of the definitions of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different outcome.

So what do I suggest? I suggest educating ourselves to be able to match the RW quote for quote. I suggest educating ourselves with Supreme Court Precedence when constitutional questions are put forth. I suggest showing how silly the question is with what most of us would call common knowledge. You say it won't work, because the RW is the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

But when we talk to people, we find that generally a majority of the people support liberal ideals, until they find they are labeled as liberal, because our image is one of shouting, statistics, and the parade of victims. We are seen as shallow and unconcerned. When Constitutional questions are raised, we ignore the question, and answer with meaningless gibberish to the average man and woman out there. I'm saying we need to stop that, and show the average person we know what we're talking about, and we're right. I'm saying we need to do our homework, so when the RW hits us with a question smugly expecting to trip us up, we instead answer and make them look silly instead of looking like we're dodging the question.

I don't care about changing the RW minds. I care about convincing those twenty percent that matter. The ones in the middle. The ones who when they support us, we get elected. The ones who voted against John Kerry in 2004, and the ones who abandoned the NeoCons in 2008, and again last year. The ones who will slide back to the right as soon as they find a candidate they can stomach. Just shouting that the RW is full of hypocrites doesn't help, because those same people see everyone in Washington as a hypocrite.

So I'm wrong because I use a phrase like parade of victims. It's insulting according to you. Well, its insulting to me, because lots of good arguments are lost when all we do is say that Mrs. John Doe lost her Son, Daughter, or Husband to a gun, so we need to pass this legislation. Legislation that when cornered we admit wouldn't have prevented anyone from getting killed. We either get serious about this process, or we give up and get used to living under the RW government. Those are our choices, and I for one don't want to give up because they have money.

[jonthebru]

76. That debate was lost by the NRA threats in the upcoming election..

movetoamend.org

anticorruptionact.org

Two longshots but along with a few other efforts, our slime chance of saving our democracy.