June 2019 Dem. Debate and Firearms

"... being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

A place to discuss regulation, proposed or enacted.

Moderators: admin, Inquisitor, ForumModerator, WebsiteContent

Message
Author
User avatar
Foofu
Helpful Contributor
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2016 11:19 pm
Location: Colorado !
Contact:

June 2019 Dem. Debate and Firearms

#1 Post by Foofu » Sun Jun 30, 2019 1:31 am

Hey folks, it's me again with some more opinions that nobody asked for.

I've been watching the NBC democratic presidential debate from June 27th with my wife, and it just sorta struck me as a surprise in a few ways.

For one, I'm pretty excited to see things actually entering the national discussion and being endorsed openly: Single payer healthcare, legitimate reform of lobbying, gerrymandering, citizenship questions, border deescalation, improving international relations and foreign policy, addressing root causes of declining quality of life, racial questions, police accountability, climate crisis plans, agricultural improvements, energy shifts, and even a candidate basing his platform on universal basic income. Neato.

A lot of this stuff was fringe ideology for a long time, and I am super excited to see how these ideas are developed as more people learn about them. The fact that we are talking about them right now fills me with determination. For the first time in my life, I'm realizing that there can be change in our political status quo, and I think it's for the better. That's just neat. It's slow, but encouraging.

One thing though, that concerns folk on this forum, is the general sentiment toward gun violence and particularly "assault weapons." I realize I'm resurrecting a dead horse to beat to death and then to continue beating by bringing this up again, but it's something that I feel inclined to talk about.

Some of you know me, and I'm a pretty radical lefty snowflake millennial. But as far as liberals go, I'm one of those 40% of us who are gun-toting. And one of the concerns I have is that a bulk of our current democratic candidates, particularly in this debate, seem pretty set on solving violence by such means as assault weapons bans. Even those radical snowflake panderers that I have taken a fondness to.

It should be said here that I support background checks for everybody. I support allowing the ATF to use computers to keep criminal and mental health records. I support things like red-flag laws and temporary restrictions. I support age restrictions on firearms: maybe be 21 before you get yourself an AR? You know, let that brain develop a little further and decrease the likelihood that you will do something that idiot teenagers do. I support increasing accountability and education of firearm owners. I support permitted concealed carry. I might even support permits or a slightly more accountable process for semi-automatic firearms in general.

But what I don't support are bans.

See, I like the NFA. I like that if you are motivated enough, and your passion is to own a pristine condition Vietcong AK with the original fire-control group, our current NFA laws allow you an avenue to do that. Sure, we decided in the 80's that maybe it's a little too dangerous to allow just any person to mail-order themselves a sub-machinegun kit. But there are those among us, such as military collectors or firearms enthusiasts, who would like the opportunity to responsibly own such a device. And it's hard to do, it's expensive, but it's not impossible and it's not illegal. That's the key: Sure the NFA restricts some things and who is qualified to own them, but it's not just a ban. Should we add "Assault Weapons" to the NFA? Well...no. But the sentiment is important. It's well thought out. It's complex, and that's what's important about the NFA legislation.

What an assault weapon ban does is very little...but also a whole lot. And they don't really do what people tend to think they will. So what do they do?

First off, Assault Weapon Bans really suck at defining what an assault weapon is, leaving massive loopholes. Look at California-legal semiautomatic rifles: Does sticking some plastic on a pistol grip make a renamed AK variant less dangerous? The only way to capture the volume of fire issue completely is to ban all semi-automatic firearms. Looking at you, Ruger 10-22, M1 Garand, Browning Automatic-5, you dirty terrorist guns. It presents problems. These models I just mentioned are really not assault weapons. They're things your grandfather owns and takes out to show off to his war buddies. There's a grey area here. There's a grey area in basically the entirety of firearm ban conversations, unless we talk about getting rid of all of them. And it seems pretty clear to me that removing some without removing all will just force the next one into the role of an assault weapon. And I doubt most of us consider our ownership of 10-22s as enabling domestic terrorism.

Secondly, assault weapons bans don't really stop bad guys from having them. Criminals, for whatever purpose that drives them, will always be able to acquire or manufacture very destructive devices. It's illegal to buy a mac-10 out of a dude's trunk, but if you've got some business doing a mass murder, you don't really care about the law. Those people that do care about the law tend to be those people who don't want to break it.

Third, Assault Weapons bans don't stop people from causing massive destruction. 9/11 was done with box cutters. Oklahoma City Bombing was done with fertilizer. Charleston was a Dodge Challenger. Most gun violence is committed with common pistols. It's not going to change the amount of people who are determined to cause massive loss of life, and it at most will just force them to change how they do it. People, as we know, are crafty and despicably creative and it should frighten us as to how this creativity is used by disturbed people, with or without assault weapons. This is more or less why we bailed on the '94 assault weapons ban: it didn't really stop terrible things from happening.

Fourth, it clearly stops law-abiding and well meaning folks from pursuing their firearm interests. Be you a competitive shooter with a lightweight AR, or the collector grandpa type, if you are made a criminal for pursuing those peaceful interests, you're probably going to bail on those. I mean even those of us who want a semi-auto rifle to protect our farms from drug-runners (or whatever) will probably comply with federal law, even if it means being less able to protect our families. Varmint hunters? Not anymore. Now you've just got less chickens or whatever it is that varmint steal from you. My competition rifle for shooting matches? Nah, method of mass violence. It doesn’t matter that I don’t even have the heart to kill spiders in my house- I should be considered dangerous.

Fifth and finally, it seems clearly to decrease one of those few powers that we historically held as citizens of this country. Call me a radical or a conspiracy theorist or a prepper nut or whatever, but we are historically, as citizens of this country, supposed to present a credible threat to malicious forces abroad and at home, including those that claim to govern us. Sure, an AR isn’t a founding-father approved smooth-bore musket, but neither is a predator drone, nor an abrams tank, nor a precision-guided cruise missile, or AP 50-cals. But the thing is that these advanced weapons systems are in control of only two exclusive groups: Our government's military for one, and for two, those entities that can otherwise afford them. I could easily see those systems as being used by bad guys who want to control people. Without some measly semi-auto rifles, those of us who don’t want space-age 1984 style totalitarianism or malicious corporate overlords protected by private military contractors enforcing their will on the people, really don’t have a lot left to defend ourselves. I’m all for peaceful, passive reforms, and I advocate progression within our political system, but I worry about what will happen if it all fails and there are no options other than...submitting. There are some historical reasons for having armed citizens, and those reasons are to stop oppression of people by the power-hungry, warlike and corrupt. Power-lust, war and corruption don't seem to be going away any time soon, so there's that to consider, folks.

One of the problems that I see with politicians from all sides of the political spectrum is this sense of...optimism. Being optimistic that whatever simple thing you choose to do will solve the problems that we have. And I think this is misguided. It’s never that rosey. And it’s never that easy.

Let’s remember that a whole lot of violent crime is bred from desperate situations. A whole shitload of it, in at least gun deaths, is self-inflicted. Which is really sad. But other gun deaths arise because of a lack of safety nets: mental health systems failing people like the Aurora shooter, improper addressing of addiction and unhealthy stimulus such as the Vegas shooter, crimes born in poverty like robbery, or of desperation, or of depression, or rejection or not understanding acceptance. Our society is sick and gun deaths are a symptom.

I wonder what sort of impacts we would see after we have actually taken steps to improve the world around us and the lives of those around us, and of ourselves. Would a Universal Basic Income curve crimes of desperation? I could easily see it doing so. Would increasing access to and the quality of physical and mental health decrease the number of incidents of sick people doing terribly misguided things? Absolutely. Would addressing systemic racism defuse violent racial tension? You betcha. Would revisiting and reminding ourselves of constitutional liberties such as the right to faith help bridge gaps between misguided and hateful people and those who just want to pray in peace? I sure hope so. Would addressing issues like gerrymandering and political disenfranchisement help people feel less threatened, powerless and desperate? Would these measures help reduce the conditions that breed violence? I really, honestly, believe so.

It’s a real, funky, world we live in these days. I wonder where it is going. We’ve put up with a lot in the past, especially when charged with emotions like fear. 9/11 did a number on us, and to feel better we basically threw away the 4th amendment via the Patriot Act. Our constitution is supposed to be open to amendment, and we like it that way. But if we framed it in that context, I wonder how many of us would have said “Yeah, let’s strike the 4th amendment. We don’t need that liberty. We don’t need the right to our own security and privacy. Who the fuck do those founding fathers think they were thinking we don’t want the government rifling through our shit. Of course we do #neverforget.”

This is why the firearm debate is interesting. Because it is directly a constitutional conflict. There’s questions by federal judges as to whether or not magazine capacity infringes on constitutional rights. Well what about all semi-automatic firearms? It’s a question of give and take. It’s a matter of what we are willing to settle for. Do the gains outweigh the losses, right? That’s what we should be considering. I think there’s plenty of reasons to continue to allow our people to be armed, peaceful and not, you know, within reason.

I think there are plenty of reasons to vote for democrats. At least they are starting to talk about the things that we really care about.

But I guess my point is that it’s a little disheartening when even the people you like take simple and lazy stances on issues. It makes you wonder how much of the substance of what they claim to stand for is just...based on the slightest amount of thought. It’s no secret that a lot of people, especially democrats, support assault weapon bans. And maybe those politicians are just pandering to that demographic, which sucks, but I guess it's normal and in the best interests of their presidential bid.

A lot of people just don’t really understand what it all means. “Assault Weapon” is hardly even a proper descriptor. It’s really just a nasty word. But the firearm debate is due for some careful consideration, examination and exploration. And precisely because it isn’t simple or easy to understand the relationship between firearms and violence, it needs to be a part of our national conversation.
Free love, yo. Does anybody have any broken guns they don't want?

User avatar
CDFingers
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 18825
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:09 pm
Location: Member LGC: norCal
Contact:

Re: June 2019 Dem. Debate and Firearms

#2 Post by CDFingers » Sun Jun 30, 2019 9:22 am

Thinking critically takes work, and many Americans don't want to do that work, preferring to shunt that task off to Fox or MSNBC or where ever. To really get it all one must read widely and deeply. I have promoted that idea all my professional life and do so into retirement.

This post champions the idea of root cause mitigation without using the words. Yes, I agree.

Gun laws don't do much, yet I agree with the post's take on background checks, age restrictions, the NFA, and so on. From your screen to America's eyes, I say.

CDFingers
ImageImage
Life may be sweeter for this, I don't know.
See how it feels in the end.

User avatar
highdesert
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 13393
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Biggest state on the Left Coast
Contact:

Re: June 2019 Dem. Debate and Firearms

#3 Post by highdesert » Sun Jun 30, 2019 10:09 am

But I guess my point is that it’s a little disheartening when even the people you like take simple and lazy stances on issues. It makes you wonder how much of the substance of what they claim to stand for is just...based on the slightest amount of thought. It’s no secret that a lot of people, especially democrats, support assault weapon bans. And maybe those politicians are just pandering to that demographic, which sucks, but I guess it's normal and in the best interests of their presidential bid.
Basically that's the theme through many threads on this sight. Politicians of both parties are lazy, it's easier to beat the same drums than to be critical thinkers as CDF stated so well. Meaningful statements on issues imply some knowledge of the topic and few Dem politicians know anything about guns and that doesn't mean candidates have to have prior military experience. Dem politicians should be called out on their stupid positions just like we do with Rep politicians.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

User avatar
highdesert
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 13393
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Biggest state on the Left Coast
Contact:

Re: June 2019 Dem. Debate and Firearms

#4 Post by highdesert » Sun Jun 30, 2019 10:09 am

CDFingers wrote:
Sun Jun 30, 2019 9:22 am
Thinking critically takes work, and many Americans don't want to do that work, preferring to shunt that task off to Fox or MSNBC or where ever. To really get it all one must read widely and deeply. I have promoted that idea all my professional life and do so into retirement.

This post champions the idea of root cause mitigation without using the words. Yes, I agree.

Gun laws don't do much, yet I agree with the post's take on background checks, age restrictions, the NFA, and so on. From your screen to America's eyes, I say.

CDFingers
Well said !
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

User avatar
max129
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 1070
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2018 1:35 pm
Location: Utah
Contact:

Re: June 2019 Dem. Debate and Firearms

#5 Post by max129 » Sun Jun 30, 2019 10:38 am

CDFingers said:

Thinking critically takes work, and many Americans don't want to do that work, preferring to shunt that task off to Fox or MSNBC or where ever. To really get it all one must read widely and deeply. I have promoted that idea all my professional life and do so into retirement.
+1

This is a great post - thanks Foofu
Image

User avatar
shinzen
Site Admin
Posts: 18765
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 10:52 pm
Location: Northern California
Contact:

Re: June 2019 Dem. Debate and Firearms

#6 Post by shinzen » Sun Jun 30, 2019 12:32 pm

One of the core issues is that it's been all take and no give. With no discernable impact on the stated goals. So if we're not working on root causes, and instead pissing in the wind with bumper sticker legislation, it's little wonder that people default to shall not be infringed. To be fair, the a good chunk of folks falling into that category don't consider root causes and instead would rather use racism than look at root causes, but those of us that pay attention have been putting forth articles and posts for years.

Some worthwhile reading:

https://theliberalgunclub.com/soundbite ... le-policy/

https://health.ucdavis.edu/publish/news/newsroom/13362

https://wamu.org/story/19/02/22/the-dis ... ng-deaths/
Image

User avatar
K9s
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 5565
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 9:18 pm
Location: LGC Member: Georgia
Contact:

Re: June 2019 Dem. Debate and Firearms

#7 Post by K9s » Sun Jun 30, 2019 1:33 pm

I guess we all agree then: Shinzen for President.

I'll make the posters.
The border between civilization and savagery is porous and patrolled by opportunists. Resist fascism. Vote like your democracy depends on it.

User avatar
Foofu
Helpful Contributor
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2016 11:19 pm
Location: Colorado !
Contact:

Re: June 2019 Dem. Debate and Firearms

#8 Post by Foofu » Tue Aug 06, 2019 3:35 pm

I appreciate the responses from you folks, so thanks for that.

Shinzen, I appreciate your suggested reading. Interesting stuff. I read the three of those, and they seem a little more dismissive than my position, but it's interesting to consider. Certainly supportive of my general statement.
I guess there's a part of me, though, that really wants criticism... I want some good sources that disagree with want I want, because I want to make sure that my arguments actually address those counterpoints.

Oh, and Highdesert, I agree entirely- call it out how it is. Ignorance isn't a partisan issue, for sure. But I also wonder how to balance these things: Ignorant about some things but otherwise agreeable? I guess nobody is perfect and it's just about voting for damage control...unfortunately. I guess this is the point where we hope some folks who represent us will do a decent job of arguing our position to our legislators (Looking at you, LGC, thx bb)

CDFingers, you give me hope for the world.
Free love, yo. Does anybody have any broken guns they don't want?

User avatar
featureless
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 4049
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 6:11 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: June 2019 Dem. Debate and Firearms

#9 Post by featureless » Tue Aug 06, 2019 4:53 pm

Foofu wrote:
Tue Aug 06, 2019 3:35 pm
I guess there's a part of me, though, that really wants criticism... I want some good sources that disagree with want I want, because I want to make sure that my arguments actually address those counterpoints.
Foofu,

I somehow missed this post earlier. Thanks for taking the time. I can't give a lot of criticism since I essentially agree with (and have typed similar) your post. As far as criticism, the one thing I've got, and recognize it in my own arguments, is a person's right to feel safe. Reaching way back in my memory to the Declaration of Independence, it states: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

It's hard to get it on with that pursuit when one (realistically or not) fears to go forth and buy shit at Walmart, go to a music festival, gay bar, or even school. I recognize that fear in others and sometimes myself. But then there's the 2A which, like the rest of our Bill of Rights, tells the government hands off, these rights are essential to that pursuit. Seems almost contradictory and is very likely why so many get hung up on the militia part--surely the founders wouldn't be so stupid as to think you need a gun in your belt to pursue happiness...

One of the things that has changed since the 2A was adopted is the exposure to and perception of danger. Consider, way back when, a gun was a tool to provide safety to the homesteader faced with not only putting food on the family table but also repelling the repugnant since the sheriff was a two day ride away and there was no 911 to speak of. People died at home in bed and every family member saw it. People died in horrific accidents since made safe(er) by OSHA and everyone saw it. People died of now easily treated or prevented medical conditions and disease. Death and danger was part of the human condition.

Now, especially for insulated city folk (where the primary Democratic strongholds are), people die in hospitals after all other remedies fail and most of the family misses the event, the deceased whisked away for cremation or burial. There are armed LEO patrolling and help is only a 911 call away (response times vary, of course). People generally live to a ripe old age if they don't get the cancer or eat or drink themselves to death. Violence happens in the ghetto, so best just avoid it. We are so removed from danger and death we have very little experience to draw on to understand why a tool of death might be a handy thing to have and not need. Rather, we see the tool as the entirety or death, sometimes mass death, as broadcast across the land by a frothing media and politicians. We demand action from those same folk who brought us LEO, 911, modern healthcare and OSHA. We must outlaw death!

Of course I'm being a bit silly, but that is really a deep rooted part of it. People have forgotten that their right to feel safe while pursuing happiness does not outweigh my right to self protection while doing the same, inside or outside of my hovel. So how do we overcome that schism? I'm not sure. But the repeated dramatization of what a gun is and is not and the utter dishonesty of the "facts" surrounding gun homicide by the media certainly doesn't help and only serves the political machine.

User avatar
CDFingers
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 18825
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:09 pm
Location: Member LGC: norCal
Contact:

Re: June 2019 Dem. Debate and Firearms

#10 Post by CDFingers » Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:38 am

Image

If everyone used critical thinking, we would not have this blight upon our nation.

CDFingers
ImageImage
Life may be sweeter for this, I don't know.
See how it feels in the end.

User avatar
max129
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 1070
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2018 1:35 pm
Location: Utah
Contact:

Re: June 2019 Dem. Debate and Firearms

#11 Post by max129 » Wed Aug 07, 2019 10:11 am

CDfingers said:

If everyone used critical thinking, we would not have this blight upon our nation.
As depicted in a series of political foils, Hogarth saw "Democracy in action" in the 1720s to 1750s.

https://abluteau.files.wordpress.com/20 ... ogarth.jpg

Then, as now, there was a breed of politician that appealed to the lowest common denominator.

- Instead of an educated populace, they depended upon ignorance ...
- Instead of trying to obtain peace, they fomented violence ...
- Instead of attempting a common understanding, they leveraged small differences into large gulfs ...
- And they feigned interest in "the common man" - only to act opposite to their interests ...

I am no hard core fan of Hayek, but he made it clear that one cannot run a proper Democracy without universal education of a high quality.

And, if the trend has continued, roughly half of the populace gets their "news" from social media

https://marketingland.com/pew-research- ... ook-228001
Image

User avatar
highdesert
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 13393
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Biggest state on the Left Coast
Contact:

Re: June 2019 Dem. Debate and Firearms

#12 Post by highdesert » Wed Aug 07, 2019 5:39 pm

Foofu wrote:
Tue Aug 06, 2019 3:35 pm
Oh, and Highdesert, I agree entirely- call it out how it is. Ignorance isn't a partisan issue, for sure. But I also wonder how to balance these things: Ignorant about some things but otherwise agreeable? I guess nobody is perfect and it's just about voting for damage control...unfortunately. I guess this is the point where we hope some folks who represent us will do a decent job of arguing our position to our legislators (Looking at you, LGC, thx bb)
Excuse us in CA if we whine more, we're leftists but the CA Dem Party that dominates the state legislature is always restricting our 2A rights. Not much different from CA Reps who passed the Mulford Act in 1967 that prohibited carrying loaded firearms in public signed by then Gov Ronald Reagan. For us it's a Hobson's Choice between the two political parties, I'm an Indep that leans Dem, but the only choice sometimes is if I'm going to vote for the Dem candidate or not vote for any candidate on the ballot. In CA we also have the jungle primary which complicates things.

The two major parties love single issue voters and some states allow voting for all candidates of one party by checking a single box. They want us to accept their decisions on issues and follow their leadership, I'm not a good political follower. It's always trying to weigh which issues are most important to you and finding the right candidate, it's not easy.

That being said, reality is that if Dems win the trifecta WH, Senate and House it's highly unlikely that all these plans they're talking about will become law and any that do will look different. Both parties dangle legislation in front of voters to get votes, look at Reps and national concealed carry when they won the trifecta in 2016, it never happened. Many people expected ACA to be single payer, it couldn't pass and Dems had the trifecta at that time. I too am watching the debates, I'm just not taking the talk seriously.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

User avatar
Dreamsinger
Been around awhile
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2016 3:34 pm
Location: Puget Sound
Contact:

Re: June 2019 Dem. Debate and Firearms

#13 Post by Dreamsinger » Thu Aug 08, 2019 9:59 am

Given the rising number of "liberal" gun owners it would seem to be political suicide to implement a so-called "assault weapon" ban on semiautos. In some proposed bills even the innocuous 10/22 is on their list. People who shoot know it's BS and the GOP will capitalize on this wedge issue. Another factor is the logistical impossibility of implementing such a ban. Aside from a general lack of will among LEOs to enforce a ban 900,000 cops aren't enough to track down and confiscate the 10 million AR's alone in civilian hands. Do they ever consider the unintended consequences? Do they think every gun owner will turn over his gun(s) complacently? I fear it will ignite a reaction among some factions that will resemble Ruby Ridge on a much larger scale. We aren't doing a very good job of educating our non shooting liberal brethren.
"Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees" - Emiliano Zapata

User avatar
featureless
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 4049
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 6:11 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: June 2019 Dem. Debate and Firearms

#14 Post by featureless » Thu Aug 08, 2019 11:10 am

The thing that pisses me off the most about the shrieking (and it is shrieking) about "assault weapon" bans is the incredible waste of energy and focus. Less than 400 people a year are killed with all rifles, including the evil "assault weapon," however one chooses to define the term. Fuck, you're more likely to win the lottery than to get mass-shot. Why the fucking hysteria? It's not a crisis among the death toll of so many other legitimate crises. I mean fuck, there are calls for an emergency return from summer recess to address this. Why aren't we doing the same for climate change, a true fucking crisis of monumental proportions that will certainly kill billions if not addressed immediately. Why not a crisis on health-related deaths? Why not a crisis on medical malpractice that kills 500,000 every year? Opioids/meth? Child trafficking? Instead, we aim to make felons out of millions of law abiding citizens to solve absolutely fucking nothing.

I guess I'm agitated this morning. :angry:

User avatar
highdesert
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 13393
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Biggest state on the Left Coast
Contact:

Re: June 2019 Dem. Debate and Firearms

#15 Post by highdesert » Thu Aug 08, 2019 11:24 am

featureless wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 11:10 am
The thing that pisses me off the most about the shrieking (and it is shrieking) about "assault weapon" bans is the incredible waste of energy and focus. Less than 400 people a year are killed with all rifles, including the evil "assault weapon," however one chooses to define the term. Fuck, you're more likely to win the lottery than to get mass-shot. Why the fucking hysteria? It's not a crisis among the death toll of so many other legitimate crises. I mean fuck, there are calls for an emergency return from summer recess to address this. Why aren't we doing the same for climate change, a true fucking crisis of monumental proportions that will certainly kill billions if not addressed immediately. Why not a crisis on health-related deaths? Why not a crisis on medical malpractice that kills 500,000 every year? Opioids/meth? Child trafficking? Instead, we aim to make felons out of millions of law abiding citizens to solve absolutely fucking nothing.

I guess I'm agitated this morning. :angry:
The media is driving it, last night CNN had another one of their town halls on guns, this one apparently titled "Assault on America". CNN along with Fox long ago crossed the line from reporting news and events to creating them. The 24 hour news machines need stories. I'm dreading the Sept Demo debates ahead, candidates trying to outdo each other to make gun laws more restrictive probably even house to house searches for firearms. :no:
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

User avatar
featureless
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 4049
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 6:11 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: June 2019 Dem. Debate and Firearms

#16 Post by featureless » Thu Aug 08, 2019 11:54 am

highdesert wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 11:24 am
The media is driving it,
Absolutely. And we're consuming it by the shovel full. The media on the right and left is rapidly becoming little more than a propaganda machine, pushing whichever side's narrative around the chosen crisis du jour, facts be damned or twisted in whatever way works. It's unfortunate that "left" media has come to this as it's made me suspicious of all of their reporting. Then all the crap is sought out on a confirmation-bias bases and reposted to social media, "liked" and magnified by social "me too"ism. Goebbels would have been amazed at the power of the media and amplification by social media. :evilmad:

User avatar
max129
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 1070
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2018 1:35 pm
Location: Utah
Contact:

Re: June 2019 Dem. Debate and Firearms

#17 Post by max129 » Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:34 pm

Dreamsinger said:

Given the rising number of "liberal" gun owners it would seem to be political suicide to implement a so-called "assault weapon" ban on semiautos. In some proposed bills even the innocuous 10/22 is on their list.
Here is my solution:

1) Donate a few bucks to your top candidate(s). I choose Pete B. and Elizabeth W.

2) If you can, use a disposable email address you can shuck after the elections. Don't give them your core email address - ever.

3) When they email you thanking you for your donation, there is usually a "contact us" address. I then email a calm and rational email telling them there are Millions of armed Democrats and we are not happy with dysfunctional bans.

Here is a snippet of the email I sent to Pete B.
Defining "assault weapons" is really hard. Basically, they are magazine fed semi-automatic rifles. Gee, the Winchester Model 1905 hunting rifle was released in (guess it?) 1905. It is a semi-automatic, magazine fed rifle. And many people like to collect WWII M1 Garand. There are hundreds of thousands of Ruger 10/22 "assault rifles" out there, magazine fed, semi-automatic rifles. Just look at the mess California has made trying to even define "assault weapons".
and
And there are millions of reasonable, non-Republican Americans just like me. Millions.

What we want are reasonable guns laws. Background checks, red flag laws with DUE PROCESS.
Image

User avatar
K9s
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 5565
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 9:18 pm
Location: LGC Member: Georgia
Contact:

Re: June 2019 Dem. Debate and Firearms

#18 Post by K9s » Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:57 pm

I send similar emails to candidates (they know I donate). I get no response. Ever.
The border between civilization and savagery is porous and patrolled by opportunists. Resist fascism. Vote like your democracy depends on it.

User avatar
featureless
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 4049
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 6:11 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: June 2019 Dem. Debate and Firearms

#19 Post by featureless » Thu Aug 08, 2019 2:15 pm

K9s wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:57 pm
I send similar emails to candidates (they know I donate). I get no response. Ever.
You think they represent you? :lol:

(just razzing you, it is really infuriating when they don't respond.)

Perhaps a rider on further gun control legislation should include a prohibition on politicians' use of armed security details. They can call 911 and wait like the rest of us.

User avatar
K9s
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 5565
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 9:18 pm
Location: LGC Member: Georgia
Contact:

Re: June 2019 Dem. Debate and Firearms

#20 Post by K9s » Thu Aug 08, 2019 2:49 pm

My GOP rep and senators ignore me, too. I am used to it. :)

Gun control that includes politician security details and police would just be cast off as a "ridiculous" argument. It would be as "ridiculous" as saying corporations are not people!

When they take those arguments seriously, I will listen to their arguments for disarming the poor and disenfranchised.
The border between civilization and savagery is porous and patrolled by opportunists. Resist fascism. Vote like your democracy depends on it.

User avatar
featureless
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 4049
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 6:11 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: June 2019 Dem. Debate and Firearms

#21 Post by featureless » Thu Aug 08, 2019 3:21 pm

K9s wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 2:49 pm
Gun control that includes politician security details and police would just be cast off as a "ridiculous" argument.
Well, according to the Washington Post, police shot and killed 998 people in 2018. That's roughly 10 times the number of people killed by an "assault rifle" in 2018. I'm sure many of them were guilty. I'm sure some of them were not.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics ... ings-2018/

User avatar
max129
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 1070
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2018 1:35 pm
Location: Utah
Contact:

Re: June 2019 Dem. Debate and Firearms

#22 Post by max129 » Thu Aug 08, 2019 4:50 pm

K9s said:

I send similar emails to candidates (they know I donate). I get no response. Ever.
I was not suggesting they would respond :roflmao:

But I am pretty sure they do read many of the emails. They really want to keep track of sentiment. Sure if they get just one such email, they can just think it's a solo crackpot. But I am counting on others also writing such emails - and I make it clear to assert there are "millions" of us. My definition of "us"? Anyone left-of-center who owns a gun and wants to keep owning a gun. I can safely say there are millions of such people. I do not believe that everyone left-of-center simply owns an old revolver and doesn't own a semi-auto pistol or rifle.

What I do not want is for the anti-gun reactionaries to monopolize all the oxygen in the primaries.

A counter voice is needed.

;)
Image

DSinOR
Helpful Contributor
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2019 5:22 pm
Contact:

Re: June 2019 Dem. Debate and Firearms

#23 Post by DSinOR » Thu Aug 08, 2019 4:57 pm

Great thread!

I didn't see it; glad it got bumped from June.

A suggestion for OP's overall perspective: the 2nd Amendment protects the citizen right to fighting arms. Written and passed by people who for 180 years had regularly used fighting arms for defense of self/family/home/neighbors/property/community, and who ultimately took up those arms on a national scale to fight a revolution against their own oppressive government.

What is protected is a right to arms that are adequate to the task of defending liberty against potential oppressors. By definition: assault weapons.

The very idea that "no American needs an assault weapon" is DOA, because that is exactly what 2A protects.

It also protects "non-militia" weapons, because such were not mentioned in the Constitution, and rights not prohibited the people or granted the State, belong to the people.

The unfortunate popularity and effectiveness of appealing to the emotions of uniformed citizens by railing against assault weapons, is a serious political threat to 2A, despite the fact that assault weapons are precisely what is protected.

Disclosure: I agree with the widely accepted sentiment that 2A protection of the right to arms is not without limits. But i also believe that restrictions on any semi-auto rifle of bore half-inch or less is an obvious step too far.

IMO, to confront the propaganda problem, we have two possible solutions:
1 - Spread information. Participate in the education of fellow citizens.
2 - Vote some of the worst inflammatory anti-gun politicians out of office.

In most states that are Democrat strongholds, the only way for the the 2nd solution to happen is for local Democrats to:
1 - sway the incumbent in a different direction,
2 - field a new pro-2A Democrat candidate and unseat the incumbent,
3 - vote for a pro-2A independent or even Repub candidate.

Easier said that done, any way you look at it.

Pertaining to the schism described by featureless, I often talk to people about the fact that no human civilization or form of government has withstood the test of time, and that the American system with all of its protected rights is a pioneer of our kind of governance, and that we are not currently on a sustainable fiscal path. The OMB tells the federal gov exactly this fact each year in the annual federal financial statements. If you consider all the material societal problems that our country faces, long-term political stability is no sure thing.
If 2A was intended to preserve the right to arms in case it was ever again needed, isn't it possible that the exposure to and perception of danger aptly described by featureless, could return? If so, 2A will never be obsolete.

Great post by Foofu, and great replies by featureless and others.

Thx.

Dave

User avatar
max129
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 1070
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2018 1:35 pm
Location: Utah
Contact:

Re: June 2019 Dem. Debate and Firearms

#24 Post by max129 » Thu Aug 08, 2019 5:23 pm

DiSInOr said:

IMO, to confront the propaganda problem, we have two possible solutions:
1 - Spread information. Participate in the education of fellow citizens.
I am afraid that many (most?) of our fellow citizens are somewhat resistant to education. It appears to take more effort than following a crowd on BookFace.

When I was 11 years old, our math book asserted that 51 was a prime number. I pointed out to my teacher that 51 was "crossed off" on my sieve of Eratosthenes. She told me I had probably just made a mistake. 5 minutes later I asked "Teacher, what is 3 time 17?" I was never forgiven for that question by that teacher, or frankly other class members. Even weeks later, the other kids were telling me that I was probably wrong and that 51 was a prime number because "the book said so." And that is most of the human race in my experience.

And this is the tragic flaw in Democracy and why Churchill asserted that "Democracy is the worst form of Government, except for all the others."

... more ...

This paper, published in 2007, is a meta research analysis on education and democracy.

https://scholar.harvard.edu/shleifer/fi ... al_jeg.pdf

The basic assertion, which has been cross verified and supported is that an increase in education leads to an increase in democracy, but an increase in democracy does not lead to an increase in education.

In my field, Mathematics, average scores on standardized tests have declined for more than 40 years in the United States. The SAT folks keep adjusting the actual questions (which, and I promise this is true for math, never need to change - we teach trigonometry the same way the Greeks did in 50 B.C. corrected from 300 B.C.) If you give 2019 students the same questions we gave in 1960, their average scores are lower across the board. And while I am not qualified to comment on other fields of study, I am told by those I trust in other fields that the decline is universal. And this is pre-college. So arguments that we simply accept more college students fail to capture our decline in education.

What does this have to do with educating people about gun laws and rights?

"Being educated" has declined in value for much of the population. And I don't necessarily mean bookish education. Being truly informed, IMO, has less value now than it did 20 and 30 years ago. This merely extends to politics, it is not linked to politics. But it is in politics that the most damage is being done currently.

In the bigger picture, it will lead to cultural decline on a mass scale. Just at the time when workers need to be more educated than ever before, our actual standards of education are sharply declining.
Image

User avatar
K9s
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 5565
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 9:18 pm
Location: LGC Member: Georgia
Contact:

Re: June 2019 Dem. Debate and Firearms

#25 Post by K9s » Thu Aug 08, 2019 6:43 pm

Dave, the impact of gerrymandering means that a pro-2A Dem is hard to find. Any pro-2A politician that I would be able to vote for (my district or state) is also anti-immigrant, pro-business, anti-union, etc. Not worth my vote. I really have a choice between Tea Party/Freedom Caucus pro-gun GOP or an anti-gun Dem here. Of course, this is a red state, but I see California GOP (Rohrbacher, Nunes, Hunter) and see little difference in the choices for blue states.
The border between civilization and savagery is porous and patrolled by opportunists. Resist fascism. Vote like your democracy depends on it.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests