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.

This is a list of the present laws state by state... which are enforced and which aren't?
Please post a link to where sane people are espousing this ridiculous nonsense of lawless gun ownership..."seem to want" and reality are two different things.
It's states like Commiforina that have the strictest laws and aren't any safer than any other.
Look at Chicago...how's that working for them?
What sane people are opposed to what statues?
If it would make you happy if we doubled them...we would be twice as safe...correct??
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_la...tates_by_state

[the_real_Barleycorn]

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.

You are repeating a fallacy. It is not a "small handful" of people on the left, it is the leadership. As for the right, I don't know anyone that absolutely thinks everyone should armed. Even the extreme on the right is more mainstream than leadership of the left.

[the_real_Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by oeb11

A Free and independent Press is one of the strengths of our Constitutional system
Government control- as exemplified by Maduro and many others- is the enemy of the people
A"Weaponized" and/or government controlled media - as CNN, MSNBC, and other parroting DPST outlets - is an enemy of a free people. Like a number of posters in this forum - who cannot respond constructively to debate about issues - the opposition to freedom of speech of those with different opinion is a clear threat to a Democratic Representative Constitutional system of government.


SomeOne sees Russians under the bed,

Try watching the Alan Arkin Movie -"The Russians are Coming"!!!!

Remember the climax of the movie? Armed Americans staring down the Russians. Hard to believe it was written and directed by Hollywood liberals. It was 1966 though...not your present day Marxist liberal.

[rexdutchman]

they are feelers not thinkers ,,, Snowflake's they are """"
Even Pelosiiii said " nothing commonsense exciting efficient or Effective about any of the gun control bills

The Constitutional system is in part to Protect free people ,,,

[Yssup Rider]

Name calling is all you got, Barleycorn.

Sad.

[oeb11]

SomeOne cannot look in a Mirror!
Good point on the movie TRB.

[grean]

Do any of these proposed laws physically prevent criminals from harming anyone?

If it wasn't illegal to do so, most people still would not kill other people. It's immoral. The law is there though. Kill someone unjustly, go to prison.

People are killed all the time.

The law doesn't prevent anyone from doing it. It just punishes those who do.


How does making a law that criminals will ignore, break or otherwise circumvent, benefit anyone?

[oeb11]

Grean- good question - Laws - while might be passed as a deterrent to crime- rarely are truly deterrents.

Criminals figure they will not get caught - and for a time-some are not caught.
Judicial -criminal justice system takes out of circulation those who commit certain crimes.
It does serve as a model for behavior for those who are law-abiding citizens.
With no laws, and no punishment model - anarchy and chaos would be the result.

Our system is not perfect - but better than any other so invented by Mankind.

It is good thing to periodically consider and re-assess our laws - i feel all should have a term of effect - and be re-evaluated for effectiveness after that term. if it works- re-up.

We have thousands of archaic laws on our books in the US that are no longer regarded as enforceable.
Thank you, Sir.

[oeb11]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Name calling is all you got, Barleycorn.

Sad.

Learn to Read - there was no name-calling - just a reference to "lliberal Marxist" - and not directed at AnyOne.

Look in a Mirror - TM and YR are the premier name-callers on Forum.
So sad for them.

[Yssup Rider]

What names do I call you oeb11?

Not my game. But it is yours.

Pitter patter. Let’s get at her, dude.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

It's more than a handful. The problem is they are very vocal and have the lapdog media to espouse their view.

The people on the right want to hold the govt bureaucrats accountable for flaws in the existing system. As I've pointed out many times the people in the FLA that failed the shooter, the schoolkids and the public have not been held responsible for their mistakes. Nor has there been an action plan invoked to ensure the mistakes don't happen again.

The people on the left want more laws that in the end will only benefit criminals. I have several FB friends who are unabashedly for taking away all the guns in America-even the police. Only the US military would have guns.

Okay, I'll ask you the question I've asked many times before with answers with absolutely no substance.

What Democratic politician in a position of relative power (I'm not talking about some small town official who might support it) has endorsed a ban on all guns? Please don't try to read into statements what you think they might believe.

[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.

[grean]

No politicians of any real meaning has supported an outright repeal of 2A.

However, there are ideas for laws that oppress the right so badly it would be effectively repealed at least for poor and middle class.

Rep Danny Davis of Illinois proposed a 50% excise tax on firearms and ammunition.

That would make it impossible for people without means to protect themselves.

Only rich people can have guns basically.


It's like Texas trying to restrict abortion clinics to those only with doctors with admitting privileges to hospitals.

It was struck down because it did infringe on women's rights

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by grean

No politicians of any real meaning has supported an outright repeal of 2A.

However, there are ideas for laws that oppress the right so badly it would be effectively repealed at least for poor and middle class.

Rep Danny Davis of Illinois proposed a 50% excise tax on firearms and ammunition.

That would make it impossible for people without means to protect themselves.

Only rich people can have guns basically.

it would certainly constitute infringement. some middle-middle & lower-middle and poor won't be able to afford it.


states have the right to regulate it but they have to do without infringing their 2nd amendment right.

[Austin Ellen]

-