Observations of the 3rd Democratic Debate

Can you define “military grade”?

It’s pretty silly actually, but it does serve the purpose of putting to rest the idea that Democrats don’t want to ban guns*, confiscate guns, or any of the other denials that have been popular over the years. Of course that’s what they want to do.

*guns, multiple, not guns, all.

God our politics is so sad. This issue is so damn important to you that you would literally prefer an admitted sexual assaulter (not to mention all his other faults!) stay in office than some relatively honest and decent official who thinks some types of guns should be illegal. That’s incredibly nuts to me, and makes me pessimistic about the future of this country. And even more pessimistic about the future of how women and girls are going to be treated.

How does that get bridged? Are there any circumstances you could imagine in which you’d prefer a relatively honest and decent Democrat who is party line on guns over a sexual abuser Republican who is on your side on guns? Or is this just how it is, that guns really are more important than refraining from elevating abusers of women?

First let’s get figures right. About 40,000 gun related deaths in the US each year. Fewer murders than suicides. Roughly the same number of people as die of breast cancer. Is breast cancer also small potatoes because something else kills more?

No idea wtf you are talking about with “sociologists have shown …” but my point remains that mass shootings are horrible, school shootings tragic, but they are not the driver of those 40,000. Kids are in fact safer in their schools than in their and their friends’ homes. Yes some weapons amplify the harms in those rare events but the public health approach would be more interested in lowering the bigger sources of those death numbers.

Well, if Senators can be bought and paid for, why can’t voters be bought? We do have unrestricted money in politics, after all.

One thing I love about Yang is his idea to put lobbyists out of business by giving every voter an allowance to be used for political contribution(s). The influence of lobbyists would diminish and politicians would be encouraged to actually serve the people.

This is straight up genius.

Beto did serious damage to the cause of gun gun control.

N/m - wrong topic for thread, really

You did not respond or refer to your quotation of Bone at all; I’m confused.

If one wants to replace Trump, is it necessary to threaten the Constitution? I prefer buffoon Trump over someone threatening lasting damage to the nation. Trump will pass, in one term or two, and nothing he has done can’t be undone.

And nothing really changed when the AWB expired. Look at all of last century’s Federal gun control. Which gun control bill made crime drop? None? Maybe we don’t need to restrict the rights of normal people.

Seriously? If the AWB had been permanent, it would have been followed by more and more. Not equivalent, but Step One (or Step 7).

How would any of these things threaten the Constitution?

If they passed Congress (they wouldn’t) the courts would rule them unconstitutional and void them. No harm to the Constitution done.

Proposing a law that the court has already made clear is something they would rule against is no threat; it is posturing.

eh, nm.

This is getting off track from the debate itself, but the Second Amendment is the most apparent Constitutional issue, with Harris’ desire to skip the legislative branch’s power to make laws and issue edicts in second place.

Proposing something that is unconstitutional is a sign of stupidity but not a threat unless you think the court will view it as constitutional. Desire to do something does not equal the capacity to do it.

I’ll see your nitpicking and raise you withpedantry.

More to the point, John Kerry was even more whitebread than Al Gore. And however you want to define WASP, in its entire history the Democratic Party has nominated only two candidates who weren’t white men for a total of three elections, and they were successful in two out of those three elections.

I don’t want to vote for someone that stupid. I hope for a better choice.

Sure, but as has been said, there is a vast difference between the AR15 being unable to be sold, and the ATF breaking down your door and confiscating it.

Pretty much every Dem is fine with banning the sale of AR15s. Few are ok with **mass confiscation. **

33000 and 21000 of those are suicides. And Japan has NO guns and a higher suicide rate, so you dont need guns to kill yourself.

"On Wednesday, FiveThirtyEight released an interactive map that outlines and analyzes the more than 33,000 annual gun deaths that occur in this country…nearly two-thirds of annual gun deaths in the United States are suicides, with more than 85 percent committed by males. Homicides, which trend toward 12,000 every year, make up the other third.

I have several times here posted peer reviewed journals from sociologists.

Here’s a cite from NPR:

and another cite:

School shootings are a contagion. And the media are consistent accomplices in most every one of them.

My point was that when no other candidate challenged Beto about his gun confiscation plan, no one said “hey wait a minute, we aren’t taking your guns, we are looking for solutions”, when it went unchallenged, it became a part of the Democratic Party’s platform. It should have been challenged.

Because it was not challenged the statement stands. And will be viewed by voters as an official part of the platform.

You’re that confident in Scotus ruling an AR ban unconstitutional? I’m not. Arguably, the successor to Trump might not need new enabling legislation, if BATFE could be induced to taffy pull their reasoning on bump stocks to include all items that might increase the rate of fire for a semiautomatic firearm.

Even if the current Scotus composition would not be amenable to an AR ban, an expanded Scotus might. Especially if Ginsburg’s cancer starts acting like everyone else’s who had pancreatic cancer and Trump nominates another Justice before the end of 2020.

One giant difference between 1994 and today is the AR platform is unquestionably in common use. It’s probably the US’s most popular center fire rifle, in all its permutations. I think the oft-stated 15 million figure way understates the total number of functioning AR-pattern rifles out there, given the popularity of building them from parts kits and, increasingly, using ‘80 %’ receivers as the firearm.

It appears you don’t understand how party platforms are formed or written. When a candidate puts forward an idea it does not automatically become a part of the party platform. In this case it could be considered part of Beto’s platform but that is the extent of it.

I don’t know about an official part of the platform, but the lack of pushback by any of the other panelists after his statement was awfully damning.

I think the statement was great. For O’Rourke. Should be good for another round of fundraising now that people are talking about him again. Not so good for the Democratic Party’s courting of the squishy middle. Then again, the election is over a year away. Memory is fickle.

What kind of idea is it to ban something because it is so dangerous and resulting in mass casualties from unhinged gunman, but to say that the millions and millions already out there are fine, no problem?