That position, he said, reflected in part “a false confidence that our community was above this, and that we could be in full control, among many other misjudgments.”

Representative Jared Golden of Maine, a centrist Democrat, called for a ban on assault weapons Thursday afternoon, reversing a long-held stance after 18 people were killed in a mass shooting in Lewiston.

It was both a remarkable change on a polarizing issue for a politician who has held onto one of the most competitive seats in the House and a familiar response for a person deeply shaken after a mass shooting happened close to home.

Mr. Golden, a Marine Corps veteran, has repeatedly broken with his party to oppose legislation that would ban assault weapons, a policy that Democrats have repeatedly tried and failed to revive in the nearly two decades since it lapsed. Last July, he was one of just five Democrats to oppose such a measure, which has failed to secure enough Republican votes in the Senate.

That position, Mr. Golden said on Thursday, reflected in part “a false confidence that our community was above this, and that we could be in full control, among many other misjudgments.”

  • spider@lemmy.nz
    6013·
    1 year ago

    reversing a long-held stance after 18 people were killed in a mass shooting in Lewiston

    How brave of him.

    • Veedem@lemmy.worldEnglish
      866·
      1 year ago

      I mean he changed his mind. That’s important and not something many people are willing to do publicly.

      • cybersandwich@lemmy.world
        183·
        1 year ago

        Criticism is fair, but Jesus. Do you want people to never change their minds? Even in the face of new evidence or experience.

        Comments like the one you replied to are what keep people dug-in

        • spider@lemmy.nz
          31·
          1 year ago

          Do you want people to never change their minds?

          Well, for starters I want people to stop taking my words out of context.

          I have no problem with Golden changing his mind.

          I do have a problem with him waiting too long.

          Sandy Hook happened over a decade ago, then Parkland five years later, then Uvalde last year. That should've been more than enough.

          • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
            3·
            1 year ago

            Yeah, this dude didn't grow or change his mind at all.

            His mindset was "Your problems don't matter to me." It's still the same as before. He only cares when people close to him are threatened.

            • theneverfox@pawb.socialEnglish
              12·
              1 year ago

              I think you're missing the actual motivation.

              Know what far more noteworthy thing happened recently? Republican leadership totally lost control of the party.

              If you're smart and know American political history, the writing is on the wall… The Republican party has gone from death-spiral to deathbed. The party is fragmenting, and the neoliberal Democrats are pretty far right…a new party is likely to form to the left, so if you're concerned with your long term political career, starting to brand yourself as sympathetic towards Democrat positions might be the play

              Or, being more charitable, the party line doesn't exist right now - maybe he has genuinely long held this position. The party leadership isn't going to excommunicate a congressman over one issue when they're struggling to elect a speaker… If he actually cares about the issue, this could be his first chance to actually advance the cause instead of giving up his political capital pointlessly.

              I'm inclined to not give politicians the benefit of the doubt, especially Republicans…I don't know the guy, but it seems to me like championing reform of such a charged issue would make him very relevant.

              It's certainly an opportunity, and it won't entirely alienate him from the Republican base, it just cuts off large sources of funding. But if he wins, he gets a shot at the throne