Changing times - Gallup - Record low 26% in US favor handgun ban

[banned from Kos]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150341/Record-Low-Favor-Handgun-Ban.aspx

PRINCETON, NJ -- A record-low 26% of Americans favor a legal ban on the possession of handguns in the United States other than by police and other authorized people. When Gallup first asked Americans this question in 1959, 60% favored banning handguns. But since 1975, the majority of Americans have opposed such a measure, with opposition around 70% in recent years.

I have long thought this one issue cost Gore his home state of Tennessee and put the despicable Bush the Lesser in the White House.


The issue is now dead and put to rest.

[SmileyRose]

1. Not surprising.

Poverty is up
Crime is up
Trust in "the authorities" is in the crapper.
People just feel better when they are able to defend themselves - whether it be criminals or cops or the local congress critter.

[gejohnston]

16. last time I checked

crime is down. At least violent crime, which does not reflect the white collar criminals on Wall Street.

[AtheistCrusader]

2. I'm honestly surprised it's that high.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

10. me too.

[TheWraith]

17. You could find 26% support in the US for almost anything.

Hell, 19% of the American public approved of Dick Cheney's job as VP. And that's like three points less than the approval rating of the ebola virus.

[iverglas]

3. "I have long thought this one issue cost Gore ..."

You disagree with Bill Clinton then, eh?

[rl6214]

4. How do you see that?

clinton did say in his memoir he thought the gun control issue cost gore the election

[Name removed]

5. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

22. well how interesting

My complete demonstration that Bill Clinton has never, ever, said any such thing, including in his memoir, seems to have disappeared.

Oh well, it can still be seen elsewhere:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=444520&mesg_id=445518

Bill Clinton knows the difference between "the NRA" and "the gun lobby" -- which is what he DID say defeated Gore -- and "gun control".

So do I.

So, I submit, does anyone who can read, and specifically anyone who reads what Clinton has said on this subject.

[ananda]

6. Not so. Gore didn't lose the election.

Bushinc stole it.

[Lurks Often]

7. And if Gore had won his home state

Bush would not have been able to steal the election. Gun Control is a loser issue for most politicians, especially at the national level.

[iverglas]

8. just keep on saying it

Keep on saying it over and over and over and over and over.

It's in the right wing's hymnal, and you will make them very happy. It's exactly what they've worked for 40 years to get you to do.

I'm assuming that is not what you were wanting to do.

[beevul]

11. Mary lou retton is that you?

"It's in the right wing's hymnal, and you will make them very happy. It's exactly what they've worked for 40 years to get you to do."

Some simple questions for you:


What would the right wing/repubs/conservatives stand to gain by the left giving up on gun control as it has been defined and made manifest - at least in intent - since the mid 90s?


Who gains politically in that scenario?

Who loses politically?


Rather than go all Mary lou retton, how about some honest answers to those simple questions.

[iverglas]

12. hello? Mary Rosh?

:rofl:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/lott/maryrosh/


What would the right wing/repubs/conservatives stand to gain by the left giving up on gun control as it has been defined and made manifest - at least in intent - since the mid 90s?

Uh, a victory?

And give it up. You know that if the Democrats threw up their hands and said Open the floodgates! 50% off all guns all week! the right-wing morons and assholes who vote Republican would still vote Republican, and if there was any danger of them not doing that, the right wing would come up with more better reasons to do it. Hell, they've got pre-born babies, death panels, death taxes, nannystatism in its many manifestations, evil homosexuals, evil immigrants ... and most election cycles they manage to come up with their newly minted just-on-time reason; you remember Swift Boat and Willie Horton.

Why would anybody vote right wing lite when they can get the real thing?

Bill Clinton and me, we aren't actually fools. Or tools.

If only I knew what Mary Lou Retton had done that her name was supposed to mean something to me ...

[beevul]

13. You left out answering two questions.

"If only I knew what Mary Lou Retton had done that her name was supposed to mean something to me ..."

Not that it was supposed to mean anything to you, just that it is APPLICABLE to you:



You and your linguistic gymnastics.

"Uh, a victory?"

How would losing this particular wedge issue be any kind of victory at all?

"And give it up. You know that if the Democrats threw up their hands and said Open the floodgates! 50% off all guns all week! the right-wing morons and assholes who vote Republican would still vote Republican, and if there was any danger of them not doing that, the right wing would come up with more better reasons to do it. Hell, they've got pre-born babies, death panels, death taxes, nannystatism in its many manifestations, evil homosexuals, evil immigrants ... and most election cycles they manage to come up with their newly minted just-on-time reason; you remember Swift Boat and Willie Horton."

Well, thats all fine and good, but it really doesnt mean didly.

Not being someone with any real knowledge of gun culture, or those that make it up, you are in no position to quantify -on paper or in your head - how many people might use the gun issue as a "go - nogo" guage for how they vote. And your little tirade ignores completely people that do.

"Why would anybody vote right wing lite when they can get the real thing?"

Why would anyone view the issue singularly through those glasses?

I think I know the answer.

"Bill Clinton and me, we aren't actually fools. Or tools."

I'd take Bills word for it...but you...have a habit of demonstrating to the contrary.

Now, the other questions were:

Who gains politically in that scenario?

Who loses politically?

[iverglas]

14. I thought it was really pretty clear

Who gains politically in that scenario?
Who loses politically?

The right wing wins.

Everybody else loses.

Duh.

And a lot more than politically in both cases.


You caved. Again. It's all the slightly-left-right does, isn't it?

And the right wing has demonstrated its power to do whatever the fuck it wants.

And that's what it's all about.



That's what carrying guns around in public about.

That's what publishing cartoons that incite to religious hatred is all about.

That's what incremental interference in reproductive rights is all about.

That's what invading your country, if you're a "them" is all about.

That's what buying private planes with your tax dollars is all about.

It's about Fuck you, folks, all your base are belong to us.


And what has the slightly-left-right done in all of those cases?

Caved, if not actively collaborated.


Every tactic is also a step toward a goal.

People carrying guns around in public turns public spaces into armed camps where people feel vulnerable, and guns guns guns in general just undermines civil society overall and things like women's security in particular ... and sells a bunch of stuff while it's at it. And there are all the tentacles, the other ways to make people feel vulnerable, like crime (keep talking about it even if it's getting better), and ways to generate crime (you remember the war on drugs), so then they'll buy more guns, and they'll want bigger and better prisons, and there's lots of money in that.

Denying the exercise of women's reproductive rights cuts the economic legs out from under women and keeps that pool of cheap casual labour and household support services for other cheap labourers/consumers ticking over, and of course makes women dependent and vulnerable. Lots of money to be made from cheap labour.

A constant stream of bigotry and racism in print and on the air keeps potentially uppity cheap labour quiet. And gives the non-victims of it the sense of superiority and righteousness they need to get up in the morning, which would be a lot harder if they stopped looking over there and looked at the actual bad guys.

Wars are always good for profits. And money is always good for profits.


Good god, man, what century are you living in?

Can't one expect that if somebody self-identifies as liberal/progressive/D/democrat, they have a clue, like some reason for doing that? That if universal healthcare is their bag, they have an idea of how and why the insurance industry operates and who the winners and the victims are? If it's racial/ethic/gender/sexual equality, they have some basic understanding of whose interests racism and bigotry and homophobia and misogyny serve? And so on? And then maybe that they have some twinkle of an inkling of the connections?

I know whose interests gun militancy serves. And I know exactly what the connections are.

And I'm pretty sure that a whole lot of other people here do too.

[beevul]

18. You're being deliberately obtuse.

"The right wing wins."

They would gain no votes.


"That's what carrying guns around in public about."

"That's what publishing cartoons that incite to religious hatred is all about."

"That's what incremental interference in reproductive rights is all about."

"That's what invading your country, if you're a "them" is all about."

"That's what buying private planes with your tax dollars is all about."

Please try to stick to the issue at hand.

"It's about Fuck you, folks, all your base are belong to us."

And gun control - historicly, strengthens THEIR base, and WEAKENS OURS.

"People carrying guns around in public turns public spaces into armed camps where people feel vulnerable, and guns guns guns in general just undermines civil society overall and things like women's security in particular ... and sells a bunch of stuff while it's at it."

Thats YOUR opinion. YOUR definition of civil. You focus more about those who might FEEL vulnerable, than you do about shoring up any actual vulnerabilities on the part of any given individual, except and unless it involves very strict gun control. And thats just really the heart of it, isn't it? Treating guns and the rights of people to keep and bear them as the fundamental constitutionally protected civil right it objectively and truthfully is, well, that goes contrary to YOUR opinion, and YOUR definition of "civil society". In a nutshell, it has nothing what so ever to do with a "win for the right", try as you might to frame it that way. Nope. Its about anyone anywhere doing something where the gun issue is concerned that runs contrary to YOUR opinion and YOUR definition of civil.

It represents a loss...to YOU. No more, no less.

"And there are all the tentacles, the other ways to make people feel vulnerable, like crime (keep talking about it even if it's getting better), and ways to generate crime (you remember the war on drugs), so then they'll buy more guns, and they'll want bigger and better prisons, and there's lots of money in that."

Its a treat to beat your feet in the mississippi mud. It muddies up the water nicely, doesn't it?

Oh, the "the other ways to make people feel vulnerable, like crime (keep talking about it even if it's getting better)"...I'm just so glad you brought that up. Payed any attention hereabouts lately? Any AT ALL?

Who - which camp - keeps talking about gun crime IN THIS FORUM, even though its getting better (and in spite of more guns in private hands than ever before)?

Who - which camp in this forum - would wage a war on guns, just like the "war on drugs", given the opportunity?

And would you support that? Of course you would.


"Good god, man, what century are you living in?"

One in which you aren't fooling anyone.

"I know whose interests gun militancy serves."

Sure you do. You know everything and know whats best for just about everyone, isn't that just about it?

The rest of your post is so much blah blah blah.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ss2hULhXf04&feature=related

[iverglas]

23. nah

I'm refusing to have the wool pulled over my eyes.

And gun control - historicly, strengthens THEIR base, and WEAKENS OURS.

Sez you. And I say: bullshit.

I can't say it much more clearly than I already did.

The right wing has a never-ending supply of "issues" that it can use to persuade people to vote for the right wing (and against their own interests). I identified several: "free speech", "pro-life", "terrorism", blah and blah and blah.

Sometimes it flatters (you're the upright moral folks, we stand with you against baby-killers and marriage-defilers); sometimes it scares (the terrorists / home invaders are out to get you). Whatever it takes.

The proposal that the "liberal" end of the political spectrum abandon firearms control is not one single iota different from proposing that it abandon women's reproductive rights, the GLBT community's equality rights, etc. etc. The policies associated with firearms control in modern societies are policies of the left; in modern societies, the left advocates policies that effectively reduce the risk of all the harms associated with widespread easy access to firearms. This policy is completely consistent with the values of the left, and it would be completely inimical to the values of the left to abandon it.


I could say "the rest of your post is just so much blah blah blah", but I'll note this.

Who - which camp - keeps talking about gun crime IN THIS FORUM, even though its getting better (and in spite of more guns in private hands than ever before)?

Now let's look at what I actually said:

the other ways to make people feel vulnerable, like crime (keep talking about it even if it's getting better)

See how I didn't say "gun crime", but you decided to pretend I did anyhow?

I was talking about the people constantly posting tales of righteous citizens righteously shooting bad guys, who evidently live under every bed and wait around every corner. As I am pretty confident you knew I was.

[beevul]

26. Blah blah blah.

"The proposal that the "liberal" end of the political spectrum abandon firearms control is not one single iota different from proposing that it abandon women's reproductive rights, the GLBT community's equality rights, etc. etc. The policies associated with firearms control in modern societies are policies of the left; in modern societies, the left advocates policies that effectively reduce the risk of all the harms associated with widespread easy access to firearms. This policy is completely consistent with the values of the left, and it would be completely inimical to the values of the left to abandon it."

It most certainly IS different in America.

Policies of the left in America include STRONG emphasis on the respect for and protection of constitutionally protected fundamental civil rights.

In case you hadn't noticed, the right of the people to keep andbear arms IS one of those things in America.


THAT makes it different.

"the other ways to make people feel vulnerable, like crime (keep talking about it even if it's getting better)"

Yep, thats what you said.

Since gun crime is a subset of all crime, it fits, dearie, like it or don't.

"I was talking about the people constantly posting tales of righteous citizens righteously shooting bad guys, who evidently live under every bed and wait around every corner. As I am pretty confident you knew I was."

Oh, I'm sure you were. But other things fit the criteria of "the other ways to make people feel vulnerable, like crime (keep talking about it even if it's getting better)". And unfortunately for you, they fit your own criteria better than your own examples do. :rofl:


Now I'll ask again, which camp does more fear mongering in THIS forum?

Ahem, guns in the news, which you yourself wanted to resurrect?


Give it up. You've lost, and you aren't fooling anyone.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Upton]

9. Yep, gun control is indeed a loser..

which is why outside of the big nanny states of California and New York, you hear very few Democratic politicians advocate for it anymore.

[Euromutt]

19. And interestingly, the Democratic politicians in those state hold some dubious positions

If you read Matt Taibbi's stuff in Rolling Stone, you'll know Chuck Schumer is "Wall Street's favorite senator" while Feinstein is a pretty committed "drug warrior," even to the extent of taking action against drugs that don't exist (like candy-flavored meth).

[Simo 1939_1940]

20. ".......while Feinstein is a pretty committed "drug warrior,"

even to the extent of taking actin against drugs that don't exist. (like candy-flavored meth).

This comes as no surprise, given her support of firearm threats that never existed. ("plastic guns"/"cop-killer bullets")

[iverglas]

24. the gun militants' graven idols are, of course, above reproach.

cough Wisconsin Governor Walker cough.

[gejohnston]

25. only this one issue

If you look at many of either side very closely, there is a lot to question. It is not as simplistic as it seems.

[beevul]

27. Which "gun militant" suggested walker was an idol...

Which "gun militant" suggested walker was an idol, and what bearing does that have on any posters here?


For someone who so unabashedly engages in profanity when they percieve bigotry against them, you sure aren't hesitant to engage in the same yourself and direct it at others, are you.

Theres a word for that.

[SteveM]

21. Gore didn't even carry his home state. nt