Aside from Bloomberg, are there any other prominent Republicans who take a hardline in favor of gun control. How about Jim Brady, would he be considered a Republican?
For one thing Obama has refused to allow 87,310 M1 Garands and 770,160 M1 Carbines to be imported into the US from Korea. Mind you these aren’t scary black guns but pieces of American history that he’d like to see ground into scrap.
Yes, I go hunting with a handgun.
The platform does support gun rights, of course, it just doesn’t say those rights are unlimited. And Republicans won’t allow the perception to be worn away any time. The last four years are my cite.
I am more anti-gun than most people. One of my first big threads that I participated in on this board was about gun control. I’m still anti-gun. However, I don’t really think about it all that much. In the grand scheme of things, guns won’t be an issue that I consider much, if at all, given a choice between two people. I’d be happy to give that up, but I would want Republicans to give up something equally precious to them. Give up abortion. We’ll let you kill them if you let us prevent more targets from being born
I think you would have been better off qualifying this statement. The primary use of a handgun is for self-defense, whether against humans or critters. A large caliber pistol is highly advised when one is in grizzly country, whether one is hunting elk, moose, etc., or just fishing for salmon or even picking blueberries. A rifle or shotgun is just not very practical in those situations, particularly if one is in dense underbrush where bringing a rifle to bear (ha!) is going to be a problem. I carried a shotgun when berry picking because I didn’t want to spend the money on a hip cannon, but would have preferred the latter.
I take a small caliber pistol with me on RV trips, as not everyone outside your door means you well. In fact, it’s downright scary how many nutjobs are out there. This guy, for instance, should probably never have been issued a concealed carry permit. He shot the other customer because the guy was trying to prevent him from seeing his wife’s PIN as she entered it.
Are you suggesting that the situation would have ended better if thousands of New Yorkers on the street this morning were packing pistols? :dubious:
Yes. It doesn’t happen often (as “Rampage Shooters” tend to like gun-free zones, or their nearest equivalent) but armed citizens have stopped rampage shooters on several occasions.
And it would be a lot easier if every time they tried to just forget about it some yoyo did not go out and start a shooting spree, thus forcing some sort of public expression. What are they supposed to say, “oh, well, that’s the collateral damage of freedom”?
For the Democratic party to adopt a platform that would earn a 100% rating from the NRA would not be “compromise”, it would be surrender with an extra dose of being made to say Uncle in public for the record. And it would do nothing to shut up those who just absolutely fear a gun-grab.
Or Defense of Traditional Marriage. If it’s compromise we’re looking for, I want to see the other side give up something that pains them to give up.
But very rarely; usually the people with guns get shot like anyone else, typically without drawing their weapon.
Where do you draw the line? Churches, public buildings, preschools? Because unless guns are everywhere, and I mean everywhere, you’ll still have rampages. Just like terrorism- they don’t attack where we’re strong, they attack where we’re weak. And it’s impossible to harden every location.
And honestly, I doubt shooters say, “Well, I WAS going to shoot up that mall… but there might be people with guns there, so I’ll go somewhere else.” By definition, once someone decides to shoot up a public location to make a statement, they’ve already abandoned rationality.
Just to clarify the intention of this thread, it’s not about whether gun control is a good idea or not.
It’s about whether the Democratic Party should choose another battle, in order to gain something or some things that have a greater impact on the country.
I’m sure Fox News called him a Democrat at some time or another.
As said upthread, they already have.
As has been said before many times, gun owners have been blindsided before, notably in the early 1990s. It’s not paranoia if they’re really out to get you, or if the party in question has members named McCarthy, Schumer, Lautenberg, Feinstein, Rush, and Clinton in it. What, this time they’re serious, it’s off the table? Me love you no shit?
Being (very) wary is a perfectly sound strategy.
Anyway, I don’t think that anybody would benefit from Democrats giving up the gun-control issue, least of all gun owners. Let’s say that Democrats go multiple election cycles without the words “gun control” appearing anywhere. They’ve given up, to all appearances. Then, with nobody to oppose them after destroying the Republicans for years to come by removing one of their biggest hot-button issues, they pass gun control with an unstoppable supermajority.
We want the parties to disagree. If there were not a party in opposition we would invent one.
You are simply incorrect on this issue. Many hunters carry pistols. The purpose is generally not to shoot game animals–they carry rifles and shotguns, or even bows, for that–but for protection against dangerous animals at close range, where it’s not practical to aim and fire a long gun. There are parts of the US where a walk in the woods (or even along the road) can result in an encounter with one or more critters that may try to kill you.
I have a profound personal loathing for guns, but this is a bad argument.
Fair enough, but should being (very) wary translate into never giving the Democrats an inch even when they show willing? For a lot of people, gun control is their make-or-break issue and without it they’d vote Democrat. It wouldn’t be unreasonable for the Democrat party to want to pull those votes in.
Honestly, I can see a possible future where the Democrat platform expands to include gun ownership as a human right as unassailable as the right to free speech, the right to healthcare, etc. Meanwhile the Republican platform starts creeping up on gun control, under the guise of making sure government agencies and “the wrong sorts of people” don’t get guns that can be used on God-fearing Americans. Sea changes and polarity shifts can and have happened before.
But with the political discourse the way it is now, people would still think Republican = pro-gun and Democrat = anti-gun, even as Republicans locked down on guns and Democrats pushed for relaxed legislation.
(I admit, it’s not the likeliest of possibilities. But neither is it implausible, IMO.)
We don’t want them to disagree about every possible issue, forever. That’s ridiculous. We want things that broad majorities of the country agree on to be counted as settled, and put away, at least for a generation or two, so that we can look at more relevant issues.
Yes, this. The Democrats have already capitulated on gun control. As a political party they are not actively pushing for it anymore (although plenty of individual Democrats still believe in it). And yet, many Republicans still act as though the battle were going on.
Seriously, Johnny L.A., I don’t know what you expect the Democrats to do.
Of course. Why wouldn’t they, when it’s such an easy winner for them?