Home > Critical Thinking, Current Affairs, Dystopia, Musings, Reason, Secular Religions, Skepticism > On the Democratic Party’s Unfortunate Obsession with Gun Control

On the Democratic Party’s Unfortunate Obsession with Gun Control

A few months ago, I wrote a short series enumerating the many reasons why the democratic party, in its current form, has no worthwhile future. Some reasons, such as the nature of their core support base and institutional inertia, are systemic in nature. Others, like their obsession with promoting certain allegedly “social causes”, are a cover for the neo-liberal policies promoted by them. But a few do not fall neatly into either of these two categories. One of the best example from this category is the obsession of the democratic party establishment with implementing severely punitive gun control policies.

As some of my regular readers might remember, I have written many posts on why attempts at tight gun control are unworkable, futile and likely to backfire in more ways than at the ballot box. The very short version of those posts is that deaths due to guns in USA are largely the result of socio-economic factors (suicide, financial problems, lack of job security) and explicit government policies (“war on drugs”, abandoning poorer areas). To make a long story short, attempts at stricter gun control do not address the far larger and much more dangerous underlying systemic issues which drive the relatively high incidence of deaths by guns in USA.

However, time after time, we have seen the democratic party establishment try to use every newsworthy shooting to push for stricter gun regulations. Of course, we have also seen the democratic party lose election after election in many areas of the country during that period. As it stands today, the democratic party does not have control of any elected branch of the federal government and almost 2/3rds of state governments. The democratic party of today is so weak and impotent on the national stage that they cannot even properly exploit the ongoing train-wreck of the Trump presidency, which would otherwise be a god-send to a marginally competent opposition party.

Of course, there are many reasons why the democratic party has been on a downward path since the mid-1990s. Firstly, their embrace of neo-liberalism and its policies such as “free trade” and laissez-faire regulation of corporations which started during the Clinton era have antagonized a significant part of the population, especially in non-coastal states. Secondly, the leadership (and top cadre) of democratic party is full of people who either got in during the 1960s-1980s or are ivy-league credentialed C-grade actors who look ridiculous and phony in 2017. They would rather hold on to their premium berths on the ‘Titanic’ than change course and avoid the iceberg.

But none of this provides a satisfactory answer for why establishment democrats are anti-2nd amendment. I mean.. wouldn’t a political party in semi-permanent political wilderness prefer its supporters to be armed than not? Also, it is fairly well-known that taking an anti-gun stand was a factor in them losing the 2000, 20004 and 2016 presidential election- in addition to many more at the states level. So why persist in pushing a cause that does not make sense from the viewpoint of winning elections? And let us clear about something- politicians, regardless of their party affiliations and stated ideologies, are in to win power. Some are more corrupt and easily bought than others but basically all politicians compromise on their beliefs.

So how can you account for establishment democrats repeatedly pushing an electorally bad ideology? One theory I have seen being floated is that democrats think that decrease in overall rates of gun ownership will somehow translate into future success of their campaign to criminalize civilian ownership of firearms. While that might sound like a nice story, ground reality as measured by sales of guns and relaxation of rules and regulations surrounding gun ownership since 1994 suggest otherwise. It appears, then, that the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 was the high point of democratic success in legislating for greater gun control. It has been downhill for them since then.

Another theory, I have heard, suggests that the establishment democrat obsession with gun control is linked to institutional stagnation within the party. There is some truth to the idea that political parties whose establishment is led by people who are mentally in the 1980s and 1990s might try to maintain what they believe to be the status quo and keep pressing for more bad policies, especially if their positions within the organisation are secure from competition. But that does not explain why the somewhat younger establishment types (Corey Booker, Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand etc) in that party are still pushing such disastrous ideas.

Well.. I have a theory that can explain the obsession of democrats with gun control. You see, it comes down to appealing to their core base of supporters and volunteers- to be more specific, the credentialed professional class. As I have said in some of previous posts, a lot of the odd behavior displayed by democratic party makes sense once you realize that its most important non-corporate supporters are people who owe their well-compensated livelihood to credentials obtained from “famous” educational institutions. It is also no secret that most of those who work for or volunteer at higher levels in that party have such socio-economic backgrounds.

But why would that translate into support for gun control? Why would such a socio-economic group, or class, be interested in gun control? Let me try to explain it in the nicest possible language.. never mind- because they are greedy and insecure parasites. The credentialed class (especially in USA) derives its income, livelihood and social status from thievery and extortion through law and rules. That is why doctors in USA makes much more money than other developed countries while not being any better than them. That is why tenured professors at large “famous” universities in USA can make so much extra money though side projects. That is why pretty much any credentialed or licensed professional makes more in USA than other developed countries.

The degree of parasitism displayed by the credentialed professional classes in USA is second only to outright legalized theft and extortion practiced by corporate entities. But why then are corporations not especially interested in gun control? Why the professional class but not corporations? The answer to that is simple- because corporations already have the full might of the state behind them. Credentialed professionals, on the other hand, are in that peculiar zone where they are visibly doing better than others in a rapidly impoverishing society but lack any special protection by the state. In other words, they can feel (if only on a subconscious level) that they will become targets for popular rage if the proverbial shit hits the fan.

And that is why the credentialed professional class, which is the 2nd most important constituency for democrats as well as the source of most of their party establishment cadre want to disarm “less deserving” poorer people. Parasites, you see, prefer hosts who are unable to stop the party. Credentialed professionals perceive the widespread ownership of guns as a threat to their cushy livelihoods which depend on theft and extortion via laws and regulations. However, unlike corporations, they are not powerful or singularly important enough to get special protection by the state.

Attempting to ban widespread ownership of guns, then, appears to be the second best option. And that is why the democratic establishment keeps on pursuing a policy that has brought it repeated electoral failure in parts of the country that are not New York or California. On a side note, I do not think that their obsession with gun control is going to change even if they perform poorly in the 2018 and 2020 elections. As long as they can still win a few coastal states, they will keep shooting themselves in the foot.

What do you think? Comments?

  1. August 26, 2017 at 5:24 pm


    and that is why I am always amused when black people support gun control.

    • August 28, 2017 at 5:37 pm

      AD, you’re not the only one. Most of this invalid social programming stems from religion, BRP (black respectability politics” and irresponsible MFs who either engage in black-on-black crime (because they are to scared and powerless to do it to their REAL rivals), or those who idiotically leave guns around children…

  2. August 26, 2017 at 5:25 pm

  3. August 26, 2017 at 5:31 pm
  4. Dick
    August 27, 2017 at 2:33 am

    “they [ the credentialed professional classes] are greedy and insecure parasites”

    Does this in your view also include the ones with degrees in engineering and/or computer science? That would be interesting because I see them whining on the internet about how they busted their asses for years in college and are then forced to pay taxes for a welfare system that prevents children from dying of starvation in the streets. This doesn’t exactly fit the typical liberal stance, it’s much more a libertarian tough guy mindset.

    Yes. Most of them are no better than the credentialed managerial and professional class.

    • Anon1
      August 27, 2017 at 9:02 am

      The liberal elite response to proposed higher taxes on the rich is almost identical to that of techbro libertarians. Two two groups aren’t very different where it matters.

      Is that really surprising? Look at the broader processes responsible for their wealth, not what they claim to believe.

    • Thegenius
      August 28, 2017 at 1:22 am

      Enginners ( i think computer scientists too ) are notorious for holding socially conservative or libertarian views. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/magazine/12FOB-IdeaLab-t.html

  5. August 27, 2017 at 3:25 am

    Democrats can’t hope to take advantage of events until they have some kind of coherent alternative to offer. All the accusations and screaming will get them nothing until they do. We both know they won’t do what they obviously need to do: adopt more progressive policies and leaders that actually have popular appeal. Neither establishment types, nor minorities want to do this because that base is single-mindedly obsessed with revenge along lines of ethnicity and class. The dem base believed they were the core of a new inevitable ruling order and culmination of the 1960s cultural revolution in a golden age of progress and tolerance. Defeat at what they thought was their ultimate moment of triumph shattered their collective sanity. They cannot accept that their ideology does not match reality.
    Dems have made themselves so irrelevant that the GOP coalition is free now to split up based on its differences. We are seeing an establishment/populist split right now.
    For all intents and purpose the typical political spectrum doesn’t matter that much any more with McCain and Pelosi effectively on the same side. Democrats will be assimilated into/become a larger coalition of optimates, professionals, single women, and minorities.
    Bernie Bros will as usual be left in the cold until they realize they more closely align with the populist coalition.

    As for stupid gun initiatives, it’s also because dem constituencies are mostly urban. Credentialed professionals vote alongside urban minorities but also fear their violence at least as much as they do rednecks out in the countryside. And, as I have written recently, pointless spite motivated by status insecurity can’t be underestimated as a cause. The famous Obama quote about “clinging to guns and religion” says it all.

  6. webej
    August 27, 2017 at 5:26 am

    I have found the flattest of all possible learning curves is guaranteed by the combination of conceit and fear: People who think of something as beneath them, but are at the same time terrified that they will be appear awkward or inadequate when engaging. Think of the goodest student who is useless in school yard fights. Or the creditialed elderly professor confronted by having to use computers instead of relying secretaries and assistants. The same applies here: the creditialed class thinks of gun violence and personal defence as beneath their station, but is also very afraid of being inept and inadequate about defending themselves.

  7. August 27, 2017 at 8:20 pm

    kind of random, but I figure this would crack you up:


  8. Thegenius
    August 28, 2017 at 3:26 am

    Today’s stock market bubble is similar to the roaring 20s bubble that led to the great depression, but much more extreme


  9. Libertarians are subhumans
    August 28, 2017 at 8:25 pm

    Hi AD,lately i’ve watched many videos of Chomsky speeches,they were all good,but then i’ve found out what he thinks of porn.
    Since you’ve already writeen about porn stating that it replaces unsatisfying relationship with mean and nagging women,i’d like to hear what you think of this.

    Oh and for good measure here’s what Slavoj Zizek thinks of porn.

    • Anon1
      August 29, 2017 at 1:45 pm

      I don’t get what this obsession with porn is, on both the far right and far left. Almost all porn I’ve seen is just two people engaging in a (highly contrived) sexual act. How is it violent and degrading to women? Last I heard the male actors get paid a lot less and have to take vVagra or meth just to keep their dick up during the scenes.

      • P Ray
        August 31, 2017 at 3:11 am

        It’s “violent and degrading to women”, because …
        the men that the women are with are NOT the men the women are actually attracted to.
        The men that the women are with, are the guys who compensate her with money since they are not the men that women are actually attracted to.
        Women demand very little to stay with the guy they like. The emphasis on “ability to provide” is because women want to buy things, but the guy that is primally attractive to women is not necessarily rich … so the women go “alpha fucks beta bucks”.
        Now, pornography is “violent and degrading to women”, because these men who the women “settle for”, if they come to understand that they are the woman’s last choice … those men might actually say “why don’t you perform a pornstar act on me”? And be very disappointed or maybe even cut off her money if she says “no”. But she did all those things on the guy she really liked.
        That is the reason pornography is called “violent and degrading to women” – because regular/ugly guys are expected to only want vanilla “dead starfish” sex, because how dare a regular/ugly guy that provides her money, have any expectation of the sex she gave the attractive guy?
        Plus, her providing such good sex … will diminish her memories of servicing Chad Thundercock.
        The woman who is a prude … is merely the prude to the guy she doesn’t find attractive; she is a pornstar to the guy she does find attractive.
        And that is why pornography is “violent and degrading to women” – because it gives regular/ugly guys expectations of sex, from a woman who wants to be supported financially for life, but does a dead starfish impression with the guy she says she “loves”.

      • P Ray
        September 1, 2017 at 4:45 am

        This image, from the (now-deleted) Red Pill Comics, sums it up:
        Woman A: I don’t really like giving blowjobs, honey (despite giving it to Chad previously)
        Woman B: I’m just not really a sexual person, okay? Shit. (despite giving it to Chad previously).
        Seems like women “respect” the guys they love, by giving him LESS sex than Chad Thundercock.

      • P Ray
        May 29, 2019 at 7:26 pm

        And a supporting comment:
        [–]**** 3 points 5 hours ago
        I do realize it. Why shouldn’t I know how many men a woman slept with? If there’s video I wanna see it. You can tell a lot about a man or woman by watching their porn. The biggest being is if they are really into you. When you see that fiance being bent over 6 ways from Sunday by Chad 10 years ago while she’s done nothing but give you starfish sex with gritted teeth, it will help men avoid a lot of otherwise inevitable divorces. Oh and you ever think about maybe only sleeping with the person you’re married to? Then you could record all you want and never worry about revenge porn.

        My comment? A lot of countries that ban porn … don’t ban female romance novels. So those countries are misandric (hate men). A country can be misandric even if men are the majority of the leaders, because it is how the guy at the bottom is treated that tells you how most men will get treated.

        Many of those countries are also the countries many people consider as traditional.
        If I was a betting man I would say the countries with legal prostitution have women who are forced to be more reasonable.

    • Libertarians are superhumans
      August 31, 2017 at 3:00 am

      ” i’ve watched many videos of Chomsky speeches”

      This is your problem.

      Oh, and nobody cares what some dirty, filthy, and senile old communists have to say about porn.

  10. Libertarians are subhumans
    August 28, 2017 at 8:32 pm

  11. Rum
    September 7, 2017 at 4:21 pm

    Dems/Lib-Progs fundamentally believe that mobs should rule. Or at least serve the interests of the rulers (Lib/Progs, naturally). Therefore, the idea that the target of a mob could deal with a mob causes them soul-pain. That is why the Lib Progs hate the idea of any citizen having access to anything that can shoot more than 2 or 3 times.

  1. September 6, 2017 at 5:01 pm
  2. February 22, 2018 at 6:17 pm
  3. March 17, 2018 at 10:15 am
  4. March 25, 2018 at 9:11 am
  5. November 18, 2018 at 8:58 pm
  6. March 27, 2019 at 5:49 pm
  7. April 9, 2019 at 5:24 pm
  8. July 2, 2019 at 6:08 pm
  9. August 31, 2019 at 10:10 pm
  10. September 20, 2019 at 5:31 pm
  11. September 27, 2019 at 4:03 pm
  12. October 19, 2019 at 10:43 am
  13. December 8, 2019 at 9:37 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: