Of course not - in a zombie apocalypse some of us would be eaten. Duh!
Good luck. And thanks for becoming Exhibit A next time one of your fellow liberals says “no one wants to take away your guns.” What Johnny Ace said indeed.
Strong laws and weapons of mass slaughter. Not really the same thing.
And it should be noted as well, that that is not the position that he started in. He only evolved into that position because of a complete refusal to make any meaningful changes to gun laws by those on your side of the debate.
I will agree that if the only way to decrease the gun violence is to get rid of all the guns, then that’s what we need to do. We really need to come to a compromise before that is what is left.
You do get the part where this is out of frustration, “I’m done with looking for compromises with people who’ve steadfastly blocked all compromise”, not out of a desire to get rid of guns, right?
If you were to try to use this as an example of someone that wants to take away your guns, you’d have to remove all context in order for it to be meaningful.
I’m all for compromise, but if we can’t come up with a way to keep guns out of the hands of people who will use them for harm, then yeah, we will need to go further. I’ve asked many times what kind of gun regulations your side would find useful and acceptable, and the only thing I have seen is that you want more access to more guns.
How about this, we put weapons that are considered to be assault weapons in the same catagory, where you have to get a stamp and license and have to register transfer and all that, making it a title II as well? Would that be acceptable?
Seriously, we are really trying to find ways to save lives here. If you think that a measure will not be effective, give us a rational reason why it won’t be, not just refuse to accept it. Come up with some ideas of your own.
If you (you and your side) has no interest in actually having this debate, if you have no interest in trying to find meaningful reforms that will save lives while minimizing inconvenience to gun owners, then at some point, yes, as political will builds that this is unacceptable situation, we will no longer have any consideration for your point of view at all. So, yeah, if you choose to let things get to that point, rather than come to the table now, then the discussion will be left to people like me and people to my left, and while I may advocate to keep restrictions from being too onerous, I probably won’t advocate all that hard.
Along with the Hughes Amendment repeal we discussed before, yeah, I’d probably be on board with that (depending on how some issues were handled: What’s the definition of an “assault weapon” we’d use? What would happen to all the ones that people currently possess? How do we make sure this doesn’t become another CA Roberti-Roos SKS fiasco? Could we drop the fee? etc)
You have the wrong poster.
You asked, and I answered, a question about “so great an exaggeration that it might as well be a falsehood”, which describes post #77 to a tee.
If you can’t, or refuse, to see that, well, nobody can help you.
I’m not gonna deny that the intransigence of some (most?) of the gun advocates is a roadblock, but if we can’t come up with a way to keep guns out of the hands of people who will use them for harm, then by definition, we can’t go further. It doesn’t matter that the need is there, if the political capital isn’t.
The capital was invested by the NRA, in politicians.
The problem is that the Dems are in a situation where they might as well be hung for a sheep as hung for a lamb. No matter what the Dems do, the NRA are going to go full media blitz to convince their constituency that the Democrats are about to fully repeal the 2nd amendment and bust down their door to haul away anyone who so much as looked at a gun off to prison. Look at what happened to Obama.
Given that they might as well own the issue. THe only alternative is to be seen as gun grabbers by the gun enthusiasts and wafflers by everyone else.
So you mean, the next time someone says, “no one wants to take away your guns,” you can retort, “I know this one loudmouth on a message board who does.” Game, set, match, amirite? 
I know quite a few loudmouths on message boards, but yes, citing just one example would be enough to refute the claim “no one wants to take away your guns”. There are other ones too, in case you change your mind back again, but for now this’ll be a nice bookmark to hang onto.
Of course, then I have to point out that you will be resorting to what is in reality a fallacy:
The Nutpick.
SenorBeef, I’m afraid you’re right. I think that the media tell themselves that young people in general will unify behind the school shooting survivors. I don’t think enough will. In my home state of Missouri, I fear that Rush Limbaugh is still treated as the infallible voice of God, and many young people will believe what they are told to believe: that this was liberalism, that this was Soros, that it’s a hoax, or it’s because of Godlessness and abortion.
The parents who send their kids to private schools will see this as confirming their biases about public schools, not as being about the Second Amendment at all. My gun-owner friend who used to be a Democratic Party leader, who hated Obama for reasons I don’t understand, who wanted a “conservative Democrat” for our district–I don’t know what she’ll do.
Gun control will always lose elections for the gun control faction. This is a truth universal and unconquerable: that once a critical mass of the populace have a right to carry deadly weapons, they will resist any curtailment of that right by every means they can conceive. The four boxes—soapbox, ballot box, ammo box, & jury box—apply. The NRA are very well-organized, and politicians traditionally do not cross them because of the NRA’s explicit promise to turn to terror and lawlessness if any restrictions of any kind are placed on their hobby and their precious “liberty.” We can never, ever win. Ever.
But, we didn’t choose this. It was chosen for us. Events are bringing this back up. The Democratic Party needs its voters, and it needs passionate ones. And right now a disproportionate amount of that passion will be from folks who want gun control, and who are sneered at in every possible way by the anti-social loudmouths in the so-called “Conservative Movement.” We are pulled into this by our own base. We cannot simply say “suck it up,” and accept mass shootings as a normal and endurable part of our democracy.
If any party leadership chose this, it was a party leadership that put a gun in a boy’s hands and sent to him to kill his peers. Did the DNC make this choice? Did Bob Rubin or Bill Clinton give that boy a gun? Nikolas Cruz probably doesn’t work for somebody like George Soros or the DNC. He works for the NRA.
The gun sellers know—they admit that they know; they can’t stop crowing about it to us—that mass shootings provoke more gun sales, and thus the likelihood of mass shootings. It’s a feedback loop that increases the profitability of the whole industry. By now the GOP—who are very, very good at electoral politics—presumably know that getting Democrats riled up about gun control is their last best hope to stay in power, and that a shooting like this will get the Democrats’ base talking about it. They chose this. They armed Nikolas Cruz and sent him out.
If we could prove that the GOP or the Trump administration were complicit in thisthat Nikolas Cruz was part of a criminal conspiracy involving the GOP or that Republicans in office let it happen consciouslywithout making it about guns, maybe we’d have a chance. But almost no one who believes conspiracy theories believes that the GOP is a conspiracy and the Democrats aren’t.
So there it is. This is how we lose. And we are not in control, we cannot stop it.
After my previous, extremely pessimistic post, this is what I hope is actually true.
Confused in Minnesota writes: “…the gun-grabbers are permanently energized and permanently Republican…”?
Huh?
A term coined by a blogger on Mother Jones is not a legitimate thing.
Also, why don’t you call out the crazy loudmouths on your side, rather than giving them a pass?
And you lost me. Did you maybe hear about the shootings at a church meeting, a concert, a movie house? Ever?
Oh, that’s right. Only some of us will be dead.
Dude, he’s already run into me when I was pissed off about some previous shooting, he doesn’t even need you.
When you are reduced to parsing the definition of “school shooting”, you have already lost the moral argument.
Let’s get priorities straight.
The GOP’s destruction of ACA will result in killing thousands of Americans every month. Destruction of EPA may lead to hundreds of thousands of cancers. Betsy DeVos’ campaign against public schools will lead to inferior education for millions. Republican hatred has given nightmares to a million American Dreamers. The GOP policies at making the poor even poorer will degrade millions of American lives.
The number of lives that might be saved with better gun control are dwarfed by the other damage that will be done if Republican rule continues. Gun control should be pursued politically only if it will increase the chances for Democrats to win elections and then do more important things.
When I read this foolishness I wanted to pound the Reply key. Fortunately SenorBeef has pointed out the ignorance:
Listen to reason. Or leave Pence-Ryan in charge for the foreseeable future. The choice is yours.