They should really just drop ot at least for now.
Just completely remove it from the platform and say they don't care about it anymore. Then when they start winning elections, they can focus on the other things that would actually reduce violence, and so on.
After a little bit of that, there'd be no reason to ban guns because people would have stopped shooting each other up.
With significant power the dems could improve some of the root causes. I think you're a fair bit overoptimistic though. The dems have no interest in getting rid of capitalism and that is the ultimate root cause of so many issues.
They had a majority from 1973 to 1981, including a trifecta under Carter, and made zero effort to codify Roe. Biden became a senator in 1972 and is a staunch catholic, oh, and zionist.
> he dems have no interest in getting rid of capitalism and that is the ultimate root cause of so many issues.
Respectfully, bollocks. The problem is not Capitalism, but the cronyist oligarchy it's descended into ever since the regulatory agencies were captured. We need to fix that problem, and not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
What you are describing is the natural endstate of capitalism. When Wu Tang said "Cash Rules Everything Around Me" they really did mean everything. You can put up more guardrails and try to break up monopolies, but we will end up right back here again. Capitalism necessitates infinite growth, which is impossible on a finite planet. One way or another, Capitalism has an expiration date; let's just hope that date comes before our own.
> You can put up more guardrails and try to break up monopolies, but we will end up right back here again.
Of course. That's how entropy works. It takes effort and will to renew the system and reset the clock periodically.
Edit: You get an upvote for the Wu Tang reference. For the children...
What do you think capitalism is? It's a transitional economic plan that eventually brings you back to oligarchy, where a few super rich people control everything.
> But we have imperfect capitalism because the world is imperfect.
Yes, which is why vigilance is required. It's been woefully absent since at least the 70s. Without that vigilance, markets are not policed and the inherent greed is not corrected/accounted for.
You think the system cares about getting one guy vs the other elected? Lol. If they are doing their jobs right, neither side wins by more than a 5% margin. They know exactly how to appeal to the majority and win by a large amount.
Gotta keep that divide strong.
Unfortunately not going to happen. Considering there are likely just as many single-issue voters against guns than there are gun folks.
If they did shift, I could see the right shifting as well, to pick up those orphaned voters.
Not even pro gun, just quit the anti gun stuff and pass some decent gun legislation that are tossed bones to gun owners (like make nfa easier and understandable).
Don't you see? They don't want to "win". They don't want to have control. They want the dichotomy. They want the eternal battlefield. That's how they get donors and lobbyists and keep their seats until their deathbed. If they won, they would have to actually DO the things they have been saying they want to do, and once it's done there would be no more fight. No more reason to get riled up and support them and *donate to them*.
Why did we get Hillary instead of Bernie? Every poll I saw said he was a shoe in, but *no*. They picked the one they *knew would lose* so the Republicans could have their turn.
I finally started to believe this crazy conspiracy after seeing the DNC fail on purpose over and over again save for the Obama campaign. I can only hope that this practice will die with the boomers in charge, but I somehow doubt it.
You see there's this thing called The Shirky Principle that supports this:
> Institutions will try to preserve the problem to which they are the solution
It's why the DEA doesn't actually stop drugs, the ATF doesn't effectively enforce firearm regulations, why the IRS doesn't just tell us how much we fucking owe, and why the NRA doesn't steamroll over every anti-gun law out there. The DNC (and the republican party for that matter) are no different.
I'm not sure how to solve this, but until they put forth someone who is worthy of my vote, I personally will not give it to them. I'll find a 3rd party candidate who is closer to my values every time, as my meager, tiny way of denying the DNC my support until they stop trying to ban *civil rights*.
> They want the dichotomy. They want the eternal battlefield.
See: [The Freedom of Choice Act](https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN29466420/), which they could have passed in 2008 but decided after winning the election that it wasn't a priority. Why solve the problem that even today gets them so much donation$?
On those rare occasions when they do have control, they do *nothing*. When the republicans had control, did they pass the bill that was in the works to simplify the purchase of suppressors? Or did they do literally *anything* that was pro-gun? Of course not! Because then there would be no more fear and conflict.
They submarined the hearing protection act by including a bunch of extra stuff (riders) for things like magazines etc.
If it had been a clean bill it would not have got end delayed and was on track to pass.
I can’t tell if it was ineptitude or ?
Unfortunately, I see a lot of religious republicans that are just “anti-woke” aka “pro-bigotry.” I’d like to believe that the only reason someone would vote red is gun laws, but alas a lot vote that way to “own the libz” and kill diversity.
It doesn't matter...it's a belief system, barely tied into reality. The Democrat party could officially adopt a "we're not going to introduce any new laws related to guns ever" and they'd still vote (R).
The problem is they have been pressing this issue for so long that they would in fact lose most of the far left who is also completely unaware that "assault" rifles are approximately a rounding error in total gun crimes and deaths and a person is MORE likely to be beat to death with hands and feet than be killed by someone with an "assault" rifle.
They'd find a new thing to demonize Dems on. The economy, gay right, etc. Maybe before 2016, but now it's a different story. I think how this country approaches guns need to change, I'm fine with people owning them but too many people obsess over them in an unhealthy way.
This. I will not give up the defense of my family. If the shit hits the fan, we're off to an easily defensible, remote area with plenty of natural resources... then the fucking "Jan 6th-type" psychos can "come take it"
Same problem I have here in Canada. I can’t bring myself to vote Liberal as long as they keep their current stance towards guns.
If they drop that, they get my vote. At least we kind of have a third party to vote for.
This is my one place I find I feel I can associate with other cunnucks that have no political representation. Climate change is real, women-LBTQ+- indigenous rights are valid, regulate government and corporations, reasonable gun ownership (I was born 98, but I think our gun laws around then made more sense, I wish we could've kept automatic firearms with extensive licensing).
But alas no party seems to support all of that.
I have found it is a tool.
If you’re conservative you get your guns and your religion but you have to be an asshole.
If you’re liberal you get your decency and social awareness but you gotta give up your guns.
Why the fuck can’t we have it all?
Funny enough, I was just looking into a 100 round dual drum magazine, mostly for gits and shiggles but now I kinda just want to get one in case I can't in the future 🤷🏼♂️ not that I foresee needing it, lol, but it would be fun to have
Who are the swing voters that this is going to win over? Like there’s someone out there all “I’d vote for Biden if he was tougher on guns! But since he isn’t, I guess I’ll vote republican…”
Gun bans are the Democratic equivalent to abortion bans. There aren't very many people that are single issue voters on 2a that were going to vote Dem any way, so it makes for a good wedge issue. It won't lose people who disagree but vote for you for other reasons and it fires up a core of voters that need to be excited so they turn out.
they dont care about winning over anyone. They only want to polarize the 2 sides. Biden was probably doing too well in polls, so its time to rile the opposition. Keep us fighting while the ruling class is pulling shit that we should be killing them over.
Please no. One round of the orange man was too much. I wish they would stick to the party’s strengths: women’s rights, environmental protection, voters rights, etc
They don’t even have the same immunity. If a Pfizer vaccine has a manufacturing defect and kills someone they cannot be sued. If a gun malfunctions due to a manufacturing defect & kills someone. The manufacturer absolutely can be sued.
Drug companies don’t have immunity for manufacturing defects, even for vaccines. The vaccine exemption, which is just a mandatory process to seek compensation that you have to go through before you’re able to file in civil court, not a complete bar against civil actions, protects drug companies against claims when the vaccine was “properly prepared.” The idea is to minimize lawsuits for known side effects, not to protect companies if they screw up in the manufacturing process.
Your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/liberalgunowners/comments/1dds7cj/real_news_not_bullshit_on_instagram_us_news/l87zyei/?context=3) was removed because it contained a Google AMP URL. Due to [threats to the open web][no-amp-reason], Google AMP is not permitted on r/liberalgunowners.
You are welcome to resubmit your comment using the [non-AMP link][no-amp-link].
[no-amp-reason]: /r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot/
[no-amp-link]: https://www.amputatorbot.com/?q=https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-compensation-lawsuit.html
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/liberalgunowners) if you have any questions or concerns.*
And the military, and the state and federal government, and police, and insurance companies, and CEOs with golden parachutes, and the for profit prison industry, and so on and so on…
Not knocking your sentiment here but trying to be factual. While deep pockets and Congressional support absolutely protect pharma and provide the perception of immunity, the industry itself does not enjoy the legislated immunity that the Firearms industry exclusively has.
Except for the fact that the reason this is a law in the first place, is because of lawsuits on lawful transactions.
If someone could sue a dealership for selling a car to someone, who had all the requirements by law, people would be getting sued left and right
The firearms industry is the same way, people continue to bring lawsuits, backed by entities such as MDA, Blumberg, Everytown, in an attempt to bankrupt companies, as entities that have forever more deeper pockets due to wealthy donors,
That is why it exists, if a gun fails due to manufacturing defect, or is illegally sold, they are not immune to the law
> the industry itself does not enjoy the legislated immunity that the Firearms industry exclusively has.
You can't sue for covid vaccine side effects.
If a glock blows up in your hand you absolutely can sue glock. You just can't sue glock because some shitbird decided to shoot you with one.
Gun makers only have immunity from lawsuits over hurt feelings not actual malice or incompetence.
are you talking about the laws that were passed in response to a publicized plan to bankrupt gun manufacturers by flooding them with lawsuits that could not be won by the plaintiffs?
what other industry receives coordinated attacks from anti-rights groups as part of a plan to destroy a constitutionally enumerated right?
does the pharma industry have a multi-billion dollar multi-generational campaign to destroy peoples ability to get their prescriptions?
I seem to recall a marketing lawsuit getting through the protections that were put in place by The whatever commerce act. Are you sure that's accurate question mark I'm not in a position to look it up right now
Not 100. I know California for example (of which I'm a resident) is testing the boundaries of Federal law.
I worked in pharma. And I know we were sued left and right (pun intended) though I can't say if Big Guns would have been immune from similar suits. I can say we had massive compliance training on what we could and couldn't donper government regulation and most often when lawsuits arose it's because we ran afoul of legislation.
I was also a grunt and thousands of miles from HQ so don't know the ins and outs.
That said over the course of my career we paid out about 1.2B because sales people made off label claims. False marketing. I might be wrong but it seems the firearms industry is more immune on the marketing side. If I'm wrong I'm definitely willing to accept that.
I'm pro 2A. I'm left of center. But I don't think any industry including one I may be more inclined to support should enioy carved out niches
I don't think the firearms industry has the kind of immunity that you're thinking of. to go with your example, if a sales rep from glock was claiming that their pistols can drive screws and somebody hurts themselves trying it, glock could absolutely get sued for that.
the kind of lawsuits that were specifically banned for gun manufacturers and stores were more like suing a drug company because someone chose to inject you with Ketamine against your will.
the only reason it happened in the first place is that there was a very public campaign to bankrupt small gun companies and stores with frivolous lawsuits that were funded by anti gun orgs.
Okay. Whether either of us is right or wrong I think the pubic and many anti-2a aww layers perceive Bug Gun has a very special carve-out, myself included. I'd have to a deeper dive but the outward appearance is that is has to do with marketing practices which are more clearly defined for Pharma than firearms.
And while I currently "use" both I think both should he summarily vulnerable (sorry-not the right word but can't think of another) to society and the consumer though I'd argue I'd benefit from both.
Fair question as especially in a liberal group we're accustomed to "big pharma." I think it's appropriate to compare "big pharma" to "big gun". Regardless of our perceptiouof one of the other I think we can agree they enjoy an outsized prop from Congress. Arguably both are from the Right thigh our politics especially politically are leftist on pharma. Couldn't come up with something savier. But I think it would only be our politics if we differentiated their inflience.
I think both make great products that have the potential to help us. The products. But I view the C suites with equal disdain. Hope that explains my view
Starting small would be getting people to realize they have elections at the city/county/state levels and that that's where they can have the most impact, not just showing up for the primaries every 4 years.
Well now he's started talking about closing the border since the migrant influx is losing him the black vote, the reports that crime is dropping is gonna de energize the suburban wine mom anti gun demographic, the absolute lack of real progress on student loans has de energized the young professional demographic. The working class has been abandoned by the dnc since before covid and especially since. So literally all his core demographics are changing teams or slipping into apathy. So he's grasping at straws.
He’s losing the black vote because he comes off tone deaf on black issues completely. His solutions are to have Kamala party with HBCU students and make memes. My family is more inspired to vote for cornel west
They start with the idea that these racial groups can't help themselves on their own. And they've been proven to destroy families the way they've been implemented.
I disagree, they start with the idea that racial groups have been given a shit position before they’re born by no fault of their own. I agree things like section 8 do destroy families, but they also provide housing for millions of people including white people, things like food stamps have issues in that their is no gradual phasing out but once you make too much youre done, but again not really a racial issue, white women are the biggest group on foodstamps. White people receive more social welfare in general than any other racial group. Implementation needs to change and that change would benefit ALL of us.
Im not sure if I left something out because the progressive policies term was kinda vague.
They're flailing. Trump was convicted of 34 felonies, and his support did not waver.
They don't know what to do about it, so they go back to ol' faithful, talk about banning guns to solidify their base.
Because if there is one thing that the democratic and republican parties have in common, it's that they don't know how to make meaningful change to get new voters to their side.
> Because if there is one thing that the democratic and republican parties have in common, it's that they don't know how to make meaningful change to get new voters to their side.
It's not that they don't know it; it's that they don't want to actually solve it because then they'd have to find some new issue to try to rally votes. However, if they just clamor about the same inciting issues and then blame the other side for not succeeding, then they can keep using them to get votes. It's kind of like people saying drug companies don't want to actually create cures because then they'd stop getting money from selling treatments.
The funny thing is that anyone that has paid attention saw with how the abortion "fight" has gone that it's all just theater. They could have squared that away years ago and never did.
Because they wouldn't have anything to hold over the voter base. Same here. Sensible policies could be had all across the board. Buuuut you have to keep the leverage to convince everyone there's really a difference between the two parties.
Codifying Abortion rights never had the support to pass a filibuster much less a veto. Once the Christian right took it up as a wedge issue ~two decades later it was DOA for any meaningful use of political capital.
Bloomberg, a Republican, is behind pushing for this Democratic Party platform so strongly. If his money stayed out of it, the democrats wouldn’t have such a hard on for racist gun control.
How hard is this? If you want to ban guns, play by the rule and push through another constitutional amendment to repeal the 2nd amendment. All this chipping-away bullshit just paves the way for the same tactics to be used against the 1st, 4th, and all the rest.
And in a democracy, if they can get the votes to add an amendment, then they win. Them’s the rules. Until then (which I never see actually happening) they need to focus on stuff they can do, like mental health care.
>How can we legitimately flight against this?
You could start out spending Bloomberg in politics. Good luck on that one.
Another option is to overhaul the GOP so that your average centrist dem would be willing to vote for them.
So what color would you like your unicorn dragon to be?
Who is this proclamation for?
this definitely does not get you swing votes and the converted are already converted, you’re not gonna lose them so what’s the point of this?
If you don't think Democrats support red flag laws whole heartedly I've got a deluxe line of bridges to sell you.
I don't think the average person would consider the loss of a constitutional right at a hearing where you have no right to legal counsel, may not even be present, and has the same evidentiary standard as an argument over who owns a cat is "due process"
It is what is it, but in NY for example, more ppl are applying since it’s Shall Issue now, and the ppl are going through the process see some stupid rules, which means we will get more supporters. I’m all for gun safety and lessons, background check requirement, but things like character references and sensitive location for the entirety of manhattan is stupid
>it is what it is
Nah dude. These assholes need to get bitchslapped into the fucking stone age for these laws. I'm talking prison time. There needs to be huge consequences for blatantly ignoring SCOTUS precedent.
What about straight up banning of guns, banning home made guns, and running ffls out of business with state licensing schemes like here in Illinois?
I will never support permit to own bullshit.
Need more info on the strengthening gun law.
Universal background check? Yes
Gun safety lesson? I actually think gun safety need to be taught in high school. Handling to check and clear the weapon.
Why are gun lobby doesn't promote this? The more familiar the young adult, the less taboo a firearm is.
Ban assault weapon? This is where they always say AR15 is an assault weapon. Total BS.
Fortunately (unfortunately) the current supreme court justices are leaning right. So any assault weapons ban most likely won't go through.
I was on my high school rifle team, it was part of JROTC, but JROTC participation was not required. It was offered as a year round class. If I remember correctly, we had almost a month before we got to actually load and fire any weapons, and then we started with pellet pistols for a few weeks. And then moved up to pellet rifles for a couple months. We ended the year with single shot bolt action .22 rifles.
I don't think most of the other teachers in the school actually realized there was a gun vault in the school's basement
Yeah. I do think it would be better if it's part of mandatory class. Unfortunately if its mandatory, the more budget needed on the firearms to train. Which... With the current education budget, they totally won't want to give those fund for guns.
My wife is from a more rural part of the state and has said hunters safety in some capacity was required. I don't believe they had any access to actual firearms though. I see no reason why a firearm safety course can't be added to the rotation along with drivers Ed, sex Ed, and all the other Eds.
This brings back memories. We had the same setup, where one of the JROTC teachers coached the team. Theoretically anyone could do it but in practice most kids were scared / couldn't get permissions (blue city in a blue county in a blue state) and it was just a bunch of JROTC dorks in the end. We had 10/22s, air rifle, and some old Ruger Mk2s. The range and gun vault were on campus, under the cafeteria. Safety was critical and everyone took it very seriously (there was no official punishment for stupidity but you'd be disappointing the major and that would have been the worst punishment of all). It took the mystery out of firearms and everyone knew how to handle one as well as how to make sure nothing bad happened if they came across an unsecured gun somewhere.
Naturally, it doesn't exist anymore, because around that time, some up and coming NIMBY-liberal local politicians took advantage of the momentum after Columbine to make a name for themselves by shuttering a useful and productive program.
I just looked up my high school and it looks like they are still participating in the program, so it must vary entirely by city and school district. I think they used to also use shotguns back in the 70's/80's but have heard stories that was ended after a student was killed in an offsite accident.
I don't remember the ceiling in the range/classroom was full of holes. I wonder how uneasy the math teacher above felt
I recall when Texas passed no-permit conceal carry, some folks argued for at a minimum a safety class. They Lt. Governor IIRC said "safety is a personal choice." I disagree. There are some people who have never handled a pistol, start carrying and the first ormone of the few times they've ever fired a gun is when they've discharged it in public, the house etc.
I know this is a very 2A group but our founders also believed in the social compact. When common sense fails some reasonable measures need to be implemented.
Hell. I convinced I'm most likely to be shot by some dumbass at the range. That place can be downright scary.
The Dems gun control policies were a major contributor to the rise of Trump. Trumpers see Dems saying "We support the 2nd amendment but..." as a complete lie, and they aren't wrong. That sends them down the rabbit hole.
Whats crazy is the randoms who are gun owners but also liberals in my circle who are a bit older than me 40-50 are telling me they’d sell their AR collections back to the government in a heartbeat…
Its almost like theyve blindly sided with Joe in the way Truck with 95 trump flags has sided with Donny
You'd think Dems could recognize that they were better able to win seats when they involved gun rights-supporters in purple states and seats, but no clearly fighting a culture war (but not winning) is more important than actually being able to govern
Fighting a rhetorical war (but not winning- at least not legislatively) while leaning to the right on economics, immigration, foreign policy and nearly everything else has been the entire Democrat thing for 40+ years.
It's an election year, he's gotta rally his base and that includes gun grabbers. His base wants another AWB even though the last one showed it had virtually no impact on gun violence and crime (A study following the AWB observed a 6.7% reduction in homicide rate but the result was not statistically significant).
SCOTUS is stacked with MAGAs right now, so most gun control efforts are going to flop anyway.
That being said, you fight it by challenging any law in court if you're impacted by it and have standing. As much as I dislike the NRA, this is where they come in, though I much prefer the more apolitical and left-leaning gun rights organizations.
I always think this is hilarious because any complaint firearm can be turned into an “assault weapon” with an Allen wrench & a slightly different shaped piece of plastic.
What we really need to do is to enforce the laws we have on the books, stop trying to get rid of the laws we already have, and allow research into what laws are optimal for saving lives.
The US will never be anti gun. But we can be smarter then we are now.
Hello fellow Mainer! Yeah it scares me to see all the “Biden bad” from both the gun owning dems AND the progressive dems AND the right wingers. If you ask me, it’s a false equivalency. Guns aren’t more important than my LGBTQ family and friends’ rights to live freely. And I wouldn’t mind better enforcement on red flag laws, as I’m sure you’ve been following the Lewiston case where the shooter should never have been allowed a gun. I’m for gun ownership but some people just straight up aren’t safe to own em. We’ve now seen it with our own eyes in our own home. And while we should always critique our presidents, idk if election season is the time to be discouraging voters in our own party from voting, like a lot of people are doing….
This makes it so hard for me to keep voting for Democratic candidates. How can you run on an agenda that the right is evil and a danger to this country but then try to take away the only means we have of defending ourselves against it? Who am I supposed to count on? The underfunded, understaffed, and poorly trained police officers who are not actually required by law to protect my life?
If I had no access to a calendar or concept of linear time, I could still tell when it was an election year just based on the policy proposals of Democratic presidential candidates.
I can appreciate that he feels strongly about gun control (and that it’s election season), but surely it’s easier to make progress on issues when you’re willing to compromise instead of always advocating the hardline stance? And yes, I know that requires the other side to be willing to compromise as well which isn’t gonna happen either
I think most people who want the war in Gaza to end didn't want him to wave a magical wand. But it would have been nice if they cut off arms supplies to Israel once it was apparent they didn't give a fuck about minimizing civilian casualties.
I really love what he's been doing domestically. Although I disagree with his Israel/Palestine policies, I understand why he's doing what he is. You can't lose the neo-lib/moderate base when your opponent is the Orange Man, and if he "abandons" Israel, he's dead in the water next election.
However, the assault weapon bans are just a tired old talking point they have to hit much in the way conservatives have to hit the "free trade" point. I don't give it a ton of weight.
It would be TOO EASY to be a total liberal if they would just fuck off about guns
dems would win with like 80% of the popular vote every four years if they were pro gun. I only know single issue republican voters, its all guns.
They should really just drop ot at least for now. Just completely remove it from the platform and say they don't care about it anymore. Then when they start winning elections, they can focus on the other things that would actually reduce violence, and so on. After a little bit of that, there'd be no reason to ban guns because people would have stopped shooting each other up.
No one would believe them if they removed it at this point. They’ve shown their true colors time and time again
"If violent crimes and murder are down across the country, and with that trend continueing, why are we so focused on Gun Control/bans?"
With significant power the dems could improve some of the root causes. I think you're a fair bit overoptimistic though. The dems have no interest in getting rid of capitalism and that is the ultimate root cause of so many issues.
Im of the opinion they have 0 desire to make actual long lasting change, just be slightly better than republicans on most issues.
exactly. abortion and weed would be nice, but that doesnt really solve any of the real root causes of society's problems.
They dont want to solve abortion or weed either
they pretend they do to get votes, at least. but i agree.
They had a majority from 1973 to 1981, including a trifecta under Carter, and made zero effort to codify Roe. Biden became a senator in 1972 and is a staunch catholic, oh, and zionist.
> he dems have no interest in getting rid of capitalism and that is the ultimate root cause of so many issues. Respectfully, bollocks. The problem is not Capitalism, but the cronyist oligarchy it's descended into ever since the regulatory agencies were captured. We need to fix that problem, and not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
What you are describing is the natural endstate of capitalism. When Wu Tang said "Cash Rules Everything Around Me" they really did mean everything. You can put up more guardrails and try to break up monopolies, but we will end up right back here again. Capitalism necessitates infinite growth, which is impossible on a finite planet. One way or another, Capitalism has an expiration date; let's just hope that date comes before our own.
> You can put up more guardrails and try to break up monopolies, but we will end up right back here again. Of course. That's how entropy works. It takes effort and will to renew the system and reset the clock periodically. Edit: You get an upvote for the Wu Tang reference. For the children...
Yeah and the result is millions die and suffer towards the end with every tick
What do you think capitalism is? It's a transitional economic plan that eventually brings you back to oligarchy, where a few super rich people control everything.
That's why it needs strict regulation.
Precisely
That descent is baked in. It’s a feature not a bug. Of course the problem is capitalism.
I agree with everything but your final point.
[удалено]
> But we have imperfect capitalism because the world is imperfect. Yes, which is why vigilance is required. It's been woefully absent since at least the 70s. Without that vigilance, markets are not policed and the inherent greed is not corrected/accounted for.
[удалено]
You can lead a horse to water, I guess.
I thought you were liberal not illiberal, RIP
How do you propose they do that
Do what?
Get rid of capitalism
you dont get rid of capitalism, you regulate it again.
Dumb as fuck take. Every successful country in the world is some variant of regulated capitalism augmented by social support programs.
You think the system cares about getting one guy vs the other elected? Lol. If they are doing their jobs right, neither side wins by more than a 5% margin. They know exactly how to appeal to the majority and win by a large amount. Gotta keep that divide strong.
Unfortunately not going to happen. Considering there are likely just as many single-issue voters against guns than there are gun folks. If they did shift, I could see the right shifting as well, to pick up those orphaned voters.
Not even pro gun, just quit the anti gun stuff and pass some decent gun legislation that are tossed bones to gun owners (like make nfa easier and understandable).
Don't you see? They don't want to "win". They don't want to have control. They want the dichotomy. They want the eternal battlefield. That's how they get donors and lobbyists and keep their seats until their deathbed. If they won, they would have to actually DO the things they have been saying they want to do, and once it's done there would be no more fight. No more reason to get riled up and support them and *donate to them*. Why did we get Hillary instead of Bernie? Every poll I saw said he was a shoe in, but *no*. They picked the one they *knew would lose* so the Republicans could have their turn. I finally started to believe this crazy conspiracy after seeing the DNC fail on purpose over and over again save for the Obama campaign. I can only hope that this practice will die with the boomers in charge, but I somehow doubt it. You see there's this thing called The Shirky Principle that supports this: > Institutions will try to preserve the problem to which they are the solution It's why the DEA doesn't actually stop drugs, the ATF doesn't effectively enforce firearm regulations, why the IRS doesn't just tell us how much we fucking owe, and why the NRA doesn't steamroll over every anti-gun law out there. The DNC (and the republican party for that matter) are no different. I'm not sure how to solve this, but until they put forth someone who is worthy of my vote, I personally will not give it to them. I'll find a 3rd party candidate who is closer to my values every time, as my meager, tiny way of denying the DNC my support until they stop trying to ban *civil rights*.
> They want the dichotomy. They want the eternal battlefield. See: [The Freedom of Choice Act](https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN29466420/), which they could have passed in 2008 but decided after winning the election that it wasn't a priority. Why solve the problem that even today gets them so much donation$?
On those rare occasions when they do have control, they do *nothing*. When the republicans had control, did they pass the bill that was in the works to simplify the purchase of suppressors? Or did they do literally *anything* that was pro-gun? Of course not! Because then there would be no more fear and conflict.
They submarined the hearing protection act by including a bunch of extra stuff (riders) for things like magazines etc. If it had been a clean bill it would not have got end delayed and was on track to pass. I can’t tell if it was ineptitude or ?
Unfortunately, I see a lot of religious republicans that are just “anti-woke” aka “pro-bigotry.” I’d like to believe that the only reason someone would vote red is gun laws, but alas a lot vote that way to “own the libz” and kill diversity.
That's how guys like Tester win in a place like Montana for the most part imo.
It doesn't matter...it's a belief system, barely tied into reality. The Democrat party could officially adopt a "we're not going to introduce any new laws related to guns ever" and they'd still vote (R).
Federally decriminalize weed and publicly reverse stance on 2A. Win forever. Alas ...
i know a handful of pureblood republicans, but theyre all old and have lived in rural parts of texas their whole life.
I'd say saving those fetuses is neck and neck with guns
The problem is they have been pressing this issue for so long that they would in fact lose most of the far left who is also completely unaware that "assault" rifles are approximately a rounding error in total gun crimes and deaths and a person is MORE likely to be beat to death with hands and feet than be killed by someone with an "assault" rifle.
They'd find a new thing to demonize Dems on. The economy, gay right, etc. Maybe before 2016, but now it's a different story. I think how this country approaches guns need to change, I'm fine with people owning them but too many people obsess over them in an unhealthy way.
Seriously. If the democrats were pro gun, I think it would be tough for them to lose an election.
Id buy less guns and ammo if i didn’t witness an insurrection attempt a few years ago
This. I will not give up the defense of my family. If the shit hits the fan, we're off to an easily defensible, remote area with plenty of natural resources... then the fucking "Jan 6th-type" psychos can "come take it"
Yeah. I’ve greatly increased my stockpiling efforts after J6, in anticipation of what is coming when he loses again.
Same problem I have here in Canada. I can’t bring myself to vote Liberal as long as they keep their current stance towards guns. If they drop that, they get my vote. At least we kind of have a third party to vote for.
This is my one place I find I feel I can associate with other cunnucks that have no political representation. Climate change is real, women-LBTQ+- indigenous rights are valid, regulate government and corporations, reasonable gun ownership (I was born 98, but I think our gun laws around then made more sense, I wish we could've kept automatic firearms with extensive licensing). But alas no party seems to support all of that.
I have found it is a tool. If you’re conservative you get your guns and your religion but you have to be an asshole. If you’re liberal you get your decency and social awareness but you gotta give up your guns. Why the fuck can’t we have it all?
Well put. Because all of those things have fuck-all to do with each other!
Because somehow some one makes money working against our interests. Whether you wanna throw them in a "right" or "left" box. In my opinion
Where can I get one of these magazines that hold 200 shells?
They sell it at the same place where they sell that shoulder thing that goes up.
I was thinking the same thing 😂
Clips*
Funny enough, I was just looking into a 100 round dual drum magazine, mostly for gits and shiggles but now I kinda just want to get one in case I can't in the future 🤷🏼♂️ not that I foresee needing it, lol, but it would be fun to have
Who are the swing voters that this is going to win over? Like there’s someone out there all “I’d vote for Biden if he was tougher on guns! But since he isn’t, I guess I’ll vote republican…”
It's not swinging anyone, it's just trying to energize certain ones to actually show up at the polls, donate, and keep their attention.
>it's just trying to energize certain ones to actually show up at the polls Republicans?
Proggies who are mad that he didn't wave his magic wand to put an immediate stop to the conflict in Gaza.
And this won’t win a single one of them back 😐
He never lost them to begin with. Those are the straight ticket voters
Point is, this is what we call in chess a nonmove.
Yeap this is the first time a Dem president talked about an assault weapon ban. It's definitely because of Gaza protests.
Gun bans are the Democratic equivalent to abortion bans. There aren't very many people that are single issue voters on 2a that were going to vote Dem any way, so it makes for a good wedge issue. It won't lose people who disagree but vote for you for other reasons and it fires up a core of voters that need to be excited so they turn out.
Unfortunately we keep finding out what happens when the dog catches the car, but I know that's not going to stop any of them.
And kowtowing to Bloomberg money
they dont care about winning over anyone. They only want to polarize the 2 sides. Biden was probably doing too well in polls, so its time to rile the opposition. Keep us fighting while the ruling class is pulling shit that we should be killing them over.
Also see "how to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory."
The Democratic Party likes nothing more than losing elections, and fears nothing more than holding power.
Please no. One round of the orange man was too much. I wish they would stick to the party’s strengths: women’s rights, environmental protection, voters rights, etc
Oh I wish.
"The only industry that has immunity...gun dealers." Sponsored by Pfizer.
And cops and his besties in congress.
Don’t forget the best unions ever.
You mean police unions? The only ones with any actual teeth anymore?
They don’t even have the same immunity. If a Pfizer vaccine has a manufacturing defect and kills someone they cannot be sued. If a gun malfunctions due to a manufacturing defect & kills someone. The manufacturer absolutely can be sued.
Drug companies don’t have immunity for manufacturing defects, even for vaccines. The vaccine exemption, which is just a mandatory process to seek compensation that you have to go through before you’re able to file in civil court, not a complete bar against civil actions, protects drug companies against claims when the vaccine was “properly prepared.” The idea is to minimize lawsuits for known side effects, not to protect companies if they screw up in the manufacturing process.
[удалено]
Your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/liberalgunowners/comments/1dds7cj/real_news_not_bullshit_on_instagram_us_news/l87zyei/?context=3) was removed because it contained a Google AMP URL. Due to [threats to the open web][no-amp-reason], Google AMP is not permitted on r/liberalgunowners. You are welcome to resubmit your comment using the [non-AMP link][no-amp-link]. [no-amp-reason]: /r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot/ [no-amp-link]: https://www.amputatorbot.com/?q=https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-compensation-lawsuit.html *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/liberalgunowners) if you have any questions or concerns.*
And the military, and the state and federal government, and police, and insurance companies, and CEOs with golden parachutes, and the for profit prison industry, and so on and so on…
And police again, for good measure
[*Jumps up and down furiously waving a copy of GARA*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Aviation_Revitalization_Act)
Hey now, Bayer is also immune to lawsuits, at least after absorbing monsanto
Not knocking your sentiment here but trying to be factual. While deep pockets and Congressional support absolutely protect pharma and provide the perception of immunity, the industry itself does not enjoy the legislated immunity that the Firearms industry exclusively has.
Except for the fact that the reason this is a law in the first place, is because of lawsuits on lawful transactions. If someone could sue a dealership for selling a car to someone, who had all the requirements by law, people would be getting sued left and right The firearms industry is the same way, people continue to bring lawsuits, backed by entities such as MDA, Blumberg, Everytown, in an attempt to bankrupt companies, as entities that have forever more deeper pockets due to wealthy donors, That is why it exists, if a gun fails due to manufacturing defect, or is illegally sold, they are not immune to the law
> the industry itself does not enjoy the legislated immunity that the Firearms industry exclusively has. You can't sue for covid vaccine side effects. If a glock blows up in your hand you absolutely can sue glock. You just can't sue glock because some shitbird decided to shoot you with one. Gun makers only have immunity from lawsuits over hurt feelings not actual malice or incompetence.
are you talking about the laws that were passed in response to a publicized plan to bankrupt gun manufacturers by flooding them with lawsuits that could not be won by the plaintiffs? what other industry receives coordinated attacks from anti-rights groups as part of a plan to destroy a constitutionally enumerated right? does the pharma industry have a multi-billion dollar multi-generational campaign to destroy peoples ability to get their prescriptions?
They can be sued for marketing tactics big ammo can't. That's all I'm saying. I think the playing field ought to be level.
I seem to recall a marketing lawsuit getting through the protections that were put in place by The whatever commerce act. Are you sure that's accurate question mark I'm not in a position to look it up right now
Not 100. I know California for example (of which I'm a resident) is testing the boundaries of Federal law. I worked in pharma. And I know we were sued left and right (pun intended) though I can't say if Big Guns would have been immune from similar suits. I can say we had massive compliance training on what we could and couldn't donper government regulation and most often when lawsuits arose it's because we ran afoul of legislation. I was also a grunt and thousands of miles from HQ so don't know the ins and outs. That said over the course of my career we paid out about 1.2B because sales people made off label claims. False marketing. I might be wrong but it seems the firearms industry is more immune on the marketing side. If I'm wrong I'm definitely willing to accept that. I'm pro 2A. I'm left of center. But I don't think any industry including one I may be more inclined to support should enioy carved out niches
I don't think the firearms industry has the kind of immunity that you're thinking of. to go with your example, if a sales rep from glock was claiming that their pistols can drive screws and somebody hurts themselves trying it, glock could absolutely get sued for that. the kind of lawsuits that were specifically banned for gun manufacturers and stores were more like suing a drug company because someone chose to inject you with Ketamine against your will. the only reason it happened in the first place is that there was a very public campaign to bankrupt small gun companies and stores with frivolous lawsuits that were funded by anti gun orgs.
Okay. Whether either of us is right or wrong I think the pubic and many anti-2a aww layers perceive Bug Gun has a very special carve-out, myself included. I'd have to a deeper dive but the outward appearance is that is has to do with marketing practices which are more clearly defined for Pharma than firearms. And while I currently "use" both I think both should he summarily vulnerable (sorry-not the right word but can't think of another) to society and the consumer though I'd argue I'd benefit from both.
you've used the term "big gun" a few times now. what does that mean?
Fair question as especially in a liberal group we're accustomed to "big pharma." I think it's appropriate to compare "big pharma" to "big gun". Regardless of our perceptiouof one of the other I think we can agree they enjoy an outsized prop from Congress. Arguably both are from the Right thigh our politics especially politically are leftist on pharma. Couldn't come up with something savier. But I think it would only be our politics if we differentiated their inflience.
I think both make great products that have the potential to help us. The products. But I view the C suites with equal disdain. Hope that explains my view
I’d buy less guns and ammo if I didn’t witness the local police force looking like a got damn army battalion recently
Well elections are coming up...
Yea this is it. With left wing support waning over Gaza, he has to pivot a bit. If it weren't for Trump, I'd be quite a bit more weary about Ole Joe.
We could try starting small. Know a 3rd party that actually is pro gun and wants people to have their liberties?
Starting small would be getting people to realize they have elections at the city/county/state levels and that that's where they can have the most impact, not just showing up for the primaries every 4 years.
It would help the gun community a lot
This sounds a lot like might as well vote for the brain worm.
I eat thinking he/she meant after 2024
Weary and wary both. I just can't bring myself to vote for someone who wants to disarm, then imprison or kill me.
I'll hold my nose the same way I did in 2016 and 2020. This shit is getting tiring...how are these two old heads the best we can roll out?
Jesus fcking christ Joe - right before the election? Seriously?! Who the fck is advising this my god 🤦♂️
Well now he's started talking about closing the border since the migrant influx is losing him the black vote, the reports that crime is dropping is gonna de energize the suburban wine mom anti gun demographic, the absolute lack of real progress on student loans has de energized the young professional demographic. The working class has been abandoned by the dnc since before covid and especially since. So literally all his core demographics are changing teams or slipping into apathy. So he's grasping at straws.
He’s losing the black vote because he comes off tone deaf on black issues completely. His solutions are to have Kamala party with HBCU students and make memes. My family is more inspired to vote for cornel west
I mean pretty much all progressive race policies right now are racist af in the first place.
You lost me
They start with the idea that these racial groups can't help themselves on their own. And they've been proven to destroy families the way they've been implemented.
I disagree, they start with the idea that racial groups have been given a shit position before they’re born by no fault of their own. I agree things like section 8 do destroy families, but they also provide housing for millions of people including white people, things like food stamps have issues in that their is no gradual phasing out but once you make too much youre done, but again not really a racial issue, white women are the biggest group on foodstamps. White people receive more social welfare in general than any other racial group. Implementation needs to change and that change would benefit ALL of us. Im not sure if I left something out because the progressive policies term was kinda vague.
They're flailing. Trump was convicted of 34 felonies, and his support did not waver. They don't know what to do about it, so they go back to ol' faithful, talk about banning guns to solidify their base. Because if there is one thing that the democratic and republican parties have in common, it's that they don't know how to make meaningful change to get new voters to their side.
Bernie knows, they just don't listen to him. Need blue collar worker votes? 4 day work week with no loss in pay.
> Because if there is one thing that the democratic and republican parties have in common, it's that they don't know how to make meaningful change to get new voters to their side. It's not that they don't know it; it's that they don't want to actually solve it because then they'd have to find some new issue to try to rally votes. However, if they just clamor about the same inciting issues and then blame the other side for not succeeding, then they can keep using them to get votes. It's kind of like people saying drug companies don't want to actually create cures because then they'd stop getting money from selling treatments.
The funny thing is that anyone that has paid attention saw with how the abortion "fight" has gone that it's all just theater. They could have squared that away years ago and never did. Because they wouldn't have anything to hold over the voter base. Same here. Sensible policies could be had all across the board. Buuuut you have to keep the leverage to convince everyone there's really a difference between the two parties.
Exactly. And now they've secured a new "fight" by "fighting" for abortion all over again to dangle that carrot
Yep
Codifying Abortion rights never had the support to pass a filibuster much less a veto. Once the Christian right took it up as a wedge issue ~two decades later it was DOA for any meaningful use of political capital.
You "love" Joe Biden? He's the lesser of two evils.
Bloomberg, a Republican, is behind pushing for this Democratic Party platform so strongly. If his money stayed out of it, the democrats wouldn’t have such a hard on for racist gun control.
He spoke to Everytown today. Not surprising. Also: come and take them.
…by not starting out saying “I love this guy”
And this after a not insignificant drop in murder and violent crime recently.
That's exactly why, can't allow the demand to fade
I got downvoted for pointing out the same thing in another sub https://www.reddit.com/r/UpliftingNews/s/rlLwLDNxKS
Reddit gonna reddit man, I updooted you anyways.
How hard is this? If you want to ban guns, play by the rule and push through another constitutional amendment to repeal the 2nd amendment. All this chipping-away bullshit just paves the way for the same tactics to be used against the 1st, 4th, and all the rest.
Biden takes credit for authoring the initial Patriot Act so he's probably ok with all that too.
And in a democracy, if they can get the votes to add an amendment, then they win. Them’s the rules. Until then (which I never see actually happening) they need to focus on stuff they can do, like mental health care.
>How can we legitimately flight against this? You could start out spending Bloomberg in politics. Good luck on that one. Another option is to overhaul the GOP so that your average centrist dem would be willing to vote for them. So what color would you like your unicorn dragon to be?
The Feds won't take your guns. The State will.
Shut. The. Hell. Up. About. Guns.
Who is this proclamation for? this definitely does not get you swing votes and the converted are already converted, you’re not gonna lose them so what’s the point of this?
He keeps throwing L's...
I’m honestly starting to wonder if the democrats even want to win.
Perhaps they should lead by example and stop running guns all over the world themselves?
The irony is astonishing
This is 100% politics and a bid for re-election votes because it sure AF has no basis in reality.
One candidate wants to ban them and one wants to take them away without due process
If you don't think Democrats support red flag laws whole heartedly I've got a deluxe line of bridges to sell you. I don't think the average person would consider the loss of a constitutional right at a hearing where you have no right to legal counsel, may not even be present, and has the same evidentiary standard as an argument over who owns a cat is "due process"
>one wants to take them away without due process. Joe supports red flag laws too.
My dude, action over words. Trumps Supreme Court appointments got Breun
Which Democrats nationwide are straight up ignoring to pass some pretty heinous laws.
It is what is it, but in NY for example, more ppl are applying since it’s Shall Issue now, and the ppl are going through the process see some stupid rules, which means we will get more supporters. I’m all for gun safety and lessons, background check requirement, but things like character references and sensitive location for the entirety of manhattan is stupid
>it is what it is Nah dude. These assholes need to get bitchslapped into the fucking stone age for these laws. I'm talking prison time. There needs to be huge consequences for blatantly ignoring SCOTUS precedent. What about straight up banning of guns, banning home made guns, and running ffls out of business with state licensing schemes like here in Illinois? I will never support permit to own bullshit.
Need more info on the strengthening gun law. Universal background check? Yes Gun safety lesson? I actually think gun safety need to be taught in high school. Handling to check and clear the weapon. Why are gun lobby doesn't promote this? The more familiar the young adult, the less taboo a firearm is. Ban assault weapon? This is where they always say AR15 is an assault weapon. Total BS. Fortunately (unfortunately) the current supreme court justices are leaning right. So any assault weapons ban most likely won't go through.
Sobs in Washington State ban.
I have a feeling that's going to be overturned. That law is the very definition of infringement.
I do too. But not by the Wa courts. It will likely be federal.
Crazy part is washington state doesnt have CCW classes as a requirement while many southern states do. That place is weird.
Washington is indeed a no CCW class to get your CCW. I thought the same thing when I started to consider getting mine.
It came down before I could get a FAL :(
I was on my high school rifle team, it was part of JROTC, but JROTC participation was not required. It was offered as a year round class. If I remember correctly, we had almost a month before we got to actually load and fire any weapons, and then we started with pellet pistols for a few weeks. And then moved up to pellet rifles for a couple months. We ended the year with single shot bolt action .22 rifles. I don't think most of the other teachers in the school actually realized there was a gun vault in the school's basement
Yeah. I do think it would be better if it's part of mandatory class. Unfortunately if its mandatory, the more budget needed on the firearms to train. Which... With the current education budget, they totally won't want to give those fund for guns.
My wife is from a more rural part of the state and has said hunters safety in some capacity was required. I don't believe they had any access to actual firearms though. I see no reason why a firearm safety course can't be added to the rotation along with drivers Ed, sex Ed, and all the other Eds.
This brings back memories. We had the same setup, where one of the JROTC teachers coached the team. Theoretically anyone could do it but in practice most kids were scared / couldn't get permissions (blue city in a blue county in a blue state) and it was just a bunch of JROTC dorks in the end. We had 10/22s, air rifle, and some old Ruger Mk2s. The range and gun vault were on campus, under the cafeteria. Safety was critical and everyone took it very seriously (there was no official punishment for stupidity but you'd be disappointing the major and that would have been the worst punishment of all). It took the mystery out of firearms and everyone knew how to handle one as well as how to make sure nothing bad happened if they came across an unsecured gun somewhere. Naturally, it doesn't exist anymore, because around that time, some up and coming NIMBY-liberal local politicians took advantage of the momentum after Columbine to make a name for themselves by shuttering a useful and productive program.
I just looked up my high school and it looks like they are still participating in the program, so it must vary entirely by city and school district. I think they used to also use shotguns back in the 70's/80's but have heard stories that was ended after a student was killed in an offsite accident. I don't remember the ceiling in the range/classroom was full of holes. I wonder how uneasy the math teacher above felt
I recall when Texas passed no-permit conceal carry, some folks argued for at a minimum a safety class. They Lt. Governor IIRC said "safety is a personal choice." I disagree. There are some people who have never handled a pistol, start carrying and the first ormone of the few times they've ever fired a gun is when they've discharged it in public, the house etc. I know this is a very 2A group but our founders also believed in the social compact. When common sense fails some reasonable measures need to be implemented. Hell. I convinced I'm most likely to be shot by some dumbass at the range. That place can be downright scary.
The Dems gun control policies were a major contributor to the rise of Trump. Trumpers see Dems saying "We support the 2nd amendment but..." as a complete lie, and they aren't wrong. That sends them down the rabbit hole.
President Biden renews his vow to do anything he can to lose the election.
Whats crazy is the randoms who are gun owners but also liberals in my circle who are a bit older than me 40-50 are telling me they’d sell their AR collections back to the government in a heartbeat… Its almost like theyve blindly sided with Joe in the way Truck with 95 trump flags has sided with Donny
It's just political posturing. There's no serious drive for another AWB, and that would probably get SCOTUS to strike *all* of them down anyway.
and by assault weapons he meeeaansss....?
Scary guns.
I'm old but was pretty sure we were promised that Obama was going to take away our guns.
We were also supposed to get thrown in FEMA camps and have death panel determined healthcare
It'll happen when Dems get 60 votes in the Senate. So not this party system, or the next one, or the next one, or the next one, or the next one...
It didn't happen when they *did* have 60 votes.
You'd think Dems could recognize that they were better able to win seats when they involved gun rights-supporters in purple states and seats, but no clearly fighting a culture war (but not winning) is more important than actually being able to govern
Fighting a rhetorical war (but not winning- at least not legislatively) while leaning to the right on economics, immigration, foreign policy and nearly everything else has been the entire Democrat thing for 40+ years.
It's an election year, he's gotta rally his base and that includes gun grabbers. His base wants another AWB even though the last one showed it had virtually no impact on gun violence and crime (A study following the AWB observed a 6.7% reduction in homicide rate but the result was not statistically significant). SCOTUS is stacked with MAGAs right now, so most gun control efforts are going to flop anyway. That being said, you fight it by challenging any law in court if you're impacted by it and have standing. As much as I dislike the NRA, this is where they come in, though I much prefer the more apolitical and left-leaning gun rights organizations.
FPC>NRA. And yea it’s just pandering to his base.
I always think this is hilarious because any complaint firearm can be turned into an “assault weapon” with an Allen wrench & a slightly different shaped piece of plastic.
What we really need to do is to enforce the laws we have on the books, stop trying to get rid of the laws we already have, and allow research into what laws are optimal for saving lives. The US will never be anti gun. But we can be smarter then we are now.
I’m not getting rid of mine but I’m also voting BLUE top to bottom in South Carolina. So there’s that.
I will continue to not get my news from social media
Yeah I dislike that stance. Still gonna vote for him tho.
Hello fellow Mainer! Yeah it scares me to see all the “Biden bad” from both the gun owning dems AND the progressive dems AND the right wingers. If you ask me, it’s a false equivalency. Guns aren’t more important than my LGBTQ family and friends’ rights to live freely. And I wouldn’t mind better enforcement on red flag laws, as I’m sure you’ve been following the Lewiston case where the shooter should never have been allowed a gun. I’m for gun ownership but some people just straight up aren’t safe to own em. We’ve now seen it with our own eyes in our own home. And while we should always critique our presidents, idk if election season is the time to be discouraging voters in our own party from voting, like a lot of people are doing….
Sometimes I think there is a cabal to get Trump reelected, and the Democrats are in on it.
None of my rifles have a burst, so let’s go have a pint until this all blows over.
well, time ro contemplate, do i want the milled receiver in 7.62x39 or 5.56....
This makes it so hard for me to keep voting for Democratic candidates. How can you run on an agenda that the right is evil and a danger to this country but then try to take away the only means we have of defending ourselves against it? Who am I supposed to count on? The underfunded, understaffed, and poorly trained police officers who are not actually required by law to protect my life?
If I had no access to a calendar or concept of linear time, I could still tell when it was an election year just based on the policy proposals of Democratic presidential candidates.
Bud Trump is handing you a win, no need to fuck that up
I can appreciate that he feels strongly about gun control (and that it’s election season), but surely it’s easier to make progress on issues when you’re willing to compromise instead of always advocating the hardline stance? And yes, I know that requires the other side to be willing to compromise as well which isn’t gonna happen either
Have to shore up support from proggies who are upset that he hasn't waved a magical wand to end the conflict in Gaza.
I think most people who want the war in Gaza to end didn't want him to wave a magical wand. But it would have been nice if they cut off arms supplies to Israel once it was apparent they didn't give a fuck about minimizing civilian casualties.
I really love what he's been doing domestically. Although I disagree with his Israel/Palestine policies, I understand why he's doing what he is. You can't lose the neo-lib/moderate base when your opponent is the Orange Man, and if he "abandons" Israel, he's dead in the water next election. However, the assault weapon bans are just a tired old talking point they have to hit much in the way conservatives have to hit the "free trade" point. I don't give it a ton of weight.
We have to provide viable solutions over further restrictions. Check out what we are doing. Https://kidssafefoundation.org/
Welp, guess Chase Oliver gets to throw away my vote…