politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Look I don't disagree necessarily. I work in a hospital and my wife is the first response to tragedies like this as well. In the hospital we must simultaneously treat both root cause and symptoms. Firearms are a symptom of a deeper problem that, like shock or hemorrhagic bleeding, exacerbate whatever the original problem is. That being said, if we can reduce the number of people who slip through the cracks of society we can improve our outcomes just the same.
No doubt on the surface, cutting supply and taking firearms off the streets is likely the simpler route at addressing the symptom; that is, the average lethal effectiveness of a deranged person when they do slip through the cracks. But I'm trying to be pragmatic and avoid putting the cart before the horse because unfortunately there really is limited support for this and no budging in polling; and ultimately, Democrats tying themselves to this jeopordizes key parts of the electorate in order to win elections int he first place. So ultimately, I'd rather table this issue and soften the perception from centrists and conservatives in order to stop fascism. Then, we can utilize this as a launching point to address root causes: "Okay, you want to keep your 2nd Amendment... I get that. So let's compromise, let you keep that, and we work on universal healthcare, guaranteed therapy, reduction in work week hours, K-College publicly-funded education, etc."
Until the position of where the electorate is at moves, then we are simply stuck on this. If Sandy Hook and Uvalde didn't do it, then nothing will for some time. So conversely, let me know when there is legitimate shift in the electorate and perhaps then we can tackle this. Though I suspect that only comes with the passing of boomers. (and yes, we keep saying this. Unless you're 100-years-old, we're the same people still waiting for the same generation to die off...)
So you say that people like me make it harder to get democrats elected right? Tell me which is supposed to lead which, the party lead the people or the people lead the party?
There is no consensus opinion, which is why its avoided as its a lose-lose topic. Its a hardball as they say.
I would argue people like you, holding the compromising position you have, are what prevents the democratic party from taking this issue seriously. Politicians avoid ambiguous positions almost to a fault, so you adding to that is hurting the situation.
That depends... Are you still voting Democrat? Because there are people who if Harris came out strong on guns WOULDN'T and that might not put us over the edge. After all, you probably agree with let's say 70, 80, 90% of Democratic policy, but only 5, 10, 15% of Republican policy right? Strategic voting is necessary in our fucked up system.
Unfortunately you do not represent the broader electorate; for there is a large swath of conservative people who still love their guns, and at best it becomes zero sum. Ultimately, the more she leans into you, the more she distances herself from millions of Americans who like their guns.
So the key is to maintain an activist mindset and influence change in public opinion; only then will you see a change in candidate policy. But shooting yourself in the foot when the broader electorate isn't there only to have the party you agree with 5% of the time win...? That's just patently short-sighted because they'll take us several steps backwards.
So tell me when you have a magical plan to convince the majority of Americans who still believe in the 2nd Amendment to abandon it. And let me tell you: Sabotaging Democrats isn't a fucking plan. That's shooting yourself in the foot.