The failed democrat philosophy on gun ownership

[bb1961]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

We've been through this many times on this forum. A very small handful of people in this country want all guns taken away. More on the right seem to want no restrictions at all on ownership of guns.

The majority of people on both the left and right want some level of gun control, some want strict laws and some want lenient laws, but most all want laws.

Please provide links to the people on the right that want no gun restrictions...I asked before and...NADA!!
You fucking can't
You were provide a list of politicians who want out right bans...and you backed away...your credibility is fading fast

[grean]

Originally Posted by oeb11

https://www.quora.com/Are-there-actu...o-ban-all-guns

Are there actually any mainstream Democrats who want to ban all guns?

Bryce Ebeling, CEO (2010-present)

Yes, of course there are. When we take people, in positions of power, AT THEIR WORD.
Note: This is a reprint of my own personal prior work. Bryce Ebeling's answer to Why do some people still think the government will take away their guns, when no one has ever tried?
Comments are typically made behind closed doors — but Sen Dianne Feinstein takes the cake for a national TV show and her outight call for gun bans & Rep Schakowsky take the cake for her hypocrisy when it comes to seemingly “behind closed door meetings.”
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) - 1995 - 60 Minutes Interview

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out right ban, picking up every one of them....Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in. I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

note: ty to Drew Eckhardt for the reminder of the Feinstein video.

Jan Schakowsky, U.S. Representative from Illinois
“I believe…..this is my final word……I believe that I’m supporting the Constitution of the United States which does not give the right for any individual to own a handgun….” 11

Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senator from California (continued)

“Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.” 3
“The National Guard fulfills the militia mentioned in the Second amendment. Citizens no longer need to protect the states or themselves.”

Frank Lautenberg, U.S. Senator from New Jersey

“We have other legislation that all of you are aware that I have been so active on, with my colleagues here, and that is to shut down the gun shows.” 5

Howard Metzenbaum, former U.S. Senator

“No, we’re not looking at how to control criminals … we’re talking about banning the AK-47 and semi-automatic guns.”

Charles Pashayan, U.S. Representative from California

“All of this has to be understood as part of a process leading ultimately to a treaty that will give an international body power over our domestic laws.” 8

Pete Stark, U.S. Representative from California

“If a bill to ban handguns came to the house floor, I would vote for it.” 9

William Clay, U.S. Representative from Missouri

” …we need much stricter gun control, and eventually should bar the ownership of handguns”

Joseph Biden, Vice President of the United States

“Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.”

John Chafee, Former U.S. Senator from Rhode Island

“I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs)… . It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!” 10

Major Owens, U.S. Representative from New York

“We have to start with a ban on the manufacturing and import of handguns. From there we register the guns which are currently owned, and follow that with additional bans and acquisitions of handguns and rifles with no sporting purpose.”

Bobby Rush, U.S. Representative from Illinois

“My staff and I right now are working on a comprehensive gun-control bill. We don’t have all the details, but for instance, regulating the sale and purchase of bullets. Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use. But that’s the endgame. And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation.” 12



Videos can be viewed in article on Quora Site
In General, SR - Democrat politicians do not publicly endorse banning all firearms from the US civilian population.

It is a widely held perception that what they say, and what they mean long-term, are two very different things.

Not helping that perception is the fixation on banning the AR-15 - America's most popular weapon. It is Not an "Assault Rifle" - as it lack full-auto capability - which defines an assault rifle. It is just a semiautomatic rifle that "Looks Scary" to the DPST's.

Pass a Federal Ban on that weapon - Texas holders and many folks in Central US will rise in outright defiance - to the point of Civil War.
True "assault rifles" are regulated by the BATFE under NFA Acts of 1934 and 1986.



Yes, I went to the place of "What do Democrats believe" - because i see them, and many people see the DPST politicians, as Untruthful in the matter. My perception, and of many, is What is said publicly regarding weapons is not what they want for the long term in America.

Part of it- the gun control laws the DPST's wish to pass - They have no evidence that the laws will be at all effective in achieving any aim other than disarming law-abiding American citizens.

Focus on prevention of the Mentally Ill and Criminals in possession of weapons - You have my full support.

The public proposals - taken as a whole- do not support the idea that DPST's plan to ban and confiscate all civilian firearms in the US. The distrust of Kalifornia and NY DPST political and politician motivation - runs very deep in law-abiding firearm holders in the Central US.

Thank You , SR - for braving to post the Question.



Editorially - part of the distrust is based on the type of responses we see in this forum from DPST's - usually name-calling and no cogent, constructive arguments to solve problems.

OEB!

[oeb11]

Grean - thank you Sir!
I appreciate your constructive posts.

[grean]

Rights are almost never taken away cold turkey. It's much slower & subtle.

They focus on and spend money and precious political capital on banning high capacity semiautomatic rifles.

Why?

They talk about a high gun death rate that includes suicides. What percentage of suicides & gun deaths are made up from rifles?

Why not spend resources banning handguns? Those make up all but a few hundred of the over 30k gun deaths.

They feel they can win the rifle now and once they do that then they can go after what ever is next.

They feel people would ultimately accept a ban on rifles but not handguns. Once they get the rifles THEN they can go after the hand guns.

Baby steps to totalitarianism. Coddle you into submission.


"A woman being raped is more likely to get killed if she has a gun on her than if she didn't. She won't pull the trigger. " they say.


I'd love to see the motherfucker who said that be held down and have a cock shoved up THEIR ass! I bet of they would rethink their position.

" You don't need a rifle for self defense." What horseshit!

We have some veterans in here. Which is better, a hand gun or a long gun?

Which is easier to learn and teach how to shoot proficiently?

I'll spoil it. THE ANSWER IS A LONG GUN!

If someone breaks in to your house, you want a rifle.

If it was practical you'd carry a rifle.

They are better.

Everyone who can shoot a handgun can shoot a rifle. Not everyone who can shoot a rifle can shoot a handgun.

Not to stray too far from the point. Gun controllers really want people control and those people to also be completely disarmed.

[oeb11]

+1
There is some reasonable opinion that a shotgun is best for home invaders.
If one is eligible to go through the NFA process by the BATFE - a short barrel shotgun in 00 works very well
little risk of wall penetration and collateral damage.

Thanks, Grean.

[rexdutchman]

Not to stray too far from the point. Gun controllers really want total people control and those people to also be completely disarmed.

Gives leaders all the power over people think about that,,,

[bb1961]

Originally Posted by oeb11

+1
There is some reasonable opinion that a shotgun is best for home invaders.
If one is eligible to go through the NFA process by the BATFE - a short barrel shotgun in 00 works very well
little risk of wall penetration and collateral damage.

Thanks, Grean.

Think again...
https://www.shootingillustrated.com/...-home-defense/

[grean]

Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

I pointed out how flawed their philosophy was. One gun is safe, two guns are safe but even under the same security my real number of guns is unsafe, illogical, and should be illegal. One or a hundred, the risk is the same. They left shaking their heads. I guess that is what thinking looks like when it is in progress.

What say you?

Let's assume you own over 100 firearms.

Do you not have just two hands to shoot them?

Arguments against stock piling ammo are ridiculous both practically and philosophically in terms of our Constitutional rights.

[grean]

Originally Posted by oeb11

+1
There is some reasonable opinion that a shotgun is best for home invaders.
If one is eligible to go through the NFA process by the BATFE - a short barrel shotgun in 00 works very well
little risk of wall penetration and collateral damage.

Thanks, Grean.

I think the word best is hard to describe for home defense.

A shotgun could be the wrong tool for the job if a bad guy has your kid or he's in front of the wall adjacent to your kids room where is sleeping or hiding.....

Also buckshot travels!

[winn dixie]

Does anyone here know how stupid the federal gun laws are?
I do!
The second amendment was written so that private citizens could arm them selves against a tyranical govt and over throw said govt, since it would no longer be representing the people! Word play all you want. That was the intention!
Liberals know this and fear it! For the libs are about govt! When the govt should be for the people!
The south recognizes these values!