Will the NRA's grip on the GOP diminish in your lifetime? (Y/N)

47,737 Views | 750 Replies | Last: 8 mo ago by going4roses
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

GBear4Life said:

I don't recall notable Dems advocating banning hand guns. If it's happened, I missed it.

They're not because it's both unpopular, will never pass Congress, and would be rendered unconstitutional if passed (it will never, even with a super majority in congress and a Dem in the WH).
sounds like you don't really wonder why then.
I don't think Dems want to die on the sword of supporting constitutionally amending the 2nd amendment or banning handguns.

Do you think they should?
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

Unit2Sucks said:

GBear4Life said:

I don't recall notable Dems advocating banning hand guns. If it's happened, I missed it.

They're not because it's both unpopular, will never pass Congress, and would be rendered unconstitutional if passed (it will never, even with a super majority in congress and a Dem in the WH).
sounds like you don't really wonder why then.
I don't think Dems want to die on the sword of supporting constitutionally amending the 2nd amendment or banning handguns.

Do you think they should?
Uhhh, the post below was your original post on this tangent.
Quote:

If you want to save lives via gun legislation that seeks to ban one type of firearm, then it's obvious it should be hand guns, since they are the overwhelming gun of choice in homicides and armed robberies. Yet that's never proposed. Wonder why.
It now appears that you didn't "wonder why", so I'm not sure what your point was to begin with.

I would love our country to move in the direction of making handguns much more difficult to obtain, but I don't see why the democrats should waste their energy trying to pass a constitutional amendment that has no chance of passing. While I believe there is a lot of public sentiment for reducing firearm deaths, unfortunately the majority of states would rather have their guns than their safety so an amendment is a non-starter.

Do you think the republican party should die on the sword of proposing constitutional amendments that have no hope of being passed?
Yogi Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

GBear4Life said:

I don't recall notable Dems advocating banning hand guns. If it's happened, I missed it.

They're not because it's both unpopular, will never pass Congress, and would be rendered unconstitutional if passed (it will never, even with a super majority in congress and a Dem in the WH).
sounds like you don't really wonder why then.
Disingenous comments from GB4L? The hell you say!
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:


It now appears that you didn't "wonder why", so I'm not sure what your point was to begin with.

I would love our country to move in the direction of making handguns much more difficult to obtain, but I don't see why the democrats should waste their energy trying to pass a constitutional amendment that has no chance of passing. While I believe there is a lot of public sentiment for reducing firearm deaths, unfortunately the majority of states would rather have their guns than their safety so an amendment is a non-starter.

Do you think the republican party should die on the sword of proposing constitutional amendments that have no hope of being passed?
I don't think either party should be wanting to repeal the second amendment.

Yet YouGov survey showed 82% of Dems support banning all semi-auto guns, while Dems are split 50/50 on an outright ban of all guns except for those in law enforcement. Yikes.

DOJ on where criminals who possessed a firearm at time of arrest got their guns:

43% underground market
6% theft
10% retail store
1% gun shows
11% gift or straw purchase
15% acquired through family/friends

75% acquired via illegal means
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GB4L - do you have a point referring to 75% being acquired by illegal means?

By the way, how do you think guns end up in those channels? Should people who sell or provide guns illegally to criminals have any responsibility for their actions?

You can say whatever you want but you can't reasonably pin gun crime on gun control advocates. I suppose that won't stop you from doing so.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The far left should absolutely start coming out hard for a repeal of the Second Amendment, make it a real possibility that is on the table for Democrats (the politicians will move in the direction the base wants them to move). It's the only way to actually force conservatives to the negotiating table. Until now the status quo has been:

Liberals: "Ban some guns."
Conservatives: "Ban no guns and give out some more!"

There's no way to make any progress with that state of affairs. It means the "moderate" path is just "ban no guns," without the extra extreme nonsense about arming all teachers. The liberal stance should be: "Ban all guns." Then the "moderate" path will be "ban some guns" and maybe we can get somewhere.

So that's my stance: take away all the guns. As a populace, we have clearly abused the right to own them. Give me a reason to let you keep your guns.
Yogi Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

The far left should absolutely start coming out hard for a repeal of the Second Amendment, make it a real possibility that is on the table for Democrats (the politicians will move in the direction the base wants them to move). It's the only way to actually force conservatives to the negotiating table. Until now the status quo has been:

Liberals: "Ban some guns."
Conservatives: "Ban no guns and give out some more!"

There's no way to make any progress with that state of affairs. It means the "moderate" path is just "ban no guns," without the extra extreme nonsense about arming all teachers. The liberal stance should be: "Ban all guns." Then the "moderate" path will be "ban some guns" and maybe we can get somewhere.

So that's my stance: take away all the guns. As a populace, we have clearly abused the right to own them. Give me a reason to let you keep your guns.
Threatening to repeal the Second Amendment is no threat at all and a sure way to anger a lot of current Democratic voters who may went gun control, but not gun abolishment. You might as well threaten to make Donald Trump's head explode because you're a scanner.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

The far left should absolutely start coming out hard for a repeal of the Second Amendment, make it a real possibility that is on the table for Democrats (the politicians will move in the direction the base wants them to move). It's the only way to actually force conservatives to the negotiating table. Until now the status quo has been:

Liberals: "Ban some guns."
Conservatives: "Ban no guns and give out some more!"

There's no way to make any progress with that state of affairs. It means the "moderate" path is just "ban no guns," without the extra extreme nonsense about arming all teachers. The liberal stance should be: "Ban all guns." Then the "moderate" path will be "ban some guns" and maybe we can get somewhere.

So that's my stance: take away all the guns. As a populace, we have clearly abused the right to own them. Give me a reason to let you keep your guns.
Dems caving to radical leftists on guns and take an unpopular and unprecedented position will do absolutely nothing to motivate Reps towards "the negotiating table" and play right into the Reps and NRA's hands.

Should they take your advice, Dems will never win a presidency or have a majority in congress ever again, which will also lead to a SCOTUS dominated by justices many of you would view as the anti-christ, leaving Reps and the NRA celebrating Mad Men style, smoking cigars and laughing to each other about how they knew the Regressives would bury the establishment Left in their own graves one day.

No, someone who wants to abolish a constitutional amendment must give reasons. Taking guns away (majority law abiding and use for self-defense/recreation/hunting) and putting them only in the hands of the Law Enforcement that apparently hates blacks never struck me as logical. The only reason why Cops are useful on scene to neutralize danger is their ability to use a firearm, yet this good guy w/gun vs bad guy w/gun is lost upon this dystopian conversation where costs and benefits and variables aren't acknowledged, it's either all guns are axiomatically wrong or an unadulterated access to virtually all firearms is naturally and forever immersed in the concept of freedom. There's a reason why criminals don't hold up people or places that aren't known to be heavily armed. Banks should put all their cash reserves at a police station -- nobody will attempt to steal it without an army of militia men.

Reps are already paranoid about Liberal Dems banning guns. If that were the Dems ultimate goal, the best political approach to achieving that would be to shut up about it, focus on winning elections and gaining strongholds in both branches by championing ideas with mass appeal so you could have a shot at a constitutional amendment, and work towards some of the gun issues that both constituencies agree on in the meantime. 16% of Democrat households owns a firearm, and 36% of independents own a firearm.

But it's all moot, because it's political suicide.
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

Unit2Sucks said:


It now appears that you didn't "wonder why", so I'm not sure what your point was to begin with.

I would love our country to move in the direction of making handguns much more difficult to obtain, but I don't see why the democrats should waste their energy trying to pass a constitutional amendment that has no chance of passing. While I believe there is a lot of public sentiment for reducing firearm deaths, unfortunately the majority of states would rather have their guns than their safety so an amendment is a non-starter.

Do you think the republican party should die on the sword of proposing constitutional amendments that have no hope of being passed?
I don't think either party should be wanting to repeal the second amendment.

Yet YouGov survey showed 82% of Dems support banning all semi-auto guns, while Dems are split 50/50 on an outright ban of all guns except for those in law enforcement. Yikes.

DOJ on where criminals who possessed a firearm at time of arrest got their guns:

43% underground market
6% theft
10% retail store
1% gun shows
11% gift or straw purchase
15% acquired through family/friends

75% acquired via illegal means


We're back to the War on Drugs. Most of that 75% is used by gangs to protect turf, by innocents to protect themselves and by petty criminals to support a habit or because they are high.

There should not be any federal controls on handguns as it is the main weapon to employ for self- defense. And because we all know what will happen. The same authorities that created this problems resulting in so many guns will now try to round up "illegal" guns rounding up and incarcerating more marginal people. Fortunately it's impossible to control so many guns. Also the radical left opposes gun control. Liberals favor gun control.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yogi Bear said:

sycasey said:

The far left should absolutely start coming out hard for a repeal of the Second Amendment, make it a real possibility that is on the table for Democrats (the politicians will move in the direction the base wants them to move). It's the only way to actually force conservatives to the negotiating table. Until now the status quo has been:

Liberals: "Ban some guns."
Conservatives: "Ban no guns and give out some more!"

There's no way to make any progress with that state of affairs. It means the "moderate" path is just "ban no guns," without the extra extreme nonsense about arming all teachers. The liberal stance should be: "Ban all guns." Then the "moderate" path will be "ban some guns" and maybe we can get somewhere.

So that's my stance: take away all the guns. As a populace, we have clearly abused the right to own them. Give me a reason to let you keep your guns.
Threatening to repeal the Second Amendment is no threat at all and a sure way to anger a lot of current Democratic voters who may went gun control, but not gun abolishment. You might as well threaten to make Donald Trump's head explode because you're a scanner.
To be clear: I don't think the Democratic Party should make this part of their mainstream platform in the short run. I think people who want gun control should start making this argument as a way of moving the debate to the left.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:



No, someone who wants to abolish a constitutional amendment must give reasons. Taking guns away (majority law abiding and use for self-defense/recreation/hunting) and putting them only in the hands of the Law Enforcement that apparently hates blacks never struck me as logical. The only reason why Cops are useful on scene to neutralize danger is their ability to use a firearm, yet this good guy w/gun vs bad guy w/gun is lost upon this dystopian conversation where costs and benefits and variables aren't acknowledged, it's either all guns are axiomatically wrong or an unadulterated access to virtually all firearms is naturally and forever immersed in the concept of freedom. There's a reason why criminals don't hold up people or places that aren't known to be heavily armed. Banks should put all their cash reserves at a police station -- nobody will attempt to steal it without an army of militia men.


This paragraph is really non-sensical. Did you mean to type this or were you channeling something?

The unfortunate thing about guns is that they are the one cause of death in this country that for whatever reason many Americans are uninterested in changing. Everyone (well almost everyone) seems to agree that reducing death by car is worthwhile, but so many resist any efforts to reduce gun deaths. I've even heard people claim that gun suicides aren't a problem because the victims are exercising their free will. I suppose somewhere there is someone defending the rights of parents to have their children accidentally discharge weapons into other family members. It happens all the time with nary a peep from the gun nuts.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

Everyone (well almost everyone) seems to agree that reducing death by car is worthwhile, but so many resist any efforts to reduce gun deaths.
Honestly? I think the central problem is the Second Amendment. Other modern democracies don't have this "right" written into their Constitution like we do. The rest of the nonsense flows from that central problem.

That's why I advise gun-control activists to argue for repealing it.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

Unit2Sucks said:

Everyone (well almost everyone) seems to agree that reducing death by car is worthwhile, but so many resist any efforts to reduce gun deaths.
Honestly? I think the central problem is the Second Amendment. Other modern democracies don't have this "right" written into their Constitution like we do. The rest of the nonsense flows from that central problem.

That's why I advise gun-control activists to argue for repealing it.
But we've already talked about that being an awful idea to achieve increased gun control.
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Repealing the second amendment- fanciful as it is- won't eliminate guns. It will just throw it back to the states.
Yogi Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

sycasey said:

Unit2Sucks said:

Everyone (well almost everyone) seems to agree that reducing death by car is worthwhile, but so many resist any efforts to reduce gun deaths.
Honestly? I think the central problem is the Second Amendment. Other modern democracies don't have this "right" written into their Constitution like we do. The rest of the nonsense flows from that central problem.

That's why I advise gun-control activists to argue for repealing it.
But we've already talked about that being an awful idea to achieve increased gun control.
The idea isn't awful from a theoretical view. It's just that it requires such an overwhelming majority to change the Constitution that it has no chance of happening.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yogi Bear said:



The idea isn't awful from a theoretical view. It's just that it requires such an overwhelming majority to change the Constitution that it has no chance of happening.
We're not talking about it 'theoretically'. He was talking about it practically. And it's not 'awful' because the constitution is difficult to change (true), it's because, as a party, to take that position will be politically damaging in making it near impossible to hold the WH or the legislature, which is what they'll need for any gun reform and/or repealing the 2nd amendment.
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Guns used to be a tool but it's become a fetish for not just liberals but the right, the media, militias, popular music, popular culture, video games, etc. A normal society might question why we are so obsessed with murder and violence. But the question answers itself- it's in our DNA. We have 393 million guns in this country Gun control is an oxymoron
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

Yogi Bear said:



The idea isn't awful from a theoretical view. It's just that it requires such an overwhelming majority to change the Constitution that it has no chance of happening.
We're not talking about it 'theoretically'. He was talking about it practically. And it's not 'awful' because the constitution is difficult to change (true), it's because, as a party, to take that position will be politically damaging in making it near impossible to hold the WH or the legislature, which is what they'll need for any gun reform and/or repealing the 2nd amendment.

Man, it's all theoretical. I think that left-wing activists talking about repeal would help drag the conversation towards a more moderate form of gun control. I'm not under any illusions that it would actually become a mainstream party position in the near term.

Move that Overton window.
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Price of living in a free country is what Republicans in power would say. Thoughts, prayers, and... ice cream?
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
B.A. Bearacus said:

Price of living in a free country is what Republicans in power would say. Thoughts, prayers, and... ice cream?


Ban all the guns.
chazzed
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thoughts, prayers, and tax cuts for the wealthy. Thanks for making America better, Republican party.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?

"Standing on the bodies of dead children to advance a political agenda"

Hundreds of innocents are killed everyday in America, including kids, by handguns. But hey, let's use crying children and headlining school shootings to show we're good and our opposition is bad.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:



Ban all the guns.
Dumb.

Yeah, let's make sure only CRIMINALS and LE have guns! Or maybe ban the guns from LE too, since they don't need them, and they're racist. They can just show up to the scene with a big stapler.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:


"Standing on the bodies of dead children to advance a political agenda"

Hundreds of innocents are killed everyday in America, including kids, by handguns. But hey, let's use crying children and headlining school shootings to show we're good and our opposition is bad.
So what's the solution? I think we should get Elon Musk to create force fields to protect our children or barring that we should equip them with body armor and anti-ballistic helmets. Would love to hear your thoughts though since you seem to be the arbiter of dumb.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?



sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

sycasey said:



Ban all the guns.
Dumb.

Yeah, let's make sure only CRIMINALS and LE have guns! Or maybe ban the guns from LE too, since they don't need them, and they're racist. They can just show up to the scene with a big stapler.
If there are fewer guns around, law enforcement will be less worried about being shot, thus will be less likely to feel the need to pull their guns out. Boom, I also helped solve police shootings.

That said, I think law enforcement probably do need to have guns. Same with the military and anyone whose job depends on using one, so I am willing to allow for that. See? I'm open to compromise.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:



If there are fewer guns around, law enforcement will be less worried about being shot, thus will be less likely to feel the need to pull their guns out. Boom, I also helped solve police shootings.
I assume this Jr High analysis is sarcasm. I mean, even liberal democrats think banning guns is stupid

Otherwise you want Venezuela. Citizens at the mercy of criminals obtaining illegal firearms with no means of legal self defense, both as a deterrent or a response, and with nothing to show for it.

The irony of knowing that cops can keep the peace and neutralize violent threats because of their firearms while being completely oblivious to that dynamic -- how firearms used properly deters and neutralizes crime -- is quite amusing.

I do admit, though, that if you shout "ban guns" after a school shooting, you will get a lot of social prestige and rec's on the internet.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

sycasey said:



If there are fewer guns around, law enforcement will be less worried about being shot, thus will be less likely to feel the need to pull their guns out. Boom, I also helped solve police shootings.
I assume this Jr High analysis is sarcasm. I mean, even liberal democrats think banning guns is stupid

Otherwise you want Venezuela. Citizens at the mercy of criminals obtaining illegal firearms with no means of legal self defense, both as a deterrent or a response, and with nothing to show for it.

The irony of knowing that cops can keep the peace and neutralize violent threats because of their firearms while being completely oblivious to that dynamic -- how firearms used properly deters and neutralizes crime -- is quite amusing.

I do admit, though, that if you shout "ban guns" after a school shooting, you will get a lot of social prestige and rec's on the internet.

Cops can have firearms because they have to be trained and licensed to carry them. I'm open to similar restrictions for private citizens, for certain types of guns. We can talk about that. Otherwise, I think we should take away your guns.

I think American law enforcement can do a better job of keeping the peace than Venezuela's.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You want reduce cop shootings and violence? Start by requiring credentials or licensing cops like hairdressers, dog groomers, nurses, teachers or mechanics. Since it's nearly impossible to indict a police officer, licensing will at least help get rid of them.

But of course...NO, just because.

GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:


Cops can have firearms because they have to be trained and licensed to carry them. I'm open to similar restrictions for private citizens, for certain types of guns. We can talk about that. Otherwise, I think we should take away your guns.

I think American law enforcement can do a better job of keeping the peace than Venezuela's.
You're now walking it back. That's literally not a gun ban. That is gun control.

No, police are effective using firearms, more often as a shield and deterrent (and yes they are authorized to enforce the law), because they are (in theory) only using them to neutralize danger and violence, i.e. because they are 'good guys' using them for just causes. Homicides occur not because they are "not trained" to use firearms (criminals know how to load and pull the trigger), but because they are using them to inflict danger and violence.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

sycasey said:


Cops can have firearms because they have to be trained and licensed to carry them. I'm open to similar restrictions for private citizens, for certain types of guns. We can talk about that. Otherwise, I think we should take away your guns.

I think American law enforcement can do a better job of keeping the peace than Venezuela's.
You're now walking it back. That's literally not a gun ban. That is gun control.

Cool, so we agree on gun control?

As I said, I am willing to compromise.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If they passed a law to take all guns away, I would be completely unaffected.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Stop, or I'll say stop again!

Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Here's my proposal: nationwide gun registration. If you are caught with an unregistered gun - misdemeanor. If you don't report loss of a registered gun - misdemeanor. If someone else commits a crime with your registered gun that you didn't report lost - felony.

I would make bullets cheap at shooting ranges but expensive for all other uses (except law enforcement).
People do not need a lot of bullets for self-defense so the cost shouldn't be an issue.

In addition to registration of guns, I would require all gun owners to undergo licensing and require insurance. Just like we do with cars. This will be a huge opportunity for private industry which is great for capitalism.

You might ask - why would we need insurance? The answer is because people will be held civilly liable for damages caused by their use of guns or the use of their guns. And it needs to be meaningful to deter people from wrongful use.

This isn't s gun ban and doesn't prevent any law abiding citizens from enjoying their firearms.

So who's with me?
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
+1 liability insurance, full licensing/training and expensive bullets. Attaching a financial costs and liability/insurance is fair and real, and will make people think twice.

 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.