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).
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.
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?
Here’s what I am 100% confident in: neither the president nor the legislature can, even in concert, actually represent any threat to the Constitution while there is a SCOTUS in place that believes that their job is to accurately interpret and apply it. The ONLY threats to the Constitution comes from a hypothetical SCOTUS that believes in ignoring that role in favor of their political belief systems, or from the other branches deciding to ignore SCOTUS (a constitutional crisis). Barring a SCOTUS that intentionally disregards their job if SCOTUS allows it it is in fact constitutional … that is a matter of definition. In which case the threat was on our individual understandings of the document, not the document itself.
Trump wants all sorts of things and even with a very Right leaning court and a Senate that wants to enable him as much as possible the courts have told him no multiple times. sps49sd … check who we have a president. People vote for stupid in large numbers if they agree with what stupid says. As for these nominees … I don’t in fact think any of them are stupid. I think some of them are saying stupid things, but that is different. For O’Rourke it is more desperation to find a way to get any traction in the nomination process at all.
A very true and very inane statement. You don’t need a very effective method available to use with no delay right in front of you to kill yourself or to kill someone else. But having such a thing very handy increases the chances that any given person with a period of suicidal thinking will die. (85% lethality from the attempt compared to 5% for other methods, if those methods are attempted.)
Do you have a loved one? If they have guns (or there are guns in their household) and they ever have suicidal thinking would you be happy leaving a loaded handgun on the table in front of them when you left the house for the day?
Red flag laws also provide an ability to disrupt access by someone at risk - to remove that loaded handgun sitting on depressed brother’s table from the household for a bit while we get him treatment.
Even for mass shootings, as relatively less of the bigger numbers that they may be, most of them gave some signs, somebody in their circle knew something was off. But they didn’t know what to do about it.
POLITICALLY, the point of this thread and this forum, the policy suggestions above that would accomplish lots have broad agreement across partisan and gun owner/non-owner lines, and are not poison in a general election. Proposing to try to confiscate weapons? No.
Well, because it isn’t so dangerous and resulting in mass casualties from unhinged gunman. Of the 10000 or so gun murders a year, rifles account for like 500. That includes the AR15 the AK 47 and even 30-30 lever action deer rifles and .22s.
The point is- there is NO, repeat NO gun control that could pass under the 2nd that is going to make a significant difference. None. Not even betos fucking stupid door to door confiscation. (which will cost a couple billion)
However, a gesture often is meaningful. So increased background checks, banning the sale of 'assault weapons" and so forth as gestures- better than “thoughts and prayers” as sure, a few lives will be saved. Not a statistically significant number, but a few anyway.