Is any form of gun control whatsoever a way for Dems to lose the POTUS and Congress ?

[steve2470]

What do you think ? I think gun control is political suicide for Dems.

on edit: removed inflammatory language

[TwilightGardener]

1. It probably is. Sad thing is, nothing will ever change because of it.

We just love our guns, more than anything--or anyone--else in society.

[FBaggins]

2. *ANY* form? No.

Carefully-targeted, incremental, common-sense reforms could be proposed without resulting in the loss of the WH.

The problem with the question is that this isn't particularly relevant. No substantial change will get a hearing in the House, so there's little use in wasting political capital on the move.

[shadowrider]

3. Carefully-targeted, incremental, common-sense reforms

Death by a thousand cuts, huh.

[Atypical Liberal]

8. What sort of reforms do you have in mind?

Carefully-targeted, incremental, common-sense reforms could be proposed without resulting in the loss of the WH.

What sort of carefully-targeted, incremental, common-sense reforms do you have in mind?

[FBaggins]

24. None at all.

I was merely answering the question.

Proposals for things like trigger locks or magazine sizing won't have much of an impact on crime, but also won't have much of an impact on the President's reelection chances.

I'm not advocating such changes, nor would I likely support them... but I don't think they're a 3rd rail.

[X_Digger]

4. Any *additional*? Yes. n/t

[Tippy]

5. WE did away with 30 round magazine clips once but Bush just brought it back

So you can see nothing will be done until NRA members/republicans begin killing each other....

[badtoworse]

6. If memory serves, there were very few calls to reinstate the AWB when it expired in 2004

Democrats paid a heavy price in 1994, the year the AWB was passed. Bill Clinton's words, not mine. The AWB had a 10 year life to it and most politicians, remembering the '94 election, decided to leave the sleeping dog alone.

[DonP]

7. No we didn't

The so called AWB still allowed the sale and ownership of 30 round magazines made before the ban went into place. There were plenty around, just a little more expensive.

Bush had nothing to do with the expiration, the 10 years sunset was built into the law. It was the only way to scrape together enough votes to pass it in the first place. After 10 years no one could point to any benefit to the law. In fact Bush said he'd sign it if it reached his desk.

A renewal never go out of committee. Aside from a few hardcore gun control fans in the Senate (Schumer, Feinstein, Boxer) nobody wanted to touch it.

Bill Clinton saw that it pretty much killed Gore's votes in Tennessee and Arkansas in 2000. Either of which would have made the whole Florida fiasco moot.

[Atypical Liberal]

10. No, we didn't.

WE did away with 30 round magazine clips once but Bush just brought it back

This is incorrect. All the AWB did was ban the manufacture of new high-capacity magazines. It did nothing to eliminate those already in circulation, and as a result they were fully available all during the lifetime of the AWB, they just cost more. I know because I bought an assault rifle and 6 30-round magazines during the AWB. In fact, I bought them because of the AWB.

[ileus]

25. That's when I bought all my 30's, until last year.

[Statistical]

22. You have been corrected about this false statement in a half dozen threads.

1) Bush had nothing to do w/ AWB going away
2) The "ban" didn't get rid of 30 round magazines
3) There was no effect on violent crime or homicide rates.

Democrats controlled Congress from 2006-2010. Democrats controlled all three branches from 2008-2010. There was no vote on AWB 2.0. Blaming Republicans is simplistic. It didn't get voted because even own party doesn't support that pile of crap called the AWB.

[PavePusher]

29. You can't blame it on Bush.

Congress let it expire (and rightly so, as it had no effect on crime rates). Bush said he'd sign it if they passed it.

[villager]

9. Poll: Support for Stricter Gun Laws Spikes After Tucson Rampage

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/cbs-poll-support-for-stricter-gun-laws-spikes-after-tucson-rampage.php

[Statistical]

13. from the article ...

The general downward trend in support for stricter gun laws has continued even though several high-profile civilian gun crimes, including the 2002 Washington, D.C.,-area sniper attacks, a 2005 shooting at an Indian reservation in Minnesota, a 2007 shooting at a Nebraska shopping mall, the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007, and shooting rampages in 2009 in Alabama and at a Binghamton, N.Y., citizenship center, have occurred over the past decade.

Take the poll again in 6 months. It is an emotional response and will fade.

[villager]

14. Ah: so trends you disagree with are "emotional responses"

Whereas yours, and those of your fellow pro-gun folk couldn't ever possibly be...

[Statistical]

16. pro RKBA "folk" use Statistics.

The Statistics that show us gun control is useless (didn't reduce crime in UK).
The Statistics that show us that homicide and violent crime rates are at 30+ year lows.
The Statistics that show us CCWer are more law abiding than the Police.
The Statistics that show us criminals get less than 1% of guns from gunshows.

Logical response vs emotional (and uninformed) response.

[villager]

17. The poll showing a spike for more sensible control is a statistic.

in case you didn't notice.

[Statistical]

18. The spike is based on emotion and it will decline just like every other emotional response.

[villager]

19. "Statistics I don't agree with are based on emotion!"

"So there! Nyah nyah nyah!"

That would seem to sum it up, eh?

[Statistical]

20. I agree with the Statistics.

Support for gun control did increase. I never said it didn't.

I simply am commenting (as did the article) that we have seen this before after other mass shootings and that support based soley on emotional response quickly fades. We will see where it is in 6 months or a year.

[Statistical]

11. Any gun control? No. The same old tire BS do nothing gun control ...

we have seen for the last decades? Oh hell yeah.

I don't think some reforms to improve mental health records in NICS would be a deathknell.
I also don't think opening NICS up (in some method that protects privacy) to validate private transactions would be bad.

However that isn't what the gun-grabber element of the party wants:
* banning guns
* banning magazines
* making law abiding citizens felons if they get within 1000ft of a politician with a legal firearm.
* other do nothing feel good laws

[sharesunited]

12. Proper public policy is often unpopular. (He said, plosively.)

[old mark]

15. YES!. Candidate Obama made a speech here in PA, stating that people clung to

"guns and religion" because of fear and ignorance...In the last election the Democrats LOST the entire state...there are so few Democrats left in the state legislature we are powerless. Our new GOP Governor is a pawn of the energy companies, hates unions and pensions and "Obamacare" and is packing the state government with his pals at very high salaries.
Our new Senator, Pat Toomey, is a former wall street lawyer and millionaire, a "religious" zealot, and a friend to the teapartiers. Yet we have over 1 million more Democratic voters registered than republicans. The Democrats just DID NOT VOTE while the GOPers showed up in force.

I KNOW from reading state websites and from converssation with locals that the MAIN reason so few were motivated by the Democrats this time was the anti-gun stance and rhetoric by most democratic candidates and by Mr. Obama's remarks in 2008. I have little doubt we will remain a red state for many years to come, and I have NO doubt that the Democrats WILL lose if the idiotic and totally pointless "assault weapons ban" is even suggested in congress by a Democrat.

I am old, and I really do not want to live under a republican president ever again, but I am afraid we will lose it all to one of the current group of imbecilic clowns in the GOP and we seem to be doing our best to do so.

mark

[Jamastiene]

21. Yes, it would.

Those who are using guns for violence against other people and using guns to taunt and terrorize people should be punished. Not everyone who believes in the 2nd amendment is gun crazy though. It would hurt our party to go after the 2nd amendment and it would be damn near impossible to pass anything anyhow. It would be a pointless charade, to be honest. They have to know how impossible it would be to get anything passed.

I still say those who are using guns at political events or threatening (like "we are unarmed, this time") violence, should be prosecuted for communicating threats. There is a line they cross when they do that.

Why our government isn't enforcing the laws about communicating threats, I do not know, but they need to. That would be the one thing that would put an end to the violent rhetoric at political events, at least. I still think Limbaugh and the others who have made comments about killing Democrats should be punished for inciting violence and communicating threats. Some of their comments skirt the line, but some of their comments cross the line into inciting violence and communicating threats, imo.

[dmallind]

23. probably, but "any" is a wide category.

Things that might not hurt Dem chances AND may even actually help?

Mandatory standards on states to gather and update mental health data for NICS checks (not change the standard to include "people someone thought acted weird once" but make sure that those adjudicated mentally unfit or committed are properly recorded)

Establish a free way for individuals to access NICS checks and mandate a record they did so before transferring a gun, closing the private sale gap that is often, but wrongly and even stupidly, called the "gun show loophole".

Pushing it electorally but an idea I think has merit - establish a national CCW standard that includes required training and testing. Would likely be acceptable to the gun owners if, like a driving license, it gave national CCW rights instead of the silly patchwork of laws we have now.

[damntexdem]

26. We need stricter gun control.

I don't give a damn about 'political suicide' arguments. Current gun laws in the U.S. are social suicide, national suicide. Sometimes strong needs must overrule short-term political considerations.

[shadowrider]

27. I agree with stricter gun control

At 10 feet I put 4 of 6 in the bullseye
At 15 feet I put 2 of 6 there
At 20 feet I might get 1 of 6 but I'm usually just real close

Yes, I need more gun control

[virginia mountainman]

28. short term?

You do realize we are talking about GENERATIONS?

Speaking of short term looses, how different would it be today if Al gore had won Tennessee?

Not to mention the new gun control would likely be among the first thing undone

You may be willing to loose it all for pie in the sky, but most of us are not