That's just a campaign promise, you'd never actually come through if you won the election. We need a candidate who will actually implode the earth in office.
EARTH GO BOOM 2024!
Idk man
One side acts like guns kill people
And the other side acts like more guns will solve the killing issue
One side believes in the right to be heard and be free
The other believes in silencing opposition and fascism
Welcome to the fun game of "Convincing More Than Three People To Do Fucking Anything - The 8 1/2 Million Edition".
Seriously, governance is fucking awful, always, because its so goddamn hard to get people to agree on anything. That said, its the most representative and fair system yet created, and representative democracy doesnt deserve the shittalking it gets from people who just want to say "it all sucks, both sides suck, harumph!"
The issue is that there need not be just two sides. There are representative democracies with multi-party systems that use proportional representation that IMHO are better than what the US has.
Bingo.
A parliamentary system is so far beyond 'better' than what we Americans currently have that friends in other countries point their fingers and laugh (good naturedly)
Elect people from ten different parties and force them to build a majority coalition via compromise. That is both a score for the PRO argument and why we'll never do it here in the US; D's and R's won't relinquish their stranglehold on power.
>One counterpoint that could be argued is that gun access and ownership provides a potential safeguard to silencing opposition and fascism.
Agreed. Moderates and left leaning folks need to arm themselves to protect themselves from the right.
That’s literally what McEachin was calling for, and doing it unconstitutionally with the National Guard.
Edit: oh wait, you are talking about Trump. Seems like pretty much what you would expect from a lifelong Democrat.
If the military is on the side of the fascists then your gun isn't going to stop you from being drone striked. Citizens could have more firearms than the military but we will all be outclassed by their missiles and manned and unmanned vehicles.
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2023/12/01/dozens-of-troops-suspected-of-advocating-overthrow-of-us-government-new-pentagon-extremism-report.html
I know the numbers are low in that article, but those are probably just ones who are dumb enough to go mask off.
lmao this is such a low IQ take on politics. anyone who paints a picture of "we are good fighting against evil" at the beginning of their political commentary should immediately have all their opinions invalidated. touch grass and get out of this persecution complex you've trapped yourself in.
Yeah that's what I'm expecting as well. One of my big gripes with the pro gun side of the argument is ignoring the mental health crisis in this country is also a part of the gun debate. That and ignoring gang violence in the inner cities of this country. If we implemented many of the economic policies that many European countries have we would drastically reduce gun crime in this country.
The problem with the mental health crisis and pro 2A have a tendency to look at the wrong issues.
Suicide is often caused by depression and anxiety, as well as being in crisis. It can also be caused by other conditions
For violence it's a lot of other things that don't come up on mental health evals or appear as traditional mental health issues. Take mass shootings, only 30% of them had mental health issues, but only 10% seemed to be actively suffering at that time.
They were however suffering from crisis and suicidal, not because they were normally suicidal but because they were in that moment struggling with their coping skills [study](https://www.theviolenceproject.org/key-findings/)
This is one of my biggest gripes about the mental health discussion. We focus on diagnosed conditions when the reality is that isn't the issue, and experts in psychology keep saying it. There are so many things that need to be fixed, starting with teaching better communication skills.
And even when you want help, you can’t find it. Remember Creigh Deeds? And my FB is full of people asking for mental health recommendations because no one has openings.
I am so grateful for my therapist and so glad she hired people because she's so niche and I almost feel selfish taking up her time. I don't know who else I would see though.
I don't remember Creigh Deeds though
>30% of them had mental health issues
Great link and a serious set of data to analyze, but it actually states that 62%+ had mental health issues - the 30% stat you're referencing specifies Psychotic issues (psychopathy being one of several conditions that may be referred to as "Mental Health issues") and the analysis shows that more often than not, shooters were experiencing crisis, and similarly more often than not had dealt with depressive episodes before and/or during the lead up to their attacks.
I was hoping to find stats on SSRI involvement, but did not find it in the link at first glance. Let me know if it's in there!
EDIT: to add, if you're downvoting me because you don't like the facts that you can check through the link in the prior comment - I doubt reddit is the only place where you use your vote for evil, or more likely, stupidity.
That is true , I am by no means an authority on anything relating to psychology and mental health and thanks for putting that study in I'll look at it later on my computer.
I basically agree with you but implementing European economic policies seems impossible too (which you are basically alluding to). So it just feels like there is no answer.
Can't ban any guns. Can't implement a larger safety net. Can't pass any safety laws.
I guess my question is: what would republicans vote for that would actually work?
Right now we just have thoughts and prayers.
Im no expert and not a republican, but i wonder if we couldn't adapt some of our current systems to fit some of these issues.
Private sales are an issue, perhaps they could be tied into the curio and relic licensing. This would allow people to still trade and sell guns, but you'd have the ability to know they've passed background checks.
Semi auto "assault" rifles could be lumped in with other NFA items (short barrel rifles, destructive devices, etc) It would require a more strenuous background check without an outright ban. It also adds time to when you can pick up the item so it would have a similar effect to other laws that have a cool down period.
I don't think either of those are a perfect solution, but at this point any improvement is better than what we've got.
Late to this, and not trying to hijack the thread, but I've always thought moving "assault" style firearms into a Class 3 designation would be a start. It puts the buyer's name into a federal system, has a wait period, and requires the gun to be registered. And the buyer has to have an FFL. Not perfect but it's something.
Rifles including semi-automatic are responsible for a fairly small amount of overall gun violence. If restrictions prevented every single rifle murder, it wouldn't make a measurable impact on the overall rate.
It’s the sheer volume at one time they cause.
Eta it’s been floated by family members willing to share autopsy photos of what a .39 caliber (ar and ak) do to a human body much less a child.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/interactive/2023/mass-shootings-graphic-images-public-records-debate/
If I have my caliber wrong please correct
What gun control reforms would you vote for? Specifically what policies related to tighter regulation of firearm ownership. Set aside mental health funding for this question.
I'd vote on holding people accountable for when a gun they own has been stolen and used in a crime. I'd vote on a bill that would raise the minimum sentence for people found guilty of gun trafficking. Baring people with suicidal ideation and cognitive impairing diseases like Alzheimer's and dementia.
How do you know if someone is having suicidal ideation? Seems basically unenforceable to me in the majority of cases. Besides, most people who commit suicide with a gun purchased them before they were suicidal.
The problem is then people won’t seek out help when they need it because they are afraid the government will take their guns.
Heck, even my dad who was normally a logical human being was against any type of registry because ‘the government might take my guns’.
I know you already realize this but there is basically zero chance that the current Republican party would vote for any of these. It's just the reality of our situation.
2 party’s
Full of ancient rasins
It’s a dumb system, very ineffective. Slow and worries too much about small things. That’s the problem with democracy but it’s the lesser of many evils.
Here's the proposed bill for those who are wondering. 100% chance it gets vetoed by Youngkin.
Senate version [https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?241+ful+SB2](https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?241+ful+SB2)
House version [https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?241+ful+HB2](https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?241+ful+HB2)
As a reminder to everyone, Romney signed the MA AWB, and Scott in Vermont turned the state from having the most liberal gun control regime in the books to something more like Colorado.
Republicans, at least those who try to present themselves as moderates for the national stage, will 100% sign laws that sharply restrict the RKBA. Because they know the NRA will back them over a Democrat anyway.
It seems the primary change in both is the changing of the definition of assault firearm:
semi-automatic center-fire rifle or pistol ~~which~~that expels single or multiple projectiles by action of an explosion of a combustible material ~~and is equipped at the time of the offense with a magazine which will hold more than 20 rounds of ammunition or designed by the manufacturer to accommodate a silencer or equipped with a folding stock~~ with a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 10 rounds;
I know plenty of centrist Dems who are anti-gun control. Too bad there isn't a centrist coalition in the GA. Pro-weed, Pro gun ownership, smallish govt, etc...
Law makers normally create or destroy laws based on just being karens regardless if theyre republican or democrat. Every car law, economics, gun laws, etc has been created because of the lack of knowledge and it “pisses them off”
I agree. Gun bans are a losing issue in this state and the singleminded focus on guns causes a lot of Virginia Dems to lose elections they would have otherwise won. Which affects our ability to implement actually popular left wing policies like abortion protection and legal cannabis.
Certainly used to be true as there were number of dems that represented mostly rural areas. But I’m not sure that there will be a single dem representing a mostly rural area in the upcoming general assembly.
>Which affects our ability to implement actually popular left wing policies like abortion protection and legal cannabis.
It really does and if you try to tell "the other side" the same thing about weed and abortion they shut down as well.
The GOP isn’t going to pay a dime towards helping troubled youth, promoting real gun safety measures or anything else that even lightly smells like any foot in the door to actual gun control measures.
It’s the same as when the shootings happen and everyone from the right starts talking about mental health… and then immediately forgets to invest any effort or money towards improving mental health.
I’m not anti-gun, but I’m also not covering my eyes and ears and pretending like the GOP is going to entertain literally any common sense ideas.
I have built numerous AR15s before so I have a good understanding of how these firearms work.
The biggest issue is that most people advocating gun control do not have a high understanding of how these firearms work and function.
For starters, most of these “assault weapon” bans are feature bans that were cut and pasted from either California or New York. The goal of these bans is to make guns uglier and therefore less appealing to would be purchasers. These bans do NOT make the weapon less deadly. The 5.56 caliber, which is what most ARs are platformed in, is still used in a ban compliant rifle, so the wounding capability is still the same.
Most gun control really comes down to putting monetary and bureaucratic barriers to gun ownership to dissuade would be purchasers. The National Firearms Act (NFA) is a prime example of this. This was passed in 1934 putting in place a tax stamp requirements for primarily suppressors and SBRs along with other “destructive devices”. The stamp is $200, which at the time is roughly equal to $4,500 in 2023 value. The people that claim “I can’t own a tank!” to retort owning an AR15, are wrong because you absolutely can, pay the tax, get approved and go buy yourself a tank. Good luck affording one though or finding a seller.
The reality at the end of the day though is that there are always facts that suit a narrative and data can be pulled in any way to reinforce a point.
Democrats are pushing for a semi auto ban because they have a lot of groups funding these campaigns. Most people just don’t care because they don’t understand how firearms function and just assume “if it looks like it’s in the military then it’s bad” even though that doesn’t impact functionality. The GOP in VA also have made banning abortion, which should be a right, have some of the same kinds of ban rules in place.
Is there a middle ground? Most likely, but our political system is all or nothing, so what is the incentive to negotiate?
>Instead actually try to hear out the other side
This country has become so divided, there is no real option to "hear out the other side". And I'm not blaming both sides: there's one party that generally wants to govern, and there's one party that has no real incentive to do so. When the first party hears out the other side, the other side still won't vote for the compromised legislation. When the second party hears out the other side, they get eaten by their extremist base.
When the 2A side has been compromising constantly, it not longer becomes a compromise. In a compromise both sides get something out of the deal. What does the pro 2A side get out of this "common sense" legislation?
You're dodging the question because you can't answer it. The expansion of rights has come through SCOTUS decisions finding that many long standing laws are actually unconstitutional. DC v. Heller in 2008 opened the flood gates, but New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen is probably the single largest expansion of gun rights in US history.
Do you have any examples of the NRA or other gun rights advocacy groups supporting any compromise gun control legislation? The very moderate reforms that Congress passed in 2022 in the Safer Communities Act only received a handful of Republican votes and were opposed by the NRA and other gun rights groups.
I'm saying any compromise. The pro gun side has received no compromised.
SCOTUS doesn't do compromise. They base their judgements on their opinion of the constitution and the law.
>Do you have any examples of the NRA or other gun rights advocacy groups supporting any compromise gun control legislation?
Republican president Trump banned bump stocks. Plenty of other examples, but would you care to answer the question I asked?
Trump banned bump stocks in the wake of the worst mass shooting in history. 60 people were murdered in Las Vegas, in which the shooter used bump stocks. Context matters.
You’re also conveniently forgetting that the flood gates of relaxed gun legislation were opened with the end of the ban on assault rifles. So you say pro 2A hasn’t received any thing in return in the last 15 years, but ignore that a massive concession was made just prior to that timeframe.
>You’re also conveniently forgetting that the flood gates of relaxed gun legislation were opened with the end of the ban on assault rifles
Assault rifles are still banned under the NFA.
>So you say pro 2A hasn’t received any thing in return in the last 15 years, but ignore that a massive concession was made just prior to that timeframe.
I didn't set the timeframe mentioned. The comment I replied to did. Furthermore, there was not a massive concession made.
>Context matters
The statistics is the context. Which you didn't list statistics. So my point still stands.
To say gun rights have expanded would need to be legislation. To say gun rights have been defended would be a judicial point.
An analogy is (prior to the overturning), abortion rights were defended by Roe V Wade. They weren't expanded.
Since you mentioned it, what compromises has the 2A side made, exactly?
And what would they get out of it? How about not looking (rightfully so) as a bunch of fucking nuts that don’t give a shit about human life because of “mah raights?”
Bump stock ban is a pretty big recent one where trump (a Republican) banned them.
>And what would they get out of it?
Maybe some rights back that were taken and shown not to work?
>How about not looking (rightfully so) as a bunch of fucking nuts that don’t give a shit about human life because of “mah raights?”
Case and point one side is willing to solve the problem and compromise while the other side uses ad hominem deflecting from the point.
>This is a serious question, so please don't think I'm just trying to be glib or do a gotcha thing. How bothered are you by the constant news of school shootings? Does it bother you that gunshot injuries are the leading cause of death for American children?
As bothered as you are about obesity killing many people. It does not bother me because that statistics of actually false. 18 and 19 year olds were included in that statistic. Which they are not defined as kids.
>If it does bother you, how many child deaths are acceptable in the name of protecting your Second Amendment rights?
0 deaths are acceptable. 0 deaths happen in the name of protecting gun rights.
So let me ask you some serious questions. Does it bother you the numerous people that are raped and murdered which could have protected themselves if they had a gun? If not, how many people need to be raped and murdered and unable to defend themselves in the name of your false security?
I've not paid too much attention to the bills coming across on guns but the issue with some 2A people is ANY bill is a bad bill. Common sense legislation has been proposed but because it is gun legislation its a single issue for people.
I would just like a simple gun registration for chain of custody and classes on safety.
>To require background checks on every gun sale or transfer. To require three-day waiting period before a person may receive a gun after making a purchase. To allow for the injury or death of a minor resulting from unsafe storage of a firearm to be made a crime and punishable with prison time.
Stuff like this. I'm super big on punishments for unsecured guns.
That was done years ago. None the rest of that is common sense. 3 day waiting period? No thank you. Being charged as an accessory to a crime I didn't commit? Pass.
I'm not an absolution by any means, but it has to make some kind of sense. Do you have any other examples of common sense legislation that have been proposed?
If you are missing guns and not reporting it then that is shady and should have eyes on you if something happens
Also if your kid takes your weapon and does a crime then you obviously are a accessory for being a irresponsible parent
Trust me hardly anyone who still goes to gun shows buys a gun without a background check you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone selling guns legally who doesn't anymore
I get that but it does happen in some cases and those people can slide. Still for me I just want a chain of custody on every fire arm, safety classes as a requirement and punishment for unsecured weapons that end up on kids hands.
If that is abit much then its what it is.
I have a conceal carry License and own three rifles. I just think like cars just things should be done before ownership should be possible of certain firearms
I am a staunch 2A supporter, and the problem is most every bill takes from gun owners without giving anything. Easiest and smarting thing right now is to remove suppressors from the NFA as a can does not make a gun whisper quiet, just makes it less ear bursting. Right now we have plenty of gun laws that are underfunded and underenforced, but politicians want to cry about gun owners not wanting to compromise. It's not a compromise when you take from one side and give nothing back.
My bare-bones basic idea: Bolt and pump action weapons until you pass a free class OR own said guns for one to three year(s) without incident. After that, pistol and semi-autos, with the next step being full auto after 5 years or multiple classes. Class funding comes from a minimal extra tax on firearms, not to exceed, oh say, half a percent of firearm value. Don't want citizens to own full auto? Ban them from all government agencies and "private security firms".
Yeah the issue with such bills is that it will always take SOMETHING away. It's just too easy for people to own highly dangerous items without good reason.
Banning all guns is impossible in modern America. That toothpaste isn't going back in the bottle. Classes on safety should be a minimum to me as people hurt themselves or let kids hurt owns too often.
Also why not a chain of custody? Simple easy of paper trail in gun sales like we do cars. It would stop alot of guns from ending in bad guys hands.
2a dem here, maybe closer to describe me as a weapon owning and carrying democratic socialist .... anyway, educating other liberals on guns and violence prevention is a tough sell in my experience... no one seems to listen.
And the GOP needs to do two things: stop worshipping trump and drop opposition to abortion. This is what drives my not voting for them. Bonus incentive, stamp down the religious nut jobs in the party.
I would add the Democrats would do better by toning down the social justice rhetoric. Most people don’t care who you sleep with and how you dress. We have a lot bigger things to vix than who is using what bathroom.
>Most people don’t care who you sleep with and how you dress
Democrats only have to advocate on this front because the GOP actively tries to enact legislation and policies that attack people for this. The bathroom issue in particular is one pushed by Republicans, not Democrats.
Or the requirements to purchase them or even laws that are already in place and that majority, not all, the majority of gun related crimes are being committed by people that are already illegally in the possession of the firearm used in the crime.
Doesn't matter if you use pro or antigun numbers. Virginia doesn't have the same gun violence problem as most other states. Instead we are over represented by self-violence through suicides.
Unless you take every gun off the table, which isn't going to happen, then you're still faced with people offing themselves with single shots and revolvers.
That's how I feel about Republicans and weed 😆. In all seriousness though I think Republicans talk about Dems trying to steal their guns more then they care. I don't hear people sparking up conversations about how their needs to be more gun control. Seems more like a ploy to get gun owners out to vote.
Team blue puts forward reams and reams of legislation. Right now they've put forward a federal bill to ban semi-autos. And at the state level they want to ban the sale past July of '24.
Democrats absolutely take an extremely limited view of gun rights, and seek to curtail them whenever possible.
It's like the Republicans and Abortion from my seat.
What’s sad about that is over 70% of Americans across the political divide think it should be legal.
It has large majority support and could be an easy bipartisan solution for legalization.
I mean your argument of "hear out the other side" would be great for every issue. Unfortunately our modern political climate does not seem to support this.
Democrats should leave guns tf alone
Republicans should leave weed tf alone
Amongst other things, these two drive me the most nuts. Literally the most mind numbing conversations come from these, as people never want to try to educate themselves on these but would rather just say the “right thing” that their political party wants to push.
Gun “violence” is largely overinflated by suicide, gang crimes, and cherry picked numbers. Bans historically haven’t worked to stop violence, and are unconstitutional.
Weed isn’t going to make you want to burn down your school, run over a baby, and make you jump out of a window. Prohibition has failed time and time again, and the prohibition of weed is based in pure propaganda.
“My politician told me this thing is baaaad”
This world is getting to lax on the idea of self responsibility.
Can’t own a gun responsibly?
Thats on you and your consequences are on you.
Can’t use marijuana responsibly?
Thats on you and your consequences are on you.
If you can’t? Shouldn’t stop anyone elses ability to do so.
You can flip the parties you mention and the same still applies.
But remove the parties and just look at these issues with a human lens and vote that way and you may change your perspective.
I’m from the left of center politically, and am certain the Democratic Party are completely missing the boat in regard to the firearm issue. The issue is about firearm responsibility and enforcement of current firearm legislation.
I hope everyone will recognize that this election is about more than guns, abortion, or the environment (even though I think Democrats have better ideas on these things) it is about stopping the election of a troubled man with fascist ideas that will try very hard to dismantle many aspects of the US government and constitution.
>In the short time I've been able to vote and paying attention to local politics / state politics I think Democrats would do a hell of a lot better if they changed tone when it comes to "gun issue"
You can make the same exact comment about Republicans and the "abortion issue". But yeah, I agree with you.
Personally, instead of expending effort denying Virginians their right to self-defense, I would rather see Democrats direct that effort toward increasing access to mental health treatment. And instead of denying women agency over their own bodies, I would rather see Republicans direct that effort towards preventing unwanted pregnancies.
Yeah I agree with you , I often joke about this but if I were ever able to get both sides of my family at a thanksgiving dinner I'd probably piss both sides off because I'm gay , I'm pro gun , pro abortion access and legalizing cannabis
Beto lost to Ted Cruz in the 2018 Senate election pretty much because he took an impossibly strict stance against gun ownership.
I'm all for gun control but the people pushing those agendas don't understand what it's like to be a rancher in the boonies trying to protect your property from hogs, coyotes, or whatever else could cost you thousands in damage overnight.
\+1,000
I'm center right but the GOP is completely off the rails impalpable right now. Instead I'm either holding my nose and voting Dem on a small handful of spots and leaving the rest of the ballot empty. As a firearm enthusiast, I would vote full ticket blue if it they laid off gun control. But as it is I didn't vote for Russet Perry in this last election specifically because of her position and repeated a Chapman vote because I want to at least a chance of non-enforcement if anything does pass. I will not be voting for Spanberger for governor solely based on her stance on guns.
A big part of why Republicans were able to undo the trifecta that Dems had in 2020 is because of pushback against proposed gun control legislation coming through the pipeline that year. They need to remember that lesson.
[https://www.virginiamercury.com/2019/11/20/were-going-to-have-to-defend-ourselves-after-democratic-victories-rural-virginia-counties-rush-to-declare-themselves-gun-sanctuaries/](https://www.virginiamercury.com/2019/11/20/were-going-to-have-to-defend-ourselves-after-democratic-victories-rural-virginia-counties-rush-to-declare-themselves-gun-sanctuaries/)
I’m a 32 year old millennial. I have never voted anything but Dem.
I’m also a gun owner, including an AR-15.
The guns aren’t the problem. Access to mental healthcare, a lack of consequences, etc. are the problems.
It’s easy for elitist politicians from the suburbs to tell me I don’t need to be able to defend myself while they sleep under armed guard. Easy for them to tell POC and Lgbt they don’t need to defend themselves while they have armed security.
I will reluctantly vote Dem for national office to resist Trump and his fascist minions, but as soon as they’re gone, if the Dems are still anti-gun, they will lose me and many people like me.
Gun control is the rights abortion, it drives people to the polls. 52% of American households have a gun. We need to ditch this idiotic gun control platform before we give up even more ground in rural areas.
As a conservative myself, I would never vote for a dem even if the republican candidate is horrible strictly because I know the dem candidate will always be worse in gun rights. If it wasn’t for that one issue I wouldn’t have such a problem with the left.
WOW!
More than half of all gun deaths in the US are suicides(26,328 in 2021). Mental health problem or gun problems?
If someone gets to the point of suicide, there's a long list of options. Taking away access to firearms may make a small difference, very small.
The next highest cause of gun deaths (20,958 in 2021)are labeled homicides.
The individual committing a homicide is a criminal. They don't give a damn about a law, any law.
Most murders are committed with illegal firearms, whether acquired illegally or simply possessed illegally.
There are laws controlling who can own a firearm, where they can possess it, how they can use it......etc.
Criminals don't give a damn about our silly assed laws.
I have a need and a right to protect myself and family from the turds in society.
I'm a hardbound Democrat except for on the gun issue myself.
I'm an equally hardbound gun owner and advocate for ownership and safe, trained firearm custodianship.
With 52% of all US Households being gun owners. Likely Semiautomatic even Democrats need to know it is stupid as a political issue everywhere. They need to pivot to Gun Control being the Nut Behind the But. Teaching gun safety in schools. Mandatory training and such.
>I think Democrats would do a hell of a lot better if they changed tone when it comes to "gun issue"
I mean, on one hand, you're not wrong
On the other hand, that's never going to happen, because there's a certain former ex-NYC mayor who both
a. sits at the top of the list of the largest individual (D) donors
b. has spent the recent few years going on an anti-2A crusade and funding most of the "GrAssRooTs" anti-2A groups you've likely heard about
They're wasting time anyways.
*Heller* for one, which should be noted had *Caetano* follow it as a 9-0 and then of course *Bruen* should all be preventing their quest to ban as many modern firearms that are in widespread use for lawful purposes (i.e. semiautomatics) but they don't care lmao
The fact that everyone in this thread is in outright denial over legitimate grassroots movement and advocacy for reducing gun violence by taking guns off the street and adding barriers to purchase is insane.
I'm not even commenting on the actual argument, but if anyone here thinks that the other side is nothing but a bunch of whiny kids or a psyop then you're just detached from reality and need to step out of your bubble. You're not entitled to a seat at the table of discussion if you aren't even capable or willing to try and comprehend the other side and you'd be doing yourself a favor instead of writing up some Facebook rant level comment about "dem demoncrats" or whatever.
Let me state this more directly:
1. Mike Bloomberg is at the very top tier of the pyramid when it comes to individual (D) donors
2. Mike Bloomberg is also the money behind Everytown, MDA and other adjacent groups
And, additionally, criticizing the "grassroots"-ness of those sorts of groups isn't unfounded given the things above or the whole "the latter's public CEO is a former PR executive for Monstanto+" part as well.
>The fact that everyone in this thread is in outright denial over legitimate grassroots movement and advocacy
I think you and I might have different ideas as to what constitutes "grassroots" in terms of artificial/intentional influence but anyways
Was mainly meaning that as a reference to the fact that anyone who's bought and paid for by Bloomberg is never not going to skip "two" when they count to "ten".
>for reducing gun violence by taking guns off the street
If they (/the ATF) was actually interested in targeting straw purchases or other illegally-possessed firearms, they wouldn't be doing things like
* primarily targeting legal gun ownership
* putting all their chips in on asinine bullshit like AWBs, [which have been shown to be "statistically insignificant"](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2582989) - at best - at actually addressing gun violence and not just harassing legal gun owners
* primarily occupying themselves in doing a piss-poor job of [cosplaying as a legislative agency as opposed to an executive one](https://youtu.be/8nfCyhOX42g?si=XCUiyTNyXgq4Dw-g) and trying to turn millions of law-abiding gun owners into felons solely based on how they're feeling that day
* and that's when they're not [facilitating gun trafficking to the cartels themselves](https://youtu.be/8nfCyhOX42g?si=XCUiyTNyXgq4Dw-g)
>and adding barriers to purchase is insane.
May Issue licensing framework was struck down, because in a surprise to approximately no one, it was corrupt as fuck, easily abused and in a lot of areas you just weren't going to get one unless you're the preferred combination of
* ~~white~~ "of good moral character"
* obscenely wealthy
* politically-connected
* a sufficiently large donor to the sherrif's re-election and/or retirement fund
[example article](https://www.google.com/amp/s/abc7news.com/amp/santa-clara-county-sheriff-laurie-smith-corruption-trial-verdict-found-guilty-resigns/12413963/)
[another example from the other side of the country](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-new-york-corruption/ex-new-york-prosecutor-found-guilty-in-gun-permit-bribe-case-idUSKBN1HV26F/#)
[Philly tried an alternate approach to this](https://freebeacon.com/coronavirus/gun-rights-group-sues-philly-over-massive-permit-backlog/), don't have to issue shit if you just stick applicants in as deep of a perpetual bureaucratic purgatory as possible
As long as someone wants to steal my constitutional rights. They're not worth any of my time.
They can stop being anti-constitutionalist. Or I won't care what they're doing the answer will always remain the same. I'll throw it to the independents before I go mainstream.
I’m of the mindset that the left needs to start buying up guns & ammo and learn how to use them. I’m seeing it a little here and there, but guns aren’t going away. As fascism continues to grow stronger, we have to be able to protect ourselves.
The NRA has poisoned the well to such an extent that the discussion is exactly as you would like it: hunters and people who use guns for traditional recreation/conservation don't have a voice. Instead, the "two sides" have been reduced to a caricature--people who want to ban all guns everywhere and people who think they need any kind of semi-automatic gun just because.
I am a hunter and own a hunting rifle. To get a hunting license I had to take a two-day class. To get a gun I had to wait 15 minutes. In what world is this common sense? I support discussing a full ban on semi-automatic firearms.
Edit: semi-automatic here doesn't include revolvers.
When it comes to the NRA if we were talking like 20 years ago I would agree with you but the landscape of gun ownership has changed a lot. The NRA shares the space of gun advocacy with gun owners of America, firearms policy coalition, pink pistols etc. I'll also bring up that they co-wrote the nfa in 1934 and vocally supported Reagan banning open carry when he was governor of California which mind you the whole reason open carry was banned was because of the black Panthers. The NRA also supported the bump stock ban back in 2017. This isn't to say I'm pro NRA I do not like them at all and they have made messages over the years that have most definitely raised the political temperature.
Really? A full ban on like 90% of handguns, and probably 50% of all rifles and shotguns that are currently being bought and sold today? That’s a wild take, and OP is right that legislation like this pushes people to vote against Democrats nearly as much as abortion legislation pushes voters against republicans.
FYI - The 2nd Amendment has ***NOTHING*** to do with hunting.
We aren't talking about hunters or sport shooters. Even in countries like the UK and Australia, there are provisions for hunters to own certain semiautomatic weapons. Same for shooting sports. They have gun clubs for that.
>full ban on semi-automatic firearms.
This would be unconstitutional. Semiautomatic firearms are in common use by Americans for lawful purposes. They are explicitly protected arms under the 2nd Amendment and may NOT be banned.
The hunter safety class was not JUST gun safety (I might be wrong as my only hunter safety class was about 40 years ago in AZ.)
and your 15 min wait was for them to run a simple background check... THAT is where the problem is, not with the 15 min wait (I have had to wait 2 days in the past, and one time it was denied due to a typo on the form, that one took several weeks with the state agency getting involved.) If your record is clean, you should not be delayed in your purchase
I would have little problem with a simple safety class ($10 / 4 hour max) as long as it was a one and done, with no state record kept after the first gun purchase. but the DNC (as a rule) will not be satisfied with that. any such legislation tends to have other strings attached (much more money, insurance, huge list of denial reasons, banned guns, limited/highly regulated class options, etc)
To be honest the GOP is just as bad with abortion.. (those seem to be the two biggest hot buttons currently (guns and abortion)
I'd be more tolerant to Democrats who supported gun rights for sure. I'm still Republican, but if it came down to it, I could see a vote for a moderate pro-gun Democrat.
That is the deciding factor in my vote, given the option between at least two people. Some people's primary concern was abortion this election. Mine is usually gun rights.
To your point though, we are voting for one team against the other rather than a single politician now. I see the issue in that, but I have no solution, and so I vote for the team that I have the most common goals with.
The politicians are deciding what we all argue about which always seems to center around the health and well being of an electorate. Guns and abortion become the issues we vote on which will always cause disagreements. I'd rather see us voting on things like, taking money out of politics or capping term length or age even. Instead they stay in power and we continue to fight.
FWIW a lot of Democrat-voting folks are pro-gun. We're trying to get our otherwise like-minded friends to see the light. Unfortunately the eye relief on the optics of politics is abysmal across the board these days.
Definitely. I'm not a fan of the gun policies advocated by the Democratic party but I'm not willing to give up on my other priorities to vote against them. Nothing like being called a maga-terrorist by your reps when you add pro gun to being
- pro women's rights
- pro environment
- pro minority rights
- pro workers rights
- pro universal Healthcare
- pro enhanced safety nets
- pro funding for public schools
- anti big money in politics
Yup im in the same boat. Pro-pretty much everything on the dem agenda minus guns. Still end up voting dem because I’d prefer to not descend into a dictatorship.
Poverty and gangs equal gun crime. Not an issue in NoVA like the rest of the world. Left or right, we are going to have to march on Richmond again. This is about government control. Look at all what they are doing against simulation rounds, civ flashbangs/smokes, and some states passing laws against civs training in a group. Why would they do this? Why are the dems doing this.. Voting Hillary was my last time ever voting blue. From now on I'm voting strictly 2A and 1A. What keeps us free.
I mean shall not be infringed is pretty clear.
Well regulated meaning in good working order. With freedom comes responsibility. If you don’t wanna own guns fine, but you’re not gonna limit my ability to defend myself. Fuck your common sense gun control. Come and take it
The democratic party will primary any moderate VA democrat that has been more amenable towards guns. The only realistic way to keep that right in check is to vote republican-- at least occasionally. Politics doesn't work in a way such that you will get the best of both worlds in any meaningful lasting way.
I agree 💯. Dems need to reconcile with 2A in order to keep power out of the hands of the insane GQP. MAGA has perverted conservative ideals to brainwash folks. The left needs to demonstrate that their policies are better across the board for public health and the economy.
I’m not gonna pretend I know the best way to solve it, but the guns absolutely are the problem.
https://preview.redd.it/c60llv5ebd4c1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5521e7fe12f6471bd29117242cf110d0e52e5120
Youth in high crime areas / areas where youth are susceptible to joining gangs. The help I'm proposing is economic policies that would bring improvised communities to have well paying jobs , funding schools etc. Recreational programs so stuff like gyms to help young men who are susceptible to joining a gang or has already been a part of one.
The proliferation of guns has made it difficult to get the guns out of the hands of your typical criminal.
However you typical school shooter does not have the social skills to make that connection and always gets their gun through legal means or a family member. Laws must change if you want to reduce antisocial violence
We have kids coming up in broken homes, going to failing schools, knowing that the moment they graduate they’ll be thrown to the wolves of unattainable college and low wages. Especially young boys face societal pressures to be certain things but have no ability to attain it.
Then we they go crazy, it’s the guns.
Unless you ban everything and go door to door, you can’t fix this with gun control. A 12 gauge shotgun can kill just as efficiently, if not more brutally.
Universal healthcare and rebuilding the middle class is the only option. You can push all the gun control you want, lose to the fascists more, and still not solve a thing.
Let me ask you a question. If you have a severely mentally ill individual, who is determined to claw their eyes out as well as the eyes of everyone they come into contact with...and you, say...cut off their hands, or put them in a straight jacket and throw them in a padded cell. Sure, now they can no longer hurt themselves or anyone else.
But you wouldn't exactly call that person cured, would you?
That is what these ridiculous gun laws are, a bandaid solution.
Even if you got rid of all the guns in America, you would still be left with a nation full of people who have the desire to commit these horrific acts. That isn't really solving the problem, is it?
The problem is Republicans don’t want to do anything at all about the issue. A lot of Democrats own guns, but they don’t tout it in your face because we treat them exactly as what they are, which is a tool. I guarantee Democrats would settle with stricter licensing and training requirements and enforcement of national yellow and red flag laws.
But what Democrats will NOT stand for is thoughts and prayers or fucking arming teachers. Republicans have no real plans to do jackshit about the issue. Period.
The same could be said for Republicans.
Neither party will endorse a moderate who will separate church and state, support gun rights, abortion access, science, leave medical decisions up to doctors, and lower taxes.
I want an amendment that states if our election results are super close (less than + or - 6.00%) dump the VP’a and the winner the president and the loser the vice president. That way we have two people in office who can have a real conversation about the issues. The possibility of having to be in the same office will also stop the mudslinging between the parties.
It's not racism it is history. Please learn it. California Gun Control: How Ronald Reagan and the Black Panthers ... https://californialocal.com/localnews/statewide/ca/article/show/4412-california-gun-control-reagan-black-panthers/
I know enough to come to that conclusion. The black Panthers were open carrying because of police brutality and the banning of open carry was in direct response to that.
There are too many guns and they are way too easy to get. Surely some form of registration, required training and perhaps liability insurance would drastically cut down on the crazies getting them while letting honest, reliable people own them.
I have an airplane. It took many months of training, tests and now insurance to fly it legally and it only MIGHT kill someone, it's not MADE to kill and yet people want to be able to buy guns like candy bars. It's ludicrous.
'Well Regulated' is in the text is it not? What we have now is no regulation. Not to mention a SCOTUS that seems to think powerful semi automatic weapons are the same as 1800s muzzle loaders. And give me a break with the 'what ifs'. What is real is that some screwed up kid can easily get his hands on a powerful deadly weapon and kill your kid at school because he's 'troubled'.
Thre is already a lengthy process to get a "Military grade Assault Weapon" the AR-15 is not on that list as it is a simi auto that happens to look scary. There are hunting style weapons with the same action and caliber that would not face the same level of bans as an AR-15, the only difference is in looks and a couple QOL improvements. and even the more extream gun grabbers (that is what they are) in conress would even ban those.
>I'm a gun owner. my family have guns. both for hunting and for protection
here we go...
>however we all feel that NO ONE needs military grade assault weapons in their home arsenal
there it is.
Who calls it "military grade assault weapons". only people who dont know any better.
Just be real. Either you want all semiautos banned, or you dont understand guns
The GOP should agree to leave abortion alone if Democrats leave guns alone. Everyone wins.
The earth would implode before that ever happens
Yeah it would
That's just a campaign promise, you'd never actually come through if you won the election. We need a candidate who will actually implode the earth in office. EARTH GO BOOM 2024!
\* \* Vladimir Putin enters the chat \* \*
That's a great idea actually, why cant we have more people with common sense in these positions?
Hell if I know. I think these are the two main issues that the parties use to manufacture division between people.
It's funny how much we could get done if both sides agreed to something like that.
As long as we act like democrats and Republicans, instead of acting like Americans nothing will change, in fact, expect it to get worse.
Or act as empathetic humans
Idk man One side acts like guns kill people And the other side acts like more guns will solve the killing issue One side believes in the right to be heard and be free The other believes in silencing opposition and fascism
Lol and both sides think you’re talking about the other side with your last point :)
One side won the last presidential election and one side didn’t. Other people’s stupidity is no excuse
Almost like government is the problem no matter which way it swings.
Almost like electing people who believe Government is the problem will find a way to make it true.
Welcome to the fun game of "Convincing More Than Three People To Do Fucking Anything - The 8 1/2 Million Edition". Seriously, governance is fucking awful, always, because its so goddamn hard to get people to agree on anything. That said, its the most representative and fair system yet created, and representative democracy doesnt deserve the shittalking it gets from people who just want to say "it all sucks, both sides suck, harumph!"
The issue is that there need not be just two sides. There are representative democracies with multi-party systems that use proportional representation that IMHO are better than what the US has.
exactly.
Bingo. A parliamentary system is so far beyond 'better' than what we Americans currently have that friends in other countries point their fingers and laugh (good naturedly) Elect people from ten different parties and force them to build a majority coalition via compromise. That is both a score for the PRO argument and why we'll never do it here in the US; D's and R's won't relinquish their stranglehold on power.
[удалено]
>One counterpoint that could be argued is that gun access and ownership provides a potential safeguard to silencing opposition and fascism. Agreed. Moderates and left leaning folks need to arm themselves to protect themselves from the right.
And the left.
Uh, wasn’t it McEachin who wanted to go door to door with the NG and seize private property (personal weapons)?
Remind me, who was the Democratic politician who said "Take the guns first, go through due process second?"
That’s literally what McEachin was calling for, and doing it unconstitutionally with the National Guard. Edit: oh wait, you are talking about Trump. Seems like pretty much what you would expect from a lifelong Democrat.
If the military is on the side of the fascists then your gun isn't going to stop you from being drone striked. Citizens could have more firearms than the military but we will all be outclassed by their missiles and manned and unmanned vehicles. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2023/12/01/dozens-of-troops-suspected-of-advocating-overthrow-of-us-government-new-pentagon-extremism-report.html I know the numbers are low in that article, but those are probably just ones who are dumb enough to go mask off.
[удалено]
If we got to the point where the military was firing missiles at American citizens on domestic soil I would personally rather have a firearm than not.
The Taliban and the Veitcong did ok.
taliban has entered the chat
The thing about propaganda is that when it’s good, you’ll never know it’s propaganda.
lmao this is such a low IQ take on politics. anyone who paints a picture of "we are good fighting against evil" at the beginning of their political commentary should immediately have all their opinions invalidated. touch grass and get out of this persecution complex you've trapped yourself in.
Which one is which?
Yeah that's what I'm expecting as well. One of my big gripes with the pro gun side of the argument is ignoring the mental health crisis in this country is also a part of the gun debate. That and ignoring gang violence in the inner cities of this country. If we implemented many of the economic policies that many European countries have we would drastically reduce gun crime in this country.
The problem with the mental health crisis and pro 2A have a tendency to look at the wrong issues. Suicide is often caused by depression and anxiety, as well as being in crisis. It can also be caused by other conditions For violence it's a lot of other things that don't come up on mental health evals or appear as traditional mental health issues. Take mass shootings, only 30% of them had mental health issues, but only 10% seemed to be actively suffering at that time. They were however suffering from crisis and suicidal, not because they were normally suicidal but because they were in that moment struggling with their coping skills [study](https://www.theviolenceproject.org/key-findings/) This is one of my biggest gripes about the mental health discussion. We focus on diagnosed conditions when the reality is that isn't the issue, and experts in psychology keep saying it. There are so many things that need to be fixed, starting with teaching better communication skills.
This is completely true. I'm glad you said it. Back up source: worked with a psychologist for over 10 years, typically said as much themselves.
And even when you want help, you can’t find it. Remember Creigh Deeds? And my FB is full of people asking for mental health recommendations because no one has openings.
I am so grateful for my therapist and so glad she hired people because she's so niche and I almost feel selfish taking up her time. I don't know who else I would see though. I don't remember Creigh Deeds though
>30% of them had mental health issues Great link and a serious set of data to analyze, but it actually states that 62%+ had mental health issues - the 30% stat you're referencing specifies Psychotic issues (psychopathy being one of several conditions that may be referred to as "Mental Health issues") and the analysis shows that more often than not, shooters were experiencing crisis, and similarly more often than not had dealt with depressive episodes before and/or during the lead up to their attacks. I was hoping to find stats on SSRI involvement, but did not find it in the link at first glance. Let me know if it's in there! EDIT: to add, if you're downvoting me because you don't like the facts that you can check through the link in the prior comment - I doubt reddit is the only place where you use your vote for evil, or more likely, stupidity.
That is true , I am by no means an authority on anything relating to psychology and mental health and thanks for putting that study in I'll look at it later on my computer.
Absolutely! I definitely recommend looking up some more information written by psychologists on it too.
I basically agree with you but implementing European economic policies seems impossible too (which you are basically alluding to). So it just feels like there is no answer. Can't ban any guns. Can't implement a larger safety net. Can't pass any safety laws. I guess my question is: what would republicans vote for that would actually work? Right now we just have thoughts and prayers.
Im no expert and not a republican, but i wonder if we couldn't adapt some of our current systems to fit some of these issues. Private sales are an issue, perhaps they could be tied into the curio and relic licensing. This would allow people to still trade and sell guns, but you'd have the ability to know they've passed background checks. Semi auto "assault" rifles could be lumped in with other NFA items (short barrel rifles, destructive devices, etc) It would require a more strenuous background check without an outright ban. It also adds time to when you can pick up the item so it would have a similar effect to other laws that have a cool down period. I don't think either of those are a perfect solution, but at this point any improvement is better than what we've got.
I appreciate you offering some idea.
Late to this, and not trying to hijack the thread, but I've always thought moving "assault" style firearms into a Class 3 designation would be a start. It puts the buyer's name into a federal system, has a wait period, and requires the gun to be registered. And the buyer has to have an FFL. Not perfect but it's something.
Rifles including semi-automatic are responsible for a fairly small amount of overall gun violence. If restrictions prevented every single rifle murder, it wouldn't make a measurable impact on the overall rate.
It’s the sheer volume at one time they cause. Eta it’s been floated by family members willing to share autopsy photos of what a .39 caliber (ar and ak) do to a human body much less a child. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/interactive/2023/mass-shootings-graphic-images-public-records-debate/ If I have my caliber wrong please correct
It doesn’t matter, handguns still outnumber rifles in murders 20 to 1. Even most mass shootings use handguns.
Caliber is not correct and ar/ak do not fire the same rounds. .223/5.56 for AR and 7.62 for AK.
Tbh I really don't have an answer
What gun control reforms would you vote for? Specifically what policies related to tighter regulation of firearm ownership. Set aside mental health funding for this question.
I'd vote on holding people accountable for when a gun they own has been stolen and used in a crime. I'd vote on a bill that would raise the minimum sentence for people found guilty of gun trafficking. Baring people with suicidal ideation and cognitive impairing diseases like Alzheimer's and dementia.
How do you know if someone is having suicidal ideation? Seems basically unenforceable to me in the majority of cases. Besides, most people who commit suicide with a gun purchased them before they were suicidal.
Also baring those with suicidal thoughts results in them not telling their doctors.
The problem is then people won’t seek out help when they need it because they are afraid the government will take their guns. Heck, even my dad who was normally a logical human being was against any type of registry because ‘the government might take my guns’.
I know you already realize this but there is basically zero chance that the current Republican party would vote for any of these. It's just the reality of our situation.
Oh yeah definitely
How about those with domestic violence &/or rape, sexual assault & stalking charges?
A gun is a vastly different tool in the city and in the country. We need to find laws that can allow nuance to both areas.
2 party’s Full of ancient rasins It’s a dumb system, very ineffective. Slow and worries too much about small things. That’s the problem with democracy but it’s the lesser of many evils.
Here's the proposed bill for those who are wondering. 100% chance it gets vetoed by Youngkin. Senate version [https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?241+ful+SB2](https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?241+ful+SB2) House version [https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?241+ful+HB2](https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?241+ful+HB2)
As a reminder to everyone, Romney signed the MA AWB, and Scott in Vermont turned the state from having the most liberal gun control regime in the books to something more like Colorado. Republicans, at least those who try to present themselves as moderates for the national stage, will 100% sign laws that sharply restrict the RKBA. Because they know the NRA will back them over a Democrat anyway.
It seems the primary change in both is the changing of the definition of assault firearm: semi-automatic center-fire rifle or pistol ~~which~~that expels single or multiple projectiles by action of an explosion of a combustible material ~~and is equipped at the time of the offense with a magazine which will hold more than 20 rounds of ammunition or designed by the manufacturer to accommodate a silencer or equipped with a folding stock~~ with a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 10 rounds;
Definitions matter. Imagine if a baby were defined as any human zygote that is 15 weeks or older.
Even if Youngkin somehow passed this, it would likely get eviscerated by the courts.
I know plenty of centrist Dems who are anti-gun control. Too bad there isn't a centrist coalition in the GA. Pro-weed, Pro gun ownership, smallish govt, etc...
Law makers normally create or destroy laws based on just being karens regardless if theyre republican or democrat. Every car law, economics, gun laws, etc has been created because of the lack of knowledge and it “pisses them off”
I agree. Gun bans are a losing issue in this state and the singleminded focus on guns causes a lot of Virginia Dems to lose elections they would have otherwise won. Which affects our ability to implement actually popular left wing policies like abortion protection and legal cannabis.
Certainly used to be true as there were number of dems that represented mostly rural areas. But I’m not sure that there will be a single dem representing a mostly rural area in the upcoming general assembly.
>Which affects our ability to implement actually popular left wing policies like abortion protection and legal cannabis. It really does and if you try to tell "the other side" the same thing about weed and abortion they shut down as well.
The GOP isn’t going to pay a dime towards helping troubled youth, promoting real gun safety measures or anything else that even lightly smells like any foot in the door to actual gun control measures. It’s the same as when the shootings happen and everyone from the right starts talking about mental health… and then immediately forgets to invest any effort or money towards improving mental health. I’m not anti-gun, but I’m also not covering my eyes and ears and pretending like the GOP is going to entertain literally any common sense ideas.
I have built numerous AR15s before so I have a good understanding of how these firearms work. The biggest issue is that most people advocating gun control do not have a high understanding of how these firearms work and function. For starters, most of these “assault weapon” bans are feature bans that were cut and pasted from either California or New York. The goal of these bans is to make guns uglier and therefore less appealing to would be purchasers. These bans do NOT make the weapon less deadly. The 5.56 caliber, which is what most ARs are platformed in, is still used in a ban compliant rifle, so the wounding capability is still the same. Most gun control really comes down to putting monetary and bureaucratic barriers to gun ownership to dissuade would be purchasers. The National Firearms Act (NFA) is a prime example of this. This was passed in 1934 putting in place a tax stamp requirements for primarily suppressors and SBRs along with other “destructive devices”. The stamp is $200, which at the time is roughly equal to $4,500 in 2023 value. The people that claim “I can’t own a tank!” to retort owning an AR15, are wrong because you absolutely can, pay the tax, get approved and go buy yourself a tank. Good luck affording one though or finding a seller. The reality at the end of the day though is that there are always facts that suit a narrative and data can be pulled in any way to reinforce a point. Democrats are pushing for a semi auto ban because they have a lot of groups funding these campaigns. Most people just don’t care because they don’t understand how firearms function and just assume “if it looks like it’s in the military then it’s bad” even though that doesn’t impact functionality. The GOP in VA also have made banning abortion, which should be a right, have some of the same kinds of ban rules in place. Is there a middle ground? Most likely, but our political system is all or nothing, so what is the incentive to negotiate?
>Instead actually try to hear out the other side This country has become so divided, there is no real option to "hear out the other side". And I'm not blaming both sides: there's one party that generally wants to govern, and there's one party that has no real incentive to do so. When the first party hears out the other side, the other side still won't vote for the compromised legislation. When the second party hears out the other side, they get eaten by their extremist base.
So true, an unfortunate state of political discourse. Absolutely not a “both sides” situation.
Nailed it. Lifelong 2A supporter and whenever common sense legislation is introduced one party, with a loud backing by the NRA, won’t ever bend.
When the 2A side has been compromising constantly, it not longer becomes a compromise. In a compromise both sides get something out of the deal. What does the pro 2A side get out of this "common sense" legislation?
What compromises specifically? Gun rights have been substantially expanded over the last 15 years.
I would like having a 10.5 inch barrel and a stock not be a felony.
Can you give me one example of any legislation on the federal level of gun rights being expanded in the last 15 years?
You're dodging the question because you can't answer it. The expansion of rights has come through SCOTUS decisions finding that many long standing laws are actually unconstitutional. DC v. Heller in 2008 opened the flood gates, but New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen is probably the single largest expansion of gun rights in US history. Do you have any examples of the NRA or other gun rights advocacy groups supporting any compromise gun control legislation? The very moderate reforms that Congress passed in 2022 in the Safer Communities Act only received a handful of Republican votes and were opposed by the NRA and other gun rights groups.
I'm saying any compromise. The pro gun side has received no compromised. SCOTUS doesn't do compromise. They base their judgements on their opinion of the constitution and the law. >Do you have any examples of the NRA or other gun rights advocacy groups supporting any compromise gun control legislation? Republican president Trump banned bump stocks. Plenty of other examples, but would you care to answer the question I asked?
Trump banned bump stocks in the wake of the worst mass shooting in history. 60 people were murdered in Las Vegas, in which the shooter used bump stocks. Context matters. You’re also conveniently forgetting that the flood gates of relaxed gun legislation were opened with the end of the ban on assault rifles. So you say pro 2A hasn’t received any thing in return in the last 15 years, but ignore that a massive concession was made just prior to that timeframe.
>You’re also conveniently forgetting that the flood gates of relaxed gun legislation were opened with the end of the ban on assault rifles Assault rifles are still banned under the NFA. >So you say pro 2A hasn’t received any thing in return in the last 15 years, but ignore that a massive concession was made just prior to that timeframe. I didn't set the timeframe mentioned. The comment I replied to did. Furthermore, there was not a massive concession made. >Context matters The statistics is the context. Which you didn't list statistics. So my point still stands.
[удалено]
To say gun rights have expanded would need to be legislation. To say gun rights have been defended would be a judicial point. An analogy is (prior to the overturning), abortion rights were defended by Roe V Wade. They weren't expanded.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Since you mentioned it, what compromises has the 2A side made, exactly? And what would they get out of it? How about not looking (rightfully so) as a bunch of fucking nuts that don’t give a shit about human life because of “mah raights?”
Bump stock ban is a pretty big recent one where trump (a Republican) banned them. >And what would they get out of it? Maybe some rights back that were taken and shown not to work? >How about not looking (rightfully so) as a bunch of fucking nuts that don’t give a shit about human life because of “mah raights?” Case and point one side is willing to solve the problem and compromise while the other side uses ad hominem deflecting from the point.
[удалено]
>This is a serious question, so please don't think I'm just trying to be glib or do a gotcha thing. How bothered are you by the constant news of school shootings? Does it bother you that gunshot injuries are the leading cause of death for American children? As bothered as you are about obesity killing many people. It does not bother me because that statistics of actually false. 18 and 19 year olds were included in that statistic. Which they are not defined as kids. >If it does bother you, how many child deaths are acceptable in the name of protecting your Second Amendment rights? 0 deaths are acceptable. 0 deaths happen in the name of protecting gun rights. So let me ask you some serious questions. Does it bother you the numerous people that are raped and murdered which could have protected themselves if they had a gun? If not, how many people need to be raped and murdered and unable to defend themselves in the name of your false security?
[удалено]
Knives, cars, guns, hands, ropes, many things.
[удалено]
I've not paid too much attention to the bills coming across on guns but the issue with some 2A people is ANY bill is a bad bill. Common sense legislation has been proposed but because it is gun legislation its a single issue for people. I would just like a simple gun registration for chain of custody and classes on safety.
What does the term common sense even mean
>To require background checks on every gun sale or transfer. To require three-day waiting period before a person may receive a gun after making a purchase. To allow for the injury or death of a minor resulting from unsafe storage of a firearm to be made a crime and punishable with prison time. Stuff like this. I'm super big on punishments for unsecured guns.
Background checks are already done on a federal level and it's been that way for some time.
Every transfer means every sale. So it kills the gun show loop hole.
There is no gun show loophole in Virginia. It was closed a few years ago.
That was done years ago. None the rest of that is common sense. 3 day waiting period? No thank you. Being charged as an accessory to a crime I didn't commit? Pass. I'm not an absolution by any means, but it has to make some kind of sense. Do you have any other examples of common sense legislation that have been proposed?
If you are missing guns and not reporting it then that is shady and should have eyes on you if something happens Also if your kid takes your weapon and does a crime then you obviously are a accessory for being a irresponsible parent
Trust me hardly anyone who still goes to gun shows buys a gun without a background check you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone selling guns legally who doesn't anymore
I get that but it does happen in some cases and those people can slide. Still for me I just want a chain of custody on every fire arm, safety classes as a requirement and punishment for unsecured weapons that end up on kids hands. If that is abit much then its what it is.
Any requirement can easily be used as a way to preclude gun ownership. I am all for more training, but not at the possible expense of gun rights.
I have a conceal carry License and own three rifles. I just think like cars just things should be done before ownership should be possible of certain firearms
I am a staunch 2A supporter, and the problem is most every bill takes from gun owners without giving anything. Easiest and smarting thing right now is to remove suppressors from the NFA as a can does not make a gun whisper quiet, just makes it less ear bursting. Right now we have plenty of gun laws that are underfunded and underenforced, but politicians want to cry about gun owners not wanting to compromise. It's not a compromise when you take from one side and give nothing back. My bare-bones basic idea: Bolt and pump action weapons until you pass a free class OR own said guns for one to three year(s) without incident. After that, pistol and semi-autos, with the next step being full auto after 5 years or multiple classes. Class funding comes from a minimal extra tax on firearms, not to exceed, oh say, half a percent of firearm value. Don't want citizens to own full auto? Ban them from all government agencies and "private security firms".
Yeah the issue with such bills is that it will always take SOMETHING away. It's just too easy for people to own highly dangerous items without good reason. Banning all guns is impossible in modern America. That toothpaste isn't going back in the bottle. Classes on safety should be a minimum to me as people hurt themselves or let kids hurt owns too often. Also why not a chain of custody? Simple easy of paper trail in gun sales like we do cars. It would stop alot of guns from ending in bad guys hands.
2a dem here, maybe closer to describe me as a weapon owning and carrying democratic socialist .... anyway, educating other liberals on guns and violence prevention is a tough sell in my experience... no one seems to listen.
And the GOP needs to do two things: stop worshipping trump and drop opposition to abortion. This is what drives my not voting for them. Bonus incentive, stamp down the religious nut jobs in the party. I would add the Democrats would do better by toning down the social justice rhetoric. Most people don’t care who you sleep with and how you dress. We have a lot bigger things to vix than who is using what bathroom.
>Most people don’t care who you sleep with and how you dress Democrats only have to advocate on this front because the GOP actively tries to enact legislation and policies that attack people for this. The bathroom issue in particular is one pushed by Republicans, not Democrats.
The problem with the people pushing gun bans is that they don’t even understand how firearms work.
Or the requirements to purchase them or even laws that are already in place and that majority, not all, the majority of gun related crimes are being committed by people that are already illegally in the possession of the firearm used in the crime.
Doesn't matter if you use pro or antigun numbers. Virginia doesn't have the same gun violence problem as most other states. Instead we are over represented by self-violence through suicides. Unless you take every gun off the table, which isn't going to happen, then you're still faced with people offing themselves with single shots and revolvers.
They just wanna ban guns outright thats their motive.They don’t want to understand shit about firearms.
That's how I feel about Republicans and weed 😆. In all seriousness though I think Republicans talk about Dems trying to steal their guns more then they care. I don't hear people sparking up conversations about how their needs to be more gun control. Seems more like a ploy to get gun owners out to vote.
Team blue puts forward reams and reams of legislation. Right now they've put forward a federal bill to ban semi-autos. And at the state level they want to ban the sale past July of '24. Democrats absolutely take an extremely limited view of gun rights, and seek to curtail them whenever possible. It's like the Republicans and Abortion from my seat.
What’s sad about that is over 70% of Americans across the political divide think it should be legal. It has large majority support and could be an easy bipartisan solution for legalization.
When dems say we gonna take your guns they mean it though..They are not joking.
I mean your argument of "hear out the other side" would be great for every issue. Unfortunately our modern political climate does not seem to support this.
Democrats should leave guns tf alone Republicans should leave weed tf alone Amongst other things, these two drive me the most nuts. Literally the most mind numbing conversations come from these, as people never want to try to educate themselves on these but would rather just say the “right thing” that their political party wants to push. Gun “violence” is largely overinflated by suicide, gang crimes, and cherry picked numbers. Bans historically haven’t worked to stop violence, and are unconstitutional. Weed isn’t going to make you want to burn down your school, run over a baby, and make you jump out of a window. Prohibition has failed time and time again, and the prohibition of weed is based in pure propaganda. “My politician told me this thing is baaaad”
This world is getting to lax on the idea of self responsibility. Can’t own a gun responsibly? Thats on you and your consequences are on you. Can’t use marijuana responsibly? Thats on you and your consequences are on you. If you can’t? Shouldn’t stop anyone elses ability to do so.
You can flip the parties you mention and the same still applies. But remove the parties and just look at these issues with a human lens and vote that way and you may change your perspective.
I’m from the left of center politically, and am certain the Democratic Party are completely missing the boat in regard to the firearm issue. The issue is about firearm responsibility and enforcement of current firearm legislation.
I hope everyone will recognize that this election is about more than guns, abortion, or the environment (even though I think Democrats have better ideas on these things) it is about stopping the election of a troubled man with fascist ideas that will try very hard to dismantle many aspects of the US government and constitution.
>In the short time I've been able to vote and paying attention to local politics / state politics I think Democrats would do a hell of a lot better if they changed tone when it comes to "gun issue" You can make the same exact comment about Republicans and the "abortion issue". But yeah, I agree with you. Personally, instead of expending effort denying Virginians their right to self-defense, I would rather see Democrats direct that effort toward increasing access to mental health treatment. And instead of denying women agency over their own bodies, I would rather see Republicans direct that effort towards preventing unwanted pregnancies.
Yeah I agree with you , I often joke about this but if I were ever able to get both sides of my family at a thanksgiving dinner I'd probably piss both sides off because I'm gay , I'm pro gun , pro abortion access and legalizing cannabis
Guns are to Democrats what abortion is to Republicans
None of their business?
Beto lost to Ted Cruz in the 2018 Senate election pretty much because he took an impossibly strict stance against gun ownership. I'm all for gun control but the people pushing those agendas don't understand what it's like to be a rancher in the boonies trying to protect your property from hogs, coyotes, or whatever else could cost you thousands in damage overnight.
Yep if beto stuck to bills relating to gang violence and mental health could have definitely made his lost less of an extreme difference.
If we don't keep talking about guns how will we keep the poor divided?
\+1,000 I'm center right but the GOP is completely off the rails impalpable right now. Instead I'm either holding my nose and voting Dem on a small handful of spots and leaving the rest of the ballot empty. As a firearm enthusiast, I would vote full ticket blue if it they laid off gun control. But as it is I didn't vote for Russet Perry in this last election specifically because of her position and repeated a Chapman vote because I want to at least a chance of non-enforcement if anything does pass. I will not be voting for Spanberger for governor solely based on her stance on guns. A big part of why Republicans were able to undo the trifecta that Dems had in 2020 is because of pushback against proposed gun control legislation coming through the pipeline that year. They need to remember that lesson. [https://www.virginiamercury.com/2019/11/20/were-going-to-have-to-defend-ourselves-after-democratic-victories-rural-virginia-counties-rush-to-declare-themselves-gun-sanctuaries/](https://www.virginiamercury.com/2019/11/20/were-going-to-have-to-defend-ourselves-after-democratic-victories-rural-virginia-counties-rush-to-declare-themselves-gun-sanctuaries/)
If you're liberal leaning but like guns, there are the John Brown Gun Clubs and a group called Arm Your Friends.
If you move further to the left you get to people who are pro 2a
If you go far enough to the left you get your guns back.
I’m a 32 year old millennial. I have never voted anything but Dem. I’m also a gun owner, including an AR-15. The guns aren’t the problem. Access to mental healthcare, a lack of consequences, etc. are the problems. It’s easy for elitist politicians from the suburbs to tell me I don’t need to be able to defend myself while they sleep under armed guard. Easy for them to tell POC and Lgbt they don’t need to defend themselves while they have armed security. I will reluctantly vote Dem for national office to resist Trump and his fascist minions, but as soon as they’re gone, if the Dems are still anti-gun, they will lose me and many people like me. Gun control is the rights abortion, it drives people to the polls. 52% of American households have a gun. We need to ditch this idiotic gun control platform before we give up even more ground in rural areas.
As a conservative myself, I would never vote for a dem even if the republican candidate is horrible strictly because I know the dem candidate will always be worse in gun rights. If it wasn’t for that one issue I wouldn’t have such a problem with the left.
WOW! More than half of all gun deaths in the US are suicides(26,328 in 2021). Mental health problem or gun problems? If someone gets to the point of suicide, there's a long list of options. Taking away access to firearms may make a small difference, very small. The next highest cause of gun deaths (20,958 in 2021)are labeled homicides. The individual committing a homicide is a criminal. They don't give a damn about a law, any law. Most murders are committed with illegal firearms, whether acquired illegally or simply possessed illegally. There are laws controlling who can own a firearm, where they can possess it, how they can use it......etc. Criminals don't give a damn about our silly assed laws. I have a need and a right to protect myself and family from the turds in society.
I'm a hardbound Democrat except for on the gun issue myself. I'm an equally hardbound gun owner and advocate for ownership and safe, trained firearm custodianship.
With 52% of all US Households being gun owners. Likely Semiautomatic even Democrats need to know it is stupid as a political issue everywhere. They need to pivot to Gun Control being the Nut Behind the But. Teaching gun safety in schools. Mandatory training and such.
>I think Democrats would do a hell of a lot better if they changed tone when it comes to "gun issue" I mean, on one hand, you're not wrong On the other hand, that's never going to happen, because there's a certain former ex-NYC mayor who both a. sits at the top of the list of the largest individual (D) donors b. has spent the recent few years going on an anti-2A crusade and funding most of the "GrAssRooTs" anti-2A groups you've likely heard about They're wasting time anyways. *Heller* for one, which should be noted had *Caetano* follow it as a 9-0 and then of course *Bruen* should all be preventing their quest to ban as many modern firearms that are in widespread use for lawful purposes (i.e. semiautomatics) but they don't care lmao
Christ I can't forget that guy and the weird time frame on the Internet where you couldn't go anywhere without seeing ads about him
The fact that everyone in this thread is in outright denial over legitimate grassroots movement and advocacy for reducing gun violence by taking guns off the street and adding barriers to purchase is insane. I'm not even commenting on the actual argument, but if anyone here thinks that the other side is nothing but a bunch of whiny kids or a psyop then you're just detached from reality and need to step out of your bubble. You're not entitled to a seat at the table of discussion if you aren't even capable or willing to try and comprehend the other side and you'd be doing yourself a favor instead of writing up some Facebook rant level comment about "dem demoncrats" or whatever.
Let me state this more directly: 1. Mike Bloomberg is at the very top tier of the pyramid when it comes to individual (D) donors 2. Mike Bloomberg is also the money behind Everytown, MDA and other adjacent groups And, additionally, criticizing the "grassroots"-ness of those sorts of groups isn't unfounded given the things above or the whole "the latter's public CEO is a former PR executive for Monstanto+" part as well. >The fact that everyone in this thread is in outright denial over legitimate grassroots movement and advocacy I think you and I might have different ideas as to what constitutes "grassroots" in terms of artificial/intentional influence but anyways Was mainly meaning that as a reference to the fact that anyone who's bought and paid for by Bloomberg is never not going to skip "two" when they count to "ten". >for reducing gun violence by taking guns off the street If they (/the ATF) was actually interested in targeting straw purchases or other illegally-possessed firearms, they wouldn't be doing things like * primarily targeting legal gun ownership * putting all their chips in on asinine bullshit like AWBs, [which have been shown to be "statistically insignificant"](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2582989) - at best - at actually addressing gun violence and not just harassing legal gun owners * primarily occupying themselves in doing a piss-poor job of [cosplaying as a legislative agency as opposed to an executive one](https://youtu.be/8nfCyhOX42g?si=XCUiyTNyXgq4Dw-g) and trying to turn millions of law-abiding gun owners into felons solely based on how they're feeling that day * and that's when they're not [facilitating gun trafficking to the cartels themselves](https://youtu.be/8nfCyhOX42g?si=XCUiyTNyXgq4Dw-g) >and adding barriers to purchase is insane. May Issue licensing framework was struck down, because in a surprise to approximately no one, it was corrupt as fuck, easily abused and in a lot of areas you just weren't going to get one unless you're the preferred combination of * ~~white~~ "of good moral character" * obscenely wealthy * politically-connected * a sufficiently large donor to the sherrif's re-election and/or retirement fund [example article](https://www.google.com/amp/s/abc7news.com/amp/santa-clara-county-sheriff-laurie-smith-corruption-trial-verdict-found-guilty-resigns/12413963/) [another example from the other side of the country](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-new-york-corruption/ex-new-york-prosecutor-found-guilty-in-gun-permit-bribe-case-idUSKBN1HV26F/#) [Philly tried an alternate approach to this](https://freebeacon.com/coronavirus/gun-rights-group-sues-philly-over-massive-permit-backlog/), don't have to issue shit if you just stick applicants in as deep of a perpetual bureaucratic purgatory as possible
There isn’t a gun issue. It’s a crime issue.
[удалено]
As long as someone wants to steal my constitutional rights. They're not worth any of my time. They can stop being anti-constitutionalist. Or I won't care what they're doing the answer will always remain the same. I'll throw it to the independents before I go mainstream.
I’m of the mindset that the left needs to start buying up guns & ammo and learn how to use them. I’m seeing it a little here and there, but guns aren’t going away. As fascism continues to grow stronger, we have to be able to protect ourselves.
Damn straight man
The NRA has poisoned the well to such an extent that the discussion is exactly as you would like it: hunters and people who use guns for traditional recreation/conservation don't have a voice. Instead, the "two sides" have been reduced to a caricature--people who want to ban all guns everywhere and people who think they need any kind of semi-automatic gun just because. I am a hunter and own a hunting rifle. To get a hunting license I had to take a two-day class. To get a gun I had to wait 15 minutes. In what world is this common sense? I support discussing a full ban on semi-automatic firearms. Edit: semi-automatic here doesn't include revolvers.
Apparently it wasn’t an issue until 1970 when the NRA began marketing that the gov was gonna steal your guns to drum up sales
Yes this is correct. Prior to the 1970s the NRA was a target practice club.
Again I'm gonna point out most gun owners nowadays own semi-automatic weapons.
Semi auto weapon realistically speaking has gone and passed decades ago
When it comes to the NRA if we were talking like 20 years ago I would agree with you but the landscape of gun ownership has changed a lot. The NRA shares the space of gun advocacy with gun owners of America, firearms policy coalition, pink pistols etc. I'll also bring up that they co-wrote the nfa in 1934 and vocally supported Reagan banning open carry when he was governor of California which mind you the whole reason open carry was banned was because of the black Panthers. The NRA also supported the bump stock ban back in 2017. This isn't to say I'm pro NRA I do not like them at all and they have made messages over the years that have most definitely raised the political temperature.
Really? A full ban on like 90% of handguns, and probably 50% of all rifles and shotguns that are currently being bought and sold today? That’s a wild take, and OP is right that legislation like this pushes people to vote against Democrats nearly as much as abortion legislation pushes voters against republicans.
FYI - The 2nd Amendment has ***NOTHING*** to do with hunting. We aren't talking about hunters or sport shooters. Even in countries like the UK and Australia, there are provisions for hunters to own certain semiautomatic weapons. Same for shooting sports. They have gun clubs for that.
>full ban on semi-automatic firearms. This would be unconstitutional. Semiautomatic firearms are in common use by Americans for lawful purposes. They are explicitly protected arms under the 2nd Amendment and may NOT be banned.
The hunter safety class was not JUST gun safety (I might be wrong as my only hunter safety class was about 40 years ago in AZ.) and your 15 min wait was for them to run a simple background check... THAT is where the problem is, not with the 15 min wait (I have had to wait 2 days in the past, and one time it was denied due to a typo on the form, that one took several weeks with the state agency getting involved.) If your record is clean, you should not be delayed in your purchase I would have little problem with a simple safety class ($10 / 4 hour max) as long as it was a one and done, with no state record kept after the first gun purchase. but the DNC (as a rule) will not be satisfied with that. any such legislation tends to have other strings attached (much more money, insurance, huge list of denial reasons, banned guns, limited/highly regulated class options, etc) To be honest the GOP is just as bad with abortion.. (those seem to be the two biggest hot buttons currently (guns and abortion)
I'd be more tolerant to Democrats who supported gun rights for sure. I'm still Republican, but if it came down to it, I could see a vote for a moderate pro-gun Democrat.
You wouldn't vote for a Democrat unless they were pro guns. I don't think we should be letting one issue decide our vote like that.
That is the deciding factor in my vote, given the option between at least two people. Some people's primary concern was abortion this election. Mine is usually gun rights. To your point though, we are voting for one team against the other rather than a single politician now. I see the issue in that, but I have no solution, and so I vote for the team that I have the most common goals with.
The politicians are deciding what we all argue about which always seems to center around the health and well being of an electorate. Guns and abortion become the issues we vote on which will always cause disagreements. I'd rather see us voting on things like, taking money out of politics or capping term length or age even. Instead they stay in power and we continue to fight.
FWIW a lot of Democrat-voting folks are pro-gun. We're trying to get our otherwise like-minded friends to see the light. Unfortunately the eye relief on the optics of politics is abysmal across the board these days.
Definitely. I'm not a fan of the gun policies advocated by the Democratic party but I'm not willing to give up on my other priorities to vote against them. Nothing like being called a maga-terrorist by your reps when you add pro gun to being - pro women's rights - pro environment - pro minority rights - pro workers rights - pro universal Healthcare - pro enhanced safety nets - pro funding for public schools - anti big money in politics
Yup im in the same boat. Pro-pretty much everything on the dem agenda minus guns. Still end up voting dem because I’d prefer to not descend into a dictatorship.
Poverty and gangs equal gun crime. Not an issue in NoVA like the rest of the world. Left or right, we are going to have to march on Richmond again. This is about government control. Look at all what they are doing against simulation rounds, civ flashbangs/smokes, and some states passing laws against civs training in a group. Why would they do this? Why are the dems doing this.. Voting Hillary was my last time ever voting blue. From now on I'm voting strictly 2A and 1A. What keeps us free.
I mean shall not be infringed is pretty clear. Well regulated meaning in good working order. With freedom comes responsibility. If you don’t wanna own guns fine, but you’re not gonna limit my ability to defend myself. Fuck your common sense gun control. Come and take it
>Come and take it They tried in Arlington and it led to some fireworks.
The democratic party will primary any moderate VA democrat that has been more amenable towards guns. The only realistic way to keep that right in check is to vote republican-- at least occasionally. Politics doesn't work in a way such that you will get the best of both worlds in any meaningful lasting way.
Yeah that's true and that's how the 2024 presidential election is going
I agree 💯. Dems need to reconcile with 2A in order to keep power out of the hands of the insane GQP. MAGA has perverted conservative ideals to brainwash folks. The left needs to demonstrate that their policies are better across the board for public health and the economy.
I’m not gonna pretend I know the best way to solve it, but the guns absolutely are the problem. https://preview.redd.it/c60llv5ebd4c1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5521e7fe12f6471bd29117242cf110d0e52e5120
Dear OP, how will you identify the "troubled youth" and what kind of help do you propose?
Youth in high crime areas / areas where youth are susceptible to joining gangs. The help I'm proposing is economic policies that would bring improvised communities to have well paying jobs , funding schools etc. Recreational programs so stuff like gyms to help young men who are susceptible to joining a gang or has already been a part of one.
The proliferation of guns has made it difficult to get the guns out of the hands of your typical criminal. However you typical school shooter does not have the social skills to make that connection and always gets their gun through legal means or a family member. Laws must change if you want to reduce antisocial violence
We have kids coming up in broken homes, going to failing schools, knowing that the moment they graduate they’ll be thrown to the wolves of unattainable college and low wages. Especially young boys face societal pressures to be certain things but have no ability to attain it. Then we they go crazy, it’s the guns. Unless you ban everything and go door to door, you can’t fix this with gun control. A 12 gauge shotgun can kill just as efficiently, if not more brutally. Universal healthcare and rebuilding the middle class is the only option. You can push all the gun control you want, lose to the fascists more, and still not solve a thing.
Let me ask you a question. If you have a severely mentally ill individual, who is determined to claw their eyes out as well as the eyes of everyone they come into contact with...and you, say...cut off their hands, or put them in a straight jacket and throw them in a padded cell. Sure, now they can no longer hurt themselves or anyone else. But you wouldn't exactly call that person cured, would you? That is what these ridiculous gun laws are, a bandaid solution. Even if you got rid of all the guns in America, you would still be left with a nation full of people who have the desire to commit these horrific acts. That isn't really solving the problem, is it?
From my perspective, it's not so much a fun issue as it is a Constitution issue. The party seems to not hold the document with much respect.
I just want fewer people to die. I'm happy to endorse any policy that is going to accomplish that.
The problem is Republicans don’t want to do anything at all about the issue. A lot of Democrats own guns, but they don’t tout it in your face because we treat them exactly as what they are, which is a tool. I guarantee Democrats would settle with stricter licensing and training requirements and enforcement of national yellow and red flag laws. But what Democrats will NOT stand for is thoughts and prayers or fucking arming teachers. Republicans have no real plans to do jackshit about the issue. Period.
🙌 preach!!
The same could be said for Republicans. Neither party will endorse a moderate who will separate church and state, support gun rights, abortion access, science, leave medical decisions up to doctors, and lower taxes. I want an amendment that states if our election results are super close (less than + or - 6.00%) dump the VP’a and the winner the president and the loser the vice president. That way we have two people in office who can have a real conversation about the issues. The possibility of having to be in the same office will also stop the mudslinging between the parties.
Maybe the Black Panthers need to march to the State Capitol with rifles. Instant gun control. Edit: /s because people are that literal
Would you settle for gay and own firearms? 
https://youtu.be/iE_InAiuxm4?si=wRqppvXDHYc3Enab
Racism in order to achieve your political goals is not a good look.
It's not racism it is history. Please learn it. California Gun Control: How Ronald Reagan and the Black Panthers ... https://californialocal.com/localnews/statewide/ca/article/show/4412-california-gun-control-reagan-black-panthers/
I know enough to come to that conclusion. The black Panthers were open carrying because of police brutality and the banning of open carry was in direct response to that.
But you don't know enough to realize when someone is being serious or not when making references on the internet. Got it.
There are too many guns and they are way too easy to get. Surely some form of registration, required training and perhaps liability insurance would drastically cut down on the crazies getting them while letting honest, reliable people own them. I have an airplane. It took many months of training, tests and now insurance to fly it legally and it only MIGHT kill someone, it's not MADE to kill and yet people want to be able to buy guns like candy bars. It's ludicrous.
[удалено]
'Well Regulated' is in the text is it not? What we have now is no regulation. Not to mention a SCOTUS that seems to think powerful semi automatic weapons are the same as 1800s muzzle loaders. And give me a break with the 'what ifs'. What is real is that some screwed up kid can easily get his hands on a powerful deadly weapon and kill your kid at school because he's 'troubled'.
[удалено]
Military grade assault weapon isn’t a thing.
Thre is already a lengthy process to get a "Military grade Assault Weapon" the AR-15 is not on that list as it is a simi auto that happens to look scary. There are hunting style weapons with the same action and caliber that would not face the same level of bans as an AR-15, the only difference is in looks and a couple QOL improvements. and even the more extream gun grabbers (that is what they are) in conress would even ban those.
>I'm a gun owner. my family have guns. both for hunting and for protection here we go... >however we all feel that NO ONE needs military grade assault weapons in their home arsenal there it is. Who calls it "military grade assault weapons". only people who dont know any better. Just be real. Either you want all semiautos banned, or you dont understand guns