Time for Democrats to ditch gun control.

[Muse]

You are correct. I see no reason why fascist goons should be the only people armed in this country.

Yeah! Let's give 'em to the kids too. AR15's for the masses, subsidized by the gomint, ammo too. Hell yeah!

 

[repoman0]

Yeah! Let's give 'em to the kids too. AR15's for the masses, subsidized by the gomint, ammo too. Hell yeah!

You shot a 5.56mm sized hole in that straw man, nice work!

 

[GodisanAtheist]

I agree with the OP. Hell I'm more liberal than most and I cringe a bit when I hear some of my state reps con control rhetoric.

Dems don't need to completely abandon gun laws, but they need to adopt ole Clinton's abortion line "Safe, rare, and legal".

- Back off the bans and silly limitations (Magazine capacity, semi-auto bans, demonization of the Ar-15 platform).

-Back off the confiscation laws (guns removed if owner is reported)

-Focus on licensing, safe use, and proper maintenance training.

-Focus on proper storage and handling (gun lockers to store weapons).

As was mentioned, this is an issue a lot of Liberals/Moderates split with the party but vote for them in spite of it (anecdotal), while it is a single issue for many voters that lean right.

Lotta ways to skin this cat too beyond legislation. Use the Ad Council to do PSA's and the like,reassure people that the goal is keeping them safe,not taking their guns.

 

[soulcougher73]

I’d drop all gun related stuff besides background checks, until the dems have full control. then ram shit thru.

 

[theeedude]

Anyone reconsidering their position on this issue in light of recent events?

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

What do the Republicans have to give up?

Gun safety is favored by over 80% of people.

Most Republican policy positions don't get a majority approval yet they give up nothing??

The problem is scare tactics.

Repubs will push your gun control efforts as trying to take our guns.


Similar to health care, they will fear monger it as socialism.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Anyone reconsidering their position on this issue in light of recent events?

Which would be what? You think me having a gun is going to do a goddamn thing about getting Turmp out of office? You think that if the military does his wishes that me having a gun is going to accomplish anything? But you know what? If we'd had rational gun control before this, we wouldn't be worried that a bunch of Turmp supporters might try and enable a coup.

That thinking is in line with the person on here that tried to call people discussing gun control rapists, because a female friend of his that he claimed had been assaulted got into guns as a means of self defense, despite the fact that guns are actually used to enable rape far more than to prevent it.

And if you really think giving up on gun control is going to get the gun nuts on your side you're fucking delusional as Turmp is.

I agree with the OP. Hell I'm more liberal than most and I cringe a bit when I hear some of my state reps con control rhetoric.

Dems don't need to completely abandon gun laws, but they need to adopt ole Clinton's abortion line "Safe, rare, and legal".

- Back off the bans and silly limitations (Magazine capacity, semi-auto bans, demonization of the Ar-15 platform).

-Back off the confiscation laws (guns removed if owner is reported)

-Focus on licensing, safe use, and proper maintenance training.

-Focus on proper storage and handling (gun lockers to store weapons).

As was mentioned, this is an issue a lot of Liberals/Moderates split with the party but vote for them in spite of it (anecdotal), while it is a single issue for many voters that lean right.

Lotta ways to skin this cat too beyond legislation. Use the Ad Council to do PSA's and the like,reassure people that the goal is keeping them safe,not taking their guns.

Con control?

Er...you realize that was actually an incredibly fucked thing to say about abortion, right? It essentially was saying "we want it to be legal, but not really so that its rare". I hope you also realize that fundamentally does not work with the vocal gun nuts that are the reason, despite overwhelming support for more gun control, are preventing anything being done, right?

I hope you realize how all of those things came about. Police wanted the magazine capacity and fire rate based bans. The Democrats didn't demonize the AR-15, they merely responded to how it was fetishized by gun nuts due to its similarities to military gear (which was intentional, and started because that's how gun makers marketed it).

Uh, so you're saying that abusers shouldn't have their guns confiscated and instead just have to take a gun safety course? Its not like guns get confiscated for no good reason. Frankly this is probably the single most absurd thing you are pushing for. And in my experience, is totally opposite of what everyone but gun nuts support. Further, there's been multiple situations where that not being done enabled murders. If I'm not mistaken the family of the guy that shotup the Florida high school begged the police to take his guns and they wouldn't. And there's quite a few domestic violence cases that ended in murder because there either weren't laws or weren't used to take guns away from the abuser.

You do realize that gun companies (and gun nuts) are not in favor of that, right? I actually had to outright laugh at your maintenance mention as that's basically not the cause of what any of the gun deaths that people are actually concerned about.

Ditto.

Who mentioned it and where is the data? Oh, so its just you claiming it? Because my anecdotes doesn't jive with that at all.

Hell, the Democrats could do a complete turn and say they're going to give every American citizen a fully auto M-16 for free and 1000 rounds of ammo, and if you think that's going to change how any of the gun nuts will vote I don't know what to tell you. It would sure as shit get a lot of people to stop voting for Democrats though, but even them going "no guns are fine, we don't care any more, just be safe and don't shoot other people haha" would have largely the same affect. Americans by and large support stricter gun control. I think you guys are grossly overstating the impact that would have.

 

[Puffnstuff]

I am also of the opinion that 2A is just as important to me and mine as it is to the deplorables!

 

[ch33zw1z]

I have one acquaintance that single issue voted for Trump because Biden wants to take the guns. I asked where said person got that info, and he said the Biden website. This was on the back end of a conversation about my states strict gun laws are sensible and it's a big reason we have low guns deaths per capita. I reviewed Bidens website for gun ideas, and it basically mirrors much of MA's laws, plus buy back programs. Seems sensible to me, but with #MoscowMitch at the helm, not gonna happen. He's got piles of legislation not even looked at.aybe Americans will wise up and start electing even R's that actually want cooperation. Dare to dream

 

[Torn Mind]

Well, I am about 30 miles from a supposed heaven of Democratic control. Baltimore City. Not too many locales vote 90-10 Democrat, now do they? And populated with an African-American majority, and surrounded by counties with similar pro-Democrat tendencies.
Maryland has strict guns laws. There are no Republicans in Baltimore City.
People still kill each other there.

You can pass a national law. But then again, what mass shooting are they stopping if some cornfield owner suddenly has to apply for a license for new guns? Protecting the trees around him and his own personal property?

The federal government usually creates laws that bring in bare minimum standard, making "laggers" come into compliance. But states that have already committed laws that are substantially tighter than the federal standard should have everything a-ok, especially localities with no red power at all.

Here's the deal with "laws". Government is not all-seeing. It is reactive, needing someone to observe a problem, report, and then hope the authorities actually have the will to do anything.

In simple terms, in practice, everyone actually CAN kill someone else. It's just a matter of how able and willing the person is able to avoid leaving evidence to get caught or kill themselves after doing the deed. Then if the kill is noticed, that's when some level of investigation occurs from law enforcement.

The Madden shooting is one such instance that even putting in a strict and tedious process to obtaining a gun does not mean someone with a will to kill can be stopped once he passes the obstructions. He bought his guns in the aforementioned haven and heaven of Baltimore City and took them to Jacksonville.

In addition, these laws have to be enforced by local law enforcement, and thus such laws empower law enforcement to look in places they were previously not allowed to...if their state has lax policies, such as Kentucky.

 

[Muse]

Which would be what? You think me having a gun is going to do a goddamn thing about getting Turmp out of office? You think that if the military does his wishes that me having a gun is going to accomplish anything? But you know what? If we'd had rational gun control before this, we wouldn't be worried that a bunch of Turmp supporters might try and enable a coup.

That thinking is in line with the person on here that tried to call people discussing gun control rapists, because a female friend of his that he claimed had been assaulted got into guns as a means of self defense, despite the fact that guns are actually used to enable rape far more than to prevent it.

And if you really think giving up on gun control is going to get the gun nuts on your side you're fucking delusional as Turmp is.



Con control?

Er...you realize that was actually an incredibly fucked thing to say about abortion, right? It essentially was saying "we want it to be legal, but not really so that its rare". I hope you also realize that fundamentally does not work with the vocal gun nuts that are the reason, despite overwhelming support for more gun control, are preventing anything being done, right?

I hope you realize how all of those things came about. Police wanted the magazine capacity and fire rate based bans. The Democrats didn't demonize the AR-15, they merely responded to how it was fetishized by gun nuts due to its similarities to military gear (which was intentional, and started because that's how gun makers marketed it).

Uh, so you're saying that abusers shouldn't have their guns confiscated and instead just have to take a gun safety course? Its not like guns get confiscated for no good reason. Frankly this is probably the single most absurd thing you are pushing for. And in my experience, is totally opposite of what everyone but gun nuts support. Further, there's been multiple situations where that not being done enabled murders. If I'm not mistaken the family of the guy that shotup the Florida high school begged the police to take his guns and they wouldn't. And there's quite a few domestic violence cases that ended in murder because there either weren't laws or weren't used to take guns away from the abuser.

You do realize that gun companies (and gun nuts) are not in favor of that, right? I actually had to outright laugh at your maintenance mention as that's basically not the cause of what any of the gun deaths that people are actually concerned about.

Ditto.

Who mentioned it and where is the data? Oh, so its just you claiming it? Because my anecdotes doesn't jive with that at all.

Hell, the Democrats could do a complete turn and say they're going to give every American citizen a fully auto M-16 for free and 1000 rounds of ammo, and if you think that's going to change how any of the gun nuts will vote I don't know what to tell you. It would sure as shit get a lot of people to stop voting for Democrats though, but even them going "no guns are fine, we don't care any more, just be safe and don't shoot other people haha" would have largely the same affect. Americans by and large support stricter gun control. I think you guys are grossly overstating the impact that would have.

Gun advocates are (we all know, that is the sane among us) unable to discuss gun control rationally or honestly. The blinders are on firmly. I don't have a gun (well, I have a one shot pump up pellet gun, no gun powder involved). My tool of choice in dealing with the gun violence epidemic in America is to use my imagination. There's nothing in life more useful.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Gun advocates are (we all know, that is the sane among us) unable to discuss gun control rationally or honestly. The blinders are on firmly. I don't have a gun (well, I have a one shot pump up pellet gun, no gun powder involved). My tool of choice in dealing with the gun violence epidemic in America is to use my imagination. There's nothing in life more useful.

Were unable to discuss gun control rationally because moronic yuppies such as yourself live in a crowded city and don't understand the concept of hunting or having it as a hobby in general. You don't have the land-space needed for that unless you travel far out - which obviously isn't feasible.

In addition there is still plenty of continued moronic arguments like "HUR DUR assault weapons" which make up ~1% or less of total gun-related deaths.

Come to the table with very specific tightening of background checks - not just broad generalizations - and the majority of the US (80%+) are in agreeance.



Even Bernie fucking Sanders was reluctant to take part in the gun-control debate because where he is from in Vermont there IS actual lots of open land-space and not just crowded urban cities.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Were unable to discuss gun control rationally because moronic yuppies such as yourself live in a crowded city and don't understand the concept of hunting or having it as a hobby in general. You don't have the land-space needed for that unless you travel far out - which obviously isn't feasible.

In addition there is still plenty of continued moronic arguments like "HUR DUR assault weapons" which make up ~1% or less of total gun-related deaths.

Come to the table with very specific tightening of background checks - not just broad generalizations - and the majority of the US (80%+) are in agreeance.



Even Bernie fucking Sanders was reluctant to take part in the gun-control debate because where he is from in Vermont there IS actual lots of open land-space and not just crowded urban cities.

so how would further gun legislation prevent you, or anyone else, from hunting?

and as far as assault weapons, a) i do think the classification is silly b) politicians use model-type bans, which always result in loopholes

but let's examine ye-olde risk matrix. you have low frequency events with catastrophic severity - those are high risk. you also have high frequency events with moderate to critical severity. also considered risky.
mass-shootings are the former. "run of the mill" gun violence is the latter. there's no reason you can't address both (and in the risk world, you very much do).

i own guns - even did my own 80% build, and i used to be very very pro 2A. now, i believe we absolutely can and should tighten up our laws. this Onion headline gets old.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

so how would further gun legislation prevent you, or anyone else, from hunting?

and as far as assault weapons, a) i do think the classification is silly b) politicians use model-type bans, which always result in loopholes

but let's examine ye-olde risk matrix. you have low frequency events with catastrophic severity - those are high risk. you also have high frequency events with moderate to critical severity. also considered risky.
mass-shootings are the former. "run of the mill" gun violence is the latter. there's no reason you can't address both (and in the risk world, you very much do).

i own guns - even did my own 80% build, and i used to be very very pro 2A. now, i believe we absolutely can and should tighten up our laws. this Onion headline gets old.

I'm in agreeance, but come to the table with ACTUAL specific rules to put in place.

Not just bland general statements "should tighten up our laws". I would also come to the table with specifics of HOW such rules could directly relate to the safety of cities that have lots of illegal gun use instead of giving the image of being against rule-following types.

GodisanAtheist's post below did a good job of starting to scratch the surface of that:

I agree with the OP. Hell I'm more liberal than most and I cringe a bit when I hear some of my state reps con control rhetoric.

Dems don't need to completely abandon gun laws, but they need to adopt ole Clinton's abortion line "Safe, rare, and legal".

- Back off the bans and silly limitations (Magazine capacity, semi-auto bans, demonization of the Ar-15 platform).

-Back off the confiscation laws (guns removed if owner is reported)

-Focus on licensing, safe use, and proper maintenance training.

-Focus on proper storage and handling (gun lockers to store weapons).

As was mentioned, this is an issue a lot of Liberals/Moderates split with the party but vote for them in spite of it (anecdotal), while it is a single issue for many voters that lean right.

Lotta ways to skin this cat too beyond legislation. Use the Ad Council to do PSA's and the like,reassure people that the goal is keeping them safe,not taking their guns.

 

[fskimospy]

Were unable to discuss gun control rationally because moronic yuppies such as yourself live in a crowded city and don't understand the concept of hunting or having it as a hobby in general. You don't have the land-space needed for that unless you travel far out - which obviously isn't feasible.

In addition there is still plenty of continued moronic arguments like "HUR DUR assault weapons" which make up ~1% or less of total gun-related deaths.

Come to the table with very specific tightening of background checks - not just broad generalizations - and the majority of the US (80%+) are in agreeance.

Even Bernie fucking Sanders was reluctant to take part in the gun-control debate because where he is from in Vermont there IS actual lots of open land-space and not just crowded urban cities.

You do realize that Republicans have already defeated numerous attempts to establish universal background checks, right?

Also I literally laughed when I read the part where you argued against gun control because people like having them as a hobby. Who gives a fuck what their hobbies are.

 

[Fenixgoon]

I'm in agreeance, but come to the table with ACTUAL specific rules to put in place.

Not just bland general statements "should tighten up our laws". I would also come to the table with specifics of HOW such rules could directly relate to the safety of cities that have lots of illegal gun use instead of giving the image of being against rule-following types.

GodisanAtheist's post below did a good job of starting to scratch the surface of that:

My personal take? Ban/buy back all semi auto firearms, period.

 

[repoman0]

My personal take? Ban/buy back all semi auto firearms, period.

It always seemed to me that revolvers, bolt action rifles and shotguns pretty much cover any legitimate use case for guns.

Great way to lose a fuckton of votes though and stay out of power for a decade or longer, because America.

 

[Fenixgoon]

It always seemed to me that revolvers, bolt action rifles and shotguns pretty much cover any legitimate use case for guns.

Great way to lose a fuckton of votes though and stay out of power for a decade or longer, because America.

Never said it was politically feasible or smart 😉