Quote (Santara @ May 9 2013 12:41pm)
The fuck if you aren't. Gun control is a prime example. The public (erroneously) perceives a major threat due to guns, and the Democrats can't fall over themselves fast enough to do something (wholly ineffectual at that) about it. Then along comes people like you, with your "data-driven findings" (your precious polls) telling your masters the public wants something done, whether it's right or not. You're a useful idiot.
See: saying something over and over again doesn't make it true. Officeholders are expected to give their electorate what they want. I don't know what's so difficult about that notion that your pea brain doesn't understand, it should be straightforward. The threat of gun violence is real and the fact that it's reduced over time is really irrelevant in the face of people still wanting to reduce it even more. People are tired of seeing theaters and temples and schools being shot up, and that says nothing about all the street corners where they can get blown away. Violence has been reduced, and the electorate wants it to be reduced even more. Amusingly this parallels the budgetary issue of deficit reduction. The electorate mistakenly feels that the deficit has gotten larger over time (including the vast majority of the retarded right that's foaming at the mouth over "out of control spending"), when in reality it's only gotten smaller during Obama's term. What is the weight of their mistaken belief when measured against their desire to see it go down even more? I won't waste the time responding to your statement that legislation has been ineffectual since, you know, that assessment has been proven to be false
repeatedly.
Nothing has changed here: you can argue that gun violence reform is "wrong" until you're blue in the face, it's majority rules in this country. You need to actually make the case so that your position becomes the majority, or you need to illustrate that your constitutional rights are being infringed upon. Up to this point you've failed spectacularly to create a majority position (and by you I mean anti-reform crybabies), and the argument that rights are being infringed is a difficult one (if not impossible) when the greatest advocate of the second amendment that the Supreme Court has ever seen in a justice is in agreeance that reform is not inherently infringing on rights.
The public wants to do something. That's just reality, and it doesn't matter how much it hurts your feelings if the only thing you can offer to change the will of the electorate is a few random cries about it being "wrong" that you can't back up substantively. A lot of people said it was wrong that people in same-sex relationships couldn't get married when they were failing to illustrate how their rights were being infringed upon, and they had to go about making their case so that their position would become the majority even if the courts didn't back them. Until you can actually make good on all the crying, nothing's really going to change here.