Uh, I live in L.A. And have owned guns for most of my adult life. Cite away.
Ok you ignored me the first time but you are badly misinformed about Chicago IL. I live there and I can get a gun and a concealed carry license with very little trouble. What kind of ban are you talking about? Every one of my friends that wants a gun and/or a concealed carry either already has one or is getting one. Have you ever been to Chicago? You should stop saying false things about a place you clearly have no direct experience with.
Just for the record, that fourth district seat in Missouri ended upgoing Republican.
But that was a rural district. Revis’ district is an outer suburb of St. Louis, the kind of place that was mostly farmland, but over the last few decades has turned into strip malls, industrial parks and middle-class housing. If I were a Republican I wouldn’t panic, but I might be a little concerned about what that might mean.
You can own a gun in LA, but you can’t carry it outside your house. You can’t purchase common guns used by police across the nation. You can’t purchase multiple handguns at the same time. You can’t purchase magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds. You can’t purchase a .50 cal BMG. If you are a gun store, you can’t advertise that you sell guns with a picture of a gun. Local governments can zone such that no gun store can ever open.
CA is an especially bad case since they are tightening their restrictions on assault weapons, putting restrictions on ammo purchases, wanting background checks for ammo purchases, and requiring non-existing technology on new weapons. The direction gun laws in CA is moving only ratchets tighter.
Chicago has a different fact pattern. Prior to the Moore v. Madigan decision, they were very anti gun and you could not get a CCW. Prior to the McDonald ruling, you probably would have trouble even purchasing a gun. And even after those rulings, laws were crafted to deter ownership, etc. that needed to be litigated for several years (like Ezell and Ezell II). In fact, just recently, a new federal ruling about their ban on carry within 1000 ft of parks was struck down. So if you go back in time a little less than a month, yes you could get a CCW, but there were virtual blankets of areas where it wouldn’t be useful. But yes, slowly, through targeted litigation, Chicago is being forced to change their ways. Absent those rulings, Chicago would be right along side the places with the strictest gun control. It wasn’t the democratic politicians who made these changes, it was the federal courts.
We can go back and forth about whether the Democratic platform is friendly to gun banners, or what common sense means, but basically if a person is anti-gun, they will find more people sympathetic to those views in the Democratic Party.
Yes, we can deride honest and open debate as merely “going back and forth” so we can hypothesize “gun-banners”, or whatever terminology lets us comfortably avoid engagement or factuality. But why should we?
If there is, as you grudgingly suggest, such a thing as “common sense” or 'reasonable", shouldn’t we go on to recognize that those ranges of views actually predominate, and cannot be dismissed as simply “anti-gun”, as you do?
So he was wrong about Chicago then? Cool, thanks for verifying that.
Just ftr, the guns used in Chicago crime largely come from next door in Indiana. Why it should be a surprise that they get bought the most often where it’s easiest to buy them, I have no idea, but the very idea does seem to offend some folks.
Ahh, the ‘so I’m wrong’ rule strikes again! Pantastic was making a point - paraphrased as, ‘Democrats in office pay lip service to gun ownership, but in reality when they are in power they push to restrict ownership as much as possible’
Showing that currently, in Chicago you can get a CCW doesn’t rebut that idea, not even close. The changes toward more permissive gun laws in Chicago were not a result of Democratic politicians - they were the result of the federal courts. If that were it, maybe you could say that the Democratic politicians in Chicago were simply neutral toward guns. But that’s not true, because after McDonald, Chicago tried a variety of ways to restrict ownership that had to be litigated and eventually struck down. Even as recently as a month ago more restrictions about carry near parks were struck down by the courts. So Pantastic’s point about what Democratic politicians do in practice accurate. That they were stymied by the federal courts doesn’t change that assessment.
Closer than anyone expected, though. The Republican ended up winning 53 to 47, but it went to Trump 78 to 19 in 2016, so this was still a 25-point swing toward the Democrats.
He was wrong about his description of Chicago as “as close to a ban as we can get away with”. No amount of explanation will change that. There is nothing at all like a ban in Chicago.
Going on about the mechanism by which Chicago got to where it currently is does not change the fact that his description of Chicago was wrong. It’s a lazy talking point for gun rights advocates to toss around the word Chicago as a boogeyman, but in my experience those that do that have never been here and should probably stick to talking about things that they have actual experience with.
I think you’re missing a key component of that paraphrase. The comment is about what Democratic politicians will push for, and that is accurate. The comment wasn’t saying that democratic strongholds will always have as close to a ban as they can get away with.
If the politicians in Chicago passed a gun ban every day, but the court struck down their ban every day, do you think it would be fair to say that politicians in Chicago pushed for as close to a ban as they can get? Just because the restrictions got struck down doesn’t change the idea that the politicians wanted the restrictions.
You think it’s OK to be completely and utterly wrong, so long as you’re making a point? I think you’re doing your “side” a disservice. If the guy is wrong, call him out, don’t cover for him with transparent excuses.
Uhh no. Pantastic was accurate in his assessment. I’ve paraphrased my interpretation of his statement and explained why I agree that his assessment was correct. But sure, if someone makes an error of fact or reasoning, I’m glad to point it out.
Are you sure you’re commenting on the right posts?
Your “interpretation” would seem to be at odds with his actual written words.
I still haven’t seen anything that says the Dems actually want to ban guns. Republicans say they want to ban abortions and then they pass laws making it harder and harder to get one. I believe them when they say they want to ban abortions and their laws towards that really are a slippery slope. I don’t see the same slope when it comes to Democrats and guns. Even crazy-haired hippie liberal socialist Bernie Sanders isn’t anti-gun.
However, this is a hijack, although caused by DinoR implying that there are no pro-gun or pro-death penalty Democrats. That seems clearly wrong to me, and it still does – there are many of both and, on the DP issue, all recent Dem presidents, ex-Carter, has been pro-DP. So, I was responding to his clearly wrong statement.
So, I will no longer contribute to this hijack and I apologize to the OP for starting down that path.
Positive. Did you notice that prior to being struck down as unconstitutional, Chicago had bans on purchase, bans on carry, bans on stores, bans on ranges, etc.? So yeah, they passed a bunch of bans, and the court said no. They are now as close to a ban as they can get - which isn’t as close due to the courts.
The bans are a commentary on the Democratic politicians in those areas. The court striking down the bans is not.
You support the argument that he was trying to make, so you are seemingly not very concerned with whether or not the points he was using to make that argument are totally factual. It’s like you’re squinting hard to see how maybe he wasn’t technically wrong if looked at a certain way.
The way he described Chicago was to make it sound like this horrible nightmare for gun rights supporters and gun owners, and it ain’t that. Not even close. Talking about what the Democratic politicians would like to have happen if they had their druthers does not change the current status of Chicago which is 180 degrees from how it was described.
It’s ok to just admit that he was wrong on that point.
So you’re claiming that “as close to a ban as they can get away with” is in practice equivalent to “guns for everybody!,”? Huh, seems like maybe the pro-gun guys should stop freaking out.
So if Chicago is your worst case scenario location for gun rights, and just about anyone that wants a gun and carry it can do so there right now. What the hell are you gun rights supporters so scared of?
The example you use of what would happen to all of America if Democrats were in charge is that just about anyone will be able to get a gun and carry it with them? Sounds like you guys won already, so why the histrionics about Chicago? What is this fear and why is it so overblown considering that there is no ban whatsoever in your boogeyman City?