Current Events > I wish Democrats weren't so anti-second amendment.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Almost all my other stances align otherwise, except that they essentially blame the gun. I didn't hear a single thing about tackling the reasons why people set out to commit gun violence, and I'm tired of outright bans being the best idea they ever try to make a part of their platform.

And yeah, I know it's an election cycle and they're just trying to bring out super strong stances and promises(Trump's wall for example), but we already had an AWB in the 90's, so another one, especially one just as bad being promised, is troubling for a lot of reasons.

---

Cant tell if this is a troll topic

i think it must be

---

TheGoldenEel posted...

Cant tell if this is a troll topic

i think it must be

A democrat that has a mind of their own and doesn't just parrot all the leftist talking points? Definitely a troll.

Republicans aren't truly pro 2nd either. Remember Trump said to take guns first worry about due process later.

The Dems are at least trying to use the proper channels to change and adjust laws. The GOP has shown they're perfectly happy with taking away rights without any type of legislation.
---

TheGoldenEel posted...

Cant tell if this is a troll topic

i think it must be

I mean, he made a tweet about banning "assault weapons" again if elected. It's a pretty cut and dry case of blaming the gun, imo.

---

I myself am anti-gun, though I agree with your sentiment that Democrats as a party platform dont make any attempt to treat mental healthcare seriously either. As far as I see it, most Republicans and Democrats are both just trying to make money, and the core of the Democratic Party has decided that its more profitable to go with the progressive trends of the public by giving lots of token victories (as MLK warned) and not any substantial policy change. Fortunately more and more actual progressives are beginning to gain some sort of power and affect policy.

---

Less guns, less gun crime, it's not rocket science.

---

@Malcrasternus

question: should kids be able to buy guns? What about convicted killers? People in the no fly list?

---

The problem isn't that they are anti-2nd amendment, it's that rather than being willing to commit political suicide by pushing for its repeal or modification, they'd rather just find ways to undermine the Constitution to ban the types of guns they don't like or keep it out of the hands of people they don't trust and hope that the courts take their sweet time to strike down the laws.

harley2280 posted...

The Dems are at least trying to use the proper channels to change and adjust laws.

lolno

They are every single bit as guilty as long as they do not work on amending the Constitution before passing any anti-gun legislation.

---

I'm a Democrat, but I stand by the existence and practical use of firearms

The 2nd is probably the most misinterpreted amendment. It doesn't even mean anything close to how the supreme court applies it.

TopKekBro posted...

@Malcrasternus

question: should kids be able to buy guns? What about convicted killers? People in the no fly list?

Children don't have the right to purchase firearms through an FFL already, so. If straw purchases are what you are getting at, several states by law make private sales of firearms only possible at an FFL, which I agree with.

And I'm pretty sure people that served time for violent crimes already lose their gun rights, unless reinstated later. Which I also agree with, if said person has shown to be completely rehabilitated and no longer a threat to others or themselves.

Did you know in 2004 there was a US senator denied flight because an alias of his appeared on that list? So if we want to use that as a basis for gun ownership, it needs to be a lot more refined.

---

I'm all for the 2nd amendment for hunting and protection. I just want stricter guidelines for buying a firearm, also limit how many guns one person can buy.

I dont see why that's unreasonable.

---

Malcrasternus posted...

Children don't have the right to purchase firearms through an FFL already, so. If straw purchases are what you are getting at, several states by law make private sales of firearms only possible at an FFL, which I agree with.

And I'm pretty sure people that served time for violent crimes already lose their gun rights, unless reinstated later. Which I also agree with, if said person has shown to be completely rehabilitated and no longer a threat to others or themselves.

Did you know in 2004 there was a US senator denied flight because an alias of his appeared on that list? So if we want to use that as a basis for gun ownership, it needs to be a lot more refined.

whats an ffl?

---

I'm pro gun and left leaning, I just dont think gun control is possible when we have more guns that people.

---

TopKekBro posted...

whats an ffl?

Gunshop, essentially. Just a place authorized by the state to transfer and sell guns.

---

Malcrasternus posted...

Gunshop, essentially. Just a place authorized by the state to transfer and sell guns.

why would gun stores be able to deny guns to children and convicted killers, if the second amendment is absolute?

---

TheGoldenEel posted...

Cant tell if this is a troll topic

i think it must be

What's with people who legitimately believe that people who support a party or candidate must agree with every single one of their views?

I also believe that the restrictions we have now are more than enough.

---

Malcrasternus posted...

I didn't hear a single thing about tackling the reasons why people set out to commit gun violence

It's never framed that way, but Democrats are the party that actually wants to address poverty, which is the single largest driving force behind crime, gun crime included. Republicans don't give a fuck about poverty.

Damn_Underscore posted...

What's with people who legitimately believe that people who support a party or candidate must agree with every single one of their views?

its all the right wing talking points like The phrase blaming the gun, the disingenuous point towards mental health being the real problem, the belief that a 200 year old document should dictate that people should be able to buy whatever and however much weaponry they want

I also believe that the restrictions we have now are more than enough.

Countries with stricter gun laws uniformly have less gun violence than the US

States with stricter gun laws have less gun violence

and, relevant, as always

https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1819576527

---

I wish Republicans weren't so anti first amendment
---

Like, essentially the argument for the second amendment boils down to, people dont want to reduce gun violence because they want to keep their toys

I should be able to have a collection of killing machines that serve no practical use, even though the easy access to those killing machines leads to many easily preventable and senseless deaths, because a document written over a hundred years before those killing machines became even a fraction as effective as they are today, says so

---

TheGoldenEel posted...

Like, essentially the argument for the second amendment boils down to, people dont want to reduce gun violence because they want to keep their toys

I should be able to have a collection of killing machines that serve no practical use, even though the easy access to those killing machines leads to many easily preventable and senseless deaths, because a document written over a hundred years before those killing machines became even a fraction as effective as they are today, says so

Ah, there's the classic CE experience. You might want to look up defensive gun use statistics in the US; even the most conservative numbers put it at several thousands of times per year. And bear in mind a gun doesn't need to actually be fired for it to be considered a defensive use. So for a "toy," a lot of people are really glad to have them when shit goes south, myself included. But, that's purely anecdotal, and no one needs to know why I'm as pro gun as I am.

Also as a fun fact, while muskets were the predominant firearm of the time, prototypes had already begun to appear that had their own contained charge and bullet that could be easily and readily removed from the gun for faster firing. So, they already knew firearms were going to evolve, and worded it so that people wouldn't get that big brain moment and try to argue the amendment was just for muzzle loaders.

Anywho, to address a more thoughtful point,

TheOtherMike posted...

It's never framed that way, but Democrats are the party that actually wants to address poverty, which is the single largest driving force behind crime, gun crime included. Republicans don't give a fuck about poverty.

That's a fair point, and I'll agree to this, with the caveat that most times it doesn't feel like it's nearly as big of a focus for them; as if the game plan is to ban everything first, and then try to figure everything out after. Which I feel should be reversed, since regaining rights/lifting restrictions is far more difficult. Just look at California and the recent lift on their magazine ban not too long ago.

---

Damn_Underscore posted...

What's with people who legitimately believe that people who support a party or candidate must agree with every single one of their views?

I also believe that the restrictions we have now are more than enough.

It is the way the original post is written, sounds like the person is almost saying "I would vote for this party because I agree with them 99% except for this one issue".

Not what was said, but that's how it reads especially since single issue voters are a thing

---

Hexenherz posted...

It is the way the original post is written, sounds like the person is almost saying "I would vote for this party because I agree with them 99% except for this one issue".

Not what was said, but that's how it reads especially since single issue voters are a thing

Yeah I was trying to word it in a different way to avoid that vibe, but I figured you guys would get my meaning.

---

Democrats want slaves to the government

Why do people want the right to have all the guns?

---

I bet if the dems just switched to pro gun as well, the republicans would be doomed within a decade, if they arent already. Theres 4 times as many guns on the streets as there are citizens in the country. Its too late to take them away, that needed to be done 200 years ago.

---

TopKekBro posted...

why would gun stores be able to deny guns to children and convicted killers, if the second amendment is absolute?

@Malcrasternus

---

And the right won't use the 2nd amendment to defend the constitution from a tyrannical government because it's okay when their guy does it and they're all traitor cowards

shockthemonkey posted...

Why cant we have better conversations regarding licensing and training rather than Ill take your fucking guns?

Because 2Aers don't want that either.

It's a classic case of rightists shutting down any possible move to compromise which leaves extremes as the only viable options.

---

Blightzkrieg posted...

Because 2Aers don't want that either.

It's a classic case of rightists shutting down any possible move to compromise which leaves extremes as the only viable options.

We've compromised enough.

If I want to get a rifle with a barrel shorter than 16" I gotta pay $200, fill out a book full of paperwork, and wait for 6-24 months for a response.

Can't put a vertical foregrip on a pistol, can't have a shotgun under 18" barrel. Can't have 5.45x39 steel core ammo.

I'd honestly vote democrat if they weren't so stupid about this. Joe wants to "ban the same guns banned in 94". Ok Joe I'll get a mini-14 because Bill Ruger sold his soul for some pennies. You keep that same roster.

---

yemmy posted...

We've compromised enough.

If I want to get a rifle with a barrel shorter than 16" I gotta pay $200, fill out a book full of paperwork, and wait for 6-24 months for a response.

Can't put a vertical foregrip on a pistol, can't have a shotgun under 18" barrel. Can't have 5.45x39 steel core ammo.

I'd honestly vote democrat if they weren't so stupid about this. Joe wants to "ban the same guns banned in 94". Ok Joe I'll get a mini-14 because Bill Ruger sold his soul for some pennies. You keep that same roster.

alternatively you could just go to any state where you can buy said guns on the weekend at the gun show without a background check...

you know what the country needs? uniformity in the gun laws. if my state blocks me from buying a weapon designed specifically for hunting humans, and i can drive an hour to another state to pick a few up with no waiting period, then what's the point? well, besides intentionally gimping the law and giving disingenuous NRA trolls stats to point at and claim as proof that gun laws dont work?

all of this boils down to the fact that we're basing laws for guns off of a hard reading of an amendment written on an animal skin document penned before cartridges were even invented...

---

Spoilers: Despite what the party platform may say, they won't ban any additional types of guns.

---

So here is the thing. Any restriction, be it time or money, placed on firearms acquisition unfairly burdens the working class. People with money will be able to jump through whatever hoop you place in front of them. So all you've really done is disarmed poor people, placing them even moreso at the mercy of those higher up the social ladder than them.

---

With how things are going in this country, how one can be so anti-gun is nuts.

Hey, why should Democrat politicians care? They got the privilege of being protected by the police, private security, and the secret service. They want the status quo protected from the poor riff raff too.

---

If you go far enough left, you get your guns back.

---

ScazarMeltex posted...

So here is the thing. Any restriction, be it time or money, placed on firearms acquisition unfairly burdens the working class. People with money will be able to jump through whatever hoop you place in front of them. So all you've really done is disarmed poor people, placing them even moreso at the mercy of those higher up the social ladder than them.

Also this is 100% true and is the main basis for modern gun control. That and extreme racism.


---

Malcrasternus posted...

Ah, there's the classic CE experience. You might want to look up defensive gun use statistics in the US; even the most conservative numbers put it at several thousands of times per year. And bear in mind a gun doesn't need to actually be fired for it to be considered a defensive use. So for a "toy," a lot of people are really glad to have them when shit goes south, myself included. But, that's purely anecdotal, and no one needs to know why I'm as pro gun as I am.

Im not against gun ownership in general, Im for limitations on how people can get them, what they can get, and how they can use them. Nobody (EDIT: meaning, no one with actual power within the Democratic Party) is trying to ban guns outright

you have a teeny tiny percent chance of being the target of a violent crime in most places in America, so the chances of that happening, and you having access to your gun, and being able to use it effectively, are very small. To counter that one would have to carry their weapon on them at all times which I argue creates more unsafe situations, more ability to escalate situations unnecessarily

because what is a gun defense situation? Places that want to downplay gun violence say its on the order of millions.. but what does that mean? Someone simply pointing a gun at someone (in which case the actual effectiveness of the gun at killing is immaterial)? How many are home defense situations (meaning they arent arguments for public carrying)? How many were against unarmed assailants (meaning the situation was escalated)

I guess what Im saying is this:

yemmy posted...

We've compromised enough.

If I want to get a rifle with a barrel shorter than 16" I gotta pay $200, fill out a book full of paperwork, and wait for 6-24 months for a response.

Can't put a vertical foregrip on a pistol, can't have a shotgun under 18" barrel. Can't have 5.45x39 steel core ammo.

For the fraction of a percent chance that this person is ever in an situation to legally use their weapon, and has it accessible to them at the time, why are any of these things necessary?

how do restrictions like this infringe on anyones rights?

---

The last time any substantial federal gun control legislation was passed was in 1994.

---

Malcrasternus posted...

But, that's purely anecdotal, and no one needs to know why I'm as pro gun as I am.

btw if you had some traumatic experience in your past, that you dont even want to talk about, that makes you feel like your not safe from the fraction of a percent chance youre a target of a violent crime, that sounds like... a mental health problem. You should probably seek help for that rather than advocating for more guns.

lets start by tackling the reasons people want to carry guns, as it were

---

TopKekBro posted...

why would gun stores be able to deny guns to children and convicted killers, if the second amendment is absolute?

To me, when it refers to the militia, that tells me any American adult. We can debate well-regulated, but they specifically mentioned the militia.

---

I forgot all the Republican support Philandro Castile had when he was shot and killed trying to be a responsible gun owner. Must have missed the part where they stood up for his rights while Democrats paraded about how another gun owner was dead.
---

Malcrasternus posted...

To me, when it refers to the militia, that tells me any American adult. We can debate well-regulated, but they specifically mentioned the militia.

why adults and not kids? Does this include former criminals? What about permanent residents or people with a visa?

---

FursonaNonGrata posted...

If you go far enough left, you get your guns back.

How have I never heard this before? What a great saying

---

TheGoldenEel posted...

For the fraction of a percent chance that this person is ever in an situation to legally use their weapon, and has it accessible to them at the time, why are any of these things necessary?

how do restrictions like this infringe on anyones rights?

Lmao the people who have zero knowledge/training on firearms acting like they know what they are talking about again. "Ghost gun with 30 caliber clip" people acting like gun experts. What a surprise.

TheGoldenEel posted...

you have a teeny tiny percent chance of being the target of a violent crime in most places in America, so the chances of that happening, and you having access to your gun, and being able to use it effectively, are very small. To counter that one would have to carry their weapon on them at all times which I argue creates more unsafe situations, more ability to escalate situations unnecessarily

Lmao where do you live? Vermont or something?

You might as well just admit you are anti gun (or at least just take that stance) because have no idea what you are talking about.


---

I remember when Obama took everyone's guns away. Was a dark day in history that Biden will continue. :(
---