What's the main reason for gun control?

[dchang0]

I believe that most of them would yes, which is not to say that they don't believe in their cause, only that they are nothing more than panderers.

For the majority of them, all they know is politics. Elected office is the best job they have ever had, or ever will have. Lying, lining their own pockets, and ignoring reality is likely the only skills they will ever possess.

They will say or do anything to remain in office. Most of them would be in the welfare line or common petty criminals if they were not in office.

I agree with you.

However, I do think that politicians SHOULD be panderers. If they didn't listen to the voting public, then they wouldn't be good representatives of the will of the people, right?

The big problem as I see it is that many politicians choose to pander on hot-button issues that are not really what the voting public wants them to focus on.

For instance, the vast majority of both liberals and conservatives have REPEATEDLY said that their number one issue during the last 7 years is the economy, usually by wide margins.

And yet, you have politicians pushing through gun control bills and transgender bathroom laws (transgenders are a tiny percentage of all persons, and yet they get all this political representation) and so on, but very few actually push through economic bills that will actually work or are for the population at large (as opposed to a special interest group).

This is to some degree strange, because a guy like Kevin de Leon will get reelected in his district fairly reliably due to the nature of the district's population. So he doesn't really have to do the gun control grandstanding to win their votes. He could really just sit back and focus on mundane stuff and still win. He'd probably win even more strongly if he actually did what voters want, which is work on improving the local economy.


So right now, I'd have to vote "wedge issue" since pandering appears to be to a certain subset of voters that for whatever reason have more power/leverage than other groups and not to the voters at large, but I'd really rather choose "Most of the above."

[Duesenberg]

I agree with you.

However, I do think that politicians SHOULD be panderers. If they didn't listen to the voting public, then they wouldn't be good representatives of the will of the people, right?

The big problem as I see it is that many politicians choose to pander on hot-button issues that are not really what the voting public wants them to focus on.

For instance, the vast majority of both liberals and conservatives have REPEATEDLY said that their number one issue during the last 7 years is the economy, usually by wide margins.

And yet, you have politicians pushing through gun control bills and transgender bathroom laws (transgenders are a tiny percentage of all persons, and yet they get all this political representation) and so on, but very few actually push through economic bills that will actually work or are for the population at large (as opposed to a special interest group).

This is to some degree strange, because a guy like Kevin de Leon will get reelected in his district fairly reliably due to the nature of the district's population. So he doesn't really have to do the gun control grandstanding to win their votes. He could really just sit back and focus on mundane stuff and still win. He'd probably win even more strongly if he actually did what voters want, which is work on improving the local economy.


So right now, I'd have to vote "wedge issue" since pandering appears to be to a certain subset of voters that for whatever reason have more power/leverage than other groups and not to the voters at large, but I'd really rather choose "Most of the above."

de Leon is seeking recognition -- face time with the public. Were it not for his anti-gun shenanigans he wouldn't be known outside of his district. I'm not sure which political office he has his eyes on next, but you can bet the publicity (and even the notoriety) he's enjoying right now is driven by his own greed and ego and will facilitate his next election.

In the case of vermin like de Leon, I don't think he gives a damn about taking away all guns so that he and his brethren can rule with impunity -- which won't happen in his political career anyway. I think he cares about whatever is good for him and his wallet. I think he would flip sides on the gun debate in a heartbeat if it better facilitated his political ambitions.

[Unretarded]

FEAR,.......lack of understanding/education........looking to blame rather than fix/change....etc etc etc.