Question For Anti-Gun Dems

[BFritz21]

One argument for the Dems anti-gun agenda is "why would you need a weapon that can fire multiple rounds?"

Given that it's not that uncommon for there to be riots in this country, aren't the riots a perfect example of why those types of guns are needed?

Say you're trying to protect your home and family or your business, do you really think a single-shot handgun is going to stop mobs of rioters?

[KillerGoose]

(04-19-2021, 05:52 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: One argument for the Dems anti-gun agenda is "why would you need a weapon that can fire multiple rounds?"

Given that it's not that uncommon for there to be riots in this country, aren't the riots a perfect example of why those types of guns are needed?

Say you're trying to protect your home and family or your business, do you really think a single-shot handgun is going to stop mobs of rioters?

I have never in my life heard this argument. I have heard arguments against high capacity magazines and automatic weapons, but I have never heard anyone arguing that we need to have single shot weapons.

Grab your Kentucky rifles and load the cannon with grapeshot boys.

[SunsetBengal]

Brad, no need to label the anti-gun crowd to a specific political party, that's just being presumptuous, brother.

Also, I believe that the argument is against high-capacity magazines, rather than semi-automatic weapons in general.

Lastly, the right to own any weapon should not have to be justified by claiming "riot defense", "being charged by a rogue herd of deer", or any contrived excuse. It is our RIGHT, not "privilege" to own and possess firearms.

[Belsnickel]

Being a pro-gun leftist, I'm in favor of reversing the 1986 ban on machine guns and nixing the need for stamps for them as well as cans and anything else. Me and my BLM friends need to protect ourselves from the bootlicking fascists.

[BFritz21]

(04-19-2021, 07:15 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Brad, no need to label the anti-gun crowd to a specific political party, that's just being presumptuous, brother.

Also, I believe that the argument is against high-capacity magazines, rather than semi-automatic weapons in general.

Lastly, the right to own any weapon should not have to be justified by claiming "riot defense", "being charged by a rogue herd of deer", or any contrived excuse.  It is our RIGHT, not "privilege" to own and possess firearms.

How is that different than labeling the entire party pro-choice when I know some Dems who are pro-life?

I have seen a lot of arguments against semi-automatic weapons in general. 

Completely agree with the last two sentences  but that's the way the country is right now.

[Vas Deferens]

Failed premise of the question aside...

Single use guns with an expiration date, a subscription box model and a tiktok account may just be the marketing answer to the NRA’s gen Z problem.

[NATI BENGALS]

Good question.

I would like to know where in the constitution is the limiting definition of what arms we can bear? That’s right there are no limits.

Give me my god damn thermonuclear warhead it is my constitutional right.

[BmorePat87]

Riots are actually pretty uncommon. I fully support the right to own guns, even those with the ability to fire multiple rounds. I think there should be a limit to the type of weapon that can be owned by the general public and that ownership should be "well regulated" in today's sense of the word.

Characterizing people as anti-gun doesn't really help the conversation if you're not attempting to be genuine from the start. The two bills from last month were for enhanced background checks, something that even over 70% of Republicans poll in support of, though less than 5% of House Republicans voted in favor.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-19-2021, 08:19 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Good question.

I would like to know where in the constitution is the limiting definition of what arms we can bear? That’s right there are no limits.

Give me my god damn thermonuclear warhead it is my constitutional right.

Yeah, that's the other extreme of this discussion.  I've actually heard people make this argument, which is just beyond the pale.  That being said, private citizens owned state of the art warships around that time, so I don't think the argument about "weapons of war" is a very good one, at all.  The founders absolutely had no issue with private citizens owning military grade hardware of any kind.  Of course there was nothing like a weapon of mass destruction, e.g. chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

(04-19-2021, 08:23 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Riots are actually pretty uncommon. I fully support the right to own guns, even those with the ability to fire multiple rounds. I think there should be a limit to the type of weapon that can be owned by the general public and that ownership should be "well regulated" in today's sense of the word.

Characterizing people as anti-gun doesn't really help the conversation if you're not attempting to be genuine from the start. The two bills from last month were for enhanced background checks, something that even over 70% of Republicans poll in support of, though less than 5% of House Republicans voted in favor.

There's a couple of problems with this.  I have no issue with background checks for most gun sales, exceptions being giving a family member a gift, bequests, and that kind of thing.  The problem with universal background checks is that in order for them to be implemented there would have to be a universal roster of who owns what.  Otherwise there would be absolutely no way of knowing if a firearm was recently acquired or not.  This is really the main obstacle with implementing universal background checks.  This is because the Dems have made it clear that the end game is really confiscation.  They avoided saying it out loud for a long time, but the mask really slipped during the primary.  When O'Rourke stated that "hell yes, we're coming for your AR15's, your AK47's" to wild applause it pretty much cemented absolute opposition to any registry.

All that being said, most guns used in mass shooting are acquired legally, with a background check, or illegally on the black market.

[BmorePat87]

(04-19-2021, 08:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There's a couple of problems with this.  I have no issue with background checks for most gun sales, exceptions being giving a family member a gift, bequests, and that kind of thing.  The problem with universal background checks is that in order for them to be implemented there would have to be a universal roster of who owns what.  Otherwise there would be absolutely no way of knowing if a firearm was recently acquired or not.  This is really the main obstacle with implementing universal background checks.  This is because the Dems have made it clear that the end game is really confiscation.  They avoided saying it out loud for a long time, but the mask really slipped during the primary.  When O'Rourke stated that "hell yes, we're coming for your AR15's, your AK47's" to wild applause it pretty much cemented absolute opposition to any registry.

All that being said, most guns used in mass shooting are acquired legally, with a background check, or illegally on the black market.

A failed candidate's off the cuff remark aside, I don't think even close to half of Democrats want to confiscate guns. I also don't think the incredibly  rare chance of it occurring has any chance of succeeding in the courts. 

My common response after shootings has always been consistent: Would this change prevent what happened from happening?

Usually they don't and I've never supported anything over the top that isn't solving an issue. I think that's an accurate description of most Americans on gun control. Support is there for what we consider "common sense" reform but not for something extreme. Likewise, only 20% of Republicans think gun laws are TOO strict. 

The fringes do not accurately describe the US, and I don't think we get anywhere by suggesting a fringe view is a party's endgame. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-19-2021, 09:16 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: A failed candidate's off the cuff remark aside, I don't think even close to half of Democrats want to confiscate guns. I also don't think the incredibly  rare chance of it occurring has any chance of succeeding in the courts.

I'm not as optimistic as you in this regard.  Regardless, a very large percentage of gun owners now have zero trust in the Dem endgame on firearms now.  The idea that the endgame is confiscation is pretty much a given in that community. 

Quote:My common response after shootings has always been consistent: Would this change prevent what happened from happening?

Which is a good, and logical, place to start.  Sadly, our elected officials do not take this tact, as the vast majority of proposed restrictions wouldn't have had any effect on the vast majority of shootings.

Quote:Usually they don't and I've never supported anything over the top that isn't solving an issue. I think that's an accurate description of most Americans on gun control. Support is there for what we consider "common sense" reform but not for something extreme. Likewise, only 20% of Republicans think gun laws are TOO strict. 

Yeah, but that's got to be regional.  CA's gun laws are way too strict, and nonsensical (which is largely the norm here) to boot.  Unfortunately, "common sense" gun control has become a talking point in the same mold of "weapons of war" (which is a bullshit term). 

Quote:The fringes do not accurately describe the US, and I don't think we get anywhere by suggesting a fringe view is a party's endgame. 

Except I don't think you can call Beto O'Rourke a "fringe" candidate.  Tulsi Gabbard is a fringe candidate, O'Rourke is not.  Also, you didn't hear a single person on that stage, after he stated "we're coming for your guns", push back against that statement.  That silence speaks volumes to people who care about gun ownership.  Bottom line, The Dem position is decidedly anti-gun and I don't think you can make a cogent argument against this.  Manchin aside, as it would be political suicide for him, I don't think there's a single Dem of prominence who's on the side of pro gun ownership.

[Benton]

(04-19-2021, 07:55 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Being a pro-gun leftist, I'm in favor of reversing the 1986 ban on machine guns and nixing the need for stamps for them as well as cans and anything else. 

Yup.

Machine guns are fun as hell. If I could pay for the ammo, anyway.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-19-2021, 10:10 PM)Benton Wrote: Yup.

Machine guns are fun as hell. If I could pay for the ammo, anyway.

My dream gun would be an MG42.  Even before ammogedon a range day with one would run you at least a thousand dollars.  Unless you had a 5.56 support weapon you'd have to be pretty well off to own a support machine gun and actually ever use it.  Of course, this ignores a fully automatic rifle or sub gun.

I've shot an MP5, M4 and an M249 full auto.  It's definitely fun, but you really burn through the ammo.

[treee]

(04-19-2021, 07:55 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Being a pro-gun leftist, I'm in favor of reversing the 1986 ban on machine guns and nixing the need for stamps for them as well as cans and anything else. Me and my BLM friends need to protect ourselves from the bootlicking fascists.

I don't see how anyone can have watched the Republicans attempting to overturn the democratic process on its head with the backing of nearly half the country and then proclaim there is not use for the 2nd amendment. I look at Myanmar and Honk Kong among a depressingly long list of populations that have or have had helpless citizens getting steamrolled by their government with no recourse. I will always be for the people being armed. Could we do more to prevent the wrong people from getting guns? Sure.

[Tiger Teeth]

I'll be voting Democrat in 2024. I also own guns. They're just NOT ridiculous. My wife carries a .38 Special. She has a CCW. I have a .357 Magnum in the nightstand by me at night. So let's not label all Dems as anti-gun.

[Belsnickel]

(04-20-2021, 01:12 AM)treee Wrote: I don't see how anyone can have watched the Republicans attempting to overturn the democratic process on its head with the backing of nearly half the country and then proclaim there is not use for the 2nd amendment. I look at Myanmar and Honk Kong among a depressingly long list of populations that have or have had helpless citizens getting steamrolled by their government with no recourse. I will always be for the people being armed. Could we do more to prevent the wrong people from getting guns? Sure.

I actually had a conversation with a woman, yesterday, about this. I had been meaning to talk to her because this sticker was on the back window of her vehicle:


I saw it when she would come to pick up or drop off my neighbors dogs for dog sitting. I was finally able to catch her as I was out doing some yard work when she swung by, yesterday. She bought her first gun not long after the election, last year, out of concern for her family in the wake of the results. She was pleasantly surprised to see another lefty with guns in the area and we discussed trying to get a range day together and me teaching a class now that I'm an instructor. But yeah, seeing what she saw in recent events, she definitely sees the need for the 2A.

[BigPapaKain]

Arm every man, woman, and child and abolish all restrictions on guns.

Signed, someone way left of a Democrat.

[Arturo Bandini]

(04-20-2021, 05:46 AM)Tiger Teeth Wrote: I'll be voting Democrat in 2024.  I also own guns.  They're just NOT ridiculous.  My wife carries a .38 Special.  She has a CCW.  I have a .357 Magnum in the nightstand by me at night.  So let's not label all Dems as anti-gun.

Sounds that you live in a very dangerous place ! 

[Tiger Teeth]

(04-20-2021, 07:58 AM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: Sounds that you live in a very dangerous place ! 

No, just the opposite.  We live in a nice neighborhood.  But robbers usually don't target dangerous places.  

[*Nately120*]

Why do pro-gun republicans want to make it so easy for violent rioters to own machine guns?