Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by hso, Oct 17, 2020.
Democrats controlled both houses and the White house in 08-'10 and even had a brief supermajority. No new gun laws came down.
It's like I said in another thread. Despite the DNC platform making proud proclamations of gun legislation, assault weapons bans, etc. most of the rank and file Democrats don't seem all that interested in torpedoing their careers. In fact, I think a good left-leaning Democrat could probably do well by announcing they won't support new gun laws...assuming they don't want to cut off funding from the DNC.
Even the (not quite-a) socialist Bernie Sanders hasn't been all that hot on new gun laws, until the 2020 primary season. And something tells me he isn't going to push for anything like that in the next Congress.
I would be very surprised if anything beyond a universal background check requirement gets floated, and even more surprised if it passes.
I see someone has changed their screen-name.
I find this so ironic coming from someone who claims to be a socialist. Where I come from, we always believe the Democrats when they're pushing things we don't want, but never believe them if they're pushing something that appears to be a good deal for everyone. Most of the "rank and file" Dems are all disposable, like moles, you whack one down, and five others rise up to torment you. If we don't like "The Squad," wait for the results of this, and the 2022 elections. It's gonna get worse before it gets better.
Dunno why he keeps getting brought up as an example. He wouldn't last long as a Senator from Vermont if he starts seriously pushing gun control.
I'm amazed at the complacency I'm sensing here -- some of you would have us believe that no matter the election results (when Biden wins, and the Senate goes Dem), we won't see any gun control initiatives on the federal level.
I read the DNC platform; for now, and the next four years, I've been listening to what those in my state are saying they want to do. For now, I'm gonna take them at their word. After all, everything that they say can't be lies, can it?
Yes I changed my screen name. It says so in my signature block. Not really a secret.
I never claimed to be a socialist. I claim to be a member of the Socialist Rifle Association. You don't have to be a socialist to join any more than you have to be a fascist to join the NRA. I don't really care about your preconceived notions on Democrats. I do believe it's going to get worse before it gets better though. The country is not going to tolerate blatant inequalities in representation forever and things like the Electoral College will fall by the wayside and we'll likely see more proportional representation in the Senate.
You keep showing surprise that Bernie Sanders is elected because he *gasp* represents the interests of his constituents. Crazy I know, but it kind of illustrates the point that not all elected representatives on the left care about guns.
Why would you expect more gun control at the federal level when the general trend has been moving away from that for years? The Democrats held a supermajority and the White House after Obama won his first term, and didn't bother with any gun laws. That isn't an accident. Most Democrats realize gun legislation is a fast track to early retirement.
The platform is a wish list that not everybody follows. Some things each party wants, gets mentioned and some things do not, nor does every party member (D or R) back the platform. They might claim to, but in practice we just don't see it. Lots of Democrats don't care for gun laws they know will unseat them. Lots of Republicans claim to be for states' rights while applauding court decisions that crap all over them.
You listen to speeches. I watch actions and outcomes.
All righty then, glad you cleared that up (thank goodness, as I've been an NRA member for a lot longer than I've been a fascist.
So you favor all of the electoral power residing in the major population centers (which tend to the left, I'm told) at the expense of the sparsely populated rural areas. Glad you cleared that up, too.
Uh, no; I merely clarified where the gentleman was from and why it's not in his best interests to support more gun control; you are the person that keeps bringing his name up.
It's due. The majority of the gun control has been occurring at the states' level the past few years -- you don't think the anti-gun folk have been paying attention to their successes in Virginia, Washington and Oregon -- all states that formerly were examples of decent gun laws and very little regulation? Are you that naive? Or is it just wishful thinking on your part, that you can have it both ways: support the liberals, the creeping socialism, grow big government, but yet not see any new gun laws?
You apparently mistake me as someone that follows with interest lots of Republicans. I could name far more Democrats who are guilty of what you're saying the Republicans do.
First, you don't know me, and I could care less for political speeches. Good to know that you're such an astute observer of the political scene, but quit blowing smoke up our butts -- telling us that your people will not pursue more gun regulation -- and telling us it's sunshine. We know better.
yeah, I'm not touching this mess anymore. I've said my piece about John Lott.
Mods...no need to lock this up. I won't be coming back with any other commentary.
Professional Politicians work for the people regardless of their like or dislike for firearms. And what you are referring to as a "Wedge issue" is NOT what the second amendment is about. It is serious. Now one party works for Law and Order and support of the second amendment for the people. One party works for the People on the opposite side, does not support Law and Order, Police, etc. and who do you think Told Biden to Pick Harris? Lol, a candidate who was so totally unpopular during the Democrat Presidential Nomination that she finished DEAD LAST. A 4% rating. A candidate who constantly disparaged her now Running mate over and over. The far Left Radicals own Biden period and they choose his running mate. And please do not refer to the 2A as just a whimsical issue to stir up money. NO it is very important to All Americans and is a a very Big issue. A stupid "Wedge Issue" example would be the ridiculous nonsense about Trump submitting tax returns. (As if he just goes and sits behind a home desktop and does his taxes and prints them off.) Big Corporations do not work that way.
For years now it has been "death by a thousand cuts". The ones coming now are getting deeper and deeper.
How is it known Kleck vastly overestimated defensive gun uses? I've heard "defensive gun use" be dismissed by antigunners because the defender did not actually shoot the attacker, a ridiculous and cold blooded criteria, atleast IMHO.
I think many people do spin stats in ways usually coherent to their agenda. Kleck seemed to break that mold since he was originally antigun, but when he realized his actual research did not support his original thesis, he was honest with the results.
I've heard various estimates of how many defensive uses of guns there are per year in the U. S. Some of these differences may be due to what is considered a "defensive use of a gun," some differences may have other reasons. I'm not overly concerned so much with these differences since it seems that however it's cut, legitimate defense use seems significantly higher than violent criminal use such as murder.
I've heard bad about Lott before. IMHO both sides have agendas. Competing agendas.
I am also dubious about there being "perfect studies." The "good should not become the enemy of the perfect." There's actually a good amount of information and studies about this that support the progun side and we have all of them to draw on. I'm not going to totally dismiss Lott's work, his can be used to buttress that of others.
As a professional politician she will support Biden's agenda. That's good enough for me. She may not have stated her intents as forthright as Biden and Swalwell have but since I wouldn't trust her, Biden, or Swalwell if any of them told me July followed June, I'm more influenced by alliances than words.
It's all just words with politicians until they obtain power. And we ought not be surprised when they actually do follow suit. If Harris has no particular stand on guns then why would she suddenly develop some deep affection for the second amendment when President Biden stuffs a gun confiscation law through kongress????
The politicians may want the problem rather than a solution ..... but the people whose votes they need want the solution, not the problem.
And the politicians want and need those votes ....
Both Lott and Kleck have come under fire before for their methodology. Regardless, both have brought forth well-reasoned cases for defensive use of firearms and the RKBA. Even taking away Lott's research, his logic alone should stand out -- because he's absolutely right.
As for those self-described liberal members of this forum, isn't it ironic that they are the ones telling us that the Democrats do not want to take away our guns?
Defensive use of firearms is chronically under-reported, as brandishing can get people in trouble and shift burden of proof to victim. It would be difficult to trust anybody who claims to have solid data on that. Still, I have read Lott and Kleck and believe their logic is compelling.
And about 30 years ago, I was one of those "unfired SD situations". While the locals were called, it is questionable if it made it any further up the chain than the locals (county, state, or feds).
If it was just up to Republicans to save our guns, they'd already be gone.
.....since the first time I voted back in '72, I have never voted "straight party". I have always voted for those folks that most closely supported my views and opinions. I'm not in the minority. Very few folks out there completely left or right. I still whole heatedly support the RKBA. Apparently, so does the majority of other Americans, regardless of party affiliation.
No one in this particular thread, let alone me, has claimed that the Republicans are the saviors of our gun rights.
I simply noted the irony of our resident liberals/socialists claiming that the Democrat party, in spite of the multitude of clear statements from its members otherwise over the past two years, and the DNC platform itself, has no real interest in attacking gun rights.
One thing for sure....
...but you and others here tend to infer it's only the Democrats after our guns. That is not true and has been the point of my posts in this thread. Within that majority of Americans that claim no political party affiliation, there are folks that want to suppress the RKBA and those that support it. It's also been suggested that just because someone does not own a gun, they must be against them. That too, is not true. As stated before, gun owners are the minority and if those who do not own guns were all against them, we would be in deep manure. Folks tend to want to simplify the sentiments of gun ownership, access to firearms and restrictions on them, by putting them on the left or the right. Thing is, those that really have the say about it, tend to be in the middle. Easy for one to come to a gun forum, pound their chest while shouting "shall not be infringed!" and get a resounding "hurrah". Does absolutely nuttin' to help our cause. Going on social media and making insulting blanket statements about non-gun owners doesn't help either, because atho they may not own a gun, doesn't mean they object to us owning one. Yet. When it comes to the major differences between the Republican and Democratic platforms, gun control does not even make the top ten. For most folks, gun rights fall far below other concerns like Woman's rights, discrimination based on sexual orientation, race or ethnic backgrounds, Climate change, Immigration and Social Security and Medicare. That is why we need to endear the independents to our cause and not drive them away with cheap insults. As for all gun owners strongly against any more gun legislation....
.....just sayin', it ain't as simple as folks here want to make it out to be.
I don't even know where to start with this. You're clearly not a student of history if you don't realize why those are in place, the way they are. If the Federal government kept itself in check and let the States pass their own laws, a lot of our issues would be moot. But they don't do that. The needs of people in NYC are far different than the needs of those in Alaska. One should not have undue control over the other. The systems in place aren't to protect the needs of those in big cities. It's to protect the needs of those who are not.
Um, sorry but the survey you linked to is completely bogus. Who performed said "survey"? Why none other than the Center For American Progress. They claim, of course, to be non-partisan but take a look here at their board of directors. They are all hard left wingers.
(And I won't mention that one of their most important sources of funds is George Soros, that "champion" of non-partisan points of view. I'll let you verify that on your own. If you care to.)
And the survey that was linked to was conducted over five years ago.
So, what does a more recent article from a few months ago - Untangling the Gun Lobby’s Web of Self-Defense and Human Rights - from the CAP say about gun rights? I would encourage you to read the whole thing, but here are a few highlights:
This so-called gun-rights narrative manipulates the ideals of human rights to establish not only an inalienable right to life but also an unfettered right to armed self-defense to protect oneself from any perceived threat of harm. This narrative hinges on fear and the need to defend oneself and loved ones from unknown but ever-present threats through whatever means necessary and without regard to the rights of others. It is grounded by the false claim that the most effective means of self-preservation involves using a firearm.
This messaging runs in stark contrast to the bulk of the evidence-based research that has been conducted on the topic, which finds that firearms are not an effective means of self-defense. In fact, academic studies show that having firearms in the home correlate with an increase in unintentional shootings, often involving children, as well as higher rates of firearm suicides.19 Research also indicates that firearms used to perpetrate school shootings most often come from the shooter’s home, where they are stored under the pretense of self-defense.20 The idea that civilians need to be armed to ward off bad actors—the “good guy with a gun” concept painted by the gun lobby—does not represent reality. FBI data show that armed civilians rarely stop armed assailants and instead only make it harder for law enforcement to secure the scene of a shooting.21
To complement the fear-based narrative pushed by the gun lobby, the industry marketed certain weapons specifically as self-defense products. Glock, for example, has a search filter for their website specifically for firearms designed for home defense,22 and Remington sells a series of guns marked as “Home Defense Models.”23 The principle marketing tool to sell hollow-tip ammunition—which is designed to expand on impact, increasing damage to the person shot and reducing the risk of overpenetration—is to brand them as self-defense ammo or personal-defense ammo.24
The common thread running through gun advocates’ claims of rights violations is the belief that people have a fundamental right to use lethal force to ensure their own self-preservation. Put bluntly by Marion Hammer, NRA lobbyist and former NRA president, “We don’t shoot to kill, we shoot to live.”28 This problematic justification for using firearms is the impetus for a self-defense policy called “stand your ground.”
Researchers at American University found that approximately 30 people die each month in a “stand your ground”-related incident in states with these laws enacted.43 Data show that states with a version of “stand your ground” laws see increased rates of homicides and injuries related to gun violence. A study focused on the impacts of “stand your ground” in Florida found that the law was associated with increased homicides overall as well as an increase in gun homicides; the researchers found that the state’s monthly gun homicide rate increased 31 percent, with the overall homicide rate in the state increasing 24 percent in the 10 years following the law’s enactment.44 The evidence is clear: “Stand your ground” laws do not protect people from violence; instead, this policy results in more injuries and more fatalities.
Fear is a powerful emotion. It evokes a need to survive and protect and drives instinctive, visceral actions. The gun lobby has, for decades, seized on the power of this basic human emotion and manipulated it to sell firearms. By exacerbating feelings of insecurity, they have linked firearms with self-defense. By manipulating the concept of human rights, they have embedded in the minds of far too many people the idea that they have a fundamental right to self-defense, even if it comes at the cost of others’ right to life.
Let's just look at that last line in bold. Essentially, the author is stating that YOU do NOT have a right to defend YOUR life if it means taking the life of the person trying to take yours.
So while the Center for American Progress isn't advocating any new anti-GUN stances in this article, instead of attacking your right to OWN a firearm, it is attacking your right to self defense.
So it is fine to own that handgun, but if you shoot someone in the course of defending yourself, you will be headed to prison regardless of the circumstances.
That is what they are after.
Now, did I cherry pick those excerpts from the article? Yes, of course I did. That's why I encourage anyone who is interested to read the entire thing. Decide for yourself. THINK for yourself. Make up your own mind, don't let someone else's slanted view - including mine - make up your mind for you.
It has been said that if you do not know why the Electoral College exists, then you are the reason why.
No. It's not. It mirrors every other poll taken when the question is....."What percentage of Americans favor stricter gun laws". Here's a few that I didn't Cherry pick, just went down the page.
From Pew Research center......https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/10/16/share-of-americans-who-favor-stricter-gun-laws-has-increased-since-2017/
Here's one from Gallup.......https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
One from the AP......https://apnews.com/article/99e6a9b480a947eab6da194697b8a303
One from The U.S. News and World Report......https://apnews.com/article/99e6a9b480a947eab6da194697b8a303
....and those polls(all only about a year old and show an increase for stricter gun control since the linked poll) are confirmed by the Bill of Rights Institute.
I personally am not for any more gun control/restrictions. But I also am not in denial that many others are, and I know exactly where the threat is coming from. The folks in the linked poll were all gun owners and the overall conclusion is they are in favor of stricter gun laws. If you look at the poll, you'll see that the majority of folks questioned(almost half) admitted to being Republican.
Oh dear, political drift, socialists, fascists, Democrats, GOP - closed.
Separate names with a comma.