46
Yes we do. I know guns are unpopular here, but Democrats could never lose another election again if they'd give up on trying to disarm the public.
That's bullpucky. Trump is not pro-2A, and the bump-stock extension was passed under his administration. As with most things, his position is vague, but mostly catering to monied special interests, as evidenced by how his administration approached 3D printing (the gun industry can't make money if people can print their own guns at home). In any case, he's certainly not been a vocal 2A defendant, it doesn't come up in his rhetorical rants, and his record while in office was wishy-washy at best. This hasn't made a single iota of difference to his base.
2A is a key issue for many people, but it's specious to claim it's the issue that's deciding a large number of flippable votes. NRA symbols are usually stuck next to a Confederate flag sticker, and that tells you all you need to know about that topic.
2A single issue voters arent necessarily voting for Republicans more so against Democrats running on a platforms of gun control, at least with presidential elections.
And it's not just about flipping votes by driving turn out. A stance like Harris had of AW ban via executive order would ensure those single issue voters show up and vote for the opposition.
I agree with the comment above on strategy. I don't think pro gun control voters are going to ditch Team Blue over it either. It's definitely a flaw with the two party system, but what are they going to do vote Republican?
The essential problem I see is that a large number of Dems that vote in primaries are anti-gun; they are not interested in preventing violence and suicide, they want to ban guns. If Dems not only dropped gun control, but embraced 2A rights (while presumably attempting to address gun violence and suicide rates in more productive/effective ways), they would hemorrhage those anti-gun voters. At the same time, it's unlikely that they would be able to pick up pro-2A single-issue voters, because the Democratic party has such a long history of attempting to ban guns and enact strict gun control that those voters wouldn't believe it.
It would take multiple election cycles for Dems to break that belief, and you couldn't have any Dems breaking ranks in that time. All it would take is one Beto "dumbfuck" O'Rourke (seriously, who says they want to ban guns while running for governor in Texas, unless they're intentionally in the tank for Republicans?) to undo any progress they might make.
To be entirely clear, the people that are anti-gun will not accept any level of gun violence as being acceptable. It doesn't matter that the US has more guns per capita now than it ever has at any point in history, and that violent crime is at the lowest level in 40 years; it's all about the feels to them.
He says he is and that’s all that matters to his supporters.
Fair. He says he's a religious person, and he's not that either, but Fundamentalists eat that shit up.
You're literally stating that gun owners are usually racist white males...the fuck? There are way more gun owners now than ever and the diversity is no longer the minority.
I don't think that's what they mean, they mean that the people who are super hardcore gun rights people would never vote democrat regardless of the democrats stance on gun rights, because in addition to being super hardcore gun rights people, they're super hardcore anti-all-other-rights people, also known as republicans. Certainly not all of them, no absolutes etc, but the vast majority. People who own guns != gun nuts.
Super-hardcore “I should be able to buy full-auto rifles at Walmart” guy here - also a registered Democrat.
Democrats are iffy on guns, but the GOP sucks on every single other issue of freedom for working-class people.
Exactly. 2A rights are damn near the only thing I agree with far-right Republicans on. So I have to vote strategically if I want to keep all the other rights.
I'm hard core pro2a and will be voting blue this year. I'm a no regulation guy who wants our politicians to fix our society via social safety nets and reform vs prohibition style legislation...there is a lot more of us now than ever
Yes! You're not the kind of person who they were talking about. You're the gun owner but not gun nut kind
Yet you put us all in the same gun nut box earlier in this thread…
I’ll most likely vote a straight blue ticket because I agree with most of the Dems platforms except in the issues of gun control. I also can’t stand Trump or his facism and want to see it die.
But I’ll never support Democrats unless they moderate their stance on 2A. I may vote Republican next mid term election to prevent Dems from getting enough votes in the Senate and House to enact anti 2A legislation.
I just tried to provide my interpretation of what they were saying, I didn't and am not putting... forget it you don't want to understand what I'm trying to say so I'm not going to bother trying to explain further.
The people that heavily support the NRA and die on the 2A single issue hill usually fit the description.
Lots of people own and enjoy guns but not everyone makes it a pillar of their identity.
How many of your guns have the scary democrats taken?
"Disarm" is a pretty disingenuous choice of word.
Plenty actually. Passing gun control laws because of how a gun looks for instance
As a Canadian: I'm so fucking tired of this. There's no consistency in how firearms get banned except "feels". The only consistency is that legal gun owners get blamed for illegal gun activities and lose something else every year.
Realistically they sell more guns than any other group. Every time they call for random bans everyone goes and empties every gun store within a 100 mile drive. Obviously there's a lot more to it than that but both sides political rhetoric has been making the US small arms industry absolutely explode. We're absolutely past the point where you could actually ban scary guns and have any effect. Half the country has more ARs than they know what to do with, literal piles in safes and dresser drawers, and they've gotten extremely comfortable with the concept of civil disobedience/non-compliance. Further, fuck 3d printing, every dude with access to a CNC is pumping out cheap lowers and suppressors so they can justify having an SOT (the ability to obtain or produce legal machine guns).
If this is scary, the best and only course of action is reducing the temperature. Treat young men like they aren't economic cannon fodder so they don't feel like the only locus of control is fucking weaponry (fix housing, job security), positive intervention for crisis (don't just send a hit squad of cops), and don't be afraid to engage with rural populations (they're intelligent humans too).
Other liberals screaming for an AR-15 ban after Uvalde is exactly what prompted me to buy one.
What a strong and complex individual who definitely isn't a sheep at all. Take that libs.
Potential scarcity is potential scarcity. Many people would rather have and not need than need and not have. It's a fact that every time weapons bans are threatened, gun sales dramatically increase. Considering they never pass but are routinely threatened by politicians, all it's doing is harming democrats politically and lining the pockets of gun companies.
70% support. Think about that. More people in this country support guns than any national politician or governing body. Sheesh. 'Murica.
I think what is left out of this post and needs to be shared is the amount of Americans who support common sense gun control.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/24/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/
Point 5 says 61 percent think it's too easy to get a gun. I tend to agree. If you can't pass a background check and demonstrate proficiency I don't think you should have it. Now, if you can have it, I agree you should be able to carry it. Concealed.
If you gotta strap a gun on your chest and walk in Walmart that's either intimidation OR you're too dumb to be carrying in the first place... But that's another topic for sure.
"Common sense" comments imply that your take is reasonable and the opposition's is not. Automatic argument winner! Think on that.
I mean, as long as your "common sense" argument isn't "ShALl nOT bE iNFriNGeD!", no matter what it's a step in the right direction.
Passing a background check and even a proficiency check is not exactly a high bar. I'd prefer both but I'd settle for the former. It's pants on head stupid that to get my lifetime concealed carry permit all I had to do is give money to get finger printed and then I'm in. That's borderline negligent IMO.
A very sane take on the issue. Thanks for writing it up.
If they get their way, only 2/7 of my guns would be legal (the revolver and the 1953 lever action), so that would take 5 of mine personally. You are in denial if you think I'm going for that.
Idk I just think to myself:
Do I like my guns? Yes. Do I want to sell them? No.
Do I value having all of the guns that I want MORE than I want affordable healthcare with price caps for insulin and women having choices in their reproductive health? More than public options with regulations for my my utilities? More than I value equality under the law for everyone, and not having the bible shoved up my ass in a way that friends my friends can't get married or my sister can't adopt?
No. I don't.
It would suck if they were illegal and you had to sell, but no one is coming to knock on your door and take them, so surrender or move or whatever would be up to you. Not all democrats want Chicago style gun control.
Nice whataboutism but we're talking about gun control in this thread.
Is that not exactly what we were talking about?
Disarm still is the wrong word because it's never going to happen that there's a door to door collection with house searches. Legality is where you went, and I followed I thought?
Did you have a facet if the issue you wanted to circle back to?
Disarm is still thr right word if they don't go door to door but instead offer prison sentances for failure to comply and surrender them. That's literally how the actual 1930s nazis disarmed the jewish population of post weimar germany.
Literally all the guns. I used to live in a converted .50 cal and the damn Democrats took it all. Now I'm homeless.
Just kidding. I love watching insecure troglodytes tweak over a fake threat to their only means of defense; metal slugs moving at 1300'/second.
All jokes aside I own several firearms. If you cling to guns as a special facet of your personality you are a weak and failed individual. You deserve the mental anguish over your perceived persecution.
I can even understand guns being an issue that weighs on your mind when you vote. It has crossed my mind. The thing for me though is my gun case holds tools. I don't need to choose tools over the lives, healthcare/support, or equality under the law of other people.
That to me is bonkers.
Kamala Harris is on record saying she wants mandatory buybacks - that is, mandatory confiscations. So chances are, if she becomes president, we'll see her pushing for it.
I agree with the right, but Bruen was a trainwreck of a decision. Historical perspective is an absolutely ridiculous basis for determining the outer limits of the right.
Yeah, the issue was it was a direct response to courts deliberately ignoring all other precedents to purposefully deny the right. If you can't apply scrutiny due to your own personal biases you lose scrutiny.
That's not really true though. There were very few SCOTUS precedents on the 2A, really just Cruikshank and Presser until recently. Heller really changed it all in 2008, being the first court to find an individual right. And the 2A didn't get incorporated until 2010 in McDonald.
The issue is that bad precedent is begging to be overturned. I can't imagine Bruen standing for a long time without being overturned or distinguished by a subsequent case.
Nice
this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2024
46 points (78.8% liked)
guns
1204 readers
1 users here now
Keep it civil.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS