Who wins a GOP civil war? The Democrats do
In the days to come, we’ll be witness to bitter and increasingly personal battles fought out in Washington over issues that range from Hurricane Sandy relief efforts to immigration reform and the debt ceiling.
And of course, that’s just among the Republicans. Deep divides are already apparent within the party on how to approach those and other issues, and it’s hard to envision how those differences will be resolved any time soon. To the contrary, in the frustration of defeat, many in the party have begun to turn on each other, raising the very real specter of a GOP civil war.
In the words of Josh Kraushaar, executive editor of National Journal, “I’ve long been skeptical about the feasibility of a third party, but I’m beginning to entertain the possibility that the GOP could become split apart as these policy debates come to the fore…. Is it that much of a stretch to believe that by 2016, the grassroots base will have taken control of the Republican Party, and the establishment will be looking to bolt?”
I know what he means, because I’ve been having similar thoughts myself. Talk of third parties has always been silly in my experience, largely because we operate in a political environment in which two parties are the stable status quo. That said, I also can’t recall seeing a party so at odds with itself as the modern GOP.
Senate Republicans are sniping at their counterparts in the House, who in turn dismiss GOP senators as enemy collaborators. Northeast Republicans publicly accuse the party of caring only about the South, and half the party lives in fear of being labeled RINO by the other half. The party’s professionals blame its predicament on a lack of realism within the GOP media, while the conservative entertainment industry attacks party professionals as profiteers who lack a true commitment to the cause.
Part of the internal rancor can be explained by the nature of the GOP in recent years. When you turn inflexibility into a core party value, you make it all but impossible to make adjustments when the wind changes.
In addition, GOP leadership adopted a strategy of turning Barack Obama into the personification of all that its base feared and opposed, inspiring its followers with the belief that by defeating Obama they would “take back the country.” When it turned out that a majority of their fellow Americans did not want the country “taken back,” the revelation left many in the GOP stunned, uncertain of what to do next.
Perhaps most important, the GOP has functioned more as a fervent social crusade than as a political party. Certain of victory and fired by righteousness, important elements of the national party have shown little capacity for handling defeat. They have no ability to think in terms of minimizing loss and living to fight another day. They fail to understand that retreat need not mean surrender, and that compromise is not capitulation. And that lack of strategic vision threatens to turn retreat into a rout.
The wiser among them understand that, yet they also seem helpless to prevent it. In an op-ed back in December in the Wall Street Journal, Karl Rove in effect begged Barack Obama to save the GOP from a civil war with itself, warning the president that Republican infighting could cause “significant collateral damage” to his second term.
More recently, columnist Charles Krauthammer took a similar tack, accusing Obama of a plot “to fracture and basically shatter the Republican opposition … His objective from the very beginning was to break the will of the Republicans in the House, and to create an internal civil war. And he’s done that.”
I suspect it’s true that Obama is less than heart-broken to see his opponents in such disarray. It’s also true that he seems intent on making the most of the opportunity, forcing the Republicans to make a series of difficult, divisive policy and strategic decisions at a time when they are ill-prepared to do so.
But I have to say, it’s darkly humorous to see a take-no-prisoner political warrior such as Rove try to make the case for mercy. That is perhaps the most telling measure of the GOP’s predicament.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
371 comments Add your comment
TBS
January 10th, 2013
10:18 am
Bro @ 10:08
I just let that stupidity ride……… this time.
East Lake Ira
January 10th, 2013
10:20 am
Christian Conservative
someone may be grading you for sure but I’m judging you and you are guilty of abject tomfu&!ery
MiltonMan
January 10th, 2013
10:21 am
“MiltonMan – so how’s it really like up there in the land of heavy traffic, stepfordwives, cookie cutter strip malls, chain restaurants and insanely painful commutes into town, and high property taxes? I’ll take my intown living ANY DAY”
Let’s see all clueles one: (1) heavy trafiic – don’t know & don’t care – it is called telecommuting. If I do have to go in, I am on 400 by 0500 – no traffic to been seen other than the occasional Cash for Clunker car with an Obama sticker driving the wrong way; (2) stepfordwives – yes a few of those and they beat the crack-heads on intown anyday; (3) cookie cutter strip mall? Thanks again for exposing your ignorance. Don’t you recall all your dem friends bashing Milton because of the 80% property tax formula???; (4) High property taxes to support you free loafers living intown.
Welcome to the Occupation
January 10th, 2013
10:22 am
td: “The far left about went nuts when Obama suggested touching the CPI on social security.”
Yeahhhhhhh,,,,ruhiiiiiiiight.
That’s “far left” huh? Objecting to a fake change to a program that has been the most successful program ever seen in this country, has never missed a single payment by a dime, let alone needed a “bailout”, and which is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to turn the program into a welfare scheme that can then be gradually pared down and finally gutted, with the rump turned over to Wall St. financiers to feast on.
And you favor such an approach WHY?
godless heathen
January 10th, 2013
10:23 am
I could see the emergence of a viable third party that would take 15-20% of Republican voters and 15-20% of Democratic voters in a national election – with the right person leading the ticket.
emz
January 10th, 2013
10:23 am
Good column.
JamVet
January 10th, 2013
10:26 am
The democrats have found away to gain power by promising people more stuff for free.
Not to belabor the point, but here is exhibit one in the dumbing down of the average Republican. Reduced to Fox News soundbites and childish slogans. To wit, Wilbur has gotten such a staggering amount of stuff for “free”, and for his entire life, it is laughable that he even writes such claptrap.
Who do you believe was a good conservative?
Drop the word conservative and you have a point.
Again, and for the umpteenth time, these Republicans are NOT conservatives. They are almost to a man, pro-(botched)invasion and occupation/regime change/permanent war, pro-class warfare, anti-environmental frauds.
Ban labor unions. Ban abortions. Ban homosexuals. Drown Uncle Sam in a bathtub.
Hell, it so pathetic that they are actually HAPPY with the sell off of OUR sovereignty (look up the definition) to the banksters and corporations. Who are people, my friend. Puke.
THIS IS NOT CONSERVATISM.
NONE of those things are even remotely connected with traditional American conservatism.
The list of things that genuine conservatives would never tolerate, but are SOP in this modern, fascist leaning GOP could fill an entire page. Or five…
Soothsayer
January 10th, 2013
10:28 am
Jay, I believe that most of the problems the Republicans are suffering are due to talk radio. Talk radio has created legions of brain-dead, far-right, quasi-fascist, mass-indoctrinated ideologues so out of touch with reality that there can be no working with them.
Of course Limbaugh, et al, could absolutely care less about any of this and the problems they may have caused. Heck, they’re laughing all the way to the bank. And, what about their listeners? Mostly low-information, low-education-level, easily-swayed, simplistic, black or white people who are like clay in the hands of the radio talk show hosts.
Looks to me like the Right has shot itself in the foot. And, barring a discontinuance of democracy (not as far-fetched as you might think), the Republican Party finds itself in a position of permanent irrelevance. What a shame.
Christian Conservative
January 10th, 2013
10:28 am
So I’ve been told by more than a few Dems that they don’t want our guns. And I’ve talked to several Dems who are gun owners and say there is no way the government will take them. HHMMMMM. So answer me something. Is it or is it not the Democratic party that wants our guns?
alex
January 10th, 2013
10:28 am
Yes, but the Clermont Hotel will be turned into a BOUTIUE hotel..perhaps this country is not worth saving from the Dems…..Civil WAR,goodness the hyperbole…
deegee
January 10th, 2013
10:28 am
Culture change is entirely possible. When I was a teenager, there was no such thing as a designated driver. Now it’s a part of the culture. Parents have to keep the gratuitous violence that passes as entertainment out of the home. We need to give parents of mentally and emotionally ill children an option other than the court system, and we need to ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines. We can do this.
Paul
January 10th, 2013
10:28 am
td
You watch Morning Joe? Good for you! I like the range of guests and topics. Also the way they let each other have their say.
JamVet
January 10th, 2013
10:29 am
“don’t know & don’t care”
This could be their new slogan for 2016!
td
January 10th, 2013
10:29 am
Joe Hussein Mama
January 10th, 2013
10:16 am
Conservatives are all for background checks to make sure criminals do not get guns and are all for making sure all the mentally ill do not get guns. Those are reasonable laws. Conservatives would also be in favor of very harsh penalties for any criminal of mentality ill person to be in possession or using a firearm.
Conservatives are not for limiting the access of guns or ammo from law abiding citizens or weakening the liberties guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.
I do not think the GOP will lose one seat for taking such a stand.
barking frog
January 10th, 2013
10:30 am
Christian Conservative
barking frog:
I didn’t realize I was being graded here…..
……………………………………………………….
only if you make a mistake or are incommunicative…
JamVet
January 10th, 2013
10:30 am
Is it or is it not the Democratic party that wants our guns?
It’s been a while and I can’t remember which number it is, but breaking one of the commandments is a BIG no no with Jesus, isn’t it?
Christian Conservative
January 10th, 2013
10:31 am
East Lake Ira:
Oh yeah. Well I judge the dem party and see them as being anti-Christian, anti-family, and pro-death….
Adam
January 10th, 2013
10:31 am
Granny: Sure. Borrowed from Jon Stewart
Granny Godzilla
January 10th, 2013
10:32 am
Asked early on….toss them a life preserver or an anvil?
I say life preserver.
I agree it’s a shame that the GOP is stumbling onto it’s own sword, and would like to see them take action to distantce themselves from their more radical fringe.
How do we help the GOP find it’s footing?
the cat
January 10th, 2013
10:32 am
I was never answered yesterday with my query as to why the NRA is able to send their propaganda out postage paid free as a non profit. Please enlighten me how this is possible.
Adam
January 10th, 2013
10:32 am
The last time Dems messed with peoples gun rights in this country (1993) they lost 54 seats in the HOR’s the next election cycle.
File under “Yet Another Thing Conservatives Claim is THE ONE THING that explains why The House Went GOP in 1994″
nathan's political arsonist
January 10th, 2013
10:33 am
the death of the bigoted racist homophobic hate filled paranoid sociopathic ignorant GOP is delightful entertainment…karma at its best!!!!! hahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha……………….
Woodstock Mike
January 10th, 2013
10:33 am
One thing is clear, the lower economic class of America is multiplying and Democrats are very happy about that. Statistics are showing the lower class of America are having children at a dramatically higher rate than upper class America. This bodes well for Democrats as they want more and more people completely dependant on the govt. Doesn’t bode well for the future of America.
Adam
January 10th, 2013
10:33 am
Christian Conservative: Is it or is it not the Democratic party that wants our guns?
The party you are looking for that wants your guns is the Straw Man Party.
Brosephus™
January 10th, 2013
10:35 am
Stevie Ray: Seems to me the practicality of taking peoples guns away or otherwise keeping what’s out there now from being available in the future if a non-started.
Duh!!! If I heard correctly, Biden said the EO’s would go towards enforcing laws already on the books as part of that plan. Nobody’s suggesting that we take guns away from anybody. What’s being suggested is making it harder for those, who don’t need a gun in their possesion, to get their hands on one.
For example, lost in the hubbub of the Fast and Furious Grand Mal sessions is the fact that Arizona law makes it easy as hell for someone to purchase multiple semi-auto rifles with little to no background checking. So, right now, it’s perfectly legal for some nutcase to go to Arizona, plop down $20,000 cash, and ride off with an arsenal that belongs in the movies if they go to the right person.
I can tell you that we have a problem with guns in this country when the criminals easily outgun law enforcement.
Adam
January 10th, 2013
10:35 am
Woodstock Mike: One thing is clear, the lower economic class of America is multiplying and Democrats are very happy about that
Which is also why Democrats hate Planned Parenthood, want to restrict birth control to only those who are “personally responsible” enough to afford it, and want to make abortions much more difficult or impossible to get.
Wait, what?
Granny Godzilla
January 10th, 2013
10:36 am
Christian Conservative
January 10th, 2013
10:28 am
So I’ve been told by more than a few Dems that they don’t want our guns. And I’ve talked to several Dems who are gun owners and say there is no way the government will take them. HHMMMMM. So answer me something. Is it or is it not the Democratic party that wants our guns?
.
.
.
.
CC
ARe you under mental health care? Have you been arrested? Do you practice spousal abuse?
Probelms with drugs, alcohol, PTSD? Purchased firearms illegally? All your firearms properly registered? History of violent outbursts?
Depending on how you answer those questions, most Americans, most NRA members might want to take your guns.
Welcome to the Occupation
January 10th, 2013
10:36 am
td: “Erskine Bowles said this morning that we spend 100% of the money coming into the Federal government each year on interest payments and entitlement programs….Sure we do not have a spending problem.”
Why do you cite right-wing, financier Democrats to support your right wing agenda?
Why are you on board with right wing Democrats who are hell bent on rolling back our nation’s social programs, safety net, and turning it into even more of a cash cow gusher oligarchy than it already is?
C’mon, defend that good Democrat Wall St. financier Erskine Bowles. Let’s hear it..
Shar
January 10th, 2013
10:36 am
@ Stevie Ray: Mitch McConnell, head of the Republicans in the Senate, said “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”
While every party out of the Executive Office wants back in, the number one goal has always been the good of the country. When that is supplanted by a narrow focus on extinguishing the President’s ability to govern and obstructing every effort he (or she) makes regardless of the consequences to the nation, the party committing itself to that has lost legitimacy as a political entity. McConnell’s statement reflected the inflexible, fearmongering our-way-of-the-highway vitriol being spewed out by entertainers who make the very big bucks by ginning up anger and fear and by politicians from districts created to carve out those with different views, and it represented a rejection of the role of “loyal opposition” to “heedless destruction”.
godless heathen
January 10th, 2013
10:37 am
I was never answered yesterday with my query as to why the NRA is able to send their propaganda out postage paid free as a non profit.
A nonprofit organization (US and UK),[1] or not-for-profit organization (UK and others), often called an NPO or simply a nonprofit, also non-commercial organization (Russia and CIS) often called an NCO, is an organization that uses surplus revenues to achieve its goals rather than distributing them as profit or dividends. States in the United States defer to the IRS designation conferred under United States Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c), when the IRS deems an organization eligible.[2]
You’re welcome.
nathan's political arsonist
January 10th, 2013
10:37 am
td, you didn’t think willard would get his ass handed to him by the “47%” either, so what you think now is somewhat irrelevant to educated citizens
Steve
January 10th, 2013
10:37 am
Christian Conservative, this will straighten out the “Obama has incurred more debt than Bush did” argument:
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/02/dueling-debt-deceptions/
Remember, we did inherit a great recession and lack of tax revenue due to rising unemployment.
barking frog
January 10th, 2013
10:38 am
Granny Godzilla
How do we help the GOP find it’s footing?
……………………………………………..
Replace the obstructionists with Democrats.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 10th, 2013
10:38 am
td — “Conservatives are all for background checks to make sure criminals do not get guns and are all for making sure all the mentally ill do not get guns. Those are reasonable laws. Conservatives would also be in favor of very harsh penalties for any criminal of mentality ill person to be in possession or using a firearm.”
Yawn.
“Conservatives are not for limiting the access of guns or ammo from law abiding citizens or weakening the liberties guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.”
Snore.
“I do not think the GOP will lose one seat for taking such a stand.”
I think you will.
The time’s here for the NRA to STFU and LISTEN to what Americans are saying. Everybody knows what the NRA wants. Everybody knows what the NRA’s position is. Everybody’s heard your recitation time and time again. Your message has been heard, and it is being REJECTED.
There are *going* to be some sorts of additional constraints and restrictions coming, and the NRA has an opportunity to join in that discussion in good faith. However, the NRA is not going to be able to *dictate terms* as it has in the past. If the NRA tries that, then I think it will find itself disinvited from the discussion and pushed aside so that *others* can work out a solution.
In short, td, I think that the NRA and its supporters need to stop telling everyone what the NRA wants and start listening to what OTHER AMERICANS want. Otherwise, y’all are going to get rolled on this just like y’all did in November.
Aquagirl
January 10th, 2013
10:39 am
How do we help the GOP find it’s footing?
You and I are doing our part GG: marginalizing some of the right-wing extremists here who are hijacking the GOP.
It’s the least we can do for our country.
Woodstock Mike
January 10th, 2013
10:39 am
“the death of the bigoted racist homophobic hate filled paranoid sociopathic ignorant GOP is delightful entertainment”
It’s so funny when some idiot writes something like this and doesn’t realize he’s doing exactly what he’s complaining about…
td
January 10th, 2013
10:40 am
Paul
January 10th, 2013
10:28 am
td
You watch Morning Joe? Good for you! I like the range of guests and topics. Also the way they let each other have their say.
Morning Joe, Chris Matthews, Rachel Meddows and others. I also read articles in the WaPost, Huff post, daily beast, mother jones and the NY times. While at the same time watch Bill, Sean, Greda (sp) and listen to Rush when I am on the road.
I think it is good to listen to both sides of the argument,
Oscar
January 10th, 2013
10:40 am
The south and west want a different type of government then the rest of the country want. That’s the divide. And the GOP went for the votes in those states. Those states do not have a majority of E college votes. Now where does the GOP go from here.
Woodstock Mike
January 10th, 2013
10:41 am
I love Democrats being so happy about a terrible employment rate and weak economy…
It’s amazing how happy they are about that, talk about being brainwashed…
Joe Hussein Mama
January 10th, 2013
10:41 am
the cat — “I was never answered yesterday with my query as to why the NRA is able to send their propaganda out postage paid free as a non profit. Please enlighten me how this is possible.”
The NRA is a 501(c)(3) AND a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization, which is kind of unique. Long story short, that’s how they can do it.
the cat
January 10th, 2013
10:42 am
godless, I know what a true non profit it, thanks. Just surprised the NRA is classified as one.
Adam
January 10th, 2013
10:42 am
td: I think it is good to listen to both sides of the argument,
I read Daily Caller and Fox News and Reason.com and I am registered as a Republican on my voter registration.
Thulsa Doom thinks I am a liar about these things, as apparently does Fred. Both are incorrect. What do you think, seeing as you also look at other sides of the argument?
Oscar
January 10th, 2013
10:43 am
cat – because the qualify as non-profit
alex
January 10th, 2013
10:43 am
What’s a “bankster”?
Granny Godzilla
January 10th, 2013
10:44 am
JHM
“There are *going* to be some sorts of additional constraints and restrictions coming, and the NRA has an opportunity to join in that discussion in good faith. However, the NRA is not going to be able to *dictate terms* as it has in the past. If the NRA tries that, then I think it will find itself disinvited from the discussion and pushed aside so that *others* can work out a solution.”
.
.
.
.
Bravo!
Well Said.
Woodstock Mike
January 10th, 2013
10:44 am
You guys are right though, minorities are starting to rule this country, so the GOP is in trouble because of how the media portrays their view on minorities (even though George Bush placed minorities at higher levels of govt than any president in history), no doubt… Oh well, life will go on and Democrats who think anything is different now than under Bush are clueless. Wow, rich people now pay a little more taxes, does that really make Democrats happier?? Weird…
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 10th, 2013
10:45 am
I think it is good to listen to both sides of the argument
good to listen. Better to try to comprehend and think about the arguments, reality and policy.
clem
January 10th, 2013
10:45 am
hope the sane crowd prevails, not the tpers from the deep south
Christian Conservative
January 10th, 2013
10:46 am
Steve:
I realize sometimes facts get in the way from reality for you libs but the link you produced is laughable and almost a year old…. Obama’s debt in four years almost doubled Bush in eight..
http://useconomy.about.com/od/usdebtanddeficit/p/US-Debt-by-President.htm
Brosephus™
January 10th, 2013
10:46 am
JHM
————————-
godless @ 10:23
That wouldn’t take much to do. Many “Democrat” voters are not staunch Dem supporters. They are there by default as the GOP has gone bat shiite crazy and they refuse to enjoin such crap. The reason the Dems are where they are is because they appeal to the middle in absence of any GOP appeal for that group. The pendulum will swing back as the current situation is no different than when the GOP appealed to the middle in the 1980s.
barking frog
January 10th, 2013
10:47 am
Adam
I read Daily Caller and Fox News and Reason.com and I am registered as a Republican on my voter registration.
……………………………………………………………………………..
I would classify you as a liberal Republican who likes Obama much like
our host.
Welcome to the Occupation
January 10th, 2013
10:47 am
Woodstock Mike: “I love Democrats being so happy about a terrible employment rate and weak economy… /It’s amazing how happy they are about that, talk about being brainwashed…”
Yeah. It’s one of the reasons I’m not a Democrat.
But your side, what do you have?
You got NOTHIN either.
Stevie Ray
January 10th, 2013
10:47 am
BRO
I think you will find that many on the far left (Gov Cuomo said all but as I understood him yesterday) love to discuss taking the assault type guns out of owners hands. Even future efforts to ban any of same will not eliminate the exposure of violence on kids and other defenseless folks..It just political hubris..
Shar,
I can’t disagree with the means of the lunatics on the right, including public statements, but both parties want power…anyway they can get it…lies, promises never kept, personal attacks, whipping up scaretactics to further agenda or impede the others…its a joke really…they don’t care about us…they are failing us as only tactic is reactionary….
Regnad Kcin
January 10th, 2013
10:47 am
Republicans had a dream: “STARVE THE BEAST!” If the country piled up enough debt, the p[ublic would clamor for spending cuts!
Well, it took decades, multiple wars, unfunded mandates, tax cuts, and a “great recession,” but the “beast” has finally been pretty well “starved.”
But the republican dream turned to nightmare: far from clamoring for cuts, and turning to the republican party for help, the public (as always) took a centrist course. The republicans found themselves so far to the right, that the democrats were able to easily take the middle.
Republicans still don’t understand why their decades-long plan failed, and are scrambling to re-define themselves. But as what? Stay-the-course cost-cutters? Conservative centrists? Only time will tell…
Oscar
January 10th, 2013
10:48 am
Adam – You don’t come across but you did lose your temper the other night and coe accross as someone with a lack of patience for people who don’t agree with you.
Oscar
January 10th, 2013
10:49 am
don’t come across as a liar . . .
Stevie Ray
January 10th, 2013
10:51 am
Brosephus™
January 10th, 2013
10:35 am
BTW, how exactly do you identify one who shouldn’t have a gun in their possession? If I recall, the guns in latest incident were registered to mom. Should a parent of a now targeted kid with emotional disabilities be prevented from gun ownership? How do we define and legally prevent “those who shouldn’t own a gun”?
Help me understand that….
JamVet
January 10th, 2013
10:52 am
What’s a “bankster”?
Like YOU want to know?
Ask Wilbur, he knows all about free stuff!
For the other folks here, though…
It’s alex’s beloved bailed out heroes on Wall Street and elsewhere who cannot succeed in business without constant government assistance…
GT
January 10th, 2013
10:53 am
More stuff for free.
Seems to me that is another definition of freedom. Giving people an equal shot at life is giving them something if you are not a believer in democracy, you can sell that to ignorant people, been sold all over the world, all through history. The sad thing is some people in this state and nation sell it and truly believe it, they allow themselves to be used for immorality yet can’t wait for the second coming thinking they have ground to stand on. Loopholing you Bible ain’t going to work when you are arguing with the guy who wrote it and made you. He gave us the rights not you, not even this country, or our forefathers, who had the intelligence to recognize it.
Christian Conservative
January 10th, 2013
10:53 am
Adam:
I have yet to hear a Republican say they want our guns… Its full bore lib dems….
Stevie Ray
January 10th, 2013
10:54 am
Welcome to the Occupation
January 10th, 2013
10:47 am
Agreed. I don’t have party affiliation either and the BO supporters love to pop off about improving economy that has nothing to do with his efforts and for the most part, is defined by measures that those who blindly support him devour…Nothing of meaning has happened under his watch despite his complete pre-occupation with selling himself.
td
January 10th, 2013
10:55 am
Joe Hussein Mama
January 10th, 2013
10:38 am
“In short, td, I think that the NRA and its supporters need to stop telling everyone what the NRA wants and start listening to what OTHER AMERICANS want. Otherwise, y’all are going to get rolled on this just like y’all did in November.”
Just wow. We shall see is all I can say. I am not seeing anyone but the far left wing up in arms about restricting guns. I heard the new Democratic Senator from ND say the other day that some of the stuff being mentioned by Biden is extreme and have heard several Dem. House members from districts in up state NY and Penn say basically the same thing.
From what I am seeing this is an issue between the urban centers and they really want handguns vs the rural and suburban areas of the country and it is bi partisan in these areas. So we shall see. Even leftest strategist are saying it is a huge uphill climb and the Dems need to be real careful (not my words but theirs)
Regnad Kcin
January 10th, 2013
10:56 am
“BTW, how exactly do you identify one who shouldn’t have a gun in their possession? If I recall, the guns in latest incident were registered to mom. Should a parent of a now targeted kid with emotional disabilities be prevented from gun ownership? How do we define and legally prevent “those who shouldn’t own a gun”?
Help me understand that….”
Stevie Ray – I agree. It’s hard to think of a scenario that would prevent every act of criminal gun violence.
I do, however have a concern (i don’t think this applies to you, though) about folks bringing up one exception to a proposed solution, and using that as an argument against doing anything. “The perfect being the enemy of the good,” so to speak.
Sadly, in the cicumstance to which you refer, I doubt even “gun lock” rules would have had any effect.
Oscar
January 10th, 2013
10:57 am
Stevie – First, let’s close the gaps in our laws tht allow people tp buy guns without background checks, and deal with other illegal gun slas- dealers who don’t comply with the law And assault weapons.
Then we can deal with cases where people don’t take steps to secure their guns against use by people who should not have access to the guns – family members,friends and neighbors.
Gale
January 10th, 2013
10:59 am
What is usually ignored when the 2nd amendment is referenced is the part about a well ordered militia. This does not translate to ‘anyone who wants to own an assault and an RPG should be allowed to do so. What we lack is organization. The only organizations I am aware of are state National Guard and private militias that seem to group up on survivalist conspiracies, like preparing for zombies or overthrowing the government, which oddly enough,seems right in line with the original meaning. Maybe we should allow people to own these disputed weapons IF they are members of something like the National Guard which is a ‘well organized militia.” You stop attending training, your fellow militia members come and confiscate your weapons. None of this includes those weapons strictly for hunting or target sports.
Stevie Ray
January 10th, 2013
10:59 am
GT
January 10th, 2013
10:53 am
I didn’t understand your position on what is being referred to in your post as ‘more free stuff”..I think that is name for poster but not clear on your position…the latter part of your post is clear..
Shar
January 10th, 2013
10:59 am
On the gun issue, a refresher on the Second Amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The gun control folks want to concentrate on the first two phrases, the NRA wants to pretend that they don’t exist. That is where the fight will be.
Thus far, the NRA has been very successful in pretending that the Amendment is only the last two phrases without the moderating first two. Any recognition that the Constitutional language provides for moderation of gun ownership or a regulating environment has been instantly attacked, and the NRA’s response to Newton still reflects that position.
It is interesting to me, however, that the Framers, despite living in a subsistence economy without much personal protection from the law, did not justify ownership of arms for either hunting or self defense. They protected it in the interests of “the security of a free State”, and they placed keeping and bearing arms within the context of a “well regulated Militia.”
It’s past time that we debated what this really means.
East Lake Ira
January 10th, 2013
11:00 am
Cling to your guns and religion with all your might.
We’re gonna take both away from you all.
BOO!
Erwin's cat
January 10th, 2013
11:01 am
I wouldn’t celebrate just yet…this in fighting could eventually lead to better defined and united party. You dems went thru this to some degree after W won his first term and came back pretty strong
Oscar
January 10th, 2013
11:01 am
I have heard very few people, less than five say they want to take away guns. That’s an argument against virtually a belief that does not exist.
GT
January 10th, 2013
11:01 am
Td we have loss a lot of blood since 1993. You sound like you are defending the devil himself when you defend assault guns, get a hold of yourself. Surely the sacrifice of your small pleasures for the safety of small school children is not beyond your selfish imagination. No one is taking your toys away or you cowboy outfit; we just tire of being so stupid for your satisfaction.
Regnad Kcin
January 10th, 2013
11:02 am
“I heard the new Democratic Senator from ND say the other day that some of the stuff being mentioned by Biden is extreme and have heard several Dem. House members from districts in up state NY and Penn say basically the same thing.’
td – agree with you in that I suspect this will end up less a left/right or Dem/Rep issue than a rural/urban issue. In urban areas, guns are perceived to be used mainly to kill people. In rural areas, they’re perceived as instruments of sport.
This is, of course, a generalization, and only one factor in the mix. It will be interesting to watch this play out – we’ll learn someting about our country.
Granny Godzilla
January 10th, 2013
11:02 am
Christian Conservative
January 10th, 2013
10:53 am
Adam:
I have yet to hear a Republican say they want our guns… Its full bore lib dems….
.
.
.
Didn’t you hear Mr Republican himself on gun control?
http://reasoningpolitics.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/ronald-reagan-supported-gun-control/
stands for decibels
January 10th, 2013
11:02 am
It is interesting to me, however, that the Framers, despite living in a subsistence economy without much personal protection from the law, did not justify ownership of arms for either hunting or self defense. They protected it in the interests of “the security of a free State”, and they placed keeping and bearing arms within the context of a “well regulated Militia.”
The Framers were too cowardly to address the issue of maintaining a permanent standing army, and the 2nd Amendment was a horribly-written effort to paper this over, AFAIK.
Brosephus™
January 10th, 2013
11:02 am
Stevie Ray: I think you will find that many on the far left (Gov Cuomo said all but as I understood him yesterday) love to discuss taking the assault type guns out of owners hands
They can talk about getting screwed by aliens in Area 51 too. Does that mean it really happened or can happen?
BTW, how exactly do you identify one who shouldn’t have a gun in their possession?
Background checks, and not the current fluff that’s called such. In the Newtown case, that likely would not have stopped that incident. Had the mom kept her guns locked to where only she could get access to them, then we probably wouldn’t be having this conversation now. You do realize they make gun safes with biometric locks right?
Other incidents, such as Aurora and Columbine, were accomplished by the person buying the guns themselves. Maybe a decent background check would have stopped them, maybe not. When we don’t try, we’ll never know.
JohnnyReb
January 10th, 2013
11:02 am
Lining Up Early for the Innauguration
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1418903_Obama_Supporters_Lining_Up_Early_In_DC_For_Inauguration.html
barking frog
January 10th, 2013
11:03 am
The pro-gun folks are deteriorating to ’sedition’ to defend the 2nd
amendment which is absurd. The Founding Fathers with a new
Constitution in hand providing for protecting rebels is ludicrous.
The Militia was for protection from invasion from bordering foreign
governments such as the British in Canada.
Stevie Ray
January 10th, 2013
11:04 am
Regnad Kcin
January 10th, 2013
10:56 am
I’m not suggesting we don’t enforce the laws on the books and put forth every obstacle possible. My point is that nothing currently being discussed would have prevented any of the latest rounds of killings..I do think improved and affordable technology can help by putting up more obstacles to allowing access…of course the same technology (not out there yet but some forms are applicable) may could apply to border control. I don’t see anything on the table now excepting enforcing existing laws, if possible, that will prevent more random shootings..
Erwin's cat
January 10th, 2013
11:04 am
Cling to your guns and religion with all your might.
you’ll likely need both to get mine
Oscar
January 10th, 2013
11:05 am
While the second amendment clearify was about allowing peopl to have rifles for use in the militia, there is nothing in the constitution that limits gun ownership to that purpose. States can allow guns for hunting or other purposes if they wish.
East Lake Ira
January 10th, 2013
11:06 am
The Framers were too cowardly …
BLASPHEMY!! The Framers were the smartest men on the planet and were driven by a need to establish a heaven on this earth by divine oogitty boogity power rays from GOD!
Joe Hussein Mama
January 10th, 2013
11:06 am
Okay, lefties, let’s talk turkey about guns for the righties’ edification.
What are some common-sense constraints or regulations that could be put in place in the near future, particularly those with an eye toward reducing public firearm violence?
And what are some ways that the NRA could make a useful contribution toward advancing them?
I’d like to see firearm licensure for individuals, and different *classes* of license. Bob the hunter could obtain a hunters’ gun license, Big Ed the gun collector could get a collector’s license and Tommy the gun shop owner could have a dealer’s license. There would be restrictions on all of these — for example, Bob the Hunter would be restricted to typical hunting weapons like long rifles, shotguns and perhaps a handgun or two if he resided in a really rugged and rural area (BTW, i’m not opposed to having another class of license for Subsistence Hunters — folks in Montana, Alaska and other really out-of-the-way places might have different requirements). Big Ed the gun collector would have to register his ’special’ pieces and would be required to register them Federally. No private sales of any firearms would be permitted — you’d have to get a licensed dealer to be a go-between and to remit the proper paperwork to state, Federal and local authorities — IOW, the government has to be advised of any transfer of ownership of firearms.
People like gun collectors and vendors would have to meet *higher* standards to get those licenses; no violent crimes of any sort, possibly a background check as well. It wouldn’t be as hard to get a hunter’s license, but you’d be constrained by what *type* of weapons you could purchase and own. Obviously, when purchasing a firearm, you’d have to show your license, and if your license doesn’t permit you to own it, the sale would be a no-go.
The NRA could help in these ways: conduct classes and precertification practicums for people who wanted to obtain a license or upgrade their current license. They could also sponsor swap meets where one or more properly licensed dealers are present and prepared to facilitate gun sales between gun owners.
I’d also like to see a clear policy on when and how individual gun ownership rights could be *abridged,* either temporarily or permanently in the case of mental illness or the commission of a violent crime. If you burgle a house and you’re carrying a piece, then IMO your right to have weapons should be removed for some period of time. If you road-rage in a traffic jam and beat someone up, then the same should apply. If your old Uncle Al is diagnosed with Alzheimers, there should be a point at which his gun ownership rights are removed, just as he wouldn’t be able to renew his drivers’ license.
I’d love to hear others’ ideas.
Erwin's cat
January 10th, 2013
11:07 am
Stevie – I don’t see anything on the table now excepting enforcing existing laws, that will prevent more random shootings..
makes ya wonder what the real goal is doesn’t it?
stands for decibels
January 10th, 2013
11:07 am
The Framers were the smartest men on the planet
heh, heh…
ok, seriously, I’ll modify it to “timid.” I actually had some second thoughts about the “c-word” after hitting submit, I really wasn’t trying to be quite that trollish.
td
January 10th, 2013
11:08 am
Oscar
January 10th, 2013
10:40 am
The south and west want a different type of government then the rest of the country want. That’s the divide. And the GOP went for the votes in those states. Those states do not have a majority of E college votes. Now where does the GOP go from here.
The GOP does what the Dems did from 1948 to 1992. They control the HOR’s and the majority of the states and implement their policies from there and the Dems control the white house for 8 out of every 12 years.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 10th, 2013
11:08 am
td — “Just wow. We shall see is all I can say. I am not seeing anyone but the far left wing up in arms about restricting guns.”
Then you’re not paying attention.
Did you know that the majority of people in the Newtown, CT area were gun owners? And that there’s a well-attended gun club nearby?
Do you think those folks were pro-gun before Adam Lanza shot up their kids in school?
What do you think those folks think now?
stands for decibels
January 10th, 2013
11:09 am
What are some common-sense constraints or regulations that could be put in place in the near future, particularly those with an eye toward reducing public firearm violence?
I’ll start with a simple one–
Get everyone to agree that we need national standards; that any rules and regs in one city or one state are useless against laxer standards elsewhere. Let’s at least take the stupid “Big City X Bans Gunz and lookie all their CRIME!” arguments off the table.
Shar
January 10th, 2013
11:09 am
Stands for Decibels: They weren’t cowards, they were broke. They had to rely upon individuals to form a militia because they didn’t have the money to pay for an army.
Teddy
January 10th, 2013
11:10 am
Well, now Jay may or may not know a little history, but it seems to me that if the repubs could recover from that disaster Woodrow and Taft and My Bull Moose party, they can recover from this little spat. As for gun control. I like my hunting..RUN Jay, RUN…..
Stevie Ray
January 10th, 2013
11:10 am
Brosephus™
January 10th, 2013
11:02 am
Its the rhetoric that gets the NRA’s juices flowing..
I don’t agree a bit about locks on guns being an answer. How exactly do you measure the efficacy of that? So you are also suggesting that in those prior events, these kids wouldn’t have found a means to secure the guns nonetheless?
I agree with real background checks but I understand the cost is an issue (not that that matters to me). Hard to say if and how many events that we have witnessed would have been prevented.
Point is, we’ve created a violent culture that will not evaporate or likely even measurably be reduced by any of the old ideas that for the most part, we didn’t enforce..
DannyX
January 10th, 2013
11:11 am
“Lining Up Early for the Innauguration”
Actually you can get some great deals if you want to go to the inauguration. Seems thousands of Republicans made airline and hotel reservations they won’t be needing. Go to UnskewedDeals.com, tell them td sent you and get an even bigger discount.
GT
January 10th, 2013
11:13 am
Stevie Ray some guy up the blog open his post with that phase.
The right wants to think there is a gimmick that their world had been bought out from them and their logic is still there. They under value freedom, the will of freedom and think in their corrupt immoral way it is all about the economy, their economy. What the middle and below have learned is this economy has nothing to do with them, just as many things in this country such as wars do not have anything to do with them. They want a voice, an even shot, then their world and their economy becomes better and with it this nation’s.
JamVet
January 10th, 2013
11:13 am
Poor paranoid cc…
And cat, I’ve got bad news, all of us libs, moderates, centrists, greens and progressives are coming over to your place to pry them form you cold dead hands!
Is it any wonder that there are so many murderous, government hating, heavily armed nutjobs in this country?
The right wing fascists won’t say boo to them…
td
January 10th, 2013
11:14 am
GT
January 10th, 2013
11:01 am
There has been more young children’s “blood lost” since 1993 to drunk drivers then to guns and I do not hear one word about reinstating the prohibition on alcohol because it is an evil that most Americans want. .
barking frog
January 10th, 2013
11:14 am
JoeHusseinMama
Executive Order to put anti-theft fingerprint locks on all guns
manufactured and permanent disablement of all guns not equipped.
Factory Reps required to change fingerprints and must keep record.
Brosephus™
January 10th, 2013
11:14 am
dB @ 11:09
True.
Erwin's cat
January 10th, 2013
11:14 am
What do you think those folks think now?
don’t know…do you?
The best reason for getting an assault rifle now is because so many others in the community already have them.
Regnad Kcin
January 10th, 2013
11:15 am
Stevie Ray – I agree completely.
Oscar
January 10th, 2013
11:15 am
td – Or, the dems could swing too far to the left,like they did in the seventies, and the GOP woulf carry the swing states and control the white house again.
Erwin's cat
January 10th, 2013
11:17 am
And cat, I’ve got bad news, all of us libs, moderates, centrists, greens and progressives are coming over to your place to pry them form you cold dead hands!
bring it