GOP Congressman clueless about Surgeon General

[3point14]

And why do you think that the NRA has as much money as they have?

Again, unlike Bloomberg's group, it's because they're popular.



Again, not applicable to the current discussion. Bloomberg's group has plenty of money. What they don't have is as much support as the NRA.

You seem to be viewing this as a partisan thing. If 'they' do it and 'we' do it then it's okay. You keep pointing out that both 'sides' do it. I'm trying to point out that, regardless of which side does it, it not democratic, it's dollars for policy and that's not the way that the US political system is supposed to work, as I understand it.

Yes, both sides do it. doesn't make iright.

I thin it is relevant to the current discussion. We're discussing the influence of a lobby group in Washington, I think that widens out quite nicely to discussing lobbying. If you think it doesn't then you don't have to engage.

 

[fishbob]

You have no political voice then.

My refusal to associate with this particular group does not mean I have no political voice. My choice, and that of everybody else, is not limited to support of obstructionist whack jobs or being silent. There are other options.

 

[fishbob]

Because I don't want politicians to be independent of those they serve. The politician immune from political influence is one too close to being a king. You want some way to push them from outside their own sense of what ought to be done, some way to leverage the "they work for me" as more than a nice catchphrase. Independent thought and action is a recipe for inside the beltway insanity.

I very much want them to worry about money and getting reelected. In my view, this makes them responsive.

Responsive to who? Their constituents or their biggest contributors?
You know the answer to this one.

 

[fishbob]

Bloomberg's group is headed by one loon who thinks everyone should be disarmed unless they're rich or politically connected. The groups he funds largely through his personal funds have a tiny fraction of the members the NRA does, and in fact Bloomberg has to pay people to show up at his rallies. They even had to bus people in from out of state for a recent demonstration at a gun shop near Chicago.

Brady has far fewer members than even Bloomberg's astroturf groups.

To hold up a cabinet position you'd need both influence and a President who doesn't support your views. They are thin on the former and lacking on the latter.

Exactly my point.

 

[Ziggurat]

You seem to be viewing this as a partisan thing. If 'they' do it and 'we' do it then it's okay.

What exactly do you think "it" is? Be specific, please.

And an answer like "buying votes" isn't specific.

 

[3point14]

What exactly do you think "it" is? Be specific, please.

And an answer like "buying votes" isn't specific.

Lobbying

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

I swear NRA-generated ODS is responsible for more ammunition and firearms sales than the entire sporting goods industry.

Tidied up an inaccuracy I found. Previous version was unconfirmable but this one is clear.

 

[WildCat]

Universal background checks are extremely popular, but opposed by the NRA.

92% kind of popularity.

Maybe if they'd actually write a bill that really is just background checks, and not a back door registration scheme or a way to increase costs of firearms transactions it would get support. Also one that doesn't count trying out a friend's gun at a range, lending one to a friend to try out or use for hunting, or to simply inspect as a "transfer".

But so far none of the proposed bills do that. Do one that's free, anonymous, and applies only to sales and it would get more support.

 

[Mudcat]

Which is not a fallacy when talking about elections and democracy.

Maybe not, but the claim that NRA represents the will of the people is demonstrably wrong so it is a fallacy here.

Yeah, strange that. It's almost like I want government to reflect the will of the people.

Gun control has near universal support these days, along the lines of what I was talking about before. Yet the NRA steadfastly stands in the way of any kind of gun control, and stops it without fail. The NRA represent the will of the people in the same way that I represent the entirety of these message boards. In other words, they don't.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Why is the SG the best place to collect data? Isn't the FBI the more logical choice?

And why do you think epidemiology would be useful for this? Do you think murder is caused by a virus or something that is spread from person to person?

Ok statistics is clearly the wrong approach then. What do you actually suggest?

Epidemiology is about more than looking at spread of diseases, it looks at things like environmental impacts on cancer and so on.

Of course a lot of data is blocked from the FBI too. Can't have people looking into the wrong kind of thing, like police shootings or what ever.

 

[ponderingturtle]

You don't get it. The NRA's influence isn't solely or even primarily due to spending power. It's primarily due to the fact that their position is popular. Politicians are scared of the NRA because the NRA can marshal votes, because so many people agree with the NRA.

Exactly, despite what people try to say they are the voice of gun owners.

Of course it could be that they just vote the way the NRA wants even if they don't agree with it. They are great at propaganda after all.

 

[ponderingturtle]

My refusal to associate with this particular group does not mean I have no political voice. My choice, and that of everybody else, is not limited to support of obstructionist whack jobs or being silent. There are other options.

And they all make you politically irrelevant.

 

[Ziggurat]

Lobbying

If we confine ourselves to lobbying only, my position in this thread has nothing to do with whether it's right or wrong. My position in this thread is that the NRA's lobbying efforts are more successful than Bloomberg's because their position is more popular.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Maybe if they'd actually write a bill that really is just background checks, and not a back door registration scheme or a way to increase costs of firearms transactions it would get support. Also one that doesn't count trying out a friend's gun at a range, lending one to a friend to try out or use for hunting, or to simply inspect as a "transfer".

But so far none of the proposed bills do that. Do one that's free, anonymous, and applies only to sales and it would get more support.

So why don't any of the pro gun people do that? Because they know the NRA would crush them, and spin some aspect of it exactly like that. The devil is in the details after all, and the details of such a bill can always be spun so that it will make them look like horrible gun grabbers and mobilize the NRA base to vote against it. That base is much broader than actual membership, because they buy into the propaganda put out.

It is like of like how Obamacare had horrible numbers for its support but the actual provisions where all very popular.

 

[Ziggurat]

Epidemiology is about more than looking at spread of diseases, it looks at things like environmental impacts on cancer and so on.

Cancer is a disease. Not all diseases are infectious.

Homicide is not a disease. It is a crime.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Maybe not, but the claim that NRA represents the will of the people is demonstrably wrong so it is a fallacy here.

It might not represent them, but it can massively change how they vote.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Cancer is a disease. Not all diseases are infectious.

Homicide is not a disease. It is a crime.

Neither is suicide or accident, but I guess those deaths don't count.

 

[ponderingturtle]

If we confine ourselves to lobbying only, my position in this thread has nothing to do with whether it's right or wrong. My position in this thread is that the NRA's lobbying efforts are more successful than Bloomberg's because their position is more popular.

And then you have all the gun owners saying that no they really are not popular, they just effect how gun owners vote. It doesn't represent them just change who they vote for or something.

 

[Ziggurat]

Neither is suicide or accident, but I guess those deaths don't count.

Don't count as what? Disease? Quite correct, they don't.

 

[tyr_13]

Exactly, despite what people try to say they are the voice of gun owners.

No. You can assert this all you like, but all it actually is a smear against gun owners so you can hold anything the NRA does against all gun owners. It's dishonest and you should stop.

Of course it could be that they just vote the way the NRA wants even if they don't agree with it. They are great at propaganda after all.

You need to define 'votes the way the NRA wants'. Besides that, even if gun owners do vote for the people the NRA wants them to, doesn't mean they did because the NRA wants them to. Offer a better alternative. Gun control groups have not done that so far and the only places that get things like meaningful background checks are places that don't mind a whole lot of other stuff gun owners don't want thrown in and are not productive.

This is like when conservatives argue that people don't want to work because the government makes it too easy to not work, and deny that companies don't offer incentive to work. Gun owners aren't all spoken for by the NRA, gun control groups have simply not offered them enough reason to support them. That might make it appear that they all support the NRA, but that's not true.

Stop giving the NRA such good ammo. If you're going to damn gun owners as supporting the NRA anyway, then don't be surprised when some of them actually do start supporting them. Damned if they do, damned if they don't. You upset that 'gun owners don't stand up to the NRA'? I'm upset that gun control advocates don't stand up to the bad bills and unproductive crap the most powerful gun control groups advance. There is enough room in the middle that smearing people as being spoken for by the NRA or gun ban groups is disingenuous.