That’s the thing. Gun bans and licensing/registration are not “reasonable gun control”. They are infringements of the rights protected by the2nd Amendment. I don’t like politicians that want to handwave away constitutional rights they find inconvenient.
This kind of crazy talk helps no one except maybe Trump. Divisive policy has been the standard now for a few presidencies. It is just getting worse.
Do you truly feel you have or could have the power to eliminate the Republican party or is it just fantasy land talk?
How do you, personally, recommend such an elimination be accomplished?
He just told you:
How does gun registration infringe upon your 2nd Amendment rights?
They cannot. SCOTUS prevents it since as a matter of tautology what is a constitutional right is what SCOTUS has decided it is and laws that go against it will be struck down. So what do you actually fear?
Any chance you’ll answer my questions, or should I just move on? I don’t think a debate about what gun control (if any at all) is “reasonable”, will help anyone. I find it much more interesting to delve into the questions I already asked: why does even a modicum of gun control legislation outweigh all your other positions and concerns, including much more tangibly harm causing issues. And exactly how much are you willing to put up from this administration and its enablers in order to avoid any legislation on guns whatsoever.
Politicians on both sides can, and do, handwave away constitutional objections as a rhetorical device to advance their arguments for their positions. “Reasonable, common sense gun control” is a catchphrase used by many politicians to include things like gun bans. “Hate speech” to argue against the First Amendment. “Religious Freedom” to argue against equal protection for gay people. Etc.
As for SCOTUS, how comfortable are you with how they might handle an abortion case if Ginsburg dies while Trump is still in office? I don’t want to depend on SCOTUS to strike a law that should never have been enacted in the first place.
I responded to that in post #114, to the extent I intend to respond. The crap about how much I’m “willing to put up with” is nonsense. I’ve already rejected Trump seven ways to Sunday. Didn’t vote for him, won’t vote for him. Not voting for an unacceptable Dem candidate does not equal support for Trump.
Andrew Yang had the best answer regarding gun violence - actually it was in reference to white-supremacist and domestic terrorism, but it overlaps. He’s the only candidate who, in this context, as far as I know, has brought up the idea of stopping these shooters BEFORE they kill anyone, by making more of an effort to reach out to vulnerable and troubled young men to try to get them to turn their lives around. As far as the greater issues of gun control per se, I’m not sure where he stands exactly, but the fact that he hasn’t made a big push for more gun control in any of these debates suggests that it’s not something he’s very motivated to pursue.
Yang supports licensing, “education”, and “assault weapon” bans. “Gun education” is ridiculous for someone like me. I’ve literally been handling guns longer than he’s been alive (he was born in 1975).
I apparently didn’t understand it, so, if you would, could you elaborate and tell me what I’m missing? I’m interested in why gun control is such an important factor to you that it apparently outweighs all your, and the country’s, other concerns.
Sure but that is a lot like saying that liberal fears that abortion rights will be removed is pointless since SCOTUS has ruled they exist. Politicians can seat justices that believe whatever they want since there are no criteria beyond the president and senate agreeing. It is reasonable to vote for politicians who agree with your view of the constitution so they don’t install justices that don’t agree with you.
Very kind of you to answer for him. So, he is just voicing a wildly unrealistic fantasy. Nothing there worth discussing.
Gonna repeat this question because I’m curious about the answer…
What does “moderate” mean to a 2nd-amendment absolutist such as yourself? Or, if it’s easier framing, what Democrat policies fall squarely outside that definition of moderate? Let’s exclude “rejecting Trump” because that’s not a really good definition of moderate. In a sane world this would also be a universal position shared by both liberal and conservative.
I think the gun debate is sucking all the energy away from that question. I suspect that your definition of moderate isn’t something that even a mild Democrat is going to satisfy.
It’s not crazy talk. It’s non-debatable,* objective fact.
Honestly, I do not believe that I have the power to make it happen with a wave of my hand. It’s going to take ALL of us to make it work out, and it’s patently clear that it needs to happen.
I’ll tell you this much, though. If the Republican Party is eliminated per my instructions, and the planet collides with the sun (or some other extinction event occurs) as a consequence, I am willing to bear full responsibility for the demise of our species.
In the words of a fuckstick who hates America: What have you got to lose?
*in keeping with this, I will not be debating it.
So to make it clear: the issue is having a president more likely to nominate a conservative to SCOTUS who would be most sure to defer to current precedent on gun issues?
I would not expect any D nominee to do that and would be horrified if they did.
I got 90% match on Bill Weld. I don’t know who Bill Weld is. 88% on Gary Johnson. Those were my top two. Highest Democrat was Andrew Yang at 59% - except Yang is a nutjob. Williamson was last at 20%, and Harris, Castro, Warren, and Sanders at below 30%.
I guess we can’t be friends anymore. 
I was really hoping the cite would be a picture of you in bellbottoms and a Nehru jacket, holding a gun. I was disappointed.
Are you saying you’d vote for the D Senator if you could vote for a more acceptable Prez?
Legislation could improve Obamacare and lower costs for everyone, but you want Moscow Mitch to block any improvements out of spite. OK, I guess, as long as your guns are happy.
Is the government already infringing on your right to own a FIM-92 Stinger? Or does that blotted comma in the 2A text delineate that AR-15’s are good, but Stingers are bad?