Too radical of a stance on Gun control makes for a loser at the national level

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@DSeid

Nice to have things you think. Do you have anything to back up those thoughts other than that is what you think?

I would be interested in hearing who these voters are that vote will Trump only because of the Democratic candidate’s position on gun control and if not for that would be voting D.

That’s a good point. These are mostly people that would otherwise be sitting at home. Its mostly voter turnout differentials.

An pointless regulation will have negative repercussions, some more than others.

A federal mandatory waiting period on all gun purchases (including those sold at gun shows)?

It depends on how long. Right now you can wait up to three days for a NICS background check, the vast majority of them take minutes, I’m OK with waiting for a NICS check and I think almost everyone is. The biggest problem with a waiting period is that you have to go back to pick up our gun days or weeks later.

A longer waiting period and tighter controls on new ownership of assault weapons (defined in some rational and specific manner)?

A nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons (defined in some rational and specific manner)?

I think assault weapons bans would hurt elections. I also think you’d have to specify the rational and specific definition of assault weapon, man have tried and noone has produced a rational one yet. What is the rationale for these waiting periods beyond what is required for a background check?

Ownership denied if a felony conviction, a domestic violence conviction, or if recent serious mental illness such as requiring hospitalization?

Don’t we already have that?

Raising the age for handgun purchases to 21 years old?

I think that’s already the law for FFL under federal law. I wouldn’t be opposed to extending this to private sales

Requiring safe storage?

see Heller.

Fast track the ability to petition the court to temporarily disarm someone who’s shown signs of danger toward themselves or others?

what do you mean by that?

Other?

Licensing and registration. People would flip a lid but if you ever have the political capital to get this done, this might be the only idea that would make a difference in the long term. You will probably have to give up a lot of the stupid laws (see assault weapons bans) to get this one smart law but it would be worth it if your objective is to minimize gun crime.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@scr4

I don’t doubt that there are those who think of themselves as single-issue pro-gun rights voters. But if any Democrat tried to court pro-gun voters, I suspect they will lose more liberal voters than gain pro-gun voters.

During a primary. definitely.

during a general? I’m not so sure

A Democratic nominee will also be labeled as anti-gun just by association. There’s no chance the NRA will endorse a Democratic nominee over a Republican nominee, because they are as much a right-wing political organization as a pro-gun organization.

Like I said above, I should have said that its more a matter of turnout than flipping a vote.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Right now you can wait up to three days for a NICS background check, the vast majority of them take minutes, I’m OK with waiting for a NICS check and I think almost everyone is. The biggest problem with a waiting period is that you have to go back to pick up our gun days or weeks later.

“Five days? But I’m angry NOW!”

• Homer Simpson

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@DSeid

Which of the policy suggestions I listed do you think would offend them?

Because all I can find says that for the most part the majority of gun owners are in support of many of the same policies that a majority of non-gun owners are and are not so dead set against many of those that they differ on. Banning high capacity magazines and assault-style weapons gets the support of 44 and 48% of gun owners respectively, filter out the NRA MAGA gun owners and I’d suspect its a majority.

So short of banning all handguns, something that we all know won’t happen without a Constitutional amendment after Heller, what is “too radical” or “rabid” that will offend those voters?

Maybe being against any gun control?

Here’s one by Gallup that shows that only a minority supports an assault weapons ban.

[Scumpup]

@ElvisL1ves

“Five days? But I’m angry NOW!”

• Homer Simpson

Gosh, there’s nothing like a reference to a show that stopped being funny a decade or two ago to really cement your point. C’mon big guy, fess up. You’re on the NRA payroll, aren’t you?

[DSeid]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Here’s one by Gallup that shows that only a minority supports an assault weapons ban.

You forgot to include the link to your cite.

But easy to search for so no problem. And a reasonable cite it is. Per that cite it does seem that a proposal to ban assault weapons would be a turnout issue with opinions on it “sharply polarized”.

So squaring the circle - Gallup also reports that a solid majority of Americans do want stricter gun control. Among Independents 61% and among all gun owners 38% (again some solid fraction of the rest solidly R and definite voters, the rocky core).

Defining “too radical” as possibly less positive voter impact than negative impact yeah proposing an assault weapons ban might be best avoided (and again Heller has taken even the possibility of a handgun ban out of something to be afraid of).

AND a GOP candidate being against control measures short of that would also be, by that definition “too radical”

I can see many Democratic candidates proposing stricter control that does not include any assault weapon ban and not being “too radical” on the issue. I cannot see GOP candidates managing to not be against those other stricter gun control measures and thus being “too radical” for guns by the general voting population standards.