Why are gun nuts still so paranoid?

[Nym90]

The reason why gun control probably won't come back? It would murder rural Democrats. If the Democratic party took gun control seriously, they could kiss West Virginia goodbye, because it would hurry it down the same road Texas took a few decades ago (West Virginia is still a largely Democratic state, but three things are changing that: social issues, coal, and guns. The Dems are already on the wrong side of the "social issues" for socially conservative West Virginia; if they bash on coal and guns, then the GOP will take over completely about when Rockefeller retires or dies).

Gun rights is also the key to any GOP resurgence in northern New England, which is mostly to the social left of the modern GOP but is still quite into gun rights. New Hampshire might start voting Republican again, and I can see a competitive GOP in Maine or even Vermont, if gun control becomes a serious issue again. 

Gun Control would be for rural (Appalachian, Southern, Western, northern New England) Democrats what the Iraq War and Social Conservatives are to the New England GOP: a huge, crushing millstone. Therefore, if Obama is as smart as people think he is, then he wouldn't emphasize it and let it be. Things like healthcare he can gain serious traction on, gun control would cost him. It doesn't hurt that many, if not most, southern Democrats are pro-gun-rights.

Absolutely true. Democrats should certainly emphasize economic issues, and leave aside things like gun control. Improving the economy and education are the most effective ways to reduce gun violence, not laws against guns.

[Bono]

because the gun issue tends to be an emotional rather than an intellectual issue, so people respond with their hearts, not their minds.

True.

Also, the NRA, being that it represents business interests, has an active interest in promoting the party of business.

Most of NRA money comes from grassroots donations, not "business interests". You've made that claim in the forum several times, and when asked to substantiate it you've repeatedly responded with silence.

The NRA has no vested interest in electing republicans, and they have endorsed many democrats in the past, such as John Dingell, which probably is one of the reasons why the democratic leadership wasted no time in lynching him politically the moment this congress started, and even Howard Dean--not to mention many other democrats who are genuinely opposed to gun control.

What they won't do is support someone like Obama who supported extreme gun control measures and now claims he doesn't because he knows he could never have gotten elected President with those stances.

As for the OP, Obama's transition website clearly stated his intention to work for the assault weapon ban passage. Even if it weren't for that, his nominations of anti-gun extremists for the DOJ provide a way to silently choke off the firearms trade without passing a single law. Janet Reno tried to do this in the first years of the Clinton administration by refusing to renew FFL licensed or issue new ones, creating a bottleneck in distribution that even today means some law enforcement agencies have trouble getting adequate supplies--that until Clinton put the kibosh on it prior to the 1996 election because he knew it was going to get him into trouble.

EDIT: Just now read the post above. Obama is also extremely likely to appoint Justices who would take the dissent view on Heller, which is extremely dangerous given how it was decided by one vote.

True, they have supported Democrats who support their positions. I should've said the ideology of business, not necessarily the party of business. My main point was that I think gun control has been transformed in the media into a social and cultural issue when it is in actuality (in terms of the reality of how it is handed politically) an economic issue.

The fact that the primary source of their donations is from the grassroots doesn't necessarily say anything about where their sympathies lie, or whose interests they primarily serve; it speaks more to the effectiveness of their organization and PR efforts (in transforming the public's view of the issue from an economic one to a social/cultural one, as per above) than anything else. I certainly would never deny that they have been an extremely effective group in that regard.

I do believe the NRA deserves commendation for their many gun safety programs and such, and I certainly agree with the fundamental right to keep and bear arms. I think they go way too far in a lot of respects (plastic guns, cop-killer bullets, "jack booted thugs", etc.). The first two would be the best examples of serving business interests ahead of all else, in my view.

Really? Did you poll NRA members and found that their views on those issues were opposed to the official NRA positions?

Let me ask this in another way. What would could as evidence that the NRA represents their constituency and aren't just a proxy for business interests? I have a feeling the answer will be supporting policies you yourself support.

BTW, I'm deligted to hear Howard Dean is really a believer in the "ideology of business"....

[Bono]

I had totally forgotten about this, but contrary to what the OP states, the democratic congress not only tried to pass, but actually pass the Brady Bill expansion which puts thousands of new people into the prohibited person list for background check purposes.

[CARLHAYDEN]

And it's not if he owns a gun either.  Do you think people that own guns are regularly having them go off in their home?  Do you think people that go insane can only kill their neighbors if they have fire arms?  You have a very strong fear of guns, it's obvious.  Why do you think you need to regulate that fear away?  Do you think everybody should be encouraged to try and have their fears regulated?

No I don't have a fear of guns, the only things I fear are getting old and dying. 
I do think it's irrational to want to own a gun for pleasure and you obviously cannot reason with someone who is irrational.

While it is of course true  that it is impossible to reason with an irrational person, I'm going to make an effort.

There are a number of reason to own a firearm for pleasure, which I have previously posted (you were not a member of the forum when I did the prior post, so I will do so again).

First, there is the matter of the impact of firearms on history.  Let me give you an example.

I have owned a Carcano carbine like the one which which Oswald is supposed to have used.  As a consequence of experimentation, I am convinced that Oswald could NOT have fired the shot(s) attributed to him.

Second, the mechanics of the operation of different firearms are fascinating.  There are different ignition methods, different loading mechanisms (particularly on repeaters), different reloading mechanisms, different stocking styles and materials, different rifling types, different styles of sights, different materials and finishes for the actions and barrels.

Third, a real (as opposed to theoretical) understanding of ballistics can be obtained.  The factors involved in interior, flight and terminal ballistics are complex and vary according to a number of factors.

Fourth, an appreciation of chemistry is achieved by hand-loading cartridges.  Have you ever heard of duplex propellants? 

Fifth, the ability to accurately shoot a firearm is something which is a lot harder than the electronic media would have you to believe.  Correct muscle control, correct sighting and breathing control is essential.

I could go on and on, but that will give you a few examples.

[Matt Damon™]

The last 8 years plus the next 16 if things go the way I think they will.

[Nym90]

because the gun issue tends to be an emotional rather than an intellectual issue, so people respond with their hearts, not their minds.

True.

Also, the NRA, being that it represents business interests, has an active interest in promoting the party of business.

Most of NRA money comes from grassroots donations, not "business interests". You've made that claim in the forum several times, and when asked to substantiate it you've repeatedly responded with silence.

The NRA has no vested interest in electing republicans, and they have endorsed many democrats in the past, such as John Dingell, which probably is one of the reasons why the democratic leadership wasted no time in lynching him politically the moment this congress started, and even Howard Dean--not to mention many other democrats who are genuinely opposed to gun control.

What they won't do is support someone like Obama who supported extreme gun control measures and now claims he doesn't because he knows he could never have gotten elected President with those stances.

As for the OP, Obama's transition website clearly stated his intention to work for the assault weapon ban passage. Even if it weren't for that, his nominations of anti-gun extremists for the DOJ provide a way to silently choke off the firearms trade without passing a single law. Janet Reno tried to do this in the first years of the Clinton administration by refusing to renew FFL licensed or issue new ones, creating a bottleneck in distribution that even today means some law enforcement agencies have trouble getting adequate supplies--that until Clinton put the kibosh on it prior to the 1996 election because he knew it was going to get him into trouble.

EDIT: Just now read the post above. Obama is also extremely likely to appoint Justices who would take the dissent view on Heller, which is extremely dangerous given how it was decided by one vote.

True, they have supported Democrats who support their positions. I should've said the ideology of business, not necessarily the party of business. My main point was that I think gun control has been transformed in the media into a social and cultural issue when it is in actuality (in terms of the reality of how it is handed politically) an economic issue.

The fact that the primary source of their donations is from the grassroots doesn't necessarily say anything about where their sympathies lie, or whose interests they primarily serve; it speaks more to the effectiveness of their organization and PR efforts (in transforming the public's view of the issue from an economic one to a social/cultural one, as per above) than anything else. I certainly would never deny that they have been an extremely effective group in that regard.

I do believe the NRA deserves commendation for their many gun safety programs and such, and I certainly agree with the fundamental right to keep and bear arms. I think they go way too far in a lot of respects (plastic guns, cop-killer bullets, "jack booted thugs", etc.). The first two would be the best examples of serving business interests ahead of all else, in my view.

Really? Did you poll NRA members and found that their views on those issues were opposed to the official NRA positions?

Let me ask this in another way. What would could as evidence that the NRA represents their constituency and aren't just a proxy for business interests? I have a feeling the answer will be supporting policies you yourself support.

BTW, I'm deligted to hear Howard Dean is really a believer in the "ideology of business"....

I honestly don't know what NRA members' positions are on the legality cop-killer bullets and of plastic guns. I don't think most of them would support them being legal, but I suppose I could be wrong (the logic being based on the same slippery slope argument that could also be applied to the illegality of tanks, nuclear bombs, grenades, or any other form of arms or ammunition...maybe most NRA members would also support those being legalized?) as I indeed have not taken nor seen such a poll.

And yes, Howard does support business, at least some of the time. He is a capitalist and not a socialist after all (though I suppose some people on here would disagree ). Note that I never said explicitly that this support was necessarily a bad thing; again, my main point was simply that this is largely an economic issue, not a cultural one. Hence why both parties take the position they do on the issue.

I know there's been a few threads asking before why the parties positions aren't reversed on this as it has been portrayed as more of a social/cultural issue, so hopefully that insight would help shed some light on it.

As for "evidence", well, I freely admit I cannot prove it, of course, but supporting the gun manufacturer's preferred position on every issue, even ones that are fairly clearly in opposition to the greater public safety (i.e. the two positions I cited above) and that serve the interests of very few actual gun owners directly (again, leaving aside slippery slope arguments or the "we have to have just as much firepower as the government just in case they decide to try to kill us, thus private citizens need to be able to buy tanks" arguments for a moment....) would be the evidence that they do serve them primarily.

[CARLHAYDEN]

because the gun issue tends to be an emotional rather than an intellectual issue, so people respond with their hearts, not their minds.

Nym,

You have bought into the myth of 'cop killer bullets.'

Let me give you a brief explanation, a couple of cops developed a teflon coated bullet designed to penatrate car doors, and their company (the only one that makes them) sells only to law enforcement.

The hoplaphobes eventually (years latter) learned of the bullets, and then in a classic bait and switch strategdy, labeled non teflon coated bullets as cop killer bullets, using that phony designation as an attempt to ban regular (non-teflon coated) bullets.


True.

Also, the NRA, being that it represents business interests, has an active interest in promoting the party of business.

Most of NRA money comes from grassroots donations, not "business interests". You've made that claim in the forum several times, and when asked to substantiate it you've repeatedly responded with silence.

The NRA has no vested interest in electing republicans, and they have endorsed many democrats in the past, such as John Dingell, which probably is one of the reasons why the democratic leadership wasted no time in lynching him politically the moment this congress started, and even Howard Dean--not to mention many other democrats who are genuinely opposed to gun control.

What they won't do is support someone like Obama who supported extreme gun control measures and now claims he doesn't because he knows he could never have gotten elected President with those stances.

As for the OP, Obama's transition website clearly stated his intention to work for the assault weapon ban passage. Even if it weren't for that, his nominations of anti-gun extremists for the DOJ provide a way to silently choke off the firearms trade without passing a single law. Janet Reno tried to do this in the first years of the Clinton administration by refusing to renew FFL licensed or issue new ones, creating a bottleneck in distribution that even today means some law enforcement agencies have trouble getting adequate supplies--that until Clinton put the kibosh on it prior to the 1996 election because he knew it was going to get him into trouble.

EDIT: Just now read the post above. Obama is also extremely likely to appoint Justices who would take the dissent view on Heller, which is extremely dangerous given how it was decided by one vote.

True, they have supported Democrats who support their positions. I should've said the ideology of business, not necessarily the party of business. My main point was that I think gun control has been transformed in the media into a social and cultural issue when it is in actuality (in terms of the reality of how it is handed politically) an economic issue.

The fact that the primary source of their donations is from the grassroots doesn't necessarily say anything about where their sympathies lie, or whose interests they primarily serve; it speaks more to the effectiveness of their organization and PR efforts (in transforming the public's view of the issue from an economic one to a social/cultural one, as per above) than anything else. I certainly would never deny that they have been an extremely effective group in that regard.

I do believe the NRA deserves commendation for their many gun safety programs and such, and I certainly agree with the fundamental right to keep and bear arms. I think they go way too far in a lot of respects (plastic guns, cop-killer bullets, "jack booted thugs", etc.). The first two would be the best examples of serving business interests ahead of all else, in my view.

Really? Did you poll NRA members and found that their views on those issues were opposed to the official NRA positions?

Let me ask this in another way. What would could as evidence that the NRA represents their constituency and aren't just a proxy for business interests? I have a feeling the answer will be supporting policies you yourself support.

BTW, I'm deligted to hear Howard Dean is really a believer in the "ideology of business"....

I honestly don't know what NRA members' positions are on the legality cop-killer bullets and of plastic guns. I don't think most of them would support them being legal, but I suppose I could be wrong (the logic being based on the same slippery slope argument that could also be applied to the illegality of tanks, nuclear bombs, grenades, or any other form of arms or ammunition...maybe most NRA members would also support those being legalized?) as I indeed have not taken nor seen such a poll.

And yes, Howard does support business, at least some of the time. He is a capitalist and not a socialist after all (though I suppose some people on here would disagree ). Note that I never said explicitly that this support was necessarily a bad thing; again, my main point was simply that this is largely an economic issue, not a cultural one. Hence why both parties take the position they do on the issue.

I know there's been a few threads asking before why the parties positions aren't reversed on this as it has been portrayed as more of a social/cultural issue, so hopefully that insight would help shed some light on it.

As for "evidence", well, I freely admit I cannot prove it, of course, but supporting the gun manufacturer's preferred position on every issue, even ones that are fairly clearly in opposition to the greater public safety (i.e. the two positions I cited above) and that serve the interests of very few actual gun owners directly (again, leaving aside slippery slope arguments or the "we have to have just as much firepower as the government just in case they decide to try to kill us, thus private citizens need to be able to buy tanks" arguments for a moment....) would be the evidence that they do serve them primarily.