And what happens when they are asked if they support licensing as practiced in New York City and other places where you must give a justification besides self defense to even own a firearm? It’s like polls showing many support some regulations but don’t realize what regulations already exist.
Don’t know. Do you? For my sake though, don’t care. Because the proposals out there, even Booker’s, are not what you say NYC’s is. (And cite for that please as I cannot find such on line.)
The proposals include safety training and background checks. I think many current owners who support licensing would also support having other current owners with interval changes that have made them now unable to pass a background check being screened out. My WAG has the same basis yours does.
Some here don’t think they would.
But we do know that they mostly do not see licensing with background check and proof of safe handling skills training before purchase of a first or additional firearm as extreme.
All that stuff does zilch against the type of young shooters who write manifestoes and publish them right before starting their sprees.
This is exactly what terrorizes some, in my opinion correct, Dems. She will absolutely not be properly tested in the primaries. She basically was untested in all her campaigns.
She’d be a good President. Maybe two or three of the top contenders would be good presidents. But as we go on, I hope more and more that someone awesome from the second or third tier rescues orphans from a fire.
Eta: on camera.
LOL
As far as that gun shit goes, “grandfather clause” is how you make gun license for ownership get in. If you just say “going forward, you need a license to buy” that’s a de facto license to own for future generations.
I have warmed very considerably towards Warren. I was very skeptical that she could be competitive in the general, but then I listened, and I think she explains things very well, as well as running on a mostly positive set of messages. If she were nominated I think there’s a chance that she’d face an initial resistance, but when people actually listen to her, this could change considerably. Warren’s biggest strength in the primary is her potential to appeal both to the Bernie wing and mainstream Democrats – I’m not sure if any other candidate has this potential.
But this is just political instinct and gut feel, which I recognize is worth barely more than nothing. We’ll see.
NYC’s policy is handguns, not all firearms; I was not clear.
But allowing the government to require a permit allows them to deny for no reason, or for discriminatory reasons.
Google will show unconstitutional permit requirements in NJ, NY, and Mass., but here is a real world cite.
Sure, but there’d also be the same “shrew/harpy//shrill/bitch/schoolmarm” stuff that got used on HRC, with “Pocahontas” for dessert. However, to respond to it, Warren has Moscow Mitch’s “nevertheless, she persisted” video clips.
So do you think people should need a government-issued license in order to drive a car? Or perform brain surgery? How about piloting passenger aircraft? After all, the requirement of such a license makes it theoretically possible that some people may be denied licenses for bad reasons.
Crossposted in slightly modified form from the Harris electability thread, whose thread drift I have unfortunately participated in:
This is yet another one of these defenses of Warren’s electability which rely on an optimistic theory of the case rather than on facts. DSeid has talked about Warren’s anemic reelect numbers in 2018, compared to other statewide candidates in Massachusetts, but I think it’s particularly instructive to focus on one other race. Attorney general is a high profile position, and in this case the incumbent, Maura Healey, was, like Warren, a Democratic woman running for her second term. Warren won her race by 654,161 votes. Healey won hers by 1,069,577 votes—a margin 63% larger! :eek:
So if Warren is so good at explaining things in such a way as to cast a wide electoral net, how do you explain these droves of voters who voted for Healey, but split their tickets (in an era, keep in mind, when ticket splitting has become much less common) and voted for the Republican against Warren?
We’ve got three reputable polls now that polled shortly before the second round of debates, and have now polled afterwards as well. Here they are:
Quinnipiac (before: July 25-28, after: August 1-5):
Bef Aft
Biden 34 32
Warren 15 21
Sanders 11 14
Harris 12 7
Buttigieg 6 5
Morning Consult (before: July 22-28, after: August 1-4):
Bef Aft
Biden 33 33
Warren 13 15
Sanders 18 19
Harris 12 9
Buttigieg 5 6
YouGov (before: July 27-30, after: August 3-6):
Bef Aft
Biden 26 22
Warren 18 16
Sanders 13 13
Harris 10 8
Buttigieg 5 8
So, what does this tell us?
- Biden’s still comfortably ahead.
Two of the three showing him losing some ground, so he may have lost a point or two, but :shrug: that’s not much, and it’s still early.
-
Warren’s gradual rise continues.
-
The big news, IMHO, is Harris: back down into the single digits in all three polls. Not a good week for her.
Sure, she’s got plenty of time left, but the fact remains: she had a breakthrough moment in the first debate, but she’s failed to take advantage of the moment.
nm
The ‘defense’ is: wait, do we need a defense? What I see is an assumption that Warren’s re-election numbers in 2018 mean a whole lot, rather than being a minor concern.
Sure, you’re presenting facts, but you’re assuming their importance.
For reference though, Slackerinc was responding to someone who was saying Warren’s conversion from Republican to Democrat would be a great campaigning story.
What is the optimistic view on such massive ticketsplitting, in an era in which ticketsplitting is considered by political scientists to be an endangered species? If we aren’t going for a candidate like Bullock who gets Republicans to come over to his side, we at least need someone who is neutral.
Except from YouGov, where she actually lost a couple points. Still, she did not really lose ground in relative terms, because in that poll “undecided” was apparently the only column that gained after that debate. (That actually makes sense to me.)
But Jesus, it’s increasingly looking like the composition of the top tier is going to force me to support Joe fucking Biden, just to try to stop Warren and Sanders. :smack:
ETA:
That was true in the other thread. Here, I was referring to Andy’s argument in post #2207.
I’m hoping we get a better picture of things once the debate threshold rises and we start to thin out the 1%ers. I don’t need to hear another damn word from Marianne Williamson.
Are you happy, Bernie Bros that cried, ‘rigged!!!’ The first two debates should have been the real candidates and then a kiddie table debate instead of this crazy system. But, I got reminded on Facebook memories that first Republican debate was just 4 years ago so there is still plenty of time.
@Slackerinc: From earlier conversations, I believe RTFirefly’s view is that Massachusetts isn’t reflective of the states needed to win so how she did there doesn’t matter.
No, my view is that it hasn’t been demonstrated that I need a view.
Textbook special pleading.