Okay. Say a politician (D or R, per your stated agnosticism) is in alignment with your views on every issue you care about, except guns. He wants registration, background check, restrictions on type (assault style, etc) and magazine capacity, no CC, etc. Now are you a single issue voter? If so, you’ve just answered your own first question.
I’m pretty sure he was being hyperbolic about the red hot poker up the ass. But I get that if you think he was serious, you’d want to hang on to your guns, for protection.
Statistics are tricky things. One might use them to conclude that with all these guns in America, it’s a wonder more people aren’t killed daily. Therefore, responsible gun ownership FTW!
Sorry, but Colonization is a capitalistic concept, and therefore all of the deaths and blood that resulted from the centuries of Colonization all over the Earth is on your side’s hands. Shove this talking point back up your ass please.
The real answer is that extremism and of any political view along with dictatorship can lead to widespread death and destruction. Also trying to pigeon hole historical ideologies into 21st century left versus right is pointless. Should the atrocities of the Khmer Rouge be blamed on the Democrats because they believed in Collectivism, or should they be blamed on the Republicans because they were anti-intellectual? The answer is neither. The Khmer Rouge’s atrocities should be blamed on the Khmer Rouge’s ideologies which are specific to them. So unless neo Khmer Rougers are marching down American streets and one party or another offers support for their cause, they are pretty much irrelevant to our current situation.
The question that we should be asking is right here and now in the United states, which party seems to be fostering the most violent extremists and which party seems to believe that support a executive that is above the law and not subject to any checks on its power.
Just want to say the 2nd Amendment was definitely not drafted for the purpose of “resisting tyranny.” The Founders were not devising the means to overthrow the government they were founding. The militias were meant for purposes like fending off a Spanish invasion, fighting Indians and oppressing slaves. They weren’t a standing army so that people could spend most of their time farming &etc.
Hell no, Trump is a terrible president. But once something is banned it stays illegal by sheer inertia, against all but the most overwhelming counter-movement. Would anyone from 1970 onward have voted to make marijuana illegal if it hadn’t been already? The smartest thing pro-gun people ever did was force a sunset clause into the Assault Weapon Ban; otherwise a law so worthless that it can’t get renewed would stay on the books forever.
Annoyed, you’re the cartoon figure. NRA sub paid up?
And for all you honest to God gun nuts: target rifles, hunting rifles and shotguns are one thing. They have their uses. Military-grade equipment should be kept to then military. Do please tell me why you need an assault rifle with a 30 round magazine? To defend your home? Against what? You don’t need that sort of firepower to see off an intruder or two. And the availability of such weapons means that inevitably some nut gets hold of one or more and goes on a rampage.
Any politician calling for all guns to be confiscated can kiss his career goodbye. But the issue is registration. Insist that all guns are registered. Insist that gun owners have permits, and these are only given out if you can be certain that the applicant is not a wild-eyed maniac. That won’t work?True, it won’t work quickly. it also won;t work unless all the states have the same legislation, otherwise you just get cross-border trading.
A European take on this: the break-up of the Soviet Union meant that a lot of miliitary small arms got loose and complicated the work of the police. The well dressed bank robber no longer has an old revolver or a shotgun, but an AK-47. But, slowly, the number of such guns appears to be being reduced as they get found and confiscated. Don’t expect things to happen overnight.
Then why do so many of the Federalist Papers specifically mention the ability of the militia to overthrow a tyrannical government if necessary? And why do so many of the Anti-Federalist papers harp on provisions of the proposed constitution that they feared might enable that resistance to be neutralized?
They had just done so. It was kinda on their minds. Do please note that anonymous commentary has no legal status, but the Constitution itself does, notably Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15: “(Congress shall have the Power) To provide for the calling of the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.”
See? They *told *you what it’s for. It’s right there. *Suppress *insurrections. Not be them, *suppress *them.
I am a gun owner for over 50 years. I own many military guns (most near or over 100 years old). I am (now) a liberal who would never, ever, ever vote Republican again. The NRA (I dropped my membership when Wayne LaPierre took over) are a bunch of Russian stooges. I do own an AR-15 (they are fun).
All of that said… I am not a one-issue voter. I think we can have a discussion about all of this and meet in the middle (I remember compromise, because I am old).
So to the original premise… Passion for GUNS should not be a factor. The mendacity of Orange Julius Caesar is part of a national emergency. And I wont “gun vote” if it means keeping that idiot in office.
No, you worthless torture-supporting buffoon, Nazis were not socialists. Know what the Nazis did after gaining power? They imprisoned the Communists and the Social Democrats who stood against them.
Your knowledge of Nazi ideology probably starts and stops at the fact they have Socialist in their name. That is the basis for your argument. I know it because every other right-wing lowlife who claims Nazis were socialists does so on that basis.
