Is anyone else reaching a breaking point?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Don't make the mistake of assuming that the Republican Party is monolithic and homogeneous.  There's a wide range of ideas and principles within the party and a constant struggle between the adherents of these ideologies.  

People constantly assume, wrongly, that when someone like McCain or Snow speaks, they're speaking for the entire party.  This is perhaps the single biggest misunderstanding people have of Republican politics.  You can't hold up the people like McCain or Snowe and ignore the people like Pence or Bachman.  You can't focus on GWB and ignore Reagan.  It's more complicated than that.  None of these voices speak for the whole, they are, at most, merely speaking for their own faction within the party.  Ascendancy of any given faction comes and goes, and the fact that one faction is speaking loudest at any given moment doesn't mean much of anything about the past of future of the party as a whole.

The ultimate goal is to have Republican Party control of government while at the same time having conservative control of the Republican Party.  Neither element on its own is enough, we need both, and we need them at the same time.  Any effort that maligns either of these elements is destructive and counterproductive, and impedes what I believe to be the only realistic mechanism we have for fixing our country.

[nigmalg]

I hope someone else heard the NPR "special" this evening.

It was 100% propaganda. I don't want to make that sound casual as we're often griping about such things. But this was absolute propaganda. Out of all of the specials on MSNBC, ABC, CNN, NY Times, etc.. that I've heard over the years; nothing approached this.

Let me sum up the arguments for banning "high-capacity magazines" from the experts they interviewed on the show, including of course pro-ban NRA members. (They like to get all sides of the story don't-cha-know)

• Cops don't even use "high-capacity" magazines (of course a lie)
• Civilians don't need "high-capacity" magazines for self defense (nor do we need a car traveling over 65 MPH; killing far more people)
• Most weapons held less than 10 rounds prior to the 1970s anyway (??)
• Most NRA members are perfectly fine with the ban (according to one carefully filtered NRA guest)
• McCarthy's husband was killed with a high-capacity magazine (15 round standard capacity)
• Of course police are exempt, as the life-saving qualities of high-capacity magazines only apply to government employees. Yet they "never use them"
• The argument that killers can simply bring 2 guns was dismissed as an "non-real world" example because it didn't happen in this last incident.
• No mention of the definition of standard capacity

McCarthy's bill will be introduced tomorrow attempting to ban the sale or transfer of magazines holding over 10 rounds. While the chances of it passing are remote, we absolutely cannot excuse NPR for that disgusting hit piece. How can they tease Fox News for bias (which has it coming in some cases) and let these guys off with a pass??

[Boomhauer]

Cops don't even use "high-capacity" magazines (of course a lie)

A fine example of doublespeak...for Cops, they are "standard capacity" mags. For civilians, they become high capacity mags.

The argument that killers can simply bring 2 guns was dismissed as an "non-real world" example because it didn't happen in this last incident

Yep, Cho at VT isn't a "real world example" of a killer bringing multiple guns.

[Tallpine]

In retrospect, I think that I reached the breaking point some time ago.

What is broken is my trust that anything in govt is any good, and my faith that working within the system can actually change anything for the better.

Not that I'm planning to do something radical "outside the system" but that I just don't care to be part of it anymore.  Sorta getting by out here on the fringes.

[Battle Monkey of Zardoz]

In retrospect, I think that I reached the breaking point some time ago.

What is broken is my trust that anything in govt is any good, and my faith that working within the system can actually change anything for the better.

Not that I'm planning to do something radical "outside the system" but that I just don't care to be part of it anymore.  Sorta getting by out here on the fringes.

Same place I'm at.

[longeyes]

Hearing this more and more from people I know.

[Perd Hapley]

Yep, Cho at VT isn't a "real world example" of a killer bringing multiple guns.

It seems like most of the mass murder nut-jobs bring multiple guns.

[seeker_two]

Same place I'm at.

Ditto....

[Monkeyleg]

It seems like most of the mass murder nut-jobs bring multiple guns.

Maybe they're just fans of Jim Cirillo and other NY cops.

[White Horseradish]

Don't make the mistake of assuming that the Republican Party is monolithic and homogeneous.  There's a wide range of ideas and principles within the party and a constant struggle between the adherents of these ideologies.  

I've heard this one before. I still don't get it. Isn't a party by definition a bunch of people with common ideas and principles? How are all those people with ideas and principals so different from the ones the party supposedly has still part of the party? And what is the point of a party without a common set of principles?

Ascendancy of any given faction comes and goes, and the fact that one faction is speaking loudest at any given moment doesn't mean much of anything about the past of future of the party as a whole.

I don't really care about the past or future of the party.  I'd like to know what this means to the future of the country.

The ultimate goal is to have Republican Party control of government while at the same time having conservative control of the Republican Party.  Neither element on its own is enough, we need both, and we need them at the same time.  Any effort that maligns either of these elements is destructive and counterproductive, and impedes what I believe to be the only realistic mechanism we have for fixing our country.

So, basically, if one does not have this same faith in  the party, one should STFU. Nice. Real nice.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I've heard this one before. I still don't get it. Isn't a party by definition a bunch of people with common ideas and principles? How are all those people with ideas and principals so different from the ones the party supposedly has still part of the party? And what is the point of a party without a common set of principles?

No, that's not the definition or purpose of a political party.  

A political party is an organization for influencing government, a tool for obtaining political power.  One need not be monolithic, and in fact, the nature of our system is such that they can't be particularly monolithic.  They must be as broad as possible, which leads all of the disparate political interests to coalesce into either of two parties.

The Democrat party certainly isn't homogeneous and uniform.  Do the unions have the same interests and ideologies as the feminists or the environmentalists?  Of course not.  Yet they still work together as part of the same party, because that's the way for them to achieve political power.

The Republican party is (or ought to be) the same way, disparate interests working together to achieve their various goals.  Problem is, none of our factions seem all that willing to work together.  We'd rather snipe at each other.

I don't really care about the past or future of the party.  I'd like to know what this means to the future of the country.

Fair enough.  I don't care if you know anything about the Republican Party and/or what it means for the country, so long as you're not spouting off about it.  

Now, if you're going to hold strong vocal opinions on matter, then I'd reasonably expect you to know a thing or two about it.  

If you're going to weigh in sensibly, one of the biggest things you'll need to understand about the Rep party is that it isn't now, never really has been, and probably can't eve become, truly uniform and monolithic.  See above.

The name of the game is to have the Republican party in control of government and to simultaneously have the conservative types in control the Republican party.  This is the route to small-government, liberty-minded political power.  This is the mechanism that allows us to fix things in our country.  As such, any effort that undermines either half of the equation is ultimately counterproductive, and you'll probably find me opposed to it.

So, basically, if one does not have this same faith in  the party, one should STFU. Nice. Real nice.

Go back and re-read what I said.  You seem to have missed the point here.