Do note i am now taking something back. I had said that IMHO Kamala Harris was the most anti-gun Dem candidate, and that above shows i am quite wrong. 
With one exception, every single item on the list seems like good common-sense to me, and shouldn’t interfere with legitimate gun nuts. Which item is so very very bad that it makes gun owners want to curl up and cry?
The exception of course is the “one handgun per month.” This will stab a spike through the efforts of the millions of hobbyists that want to buy a pair of dueling pistols. Should we ask Sen. Booker to map out an exemption for dueling pistols? (Or would it be better to leave it in, as a concrete evil to help infuriate millions of gun hobbyists?)
Bullshit. This sort of ridiculous, over the top rhetoric is stupid. I have voted for many Democrats, and several of my friends are running as Democrats. I’ll be supporting them–in addition to doing some unofficial consulting for two candidates for statewide office, both Dems. I will not support any candidate that is anti-gun, regardless of party.
Stop spreading this nonsense.
You guys can pretend there is no connection between gun nuts and white identity politics, but there is. Nobody is saying everyone who owns a gun is a white nationalist. But its a connection that nobody is willing to talk about.
You just fucking said it.
And you guys bitched and whined the entire time.
Support for various forms of gun control among whites by level of racial resentment.
Again nobody is saying all gun owners or opponents of gun control are racist. But its voluntarily oblivious to pretend there is no connection.
Again…YOU fucking said that.
Keep guns out of the wrong hands with gun licensing:* This can lead to one class per year in a hard to find location, with fees in the thousands.
End legal immunity that prevents victims of gun violence from seeking justice: This will end with every gun maker being sued out of existence. Some dude buys a gun, kills a bunch of kids. The parents sue the gun maker. Showing pictures of dead kids and the jury awards millions. Later, overturned on appeal, but still the legal costs would be tremendous.
Require handgun microstamping: does not work, has no useful Law enforcement value and can by bypassed in minutes. In CA this ended the sale of all new model handguns, including those with advanced safety features.
Ensure a background check on every gun sale by closing the loophole on guns show and online sales and the so-called “Charleston Loophole”: This means that a gun cant leave his guns to his widow, a many can give a gun to his son, a friend cant give a friend a gun as a present, etc. The “Charleston Loophole” allowed a man to buy a gun because the time spent doing the check ran out. I suppose this means there will be no time limit, which means? 
I am confused how he wants to plug this “loophole”. I have suggested a better way to close this loophole- define who is a “gun dealer” is: maybe selling six guns a year or more?
Ban assault weapons, high-capacity magazines: Assault weapons commit a extremely low number of murders a year. Banning them all will reduce the number of murders by well under 4%, if any. High capacity magazines? Well a Judge has already weighed in on that: https://d3uwh8jpzww49g.cloudfront.net/sharedmedia/1510684/2064261_2019-03-29-order-granting-plaintiffs_-msj.pdf
Close the “Boyfriend Loophole”: who is a “boyfriend”? How do they plan on enforcing this?
Require firearm owners to report lost or stolen firearms: And if you dont? what then? How about if you dont know it was stolen? How do you prove you reported it? For how long?
Actually one handgun per month isnt horrible.
Cory hasn’t thought this thru at all. Just shit thrown against the wall to see if it sticks.
Isnt this a bit of a hijack?
Kindof. My point is that the kinds of people opposed to moderate gun control probably wouldn’t vote democratic anyway.
As a Democrat, I am not comfortable with relinquishing any gun rights at the present time. There are literally Nazi groups in this country marching around and threatening people. What if there was some catastrophic crisis - economic, terror attack, natural disaster, who knows - that rendered the government unable to maintain civic order? These guys would be free to do what they’ve always wanted to do, and I am less than sanguine about the prospect of being unarmed in this scenario.
Does this mean I won’t vote for Booker if he’s the nominee? No. I would happily vote for him or for any Democrat.
But when people ask, “why would anyone need a rifle that can fire 30 rounds?” I just imagine a mob of neo-fascists on the rampage and I’m reminded of exactly why I might need it.
Oakminster, do you know what really curtails someone’s gun rights, a heck of a lot more than anything in Booker’s proposal? Getting killed. The victims of gun violence have had all of their gun rights denied to them (as well as all of their other rights). If you want to support gun rights, the best way to do that is to take measures to stop people getting killed.
I vote Democratic and have so all my life. (Well, I did vote to Arnie for Governator).
There are around 100 mIllion gun owners in this nation. Maybe that number is high? Let us say 75 Million. They are all adults. It only take around 65 million votes to elect president. Only 62MM voted for Trump.
Thus there are a LOT of Democratic gun owners. It’s true that most diehard NRA members wont vote Dem, but they only number like 5MM.
And Cory’s proposals arent in any way shape or form “moderate” : they are the most extreme of any Dem candidate I have seen.
:rolleyes:
Cry. Me. A. River.
Possibly the most useless response yet.
I didn’t mention anything about white supremacy. But somehow I doubt black Americans, or at least black males would be in favor of gun control.
Are black Americans big advocates for gun control, I work in Atlanta right now and I see quite a few black people walking around open carry. Is there data on it?
I had to look up the “Boyfriend Loophole.” Apparently the Lautenberg amendment essentially restricts the Second Amendment rights of persons convicted of domestic violence. The loophole seems to be that the domestic violence conviction only applies when the conviction involved a spouse, former spouse, or co-parent. So, if you never married, cohabited with, or procreated with your GF, but you did get convicted of slapping her around, your right to buy a firearm and pop a cap in her is not impeded by the conviction.
So I guess that closing the loophole means applying the restriction to ALL persons convicted of domestic violence (although police officers might still be exempted). There appears to be no need to come up with a definition of “boyfriend,” inasmuch as the phrase “Boyfriend Loophole” seems to be a term of art that generally references the most common reason for the Lautenberg Amendment failing to protect victims of DV.
Really? You should get out more.
All this talk of LGBT’s wanting “special rights,” when it’s really the Firearm Fetishistas who think they really are or should be elevated above the hoi polloi. Oh, you’re worried about the safety of your children? Means nothing in the face of the right to own a machine pistol that spits 50 rounds a second - because THE FOUNDING FATHERS SAID SO!!!1!!!ZOMG.!!!
“Useless.” Whatever.
Back in the ‘60s, Republicans were pro-gun control because they didn’t want the rioting inner-city schvugs to be able to shoot back at the cops who were killing them.
The Boyfriend Loophole is about lack of restrictions on purchasing firearms. There is no right to use a firearm to “pop a cap in her”.
We can talk about proposals for gun control regulations without imagining the situation is different than it truly is.