We are WINNING even though the loudmouths of the NRA are drowing that out

[graham4anything]

The reason recent polls are saying the issue is dying down after peaking is, one that any person with any brains at all can easily see why-

The NRA is blabbering all over the place in all 50 states and they are giving their perception.
So short term, they have all the publicity in place.

However, in reality, they are losing big time, long term, and soon to be gone forever
(soon being a relative term as its been 100s of years on their side of the megaphone).

The haters of those wanting to end the insanity are saying they are failing.
They are saying Bloomberg and the 800 mayors against guns are failing
They are robocalling (what gall) the parents in CT

They are rubbing it in

however,

a war is a long term thing
a battle is instant gratification

The NRA reminds me of the episode of Gilligan's Island, (remember?) where a foreign soldier
still thinks WW2 is going on all those years later and didn't hear the war ended.

The NRA is dead. Don't give up hope, because one candidate one district one state at a time will lead to one new SCOTUS and a reinterpretation of the issue,
at which point anything else is irrelevant, once the 2nd is properly interpretated to reflect what it really meant, which of course, the current reading did not.

(Or should all private citizens arm themselves with surface to air shoulder missiles? I think not.

[Scuba]

1. This one you've got right. Rec.

[rrneck]

2. Saw this last night...

Last edited Sat Mar 30, 2013, 11:15 AM - Edit history (1)

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/03/michael_bloomberg_s_gun_control_campaign_the_new_york_city_mayor_s_fight.html

Is Michael Bloomberg helping or hurting his cause? When the New York mayor’s organization, Mayor’s Against Illegal Guns, launched its $12 million advertising campaign to pressure lawmakers into supporting gun control legislation, the negative reaction from the NRA was predictable, but a week after the launch, the reaction from potential allies has also been cool. Senators and staffers working on bipartisan legislation say that Bloomberg’s effort to mobilize voters is less effective because it is also energizing gun control opponents. It’s pressuring lawmakers in the wrong way, too. Any legislator targeted by Bloomberg’s campaign who ultimately supports gun control legislation will look like he or she is being bowled over by a nanny-state mayor who wants to tell their constituents how to live their lives.

Bloomberg is overstating his case. Because even when 90 percent of the public says they agree about something, such as background checks—which is what Bloomberg was talking about in this instance—it isn’t the same as believing that something is “necessary for this country.” That's a higher level of commitment to the issue than can be divined from a public opinion poll. Just because you are in favor of something doesn't mean that you'll become a single-issue voter on that issue—especially if it doesn't touch your life directly. That is the same problem President Obama encounters when he cites the same 90 percent poll number and says, as he did Thursday, that "nothing is more powerful than millions of voices calling for change." The voices have to do more than call; they have to march and become active. The number willing to make that kind of commitment is not 90 percent.

The hurdle has always been that the people who want to fight gun control legislation are more likely to make it a voting issue than those who support gun control legislation. That's the reality Republicans and Democrats in conservative states feel. Having a New York City mayor threaten that you will be turned out of office if you don’t agree with him doesn’t change that reality one bit. In fact, it just gives you another thing to be against.

If you want to win, produce legislation that will address the problem at hand and actually help people who are experiencing the problem. Everything else is just smoke, mirrors and money in some billionaires pocket.

[Hoyt]

3. Yep, cause right wingers love their guns more than just about anything.

[rrneck]

4. That was a non sequitur.

Colorful, but a clean miss.

[marions ghost]

5. right wing hypocrisy

Meanwhile the affected states sit back and let the Koch bros take over. Outside influence is everywhere.

Look at the comments at that Slate.com article. It's attracted gun lovers & wingers from all over the map like flies to fresh doody. Yum yum.

You seem to support it rrneck. Do you realize this article is not helping our cause?

[premium]

6. Unfortunately, in my state,

Bloomberg's ad has had a backlash. Sens. Reid and Heller's offices have been swamped with calls and e-mails against Bloomberg's ad.
I think it has to do with the perception of a rich 1% trying to tell us how our Sens. should vote.
Don't get me wrong, here in NV., which is a strong pro gun state, there is still strong support for UBC, but to have someone like Bloomberg, who is very anti gun, run an ad like that, it ticks us off to no end.

I, myself called both Sens. asking that they vote for the UBC.

[marions ghost]

8. I'm sure there's backlash

But how about pointing out that the rich 1% Koch Bros are REALLY controlling the red states?

It's OK--Bloomberg's ads are not intended to appeal to the well equipped gun nut. They are for the silent majority--who have never had a voice (or the iron fist of the NRA behind them).

[premium]

10. You won't get any argument from me about the Koch Bros.

Gun owners and non gun owners alike here in NV. overwhelmingly support the UBC, stronger penalties for straw purchases, however, Sen. Feinstein's AWB and mag. limit bill is unpopular and would stand no chance if the state tried to pass one.

[marions ghost]

11. I live in a backward state too

Other more enlightened states will lead us out of this dark hole one day.

[premium]

12. We can only hope. nt.

[rrneck]

7. If our cause

is massaging the ego of a media mogul billionaire I want no part of it. Money in politics is one of the most pernicious evils in our country today and he is throwing it in by the boxcar load. Democrats don't need the help of egomaniacal one percenters. The breathless cheerleading of the OP is a fine example of short sighted political expediency at the price of workable legislation and the prudent use of precious political capital.

[marions ghost]

9. Gimme that boxcar load

How are we supposed to fight Billionaires who have a lock on everything, if not with some money from somewhere.

It's not at the "price" of workable legislation. We've had nothing but promises, excuses, and non-action.

Let the chips fall, how about it?

[rrneck]

13. Those billionaires got to be billionaires

by working both sides of the street. They foment conflict in the culture wars for profit. When you buy in you are paying them go sow discord for profit. It's cultural disaster capitalism.

[marions ghost]

14. After what the Koch Bros

did in the dark of night, I think it's fine what Bloomberg is doing in the light of day.

Bloomberg has been for gun control for a long time. He rightly realizes that the public tide is turning. His Mayors Against Illegal Guns group speaks for many others. I think in this he is about more than merely fomenting conflict. The conflict is already there, where the gun issue is concerned, so your argument doesn't really apply. Bloomberg is willing to publicly take the flak for standing strong against the NRA and right now all I can say is


Edit to say: Yes I understand the game of Disaster Capitalism. I don't see it here. WHere is the connection, as you see it?

[rrneck]

15. Groups like the NRA, Brady, MAIG

and the rest are lamprey on the ass of American politics. They are selling a product to people who have confused consumerism with citizenship. Arianna Huffington was a conservative until it became profitable to be a liberal and she founded the Huffington Post. Then sold it for a bundle. It's all the same game. There is an ideology industry because ideology sells.

Guns are just a lever in the culture wars. Ideologues on both sides of the issue turn them into icons to be worshiped and feared. People fixate on them just like any other icon and pay to do so. That's why most of the arguments for and against guns are indistinguishable from the babbling of fundamentalist religion. And when we have legislation proposed to satisfy the adherents of those religions we get, well, what we've got. It's no different from creationism.

[ellisonz]

16. ^^^^

Blocked from the group.

[marions ghost]

18. excellent

[marions ghost]

17. And what have we got?

A gun-crazy country. Arming for Armageddon.

I take it you're happy with the status quo. You and I are in the opposite camps you talk about. We're not going to agree any time soon.

Guns at the level we have them in this country are not just "a lever in the culture wars." They are a threat to civilized society. They are a massive public health threat, costing us billions. Anyone who's not afraid of this level of uncontrolled weapons build-up in this country is not quite right in the head.

We are all losers if we let the status quo remain.

[Walk away]

19. I think it's going to come in fits and starts but we are finally going in the right direction.

I think that 2016 is the year the entire country swings to the left. Everything between now and then is ground work.