OF COURSE Bloomberg is a Democrat. He funds Democrats, his policies are in line with the Democratic party, he supports Democrats He ran as a Republican because the Democratic machine in NYC didn’t really permit cutting in line just because you were rich.
I don’t know many natural Democrats that vote Republican because of the gun issue. I know a lot of “I don’t really give a shit about politics” independents who vote Republican because of the gun issue.
I don’t worry about gun bans at the federal level but it certainly has happened at the state and local levels. Gun confiscations have happened in the most populus state in the country. So I think it is entirely reasonable for gun owners to be really suspicious of anything coming out of the mouth of a gun control proponent about their intentions. That includes any claims that they only want to stick in the camels nose into the tent.
It is a mistake to construe a ban of a small fraction of a whole industry with the prohibition of the entire thing. Obama never ever tried to ban guns. He supported a ban on a small type of guns. Therefore, he never tried to ban guns.
Pretend you’re not talking about guns for instance. Does the fact that some drugs are banned mean all drugs are banned? Does the fact that US citizens can’t give money to North Korea mean we can’t donate to anyone? Does the fact that we couldn’t travel to Cuba in the past meant we couldn’t travel anywhere? But of course you won’t care about those distinctions, your only priority is guns, so you’ll come up with excuses why those things are all different. Obama would never ban guns, he doesn’t support it and it won’t get passed anyways. But getting rid of a fraction of a specific type of gun still means he’s for gun rights. Unless you want to tell me that your inability to own nukes means Americans aren’t allowed to own arms :rolleyes:
I’ll give you that Bloomberg is pretty Democratic overall, but he’s still out of power and not a politician anymore. You think he’ll run for president? Why are you pulling all your fears from past politicians and small time local pols? As I said, Obama’s never supported a gun ban. Neither has Clinton when she was a serious candidate. You’ll be hard pressed to find anyone in significant power who supports a total gun ban who can do something about it. Its simply intellectually dishonest to pretend like those people are a significant segment of the population and have the power to enact change. If Sandy Hook didn’t do it, it will never be done, as much as it pains me to say it. You should take that same attitude and vote for people who at least see the real danger guns pose and are willing to do something about it
Like the abortion issue, often it is hard for me to take these people at their word when they claim objectivity on an issue while voting against their interested. To stop abortion, you don’t vote for the Republican who wants to ban it, restrict it, and place regulations on clinics. To stop it, you vote for Democrats who will fund contraception, sex ed, and help support children when they are born. If there is an independent who wants guns because of fears of crime, then they shouldn’t vote for Republicans who divide people, keep the poor in their crime-ridden neighborhoods, and refuse to raise minimum wage. To make the gun issue disappear, they should vote Democratic so that we can put more effort to solving the issues that cause crime in the first place. But yeah, maybe enough of them vote Republican because of guns. I don’t care to humor them by pretending they’re independent though, they are Republicans through and through
Reasonable if guns are the only thing on their mind, which is in and of itself unreasonable.
Your problem with me is where you and I consider that line to be drawn. But that’s really a topic for some other time
I think most of what you said was silly, but these three sentences really highlight that. I don’t think anyone discussing an issue in good faith can string these three sentences together in seriousness.
Yes. This is really bizaro logic in action. As long as single shot deringers are allowed then there is no gun ban! Logically bankrupt is a better descriptor for this type of reasoning. You know this is true because the “total” modifier for gun ban is only inserted when an actual claim is made - otherwise equivocation is the order of the day when talking about bans.
Banning any gun is a gun ban. It’s not a total gun ban but it is a gun ban. Obama wanted to ban guns. Because he wanted a gun ban. The rhetorical flare of a tree stump can’t disguise this and to argue otherwise denies reality and is a logically bankrupt position.
Gun control politicians support whatever gun control they are politically able to support. If they thought a total ban on guns was politically feasible, are you under the impression that they wouldn’t support it?
And I have no fear about gun bans, at least not at the federal level (and certainly not here in Virginia). I am telling you why gun owners don’t trust gun control folks who say they just want to stick the tip in.
Of course he has. Supporting an assault weapons ban is supporting a gun control ban.
Of course she has. She supported an assault weapons ban. This is one of the most ill conceived policies that any political group has ever hung their hat on.
I’d be hard pressed to find anyone short of the second coming of Jesus Christ who could do anything to implement a total gun ban in America.
I don’t think anyone has the power to implement a total gun ban. I think a large segment of the gun control crowd would like to, so why should gun rights folks give them any breathing room?
Comprehensive gun control can only come from a “Nixon going to China” event. Someone like Ted Cruz or Rick Perry could push something like licensing and registration without a nuclear backlash if it came with strengthening the RTKBA in other respects (HIPAA type protections on the information, severe criminal penalties for misuse of the data, preemption of all state and local laws, etc.), but every time one of the usual suspects proposes it, its pretty clear that this is not the end game for them.
Neither side of the abortion debate is to be trusted.
That may make sense at a macro policy level. We have been fighting poverty since at least LBJ and it doesn’t seem to be going away. But at least now we can say that no one commits crime because they have to feed their children.
The single best way to reduce crime is to eliminate the viability of gangs and the single best way to do that (IMHO) is to reform our drug policy.
We must not travel in the same circles because the single issue gun voters I know are not Republicans, they trend somewhere between Libertarian, to I don’t really give a shit. In your mind, are all gun rights folks Republicans?
In any event, these are voters that show up at the polls when gun rights are at stake and don’t bother showing up most other times.
I know plenty of folks who are single issue abortion voters (on both sides of the issue), are THEY unreasonable? Let me guess, the pro-life side are the only unreasonable ones. Guns are pretty low on my list of political priorities (primarily because of the low risk of anything happening to upset the status quo) but if a candidate presented a credible risk to the public’s right to own guns, that would change.
Sure, some people draw the line at the criminalization of guns and others think that the line should be drawn at gun safety classes being taught every year as part of the PE program.
Seems like if they should teach gun safety and marksmanship in schools like they do with cars. Except they should start much younger since a kindergartner with a handgun is far more dangerous than one with a car.
The same is true of many things. A knife, for example. If you wanted to provide kids with safety education for everything that in their hands would be more dangerous than a car you wouldn’t have room for regular education.
The point is that it’ll never be feasible, so its not worth worrying about. I’m against Martian attacks but also against making laws to protect us against Martian attacks.
And I see that as a contradiction. If you have no fear about a gun ban, then you shouldn’t vote or debate as if one’s right around the corner. What I see from you and others is the misguided belief that a gun ban is right around the corner, that if you don’t fight tooth and nail against it, it’ll happen for sure. Yet you claim that you’re not afraid of it. Which is again illustrated by the following quote
“Breathing room” implies that there is some life in a gun ban. There isn’t, by your own words. Therefore, there’s no danger to guns if you supported politicians without considering their gun stance.
Also, gun rights people always seem to overestimate the number of people who want to ban guns. Just how did you get your “large segment” claim? What are you basing that on? What are the numbers?
Somehow I don’t think even that will do it. In another topic once, I hypothesized about a fictional scenario that I think would be the only way to get something like it through, and it involved a mass attack on gun friendly politicians by a gun friendly zealot, and even then everything had to fall into place perfectly. So you can feel safe in the fact that even someone as anti-gun as me doesn’t believe there’s a realistic scenario in which a gun ban can happen
That seems harsh. The pro-choice side has been nothing except factual and open about the realities of abortion, and their desire to reduce it without restricting choice. the anti-choice side is the one doing all of the lying.
I’m totally for that too. Obama has done a lot (and of course he can do a lot more) to reform some of the punishment associated with drug crimes. Democrats will build on that. The GOP wants to pull us backwards and then some
These particular people are Republicans. It doesn’t matter what they claim to be, if they only care about gun issues and only vote Republican because they don’t trust Democrats on guns, then they are Republicans. This board has had many debates on the so-called libertarians. As far as I’m concerned, a lot of these guys are Republicans. That’s how they vote, that’s who they support, and that’s how they think.
To me, the biggest deciding factor on reasonableness is the logic and facts surrounding your beliefs. Yes, absolutely 100% are the pro-life side the only unreasonable ones. They lie about the facts, they harass people who are vulnerable, they set up fake clinics to trick women, they make up fake documentaries about imaginary procedures, they bully their religious beliefs on everyone else. You bet your ass that they are the only ones unreasonable, its not even a debate, how many arguments do you see anti-choicers win? Do you think carrying a sign with a picture of a dead fetus is a reasoned debate?
As you said yourself, no one except Jesus can do that, and you also said you’re not afraid that it will realistically happen. Yet you argue like that could change in a second. I think you really need to take a look at what is reasonable about your stance and what isn’t and act accordingly. You want to have your cake (pretend like guns are going to be banned if you don’t do anything) and eat it too (but claim you’re reasonable because you don’t think it will happen). Those are two mutually exclusive beliefs that you need to work on.
I’m fine with car-like training and registration requirements for guns.
Appellant asserts that the commission of the act with which he was charged was not a crime within the meaning of § 10-4221, supra, because a chicken is not a “beast” within the meaning of such statute.
Have you heard of the handgun roster? In CA a gun may not be sold by an FFL if it is not on the list of “not unsafe” handguns. CA PC 32000 says essentially that you can’t sell unsafe handguns. Unsafe handguns are defined in CA PC 31910:
Essentially if a handgun was not already on the roster, it cannot be added if it doesn’t have microstamping technology. Microstamping technology doesn’t exist, therefore no new handguns can be added to the roster. Things like the new subcompact Glock 42 that is a .380 7 round semi auto handgun. That is not legal for an FFL to sell in CA because it is not on the roster.
Is it your contention that only a 100% ban is a ban? Because that’s a serious disconnect in language use. This is what HurricaneDitka was commenting on in post #83:
This is up is down kind of linguistic pretzel logic.
A: Let’s ban To Kill a Mockingbird and Huckleberry Finn.
B: You want to ban books?
A: That’s not banning books. It’s only banning books.
B: Wut?