That is the wrong way of looking at it, and if you can’t understand why, I’m not going to be able to convince you. Think whatever you want.
Some voters don’t see that. They don’t wanted to be forced to do something, and do not understand or do not care about the damage Trump policies and actions cause.
I love Uncle Joe but can’t help but feel his moment passed. And Sanders’ candidacy this second time aroung still seems to me more about making a point than about governing.
Just at the time when that particular organization seemed to be on their back foot. They and the Gun Retailers Association should send Beto a fruit basket.
I totally agree. I’d also add as a moderate (or rank and file democrat as I call it) I came away thinking Klobuchar and Buttigieg reached out in their answers better than Biden did. On gun control Biden did a very good job but then again he was an architect of the Assault Weapons Ban in 94 so of course he should have done well on that.
You guys are losing your minds over Beto’s proposal, but let’s keep a bit of perspective here. When John Kerry was accepting the Democratic nomination in the summer of 2004, assault weapons were still illegal to sell, just as they had been throughout most of the Clinton administration. Talking about banning them again, but also buying back those that are already out there, is not nearly as radical as you are making it out to be. And the politics of gun control have changed since 2004.
If Beto were proposing to do the same thing for handguns, shotguns, or hunting rifles, I would be with you. But I honestly think the group of people who love the AR-15 and would conceivably have the chance to vote for any Democrat next year is very small.
You might think that, but when people find out that there already is a lot of “common sense gun control”, and that UBC makes selling or transferring a firearm like being required to sell your car through a car dealer, many change their mind.
Like most grabbers, Beto doen’t know what he’s talking about.
‘Military grade’ weapons have full-auto capability (‘machine gun’), and that is the only functional difference. “Military grade” rifle and pistol ammunition is FMJ, full metal jacket. It is designed exactly to put a hole through someone and take them out of the fight, preferably taking two more out while they get their comrade to medical care.
And firearms that are a match for military weapons for the citizenry is a feature, not a bug, although I am sure many disagree.
I think Beto very likely wants to do the same thing for handguns, shotguns, and hunting rifles. I think he isn’t alone, either.
10000 murders a year? Compared to 500000 Americans dead from tobacco? Small potatoes.
Banning the sale of the mags is one thing, banning the possession is stupid.
Sociologists have shown it’s not guns, it’s the media for the amount of mass and school shootings- the media glorifying the killers. That’s the main cause.
Oddly they dont sell any "military grade weapons " in the USA.
I dont fucking care about the NRA and it’s 5 million members. I care about the 70Million NON-NRA gun owners, the ones that would kinda support mild gun control, but now Beto has them running scared due to “they are coming to take our gun away!” . Because now they actually admit they are doing so.
No, and in fact the voters are in favor of a ban on* importing and selling* “assault weapons”.
But door to door confiscation? And if they start with AR15s, what’s next? That’s what the 70Million moderate gun owners will think.
Let say they decided to ban the manufacture of cars and trucks that get less than 15MPG- sure that would work.
vs They will come out to your house and tow your truck away and junk it.
Oh, it doesn’t matter. Beto is not getting the nomination and nobody is going to care that the other candidates didn’t immediately admonish him. This blip will not outlive Primary season.
But it could be trouble for him if he does pivot to a Senate run in Texas.
Not “buying back” forced confiscation. Nothing voluntary. That’s what makes it so wrong. And did beto mention “buying”? Well, sorta, but not in his famous quote:
"Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47. We’re not going to allow it to be used against our fellow Americans anymore.”
To be fair Harris and Booker also want to confiscate guns:
*But O’Rourke’s remarks worry Democrats like Warren Varley, who lost a race for a state legislative seat in Iowa last year.
“The lines like, ‘We’re gonna come and take your AR-15,’ just play into the fears that the NRA has been stoking, and a proposal like that is just going to make rural Iowa and I think probably rural areas elsewhere more red,” Varley said. “I think that’s just a bridge too far for most rural folks, and it conjures up images of the government coming in and invading your home and images of big government trampling over the rights of individuals.”*
I bet the NRA will be running the clip during 2020, no matter who is the candidate. And Booker and Harris agree.
This is absolutely true and isn’t receiving enough emphasis. Our memories are infamously short, but, yes: these weapons have been illegal to sell in the very recent past----and the republic failed to fall.
Everyone was basically fine when these weapons were not available. We could be fine again!
Yes. And the “slippery slope” argument is highly fallacious. For one thing, as just mentioned, we very recently lived through a period in which one class of weapons was illegal to sell, while many other classes of weapons remained quite freely available. No slope and no slip.
If you can’t buy—or even own—an AR-15, there is ZERO precedent for that being equivalent to ‘no guns may be owned by private citizens.’ None. Zip. Bupkis.
How would that even work, slippery-slope fans?
ETA: in re consequences for Beto: the fundraising will tell the tale.
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