Trump: "Take guns first, go through due process second"

[Eargesplitten]

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4716589/trump-take-guns-first-due-process-second

Your however-often reminder that Republicans only pretend to care about gun rights or the constitution as much as they need to in order to keep people voting for them.

[iego]

The only people discussing gun rights today, are the people that want to take away gun rights.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

I quote.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

-John

[DenverGP]

Anyone who thought a former democrat from NY really cared about gun rights was pretty dumb. But once it was clear it was him or hillary, I voted for him. So far we've gotten 2 conservative supreme court justices, and a bunch of conservative lower court justices.

And that video was from over a year ago.

[Eargesplitten]

My bad, only heard about it today. Maybe because of the Red Flag and UBC talk going around recently.

We need to make gun rights less of a partisan issue to prevent stuff like this or the bump stock ban from happening in the future. Sadly the main way that seems to be happening lately is minorities on the left being afraid of being the target of hate crimes (Trigger Warning, JBGC/RR/WILD, SRA) instead of being on principle.

Most of the leftists I know are pro-gun because they don't trust the current government (or governments in general depending on where they fall on that axis) but then the moderates / liberals will say that the police are racist but also the only ones that should have guns in the same breath. And that's because gun rights are seen as an exclusively right-wing thing, and if you're a democrat then a right-wing thing = bad automatically. Never mind that the current worker's rights that we have, we only have because workers died fighting corporate-hired mercenaries and corrupt police (see: Battle of Blair Mountain). And never mind that the main reason California's gun laws are the way they are was because Reagan was afraid of the Black Panthers. And that the only reason guns have to be shipped to FFLs was so that the local dealers would be able to make sure that the people buying them were the white, I mean right, kind of person.

[DenverGP]

Yes, the roots of gun control were racism. But whats happening with gun control for last 20+ years have no connection to the racism/reagan/black panthers thing.

I've had a bunch of left leaning gun people try to tell me the republicans are no better on guns that the dems. But the dems lately are fully embracing gun control. It's a central plank in the democrat platform. At this point, in order for a person to get the democrat nomination, they need to fully buy into the dem's gun control plans.

While the current republicans in the house and senate didn't do shit to improve gun rights, they have at least prevented the left from imposing their wish list (AWB, UBC, etc).

Look at places like NY, California (and coming soon Colorado) for what gun rights will be like with more democrats in office.

[Eargesplitten]

That's why I'm saying we need to work on making it no longer a partisan issue. If pro-gun was a more popular stance on the left more democratic candidates would be willing to take pro-gun stances. As-is, except in a few districts it's political suicide. Doesn't help that in the past the NRA has sponsored anti-gun republicans over pro-gun democrats (I'd need to go to a friend for the source on this, I forget the names). The fact is that as the urban centers grow, where gun-owning tradition is either nonexistent or an unfortunate necessity for safety in areas the police don't care about, we need to plant the seeds of gun ownership there. Holding the old lines isn't going to work. If I had the education and drive I would start a campus pro-gun group at CU, but I have neither. The only line I have is Marx's "under no pretenses" quote, and that would be A) too far left for a lot of them, and B) not enough.

I have a roommate from ghetto Birmingham and another from ghetto Chicago, they're both fine with gun ownership but don't want to collect, just possibly own one for defense. They grew up around guns, but only because where they lived was so dangerous. That's not a way to grow the view of guns as a positive thing.

[MrPrena]

As stupid as Uncle Joe Biden's "Buy A Shotgun" statement.

[BPTactical]

"Gun Control" is about Power.
Absolute Power.


Always has been, always will.

[Irving]

I have a roommate from ghetto Birmingham and another from ghetto Chicago, they're both fine with gun ownership but don't want to collect, just possibly own one for defense. They grew up around guns, but only because where they lived was so dangerous. That's not a way to grow the view of guns as a positive thing.

That's kind of interesting as most people who just like guns will go on and on about how they are for their protection, even though most of them don't really know what it's like to use guns for protection.

[Skip]

To an authoritarian, currently in power, this sounds like a greater good reasonable policy. But the problems are obvious.

Kind of like that Executive authority and emergency powers... Build the wall via national emergency and watch the next Communist in office tear it down with the same powers.

During the Obama years (e.g. IRS targeting) I wondered how seriously high profile opposition people were taking things. Now it seems like a game. Spout off on Twitter, allow your people to be disarmed, and then what happens if the worst fears are realized? I mean, we're all on a list, but it seems the reasonable GOPer/media personality is probably at the top.

[Ridge]

Doesn't help that in the past the NRA has sponsored anti-gun republicans over pro-gun democrats

Actually that's good because that is what they SHOULD be doing. Instead of what they do now of supporting anti gun Republicans just because (R).

[Bailey Guns]

Doesn't help that in the past the NRA has sponsored anti-gun republicans over pro-gun democrats (I'd need to go to a friend for the source on this, I forget the names).

Don't be fooled. Pro-gun democrats are a myth. There's no such thing. A democrat may say s/he's pro-gun. They may even vote pro-gun on occasion...when they have permission. But the democrat platform/agenda is definitely not pro-gun and when push comes to shove your pro-gun democrat will support the party. Because they all know the consequences of not supporting the party...no support, no money, having to defend themselves against primary challengers supported by the party. There's all sorts of ways the party can punish them if they're TOO pro-gun.

Even the Blue Dog Coalition describes themselves as fiscally conservative but socially progressive despite the fact there's no official platform that describes them that way.

[Eargesplitten]

That's kind of interesting as most people who just like guns will go on and on about how they are for their protection, even though most of them don't really know what it's like to use guns for protection.

Self-defense is possibly the most important and simultaneously "worst," for lack of a better term, aspect of gun ownership. Nobody should want to feel like they need to defend themselves with violence. If that's the only reason people have them they would be fine with not having them if they believe it would lead to them not needing it. And you're right, most people don't know what it's like to live somewhere with the very real chance of someone kicking down your door at any moment and coming in with a gun to steal everything you own.


Actually that's good because that is what they SHOULD be doing. Instead of what they do now of supporting anti gun Republicans just because (R).
I think you misread what I said. That's what I was saying, they'll support anti-gun republicans because of their party.



Don't be fooled. Pro-gun democrats are a myth. There's no such thing. A democrat may say s/he's pro-gun. They may even vote pro-gun on occasion...when they have permission. But the democrat platform/agenda is definitely not pro-gun and when push comes to shove your pro-gun democrat will support the party. Because they all know the consequences of not supporting the party...no support, no money, having to defend themselves against primary challengers supported by the party. There's all sorts of ways the party can punish them if they're TOO pro-gun.

Even the Blue Dog Coalition describes themselves as fiscally conservative but socially progressive despite the fact there's no official platform that describes them that way.


And as we've seen, Republicans can be as anti-gun as their party lets them be as well. That's why, going back to my original point, we need to work on making gun control less of a party-based issue. I remember there was one D candidate back in the '08 primaries who was vocally for re-opening the registry, I'd say it's 50/50 he was more pro-gun than his R counterparts although IIRC he was in New Mexico so it's probably safer to say that he was more pro-gun than a lot of coastal Republicans. If more democrat voters were pro-gun it would no longer be political suicide to voice pro-gun opinions and vote for them.

Maybe it's because Colorado is Colorado, but I know plenty of people at least left-of-center who are pro-gun, but hold their noses on that part and vote D because they agree on the rest of the candidate's policies. And I'm not going to argue on their behalf, I also know people left-of-center who started voting R after 2013 because that particular issue was more important than the damage they believed R candidates could do to their other interests. Personally, odds are that I agree with very little of what most people here believe aside from being pro-gun. As hard as it may be for some people to believe given where the Overton Window currently is I'm way left of the current D party (no, not a communist), which is why I avoid any political stuff here that's not 2A.

I don't have a solution for how to make guns stop being partisan aside from getting the NRA to shut the hell up about other topics (ideally get rid of the traitor and child molester too), but I don't see any other way to preserve gun ownership.

Semi-serious: Ian McCollum and Karl Kasarda for NRA board. Ian does a great job with Forgotten Weapons making guns an apolitical and historical/technical topic.

[Bailey Guns]

The difference is gun control is a central and important plank in the D party platform. That's far different from an anti-gun republican here and there. Democrats haven't seen a gun control bill they didn't like. Republicans can usually, not always, be counted on to try to defeat most gun control efforts.

The republican party, like those who make up the party, are far from perfect and I'm fully aware of that. As a matter of fact, they make it difficult sometimes to argue on their behalf. But they're the best viable choice for gun rights we have right now. And ANY vote for a democrat is, in the long run, a vote for more gun control.

ETA: I just read what DenverGP wrote in his post #5 above. Makes my post sound like an echo.

[Ridge]

I think you misread what I said. That's what I was saying, they'll support anti-gun republicans because of their party.

You're right, I have the dumb.

[Gman]

Look at places like NY, California (and coming soon Colorado) for what gun rights will be like with more democrats in office.

You forgot Illinois, Chicago in particular.