The gun control debate has been going on since before 1968. I don’t think there are any new arguments. Just a rehash of the old ones. The Democrat Party hasn’t been able to make much headway with their repeated registration/confiscation, and gun banning, schemes, but it’s not from a lack of trying. It’s more of a lack of elected representatives.
*Recently, at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire, she was asked about adopting a federal gun control program like the one enacted in Australia in 1996, which banned automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns and mandated the buyback of those already present. Some 650,000 guns were taken from citizens and destroyed.
…Clinton replied, “I do not know enough details to tell you how we would do it, or how it would work, but certainly the Australian example is worth looking at.” The reason, she said, is that “by offering to buy back those guns, they were able to curtail the supply and to set a different standard for gun purchases in the future.”*
It’s interesting that the government wants to buy “back” firearms they never actually owned?
Many voters believe Hillary (and the Democrat Party) want to ban firearms, and that they would gladly select another Supreme Court Justice who doesn’t believe the 2nd Amendment protects the right of individuals. And those people vote. Against the Hillary-type gun banner.
It seems that the Democrat collective prefer to downplay, or ignore, voters who feel this way. Which is fine by me.
I’m just saying that if you’re an NRA life member, you have never voted for a Democrat for president and no matter what he/she said or didn’t say or did or didn’t do, there is no way in hell that you’ve voting for the Democrat. So I say Democrats should not even bother becoming pro-gun as there is nothing to gain, at least at the presidential level.
And I think you have things backwards: The GOP is in the NRA’s pocket.
Maybe the NRA is in the GOP’s pocket, but do you think that some combination of the GOP voters who are pro-gun would have stayed home had Clinton not been so anti gun, plus the amount of Democrats that are pro-gun that would have voted but decided to not turn out because of Clinton’s positions was less than 10k in Michigan? Or 22K in Wisconsin?
Clinton’s anti-gun positions could have increased GOP turnout and decreased Democratic turn out - the only question is how much.
Hillary agrees with the Supremes who reject the idea that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right. Hillary would have liked to have been able to pick the next Supreme. Or the next three. Unfortunately for you, she won’t get that chance.
Many voters believe Hillary/Democrats want to ban firearms. You say that Hillary doesn’t really want to do that. What’s a voter suppose to do? Should they believe you, or trust their own judgment?
If you are not saying that then what was the purpose of the OP? To point out a nifty coincidence? Yes if all Stein voters voted for Hillary she would have won. If all the Stein voters voted for Hillary and all the Johnson voters voted for Trump then Trump would have won. But it is impossible to say who they would have voted for if they weren’t allowed to vote for their candidate. I suspect many would not have voted. So again, what was the purpose of the OP?
Here is an interesting article about how she lost Michigan despite the fact that Trump had fewer votes there than Bush did when he lost the state. Good insight into a bad campaign strategy.
True, there may have been a few GOP voters who went to the polls to reluctantly vote for Trump due to worries about Hillary’s positions. Do note that Trump is no friend to gun owners, having supported the same sort of controls Clinton wanted.
From the rest of the article:“It was an unforced error that she will never hear the last of. From how Clinton phrased her answer, though, it’s pretty clear that she was thinking of a voluntary buyback. She compared it to Obama’s “Cash for Clunkers” program and cited voluntary programs done in various cities.”
Look, I am a staunch supporter of the 2nd AD. But Hillarys mild gun control policies didnt hurt here in the election at all. Note that about half of American voters are *in favor of mild gun controls. *
Yes, because the only ‘state-level safety laws’ that it prohibits are ones that amount to a ban (that’s not just me using the word ‘ban’, that’s the supreme court and because she explicitly spoke in favor of a complete ban on private citizens possessing guns for self-defense (DC’s pre-Heller laws). It’s pretty amazing that I can produce direct quotes of Hillary Clinton speaking against a supreme court decision that only prohibits a law that included an outright ban on handguns and prohibition on keeping any gun for self- defense, but you’ll try to weasel word it to ‘state-level safety laws’. Or that she outright said that she supported a ban on all handguns and a ban on possessing any gun in condition suitable for self-defense for all regular citizens, but somehow it’s unreasonable to say that she’s in favor of gun bans for… reasons that are unclear.
I’m an NRA life member who voted for Bill Clinton, for the Libs during both of Bush’s runs, for Obama both times, and (solely because of Trump) for Hillary in the last election, so your claim is false on it’s face. I know people who single-issue vote on gun control, and I know other people who sometimes stomach voting for a Democrat and sometimes don’t, with gun control as a major deciding factor. More generally, there are a large number of blue-collar workers who are traditionally both Democratic and Pro-gun, and who the Democrats keep losing the votes of in elections all the while insisting that Hillary’s support of a complete ban on firearms for self-defense, or Gore’s support of a 3-day waiting period for people who pass a background check completely don’t affect election results at all.
Again, DC had a complete ban on handguns and a complete ban on ordinary citizens having guns for self-defense in their homes. Hillary Clinton specifically said that she supported those laws. The Heller SC decision ruled that such bans (but not regulation in general) were unconstitutional, and she specifically said that she opposed that decision. That’s not ‘mild’ gun control, and nowhere near half of American voters supports a complete ban on having a firearm in suitable condition for self-defense in the home, or a complete ban on all handguns. Even strongly anti-gun States like New York and California don’t have anything that extreme.
You’re characterization isn’t even remotely accurate. How about this - I want the right to be able to carry the same gun that a great number of police officers carry. I’m willing to pay thousands of dollars to do that, I’ll take POST training, submit to whatever background checks are available, and pretty much any other hoop that is even close to reasonable. But I can’t. Because the most populous state in the Union doesn’t grant permits for the vast majority of its citizens.
If you could get everything else on the agenda you want, but have to go full NRA and more on guns, is that a worthwhile compromise? If not, then you’re making the same trade offs you identify in your first paragraph.
Just curious, how do you define “mild gun controls”? For example, I think that Utah has fairly mild gun controls. Or Arizona, or Montana. I suspect that lots of Democrats think Washington DC had “mild gun controls” before Heller. Where along that spectrum are you?