Democrats go all in for gun control as top 2018 issue

[Jazzhead]

@Jazzhead
If you honestly cared about efficacious laws or actual safety of the population you would be focused on something other then gun laws.

Gun laws are the topic of this thread.  What would you prefer I focus on, Roy Moore and wedding cakes? 

[Jazzhead]

So how much does your membership in Bloomberg's Everytown For Gun Safety group run you annually?

Asking for a friend.

I'm with @Oceander on this -  conservatives need to think realistically about the political realities.  Because as things stand, the Dems are going to kick our ever-lovin' asses.   

[txradioguy]

I'm with @Oceander on this -  conservatives need to think realistically about the political realities.  Because as things stand, the Dems are going to kick our ever-lovin' asses.

And both of you have exposed yourselves as anti Second Amendment gun grabbing Liberals.

I HOPE your brethren in the Democrat Party try to run on limiting the 2nd Amendment "for the children" because that will ensure despite the missteps of the GOP this year...the Republican voting base WILL turn out in force to beat back the Dems.

Unlike you...there is a great majority of people that understand that the 2nd Amendment protects the rest and without the 2nd...Progressive tools like you would spit on the constitution as you used it as a doormat.

[skeeter]

@Jazzhead
If you honestly cared about efficacious laws or actual safety of the population you would be focused on something other then gun laws.

When have you ever known a leftwing activist to be honest about their intentions?

[edpc]

I'm with @Oceander on this -  conservatives need to think realistically about the political realities.  Because as things stand, the Dems are going to kick our ever-lovin' asses.

The reality, political and otherwise, is that existing laws, guidelines, and procedures weren't enforced or followed in pretty much every mass shooting.  The repeated failures of government and law enforcement, combined with their inability/apathy to protect citizens has become the real story.

[Jazzhead]

The reality, political and otherwise, is that existing laws, guidelines, and procedures weren't enforced or followed in pretty much every mass shooting.  The repeated failures of government and law enforcement, combined with their inability/apathy to protect citizens has become the real story.

Understood.  But the political reality is that parents want something done to protect their kids, and don't care all that much about your gun rights.  Continuing to adopt an absolutist position is a recipe for political disaster.  Don't like facing hard truths?   Then shove your head deep in the sand but don't blame me if when your come back up for air you find your gun rights gone.   

[Jazzhead]

Unlike you...there is a great majority of people that understand that the 2nd Amendment protects the rest and without the 2nd...Progressive tools like you would spit on the constitution as you used it as a doormat.

Dream on . . .

I don't give a shit how much you insult me.   Don't give a shit at all.  But you're going to be in for surprise if you misunderstand the power of parents at the voting booth.   

[edpc]

Understood.  But the political reality is that parents want something done to protect their kids, and don't care all that much about your gun rights.  Continuing to adopt an absolutist position is a recipe for political disaster.  Don't like facing hard truths?   Then shove your head deep in the sand but don't blame me if when your come back up for air you find your gun rights gone.

So far, the most vocal and angry parent I've seen is Andrew Pollack.  His emphasis has been on school safety, not gun rights.  In his own words, that's a discussion for another day.


! No longer available

[driftdiver]

Gun laws are the topic of this thread.  What would you prefer I focus on, Roy Moore and wedding cakes?

@Jazzhead
Well an honest person that really wanted efficacious laws would comment how misguided the Dems approach is.  How every time these laws have been enacted its led to an increase in crime.  How in example after example world wide these types of laws are not only dangerous, leading to significant increases in violent crime such as murders, rapes and theft but also empower tyrannical governments to take drastic steps impacting millions of peoples lives.

The Dems have admitted their goal is to ban civilian ownership of firearms.  That is their definition of reasonable.  Everything else is simply a step in that direction.  Its not about safety, crime, the children or anything except control.  Control of the people.

[txradioguy]

[Jazzhead]

@Jazzhead
Well an honest person that really wanted efficacious laws would comment how misguided the Dems approach is. 

And I have, many times.  It ain't my effin' fault if you'd rather label me than listen.   

[txradioguy]

And I have, many times.  It ain't my effin' fault if you'd rather label me than listen.

Pot meet kettle.

[libertybele]

Beautiful!! 

[Cyber Liberty]

And I have, many times.  It ain't my effin' fault if you'd rather label me than listen.

The accusation that Briefers aren't listening is rather rich coming from you.  You don't listen to Briefers, you just lecture us.  I'd say they are listening to you all too well.  Sorry you don't like that leading to being labeled, but it's how the world works.

[SZonian]

Yeah, I know, huffpuffington post, but it offers some insight as to what they're up to.  Now to go take a shower...

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dccc-las-vegas-massacre-email_us_5a9579f6e4b036ab0142c108

[XenaLee]

The reality, political and otherwise, is that existing laws, guidelines, and procedures weren't enforced or followed in pretty much every mass shooting.  The repeated failures of government and law enforcement, combined with their inability/apathy to protect citizens has become the real story.

And..... has become the best argument for gun ownership I can think of.   When the cops can't (or won't) protect you, you must arm and protect yourself.

Government and law enforcement's refusal to act to protect citizens has also revealed and exposed their true agenda.  A diabolical leftist one.

[driftdiver]

And I have, many times.  It ain't my effin' fault if you'd rather label me than listen.

@Jazzhead
I've never seen  you criticize the gun control movement.   I have seen you parrot many of the anti-gun agenda topics as your own.  The insurance idea, and the registration.   The use of the word 'reasonable'.

No, I haven't seen any evidence of your advocating for anything except the further infringement of Constitutionally protected freedoms and the further empowerment of  government when it comes to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

[Jazzhead]

And..... has become the best argument for gun ownership I can think of.   When the cops can't (or won't) protect you, you must arm and protect yourself. 

And no one is advocating that you be denied the ability to protect yourself.  That's a straw man, and a canard. 

Government and law enforcement's refusal to act to protect citizens has also revealed and exposed their true agenda.  A diabolical leftist one.

 Law enforcement isn't perfect, and it's job really isn't to prevent crime but to track down the perpetrators.   That's simple reality - unless you want the police to be in your face all the time.   Suggesting that the failure to stop Nicholas Cruz represents a "diabolical leftist agenda" rather than an old-fashioned screw-up is head-up-your-arse bullshit.

Those of us who seek efficacious solutions have proposed more than a few - including the adoption of laws permitting gun violence restraining orders that could, on the information available about the violent and anti-social Mr. Cruz, have denied him not only the right to purchase more guns, but allowed the police to take away the guns he already had in his possession. 

Stop spouting your paranoid nonsense and get on board with responsible conservatives who seek real, effective solutions to the epidemic of gun violence in this country that are compatible with the RKBA.     

[txradioguy]

@Jazzhead
I've never seen  you criticize the gun control movement.   I have seen you parrot many of the anti-gun agenda topics as your own.  The insurance idea, and the registration.   The use of the word 'reasonable'.

No, I haven't seen any evidence of your advocating for anything except the further infringement of Constitutionally protected freedoms and the further empowerment of  government when it comes to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Exactly

[Jazzhead]

@Jazzhead
I've never seen  you criticize the gun control movement.   

Then use the damn search function and read.   Sheesh.   

[driftdiver]

Then use the damn search function and read.   Sheesh.

@Jazzhead
I have read.   You continue to argue for increased controls on private ownership of firearms.   When that approach has been proven to be ineffective.

[txradioguy]

@Jazzhead
I have read.   You continue to argue for increased controls on private ownership of firearms.   When that approach has been proven to be ineffective.

What he's talking about...is his call for people who own guns to be required to carry insurance on the weapons as a condition of ownership.

Despite allegedly having the sharp mind of a lawyer...he either can't or won't see how that leads to a back door...or in legalese de facto gun ban...Constitutional nullification is what he's trying for in a typical Liberal way.

[driftdiver]

What he's talking about...is his call for people who own guns to be required to carry insurance on the weapons as a condition of ownership.

Despite allegedly having the sharp mind of a lawyer...he either can't or won't see how that leads to a back door...or in legalese de facto gun ban...Constitutional nullification is what he's trying for in a typical Liberal way.

@txradioguy
Insurance isn't a new idea.  Its been proposed for years by rabid gun control activists.   They know exactly what it will lead too.

In the short term it increases costs of ownership, reducing the number of people who have guns.
In the long term it greatly increases the costs of ownership and provides their 100% registration goal.

Once they have registration then they will start confiscation, either piece meal or in response to the right event, all firearms.

[Cyber Liberty]

@txradioguy
Insurance isn't a new idea.  Its been proposed for years by rabid gun control activists.   They know exactly what it will lead too.

In the short term it increases costs of ownership, reducing the number of people who have guns.
In the long term it greatly increases the costs of ownership and provides their 100% registration goal.

Once they have registration then they will start confiscation, either piece meal or in response to the right event, all firearms.

Perzackly, and the registration is why he's like a broken record on the need for insurance.  I don't think he gives a carp about the money part, I think he craves the back-door registration.  I'll go farther and suggest he knows it will mean eventual confiscation, that's how it's gone every time it's been tried.

[txradioguy]

@txradioguy
Insurance isn't a new idea.  Its been proposed for years by rabid gun control activists.   They know exactly what it will lead too.

In the short term it increases costs of ownership, reducing the number of people who have guns.
In the long term it greatly increases the costs of ownership and provides their 100% registration goal.

Once they have registration then they will start confiscation, either piece meal or in response to the right event, all firearms.

@driftdiver

Exactly.  While our side is distracted by bump stocks and age limits the Dems are prepping legislation to ban ALL semi auto weapons...not just the mythical "assault rifle" but guns like my 1911 or my Sig P320 as well.

Those of us that worry about things like that are called hysterical by those that are pushing openly for registration by another name.