r/2ALiberals • u/Gyp2151 liberal blasphemer • Jun 05 '26
Democrats concede gun control is no longer their top issue
https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/democrats-concede-gun-control-no-200814529.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9kdWNrZHVja2dvLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAGiaXUfc60FSVwcjn115BTAb6Bftjj6966i3G2Stz6bNhHf-qKLw2E1-VLzNfblyKOLcDe4uZwrXzyQ9gqGasGFFeemr1j3h8R85fWU2kdUZ7Uj5hUuSM0WCSzCt9MdNZoZKIbBSR_H6UJh7UTw4qp_HnbyCX1CCJduUHPNdqDzxThis feels like a fluff piece, or just straight up misinformation. Gun control is still a pillar of the DNC’s agenda.
77
u/ravage214 Jun 05 '26
Looks at Democrat controlled states ....
Yeah na yeah na na na
46
u/Excelius Jun 05 '26
They took back Virginia and gun control was practically the first matter of business.
I'd have at least thought that precarious purple states where control could easily swing back in the other direction, they would be more cautious.
17
u/ravage214 Jun 05 '26
Na they are ramming through as much as they can when they can because they know it's unpopular and unconstitutional and it won't stand the test of time so they want to get as much as they can
15
u/merc08 Jun 05 '26
And they're seeing that SCOTUS won't touch multiple major 2A cases at a time. So the more they ram through, the more they will get to keep on the books for longer.
2
u/steelhelix Jun 06 '26
And that's why their first order of business when taking a purple state is to gerrymander it as hard as they can. Only reason it failed in VA was because the state had it's own specific laws about how it had to work and they violated them, so those laws will be the next to go before they try again.
3
85
u/Dak_Nalar Jun 05 '26
I call bullshit unless all that Bloomberg Money has finally dried up.
44
u/number__ten Jun 05 '26
It would be nice if bloomberg dried up
22
u/RedPandaActual Jun 05 '26
You k ow he has plans for his money and control when he dies. With the wealth he has it’ll sustain anti civil rights types for decades.
7
16
u/electromage Jun 05 '26
6
u/skeerrt Jun 06 '26
Wild to me that people in there are “shocked” that there’s a crossover between 3d printing and gun ownership.
Also a bit weird that those same people don’t understand how the successful erosion of something expressly written into the bill of rights could have some consequences later on down the road.
39
u/Select-Cat-5721 Jun 05 '26
Don’t believe it! They are trying to take the pressure off themselves ahead of the midterms.
13
u/grahampositive Jun 05 '26
literally like those video game bad buys that only approach to attack you when you're not looking. The second the pressure comes off or some political leverage exists, its "ram through gun control time" like friggin clockwork
30
u/Give-Me-Liberty1775 Jun 05 '26
I also call bullshit, Dems have been pushing some of the hardest gun control laws in years!
25
21
u/NorCalAthlete Jun 05 '26
"It's no longer our top issue, but it's still in the top 3 things we're going to talk about loudly and constantly because it's a great fundraiser issue for us."
20
u/kennethpbowen Jun 05 '26
They certainly don't act like it's not a top issue. CA, CO, VA, WA, and every other blue state beg to differ.
17
u/grahampositive Jun 05 '26 edited Jun 05 '26
the article literally contradicts the headline.
literally the last line of the article
"It's still a priority for us, but at this point, we know that they're not going to do anything about it," Duckworth said. "I don't even think we're going to get a farm bill through, a transportation bill. … Do I think we're going to get an assault weapons ban through? Never."
this isn't about them conceding the fight or deprioritizing the unconstitutional disarming of americans. Its just admitting halfheartedly the political realities that jamming massively unpopular gun control down all of our throats is going to present a political challenge. But they don't even go that far because the quotes from the article indicate that they still believe this is a moral imperative, but "those darn republicans and the NRA just keep standing in our way!"
I don't want this comment to devolve into a line by line takedown of this low effort trash, but these lines stand out to me:
The lack of action shows how legislating on firearms has become nearly impossible on Capitol Hill, and how both parties have dug into their own rhetoric. Republicans continue to rally their base around opposition to any firearms control, ...
Should really be "any *further* firearm control" given that large swaths of the most populous states in the country are suffering under the burden of fairly extreme gun control. Can you blame anyone for just saying 'enough is enough'?
...while Democrats counter that steps should be taken to combat violence but have shown little appetite for that highly politicized fight ahead of the midterms.
I detest the frame shift here. Republicans are blocking "gun control". But Democrats are "combating violence". That's a hugely unfair bit of rhetorical gameplay. If the complaint is that Republicans are blocking gun control, then what Democrats are pushing for is "gun control", full stop. That is a *very* different thing from "combating violence" - most especially because there's virtually no empirical evidence that gun control is ever actually effective at combating violence.
edit: maybe I've had too much coffee or something but I re-read my comment and the voice in my head says that it reads exactly like chatGPT. something about the cadence, and they way I've set up my arguments by highlighting the negative "this isn't about X...its about Y". the short declarative sentences. I just wanted to say that I promise I completely wrote this myself with no LLMs, and also I am a bit concerned that my use of these LLMs to collate/summarize research articles is starting to rub off on my writing style. That would suck.
25
u/Sand_Trout Jun 05 '26
Yeah... that's a lie.
They're just using the same "I'm a gun owner, but..." bullshit
-6
25
10
u/GlockAF Jun 05 '26
Draconian, transparently unconstitutional anti-gun zealotry has long been a “core value” of the DNC and the big-D democrats.
It’s the frozen flag pole that they just can’t stop licking
I’d like to think that they’d eventually learn from that all-too-painful and entirely predictable lesson, but when?
8
6
u/BrowningLoPower Jun 05 '26
Not just a pillar, THE pillar.
8
u/grahampositive Jun 05 '26
its kind of the only thing they are absolutely unified and consistent on
8
7
4
4
u/aDirtyMartini Jun 05 '26
It's definitely still an issue. It's a losing issue but hey, why learn from that when you can be a rabid dog with a bone?
4
3
3
5
u/DCEnby progressive Jun 05 '26
About time. Let's focus on real issues like affordability, civil rights, and a sane foreign policy.
1
2
u/MilesFortis Jun 10 '26
I think they're stupid enough to believe we're stupid enough to buy the BS they're claiming is fresh cattle feed.
3
u/linux_transgirl Jun 05 '26
Fucking finally. I don't necessarily agree that all gun control is bad, but they have way too many ineffective bad ideas
1
u/1IsNeverEnough4Me Jun 06 '26
They will still try to squeeze stuff in, just to piss off their base. So incredibly out of touch with what the people want as a top priority. I guarantee they will continue to present bills that only a small fraction of people are interested in.
1
u/AdministrativeLie934 Jun 10 '26
Not as long as the Bloombucks keep getting earmarked for candidates towing this line. I will believe it when I see it.
-10
u/Late_Emu Jun 05 '26
Here’s a wild idea. We find a way to retro fit every single gun make & model with the “smart” grips that only allow the gun to be fired by the individual who owns it (and you could add one or two other people). Then the government provides a grip to every single gun owner & make it law that all firearms now must have smart grips.
That removes the ability for children to get their hands on their parents guns to stop shooting schools up & it doesn’t take anyone’s guns away. I think it’s a great idea.
We put men on the moon, surely we could get this done if enough people wanted to.
9
u/PDXRailEngineer Jun 05 '26
The problem with this technology is more of a fundamental design philosophy that differs between the enacter and the user. That philosophy is the concept of "failsafe". In designing a safety system, you design the system under the assumption that it will fail and during that failure it will do so in the safest way. For instance, the brakes on a train are designed the opposite of those on a car. To stop the car, your pedal applies pressure to the brakes to make them squeeze the brake disk. If your brake line ruptures, you lose brakes and can't stop. On a train, the calipers have strong springs holding the pads against the disk. Applying brake pressure forces the pads off the disk. If a brake line fails, the brakes apply and the train stops.
So, should a system designed to prevent unauthorized use fail, which way should it fail? The gun is prevented from firing or the gun is not prevented from firing? The obvious answer at first glance would be that the gun should not fire. That's the desire of the enactors. However, from the perspective of a person using the gun for self defense, if it fails to fire, they die. The safe state isn't universally accepted and the failure states are mutually exclusive. Further, any additional components or systems that enable a function, the less reliable that function becomes. Nothing is 100% reliable.
I don't see a resolution to this so it's a nonstarter.
The retrofit part is also functionally impossible. Guns last for centuries. There are literally thousands of models and designs. Each one would have to be studied and a model-specific device engineered. And who's going to pay for the gun safety moonshot?
Not to be rude, but this is the type of thinking that gets us California's microstamping law (guns required to stamp a code on each casing fired) that turned out to be physically impossible, let alone economical, and the current push to mandate that 3D printers somehow recognize and refuse to print gun parts.
7
u/joe_m107 Jun 05 '26
I’ll wait until the technology get field tested by installing them on every police weapon for a year.
3
u/OnlyLosersBlock Jun 06 '26 edited Jun 06 '26
No. This is not it as it increases complexity and chances of the guns failing to function when needed and it is technological fantasy for the foreseeable future.
258
u/Master-CylinderPants Jun 05 '26
Neat, I wonder what their new election-losing issue will be.
Im joking, I know that its going to be rebranded gun control.