The left doesn't want to take your guns!

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-30-2018, 02:29 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Or Instead of being hyper partisan and using talking points like this is a campaign ad you can realize there are very dumb things said on both sides.

I'd kindly request you reference any talking points I made in my OP. 

Quote:Like the prez actually saying he wants to take guns away from people without judicial approval.

This was addressed in great detail after he said it.  No one responded to it because no one thought he'd take the slightest steps towards actually doing it.  We turned out to be 100% correct.

Quote:There is a middle ground. And not all dems are anti 2nd.

Sure there's a middle ground, we're residing in it right now.  You are correct, not all Dems are anti-2nd.  A disturbingly high 39% of them want to repeal the 2nd amendment though.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/03/27/one-in-five-americans-want-the-second-amendment-to-be-repealed-national-survey-finds/?utm_term=.76a731c92d46

Quote:And an assault rifle is a better killing machine than a hand gun

All long guns are better killing machines than a handgun (with obvious exceptions such as a .22lr).  Adding "assault weapon" (which is ironic giving your previously stated aversion to "talking points") as a qualifier is meaningless.  Unless you can tell me what makes a long gun an "assault weapon" as opposed to a rifle.

[Belsnickel]

(03-30-2018, 11:07 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think you're a bit out of step with the general consensus on this subject.  Also, I don't think the entire left wants gun control, but the gun control side is definitely predominated by left leaning people.

In a sense you're falling victim to your own bubble here.  These kids are everywhere, they're on CNN every other hour (intentional exaggeration for the obtuse amongst us).  They're ubiquitous at this point.  In addition look at all the Democratic lawmakers who attended the rally.  Elizabeth Warren, Sen. Bill Warren of FL, Sen. Chris Van Hollen from MD were all at the DC rally.  This doesn't mention others as well as politicians who attended at other locations like eternal gun grabber Blumenthal or the support from Obama and his wife.  You show up at a political rally, or lend it your support, you are tied to the claims made at it. 

I don't see them getting anything more at this point, they completely overplayed their hand.  What they get isn't my point though, what they want, is.  We've heard for years that "no one is trying to take away your guns".  This was proven demonstrably false and the Dems are now crapping their pants because they know this will bring a wave of GOP, or just pro-gun owner, voters to the polls this year that otherwise may very well have stayed home.  You're focusing too much on what's liable to happen right now as opposed to what the demonstrated end game for the anti-gun movement is.

A smart move to be sure, although I'm not sure how much an economic message will resonate unless the economy takes a dump.  The general perception is that we're doing well and I think Trump has some high ground on this issue with the tax cuts.  If I'm a GOP advisor I'm telling them to bring the "repeal the 2nd Amendment" argument and the "give us an inch and we'll take a mile" up at every opportunity.  Lindsey Graham has already latched on to this, challenging every single Democrat in Congress to go on record as to whether they want to repeal the 2nd.  The genie is out of the bottle on this one and for the Dems to do any sort of damage control they will have to sell out the Parkland kids to do it.  They put a lot of political stock in the movement these kids spawned and now it's going to backfire big time.

I think you are overestimating the trouble this causes for the Democratic party. I don't believe any of these officials have advocated or agreed with the idea of repeal (Schumer came out almost immediately to say that wasn't the part position). They have been in favor or expanded background checks, which the majority of the public is in agreement with. That has been their primary gun control shtick beyond the AWB, which is also (mind bogglingly) popular. If they stick to their guns (see what I did there) on those two things they can pull out of that with few problems.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-30-2018, 03:03 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think you are overestimating the trouble this causes for the Democratic party. I don't believe any of these officials have advocated or agreed with the idea of repeal (Schumer came out almost immediately to say that wasn't the part position).

Let me ask you this, if a politician is at a rally and a key speaker states something controversial are they not immediately connected to this statement unless they immediately disavow it? We've seen examples of this very recently.  I also disagree completely on how this hurts the Dems in November.  They are the party of gun control, in comparison to the GOP.  The more the general public hears about gun control efforts the more they will be motivated to vote on the subject.  Mass voter turnout on gun control has always favored the pro gun side.  The only possible saving grace for the Dems is that we still have seven months for this issue to go away.  I just don't see the GOP or the Parkland kids, letting that happen though.


 

Quote:They have been in favor or expanded background checks, which the majority of the public is in agreement with.

True.  here's the problem though.  Politically, when a person hears five reasonable things and one crazy one in a proposal they are going to tend to view the whole proposal in a negative light.  It's human nature.  If you have ninety-nine good days at work and one really bad one your boss is going to tend the remember the really bad one above all the others.

Quote:That has been their primary gun control shtick beyond the AWB, which is also (mind bogglingly) popular.

The AWB was never likely to happen, it's definitely not going to happen now.  First, what constitutes an "assault weapon" is inanely defined.  Secondly, the definition would be under even more scrutiny now.  Lastly, it has zero effect on gun related homicides as rifles are used in a miniscule fraction of gun related crime.  If you're going to deprive people of their property and put numerous businesses out of business you'd better have a very serious reason for doing so.  My friend already moved his store to Las Vegas as his CA FFL was put out of business by CA's new gun laws.  Large employers such as Noveske, Daniel Defense, Knight's Armament and Magpul would be affected.

Quote:If they stick to their guns (see what I did there) on those two things they can pull out of that with few problems.

They'll get the fix NICS and that's it.  Any momentum they had to push the GOP was instantly dissolved with the perceived, and real, overreach.  There is zero incentive for a GOP member of Congress to go along with any further measures and every reason for them to keep the issue in the spotlight.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

I will also add that the rhetoric used by the Parkland kids does them no favors on this issue as well.  The NRA is not a "terrorist organization" by the very definition of the word.  The NRA, and its supporters, do not have "the blood of children on their hands" the people who kill people do.  You don't get to label Dan Loesch a "bad mother" and tell her you're going to look after her kids for her because she won't do it and you don't get to tell everyone else that you "know what's best" for us without pushback.  Add it all together and you have massive hubris and overreach.  As well as an increased voter turnout in November.

[GMDino]

Just a quick thing here while talking about the "left". (And I did not know this until today):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Paul_Stevens#Political_affiliation

Quote:Political affiliation

When he was appointed to the Supreme Court, Stevens was a registered Republican.[24] Asked as a sitting Justice in September 2007 if he still considers himself a Republican, Stevens replied, "That's the kind of issue I shouldn't comment on, either in private or in public.".[25]

Abner Mikva, a close friend, said that as a judge, Stevens refused to discuss politics. "“He was more particular about it than a lot of them”, Mikva stated.[4]

[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Paul_Stevens#cite_note-Ward-4][/url]
Also he was nominated by a Republican.

Not sure how that fits the "leftists" argument but I thought I'd add it.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-30-2018, 04:25 PM)GMDino Wrote: Just a quick thing here while talking about the "left". (And I did not know this until today):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Paul_Stevens#Political_affiliation


[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Paul_Stevens#cite_note-Ward-4][/url]
Also he was nominated by a Republican.

Not sure how that fits the "leftists" argument but I thought I'd add it.  

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/magazine/23stevens-t.html

Quote:Justice Stevens, the oldest and arguably most liberal justice, now finds himself the leader of the opposition.

Stick to gifs.

[GMDino]

(03-30-2018, 04:36 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/magazine/23stevens-t.html




Stick to gifs.

Or, and I'm just spitballing here, we *could* also read more than one line in the linked article:

Quote:Stevens, however, is an improbable liberal icon. “I don’t think of myself as a liberal at all,” he told me during a recent interview in his chambers, laughing and shaking his head. “I think as part of my general politics, I’m pretty darn conservative.” Stevens said that his views haven’t changed since 1975, when as a moderate Republican he was appointed by President Gerald Ford to the Supreme Court. Stevens’s judicial hero is Potter Stewart, the Republican centrist, whom Stevens has said he admires more than all of the other justices with whom he has served. He considers himself a “judicial conservative,” he said, and only appears liberal today because he has been surrounded by increasingly conservative colleagues. “Including myself,” he said, “every judge who’s been appointed to the court since Lewis Powell” — nominated by Richard Nixon in 1971 — “has been more conservative than his or her predecessor. Except maybe Justice Ginsburg. That’s bound to have an effect on the court.”

He's hardly a "leftist" except maybe compared to the more and more extreme conservatives.

I get that the gun issue is close to your heart, but calling him "arguably most liberal justice" in order to bolster your argument is very misleading without providing the rest of the (ten year old) article.

[Dill]

(03-30-2018, 04:45 PM)GMDino Wrote: Or, and I'm just spitballing here, we *could* also read more than one line in the linked article:

He's hardly a "leftist" except maybe compared to the more and more extreme conservatives.

I get that the gun issue is close to your heart, but calling him "arguably most liberal justice" in order to bolster your argument is very misleading without providing the rest of the (ten year old) article.

I think your views and your source is a bit outdated. 20 years ago Stevens was certainly a centrist and a Republican.

But now, at least in online forums, political labels have come unmoored from any logically consistent historical and social scientific grounding, and shift according to the whims of Fox Commentators and right wing bloggers.

Basically, if enough people say Stevens is a "leftist" for opposing ideals strongly held by the far right, then nowadays they are right. This can be confusing if you are still doing business the old way, thinking definitions through based upon historical precedent.   Here are some more recent versions of the political spectrum to help you acclimatize, Dino. I figure you are an anarchist.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-30-2018, 04:45 PM)GMDino Wrote: Or, and I'm just spitballing here, we *could* also read more than one line in the linked article:


He's hardly a "leftist" except maybe compared to the more and more extreme conservatives.

I get that the gun issue is close to your heart, but calling him "arguably most liberal justice" in order to bolster your argument is very misleading without providing the rest of the (ten year old) article.

I literally couldn't have baited that hook any more obviously, yet you swallowed it whole.  It's your actions and words that dictate what you are, not what you self proclaim.  You could do yourself a favor and read the entirety of the article, it's quite good.  You may then realize your error.  Also, it's not me calling him liberal, it's the author of the NYT's article and pretty much everyone else.

[NATI BENGALS]

(03-30-2018, 02:55 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'd kindly request you reference any talking points I made in my OP. 



This was addressed in great detail after he said it.  No one responded to it because no one thought he'd take the slightest steps towards actually doing it.  We turned out to be 100% correct.



Sure there's a middle ground, we're residing in it right now.  You are correct, not all Dems are anti-2nd.  A disturbingly high 39% of them want to repeal the 2nd amendment though.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/03/27/one-in-five-americans-want-the-second-amendment-to-be-repealed-national-survey-finds/?utm_term=.76a731c92d46




All long guns are better killing machines than a handgun (with obvious exceptions such as a .22lr).  Adding "assault weapon" (which is ironic giving your previously stated aversion to "talking points") as a qualifier is meaningless.  Unless you can tell me what makes a long gun an "assault weapon" as opposed to a rifle.

You are using something a kid and retired guy said and jumping straight to the mask is off... With the implied point... Liberals coming to take the guns.

Neither have any legal power. Yet the dude running the show says some stuff about how he actually feels about taking guns. And it is magically brushed off? 

The assault rifle comment was in response to michaelsean saying equal or greater damage could have been done with a handgun. Not far fetched. But i disagree. 

No evidence to present to back my claim. But im pretty sure you have a better chance of surviving a handgun round than rifle round.

[NATI BENGALS]

I thought assault rifle was pretty much an accepted definition.

Long gun isnt in my vocabulary. Is a shotgun a long gun? What about a 240G? Because that is what i had. And it was longer than an M16 but it was a machine gun.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-30-2018, 06:51 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: You are using something a kid and retired guy said and jumping straight to the mask is off... With the implied point... Liberals coming to take the guns.

Oh, it wasn't just them, I've cited numerous other statements and actions that would lead a logical observer to not trust the "common sense" intentions of the anti-gun movement.

Quote:Neither have any legal power. Yet the dude running the show says some stuff about how he actually feels about taking guns. And it is magically brushed off? 

I'm honestly confused why I keep having to reiterate the same exact point.  No one, including myself as I said at the time, expected Trump to take even a small step in that direction.  Time and events have proven this 100% correct.  There is also the context of his statement, but it generally boils down to Trump speaking first and thinking later.  I do appreciate your completely ignoring my point that numerous Democrats were at the March for Our Lives, should they not be responsible for the sentiments expressed there or immediately denounce said statements?  Also, I'm not sure why you ignored a poll that showed a disturbingly high number of registered Democrats are in favor of repealing the 2nd amendment.  Are they all "kids and retired guys" with no political power?

Quote:The assault rifle comment was in response to michaelsean saying equal or greater damage could have been done with a handgun. Not far fetched. But i disagree. 

I got that, it doesn't change my point though.

Quote:No evidence to present to back my claim. But im pretty sure you have a better chance of surviving a handgun round than rifle round.

In almost every instance, yes.  Why did you use rifle round instead of "assault weapon" round though?

(03-30-2018, 07:06 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I thought assault rifle was pretty much an accepted definition.

Yes, among people who actually know about firearms.  It is a select fire rifle with a detachable magazine.  As there are a negligible amount of actual "assault rifles" in civilian hands (and I believe they have only ever been used in single digit numbers to commit crimes, 1 or 2 iirc) they aren't a consideration from a legislation stand point as they are already very heavily regulated.  Among people who have no knowledge about firearms the definition varies considerably.  It appears to be an arbitrary mix of meaningless features, such as a vertical fore grip, a pistol grip, a telescoping stock, etc. all of which have zero effect on the firearms lethality.

Quote:Long gun isnt in my vocabulary. Is a shotgun a long gun? What about a 240G? Because that is what i had. And it was longer than an M16 but it was a machine gun.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_gun

A long gun is a category of firearms with longer barrels than other classes. In small arms, a long gun is generally designed to be held by both hands and braced against the shoulder, in contrast to a handgun, which can be fired being held with a single hand.


Yes, a shotgun is a long gun.  Yes a 240G is a long gun and it is also a fully automatic weapon and thus generally not legal to own. 

[Belsnickel]

(03-30-2018, 08:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I do appreciate your completely ignoring my point that numerous Democrats were at the March for Our Lives, should they not be responsible for the sentiments expressed there or immediately denounce said statements? 

You keep saying this, but this is just like those people that say Ryan and McConnell are guilty of the same racist, sexist, whatever-ist nonsense that Trump says because they don't denounce it. There is a reason I don't jump on that with Trump's statements and why I don't ascribe his bullshit to all of the people that attended his rallies (I have never been one to say all of his supporters were whatever), and that's because people are responsible for what they say, not what others say. It's asinine to act in this way about things.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-30-2018, 08:50 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You keep saying this, but this is just like those people that say Ryan and McConnell are guilty of the same racist, sexist, whatever-ist nonsense that Trump says because they don't denounce it. There is a reason I don't jump on that with Trump's statements and why I don't ascribe his bullshit to all of the people that attended his rallies (I have never been one to say all of his supporters were whatever), and that's because people are responsible for what they say, not what others say. It's asinine to act in this way about things.

We both know that's not how things work.  If you attend an event as a member of Congress then you had best be comfortable with the sentiments that will be expressed at this event.  in the event someone says something you are uncomfortable, or flat out disagree, with then you had best express this asap.  I have yet to hear any Democratic member of Congress state that the NRA does not have the blood of children on their hands, that the NRA is not a terrorist organization, that they don't know what is best for us, that they aren't going to take a mile if the pro gun side gives and inch or that members of the GOP are the NRA's *****.  Like I said earlier, if you're content to follow the flag carried by these kids then be prepared to take the missteps they will inevitably make and own them.

You and I are rational people, we state what we think and our reasons for thinking it.  We also allow for reasoned disagreement.  The vast majority of politicians are not like this.  You have heard me say for some time that I do not trust the ultimate motives of the anti-gun side.  I have presented reasons that can certainly be argued with or disputed.  What cannot be argued with our disputed is that recent events and statements have lent credence to my previous assertions.  How much credence is certainly up for debate, that some is due is not.

[Belsnickel]

(03-30-2018, 09:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: We both know that's not how things work.  If you attend an event as a member of Congress then you had best be comfortable with the sentiments that will be expressed at this event.  in the event someone says something you are uncomfortable, or flat out disagree, with then you had best express this asap.  I have yet to hear any Democratic member of Congress state that the NRA does not have the blood of children on their hands, that the NRA is not a terrorist organization, that they don't know what is best for us, that they aren't going to take a mile if the pro gun side gives and inch or that members of the GOP are the NRA's *****.  Like I said earlier, if you're content to follow the flag carried by these kids then be prepared to take the missteps they will inevitably make and own them.

Serious question, do we know of any lawmakers that were present for the speakers from that rally? I know some showed up to photo-op for the marching, but I don't even know who or if any were at the main event of it all.

Overall, I've seen and heard a lot on the left talking about gun control since Parkland and the discussions would all have passed the Overton test. That being said, I don't follow many elected officials other than my own. Mostly, these have been wonks, pundits, journalists, etc.

[BmorePat87]

(03-29-2018, 10:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So, perfect timing for my time on the naughty list.  I've been told numerous times that the anti-gun types (let's be honest, which consists almost entirely of the left) don't want to confiscate our firearms or repeal the 2nd amendment.  Then this happened.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment.html

During the "March for Our Lives" the following was said by one of the sanctified Parkland kids;

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/delaney-tarr-march-for-our-lives_us_5ab678d8e4b0decad04a5df7


No slippery slope kids, remember correlation does not equal causation.

The this happened;

http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/380818-larry-king-backs-repealing-second-amendment


This is a lie btw.

So do please remember, the "common sense" bans they want should not be opposed by anyone and no one should fear they'd lead to even more restrictions.  



As an aside, what "common sense" gun laws are being demanded?


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/commentisfree/2018/mar/23/parkland-students-manifesto-americas-gun-laws



First off, what constitutes, "high velocity"?  You'd think, since they bothered to mention it, they'd actually define it?  Why not you ask, one can only imagine.

Secondly, we shouldn't have access to the same weapons that soldiers do?  Say goodbye to the following;

M24: Forget that it's bolt action fired with a 5 round internal magazine.  Soldiers use it!  Forget that the 30-06 round that many use for hunting is actually more powerful than the .308 Winchester round of the M24 (technically 7.62mmX51).

Baretta M9:  I know this is a handgun that fires "non-high velocity" 9mm rounds.  However, soldiers use it, it has to go!

Sig P320:  Please see the Baretta M9



I could go on, but the point is made.  Please don't waste our time claiming the ultimate goal isn't confiscation and repeal.  You all got too excited and the mask slipped, a lot.    

Stevens is still a registered Republican, right?
Also, the event's official website does not call for repealing the second amendment. They call for a ban on further assault weapons and suggest a buyback for those who choose to and registration for the ones left remaining in the hands of private citizens. 

[*michaelsean*]

(03-30-2018, 06:51 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: You are using something a kid and retired guy said and jumping straight to the mask is off... With the implied point... Liberals coming to take the guns.

Neither have any legal power. Yet the dude running the show says some stuff about how he actually feels about taking guns. And it is magically brushed off? 

The assault rifle comment was in response to michaelsean saying equal or greater damage could have been done with a handgun. Not far fetched. But i disagree. 

No evidence to present to back my claim. But im pretty sure you have a better chance of surviving a handgun round than rifle round.

I’m not arguing, just trying to be informed. If a shooter is 15 feet away, are you saying a rifle is more lethal than say a hollow point .45? You and SSF are more knowledgeable than I, but I always figured a non-head/heart shot from a .45 would still be absolutely devastating.

[GMDino]

(03-30-2018, 06:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I literally couldn't have baited that hook any more obviously, yet you swallowed it whole.  It's your actions and words that dictate what you are, not what you self proclaim.  You could do yourself a favor and read the entirety of the article, it's quite good.  You may then realize your error.  Also, it's not me calling him liberal, it's the author of the NYT's article and pretty much everyone else.

So the title of the thread "The left doesn't want to take you guns!" Followed by quoting Stevens is meant to NOT imply he is "left"?

Nor you pulling one opinionated sentence from a long article?

You're funny.



I did read the article.

He's isn't "left" or a "liberal".

He's a smart, reasoned man.

Something more people could stand to be with less casting of labels.

[GMDino]

(03-30-2018, 10:03 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Stevens is still a registered Republican, right?
Also, the event's official website does not call for repealing the second amendment. They call for a ban on further assault weapons and suggest a buyback for those who choose to and registration for the ones left remaining in the hands of private citizens. 

Doesn't matter...that was "bait" apparently.



Everyone ELSE is extreme and using hyperbole apparently though. 

[*michaelsean*]

(03-30-2018, 10:15 PM)GMDino Wrote: So the title of the thread "The left doesn't want to take you guns!" Followed by quoting Stevens is meant to NOT imply he is "left"?

Nor you pulling one opinionated sentence from a long article?

You're funny.



I did read the article.

He's isn't "left" or a "liberal".

He's a smart, reasoned man.

Something more people could stand to be with less casting of labels.

Was Sutter a conservative too?