Spinoff from What are we doing wrong thread.

[MLeake]

JohnKSa, you have a point, and I generally agree with you.

However, with regards to attention spans and complacency, it was only last October/November that the mods here were all saying we have nothing to worry about, just look at recent SCOTUS decisions, etc.

Sometimes, the ban on political discussion on TFL effectively creates blinders.

A lot of us saw this type of thing coming, but that was not allowed for discussion here.

<<I moved these posts from another thread to this thread for further discussion. MLeake did not start this thread, it is here as a result of my actions. JohnKSa.>>

[JohnKSa]

However, with regards to attention spans and complacency, it was only last October/November that the mods here were all saying we have nothing to worry about, just look at recent SCOTUS decisions, etc.

Is this with respect to the possibility of anti-gun legislation being passed, or was this in response to the nth rerun of the email claiming that the U.N. was going to take our guns via treaty? There's a huge difference...

Sometimes, the ban on political discussion on TFL effectively creates blinders.

Realistically speaking, what important and practical aspect of how to react constructively to the possibility of anti-gun legislation has been hampered by the restriction on purely political discussions at TFL?

[MLeake]

JohnKSa, seriously? I've been around the forum for years; when have you known me to be part of the tinfoil-hat club? If I didn't think you were simply making a general point, I might be offended.

I was referring more to pointed posts from Mods, during the election cycle, when some of us pointed out that a lame-duck Obama was likely to prove very dangerous in terms of Executive Orders, bully pulpit leadership of Congress, executive branch and judicial appointments, and manipulation of the media. After all, he has nothing, personally, to lose in a political sense.

He's tried to appoint an extreme anti to head up ATF; he's trying to pressure medical and mental health care professionals to violate patient confidentiality as we have understood it; he and his organization are actively encouraging the shenanigans we have seen and will see in NY, CA, MA, NJ, CO, MN, etc....

This was all a very likely trend, as many of us saw it, but those of us who made those points were either pooh-pooh'ed or locked by the Mods.

I, for one, fully understand that the Constitution forbids ratification or enforcement of any treaty that violates the Constitution, so I am not one of the guys who fears the Blue Helmet takeover. OTOH, I also recognize that the MO of many of our political opponents is to pass laws of extremely questionable Constitutionality, in the expectation that the court process will take a long, long time, and require time and treasure from our side.

See, New York SAFE Act; see, also, Chicago's dragged-out responses post-MacDonald.

I understand the mods not wanting to have threads turn into Republican vs Democrat threads (though I personally have no use for either party, and am a Libertarian); nor Conservative vs Liberal. However, the extreme tendency to muffle or lock threads that are remotely political is, in my opinion, very counter-productive at times.

[JohnKSa]

I was referring more to pointed posts from Mods, during the election cycle, when some of us pointed out that a lame-duck Obama was likely to prove very dangerous in terms of Executive Orders, bully pulpit leadership of Congress, executive branch and judicial appointments, and manipulation of the media. After all, he has nothing, personally, to lose in a political sense.

He's tried to appoint an extreme anti to head up ATF; he's trying to pressure medical and mental health care professionals to violate patient confidentiality as we have understood it; he and his organization are actively encouraging the shenanigans we have seen and will see in NY, CA, MA, NJ, CO, MN, etc....

This was all a very likely trend, as many of us saw it, but those of us who made those points were either pooh-pooh'ed or locked by the Mods.

I will admit that I don't read every thread on TFL. If you can point me to a thread that was locked because of a reasoned discussion of a particular politician's demonstrated anti-gun record or statement, I'd appreciate it.

I don't believe it is against policy to make such statements or have such discussions--I guess I'd like to get things clarified as much as you would.

[Al Norris]

The facts are rather simple.

There was no reason to suspect that the world, as we knew it, would be turned upside down. Even after the election, Obama (and the usual suspects) did not have the political capital to seek any draconian legislation.

If this was not the political landscape, then why was nothing done after Giffords? Why not after Aurora? Or the Sikh Temple? Not only did the administration do nothing, the States were not overly concerned, either.

Sorry, but it was not the election or any of the above that gave the impetus to the current political atmosphere. The run on guns and ammo did not spike with any of those prior events.

The unfortunate event of Sandy Hook was the perfect catalyst. It could not have been foreseen, by you or by anyone else.

As far as trends go, until Obama had that catalyst, he could have done nothing. He had no political clout to further that part of his agenda. The single most pressing issue of the day was the deficit. It still is. But because of the incident in Connecticut, most everything else has been put aside for this final thrust of gun grabbing.

Tell me Morgan, did any of us see Cuomo coming? Even after Sandy Hook?

[musher]

If this was not the political landscape, then why was nothing done after Giffords? Why not after Aurora? Or the Sikh Temple? Not only did the administration do nothing, the States were not overly concerned, either.

Sorry, but it was not the election or any of the above that gave the impetus to the current political atmosphere. The run on guns and ammo did not spike with any of those prior events.

With all due respect and at the risk of derailing the topic here, I suggest that the fundamental difference between the events you cite and the Sandy Hook incident was in fact the election.

While Sandy Hook itself might not have been predictable, it was a near certainty that there would be some incident post-election. I for one, believe that the present dynamic would have followed that incident and that the aggressive push for gun control was a foreseeable outcome of the president's re-election.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I would disagree with that in part. While one can postulate that the election freed up antigun forces, one could easily argue that one would not want to enrage progun forces to produce another legislative debacle in 2014.

That people are so sure of this outcome is known as hindsight bias. Of course, I know this now.

I think more important was the killing of the little children. They were innocent and to be horribly factual - high value, upper class kids in a seemingly safe environment. That set off some well know heuristics of horror - don't kill kids, don't kill high value members of society. The continuing slaughter of ghetto kids doesn't bring such outrage.

That was the trigger for the latent antigun proposals to spring into action. It overwhelmed some political considerations. Harry Reid and supposedly behind the scenes some Democrats are bringing this up.

If Sandy Hook didn't happen - it probably would have been business as usual - little done. I agree with Al that no one could have foreseen a catalyst of this specific parameters.

The crucial time will be on the Federal level, if senators or reps who were strong RKBA folks and then switched - get voted out of office in 2014.

The public and politicians will also be stampeded by some horror that reaches a high enough level.

To speculate - let's say Lanza was Islamic and was taken alive. He proclaimed his act was for his religious cause. Would there be an AWB push? Probably not - the dynamic would change and some folks might be asking for Japanese WWII interment camps or intense registration of Muslims, etc. Some would say that they knew all along that this kind of terrorism would happen.

[musher]

Well it's true enough that without access to the multiverse and a tardis, we can't really know the pre-election likelihood of this outcome (a concerted push for gun control).

I did (and do) believe that new gun control was going to be a priority of a reelected administration given the dynamics I thought I saw in late 2012, and I expected some tragedy or other to be exploited as political leverage. That seems a more or less standard strategy used to advance gun control proposals.

If you believe the particulars of Sandy Hook are driving the push for gun control, then hindsight bias seems a reasonable conclusion. I agree with your point that changes in the details of this specific event might make it more or less "exploitable" so to speak. I disagree with you insofar as I believe the likelihood of some "exploitable" event occurring to approach 1 over a president's term.

I think the long term dynamics driving the political interest in gun control are independent of the Sandy Hook incident itself.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I agree that there was latent power to unleash a full attack on gun rights. Without a Tardis, we won't know if the current administration would have gone for it without Sandy Hook.

However, we should ban sonic screwdrivers.