We must be related. That describes my family’s politics as well. If a Dem proposes something, it is bad. No further investigation necessary. A Dem could come out & propose pro-prayer in schools & my family would scream that it’s a precursor to conspiracy…
Please cite just ONE statement by an influential quoted person who has ever said that civilians’ right to own guns should be taken away. Just one cite. Who is this famous dem/lib who has ever said “take their guns away” or in any other terms has advocated such an outcome?
When they instituted speed limits or no-parking zones, where was the accusation that “they’re going to take our cars away”?
Of course they don’t explicitly say it, but they make it clear that their goal is to put as many restrictions on private gun ownership as they can get away with. Even in the UK there’s still private ownership of pistols and concealed carry permits issued, though only in Northern Ireland - but I think most Americans would consider UK-style gun control to be ‘take their guns away’ even though you can technically argue that it’s not actually a 100% ban.
Anyone objecting to the Heller decision (like Hillary Clinton did) is clearly in favor of such an outcome, as a counter to the ‘just ONE’ statement demand. The Heller decision simply said that you can’t have something that amounts to an outright ban on ordinary people using guns for self-defense, like the DC ban did. There’s no reason to object to Heller unless you want to ban ordinary people from using firearms for self-defense. And we’ve seen time and time again that, when gun control groups get a chance, they pass bans like that, or things as close to bans as they can.
It boggles my mind that Al Gore decided that a Bush win was a better outcome than giving up on his 3-day waiting period for only people who pass an instant background check, or that Hillary decided that pushing for another worthless assault weapon ban was not as important as beating Trump. But the fact that both of them placed pressing for some gun control, especially absurdly stupid gun control, over winning their races makes it clear that they’re highly invested in the position.
Here you go. She says it starting at 0:19.
Go and find her entire statement, before being self-servingly chopped out its context… She made it clear, earlier in her remark (as also made clear by the narrator in your own link), that the was referring only to assault rifles, like the one she is holding… Over 900 specific weapons would NOT be included in the bill she proposed, and would remain legal.
Try again.
Emphasis on the word “proposed”. People don’t usually run for office proposing to raise taxes on the middle class because that’s where the votes are. But once they get around to actually raising them when in office, that’s where they go, because that’s where the money is.
Democrats like to conjure up images of them soaking the super-rich people and helping out the middle class. But there aren’t enough super rich people for tax increases on them to pay for all the worthy causes the Democrats feel are of paramount importance. So eventually it hits the working middle class people.
See, this is the answer to the OP. It starts with “just these guns” and “just high capacity magazines”. It’s real easy to see where that’s headed, and it’s why people vote out of fear of having their gun taken away. OP answered on that issue.
A U.S. senator saying she wants to confiscate property that citizens purchased and possessed legally before she came along should frighten the bejesus out of you
The posts in even this thread demonstrated the tremendous success of the NRA - whose logo is a straight copy of the USMC logo - neat trick for getting yourself identified as “The Good Guys With Guns”.
Any encroachment on the “Second Amendment/God Given Right to shoot like a heavy machine gun” is proof that the Gun Grabbers really want to…
The GOP mated with the NRA many years ago.
GOP can’t get elected on their records, so they use FEAR as a campaign issue!
“Commies are coming” worked for years.
“The Supreme Court is forcing Atheism on Our Land” was good for the Bible Belt
“Homosexuals want to Convert Your Children” is always good
“Democrats want to grab your Guns*” has been effective for 20 years now.
-
- in the US, the phallic symbolism of the firearm has been played to the hilt. I remember an ad in Boy’s Life (magazine of the Boy Scouts of America (yes, those)) wherein a kid with his dead-eye .22 rifle shoots a rattle snake through its mouth just in time to save a grizzled old prospector (who, at age 60+ still hadn’t figured out how to deal with snakes).
That is the image (The Christmas Story’s Daisy Red Rider captured the story perfectly) that makes rational people spend hundreds of dollars on steel phalluses which, in their heads, makes them the hero ready to shoot, with perfect precision, any rattler they happen across at the local mall.
- in the US, the phallic symbolism of the firearm has been played to the hilt. I remember an ad in Boy’s Life (magazine of the Boy Scouts of America (yes, those)) wherein a kid with his dead-eye .22 rifle shoots a rattle snake through its mouth just in time to save a grizzled old prospector (who, at age 60+ still hadn’t figured out how to deal with snakes).
Back in the 20’s, you could go into a hardware store and buy dynamite* and Thompson’s sub-machine guns. The gangsters of Prohibition gave sub-machine guns a bad reputation and Federal Law made fully auto guns illegal (actually requiring a license which few people can get).
After all this agitprop about Rights to Guns, I suspect that law would never pass now.
-
- good for removing tree stumps from fields
Except that’s not so. The rich have most of the money in the nation; the Democrats couldn’t do that if they wanted to, the working people simply don’t have the money.
And, consistently it’s the Republicans who raise taxes and fees on the general population while cutting taxes for the rich. Not the other way around.
The GOP doesn’t run positive campaigns.
"It’s not that our guy is good, it’s that the other guy can’t be trusted/is Satan’s tool/Chewed Gum in 2nd Grade class (and you thought that “Permanent Record” crap was phony - it really does exist!).
This last election was notable for the TWO 3rd party candidates. Their rational seems to be: the Dem and GOP have been so demonized, real people can’t stand either of them.
I have never heard of recounts in Presidential election aside from 2000.
The existence of third parties and widespread suspicion of massive vote fraud are deeply troubling for the mindset of the voting public they represent.
I read your entire rant, but let’s start with just this one sentence.
Is it your claim that Obama and the D’s were uninterested in improving health coverage with ACA, but instead were motivated primarily by the chance to advance their tyranny?
[QUOTE=R3d Anonymous]
Taxes - even Bernie Sanders’ tax plan would not have affected most 95% of Americans. The tax increases were mainly just extra brackets for household incomes over $250,000 per year. And even then, the increase would only be by a few percent unless your household was making more than $2,000,000, which is almost no one
[/QUOTE]
There are virtually no politicians honest enough to say that taxes have to go up significantly on the middle class and upper class, just to pay for the stuff we already have, never mind free college for all, expanded health care, massive infrastructure investments etc.
Democrats are just slightly more dishonest than Republicans on this subject, and there are voters perceptive enough to notice.
I think you hit it…its fear. People do things out of fear. Its not limited to republicans either. People vote democrat out of fear as well. I’d guess a large percentage that voted democrat this last round, voted out of fear.
Sorry, the bejesus isn’t scared that easily out of me. I don’t construct my whole life around imaginary fears of bogey men.
Stockpiling military-grade weapons of many kinds has been illegal for a long time. Where’s your indignation about not being to keep a pole barn full of nuclear RPGs? Why is it so urgent that you keep “these guns”, which have no other practical utility except in combat?
You call that the “well regulated militia” that the Second Amendment grants you the right to maintain? Where’s your chain of command, roster of troops, inventory of armor, logistical framework? Demonstrate that you have the responsibility commensurate with your right.
Right. Some people DO NOT UNDERSTAND how politicians think! (Democrats and Republicans.)
FYI - They are BOUGHT and PAID FOR by “special interest groups”. That would include gun manufacturers. These groups have tons of money which they give to politicians at election time…
With that said, no politician in his/her right mind would go against any of these groups. If they did, then they would lose a LOT of campaign money.
Think about it!
I think only a small minority of Americans are genuinely fearful of either political party. Most think the election doesn’t make much of a difference. I think it’s more to do with tribalism than fear - i.e. the candidates who support higher taxes and gun control are (or aren’t) their kind of people.
To be fair, there are some liberals who genuinely ***do ***want to take everyone’s guns away and make America a gun-free country (as in, no private gun ownership.)
Such liberals are in the minority, but they ***do ***exist, and their views do make it to the ears/eyes of some pro-gun folks.
The OP asked why people vote out of fear of having their guns taken away and I gave an answer with a cite. Whether you agree that is the reason people vote the way they do and your intereptation of the 2nd Amendment is meaningless.
You have given no relevant response to the actual OP.
And I answered your cite by telling you that it did not say what you fervently wished it had said. I asked for a cite of a quote-worthy spokesman advocating taking ALL guns away from ALL civilians. You have not yet provided one. Yet you have the bejesus scared out of you by a belief that such people are actually somewhere approaching a majority.
I was asked my opinion about people voting the way they do because of a fear of their guns being taken away. I offered my opinion, and amplified it with my reasons for believing that.
State your reasons for characterizing my reason and my interpretation as “meaningless”. So far, I see no argument to the contrary.
Which post # was that? All of your posts have been responses to mine. When did you directly address the OP by posting “People vote Republican out of fear…of guns being taken away…because…”??? 