What is the end game for the Democrats who want to ban some firearms?

[Hafnium1979]

when you see leftists who are dismissive of gun owners' rights and condescending towards anyone who supports gun rights, why would anyone think those people would not ultimately support a complete ban?

I see that everyone has completely missed the word "overcorrection" I've said time and again. Guess strategy isn't necessarily a strong suit. Oh well.

 

[Rucker61]

I see that everyone has completely missed the word "overcorrection" I've said time and again. Guess strategy isn't necessarily a strong suit. Oh well.

Your plan is to overturn, ban and confiscate until we "substantially deal with" gun violence to " stop the overwhelming number of mass shootings and gun homicides we currently enjoy in the USA".

How do you "overcorrect" further than that?

 

[Hafnium1979]

Your plan is to overturn, ban and confiscate until we "substantially deal with" gun violence to " stop the overwhelming number of mass shootings and gun homicides we currently enjoy in the USA".

How do you "overcorrect" further than that?

PERSONALLY I'd be OK with severe restrictions on your guns. BUT (here's the part where you are having the most trouble) I realize that is unlikely and am merely suggesting to you that simply screaming "My Rights!" won't hold much water if people DO get fed up. And unless you don't read anything in the papers, there are a LOT of Americans who are getting fed up with being a nation of murder.

My point is (despite the hyperbole) that it is up to YOU and the other gun supporters to meet this large number of Americans half-way. Support stricter gun laws without immediately screeching about your "rights". Because if history is ANY guide when people get fed up they DO tend to overreact and there is a strong chance you will lose MUCH MORE because of that.

I know, I know, I know you have "rights" and you clutch your pearls whenever anyone even discusses limiting your rights. But you would have to be blind not to see how divisive this topic can quickly become.

So I guess the biggest question is: how can you be so bad at political strategy?

 

[Rucker61]

PERSONALLY I'd be OK with severe restrictions on your guns. BUT (here's the part where you are having the most trouble) I realize that is unlikely and am merely suggesting to you that simply screaming "My Rights!" won't hold much water if people DO get fed up. And unless you don't read anything in the papers, there are a LOT of Americans who are getting fed up with being a nation of murder.

All those yelling for more gun control want similar results to what you've acknowledged - homicide rates and mass shooting rates equivalent to Europe. They'll keep voting to "overcorrect" until they don't feel afraid anymore.

My point is (despite the hyperbole) that it is up to YOU and the other gun supporters to meet this large number of Americans half-way.

Half-way isn't acceptable to them, so I don't know why you list it.

Support stricter gun laws without immediately screeching about your "rights". Because if history is ANY guide when people get fed up they DO tend to overreact and there is a strong chance you will lose MUCH MORE because of that.

What would we have to lose to get even close to Canada, who has higher homicide rates than Europe by far? What laws would be necessary to reduce our homicide rate by 90%? Assault weapons bans won't do it. Licensing won't do it. UBC's won't do it. Magazine capacity restrictions won't do it. They're going to have to overcorrect way passed every single gun control proposal in Biden's plan.

I know, I know, I know you have "rights" and you clutch your pearls whenever anyone even discusses limiting your rights. But you would have to be blind not to see how divisive this topic can quickly become.

So I guess the biggest question is: how can you be so bad at political strategy?

How can you be so bad at not understanding the enemy?

 

[Hafnium1979]

All those yelling for more gun control want similar results to what you've acknowledged - homicide rates and mass shooting rates equivalent to Europe. They'll keep voting to "overcorrect" until they don't feel afraid anymore.



Half-way isn't acceptable to them, so I don't know why you list it.

You will never be able to address threats to your view of your rights if you fail to appreciate the subtlety and nuance of the opposition. That isn't how realpolitick works.

How can you be so bad at not understanding the enemy?

Actually I DO understand you. Far better than you understand me. You take my hyperbole as the sole position I have. But I grew up with guns. I grew up in a hunting family in the Midwest. so I kinda know the attraction of guns and I know the utility of guns. But given that none of you are able to view the topic with any degree of subtlety I chose to provide you with a bete noir which you jumped on with all the gusto you have. And, of course, your primary defense was "It's my right!" and a whole bunch of special pleading to avoid discussing the problem as it is seen by those who don't appreciate your guns.

You are too easily played. You have no real political strategy other than screeching "My rights!"

Do you honestly not understand why people dislike guns? Honestly?

 

[Rucker61]

You will never be able to address threats to your view of your rights if you fail to appreciate the subtlety and nuance of the opposition. That isn't how realpolitick works.

The Democrats and gun control advocates aren't practicing realpolitik. They are operating solely on feelings. They create gun laws without even the simplest understanding of how they would work.

Actually I DO understand you. Far better than you understand me. You take my hyperbole as the sole position I have.

You aren't the enemy. You're not important enough, and you have but a single vote. The "enemy" is the collective enemy of the Bill of Rights - the masses of voters with no understanding of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the varied SCOTUS decisions, existing gun laws, and the various studies of how those laws work.

They just want results, and they don't care what has to happen to get there. "There" is gun death numbers equivalent to Europe/Japan/Australia.

But I grew up with guns. I grew up in a hunting family in the Midwest. so I kinda know the attraction of guns and I know the utility of guns. But given that none of you are able to view the topic with any degree of subtlety I chose to provide you with a bete noir which you jumped on with all the gusto you have. And, of course, your primary defense was "It's my right!" and a whole bunch of special pleading to avoid discussing the problem as it is seen by those who don't appreciate your guns.

This doesn't matter. The gun control advocates aren't interested in anything but what they want. Even a 90% reduction in gun homicides and mass shootings is. still. too. much. and will require more gun laws.

You are too easily played. You have no real political strategy other than screeching "My rights!"

I understand that no matter what we give up, it will never be enough.:

"Here, take this"
"It didn't work. We need more".
"Here, take this"
"It didn't work. We need more".
"Here, take this"
"It didn't work. We need more".
"Here, take this"
"It didn't work. We need more".
"Here, take this"
"It didn't work. We need more".
"Here, take this"
"It didn't work. We need more".

Do you honestly not understand why people dislike guns? Honestly?

No idea where this came from, but yes, I'm well aware of why people might not like guns.

I understand why some people might not like abortion or gay marriage, but that doesn't give them the right to infringe on my rights to address their feelings.

 

[Hafnium1979]

No idea where this came from,

Are you serious? "Where this came from"? It's literally the whole point!

but yes, I'm well aware of why people might not like guns.

You don't seem like you actually do. Most posters on here spend most of their time making special pleadings to somehow make the studies showing massive gun homicide rates AREN'T actually showing massive gun homicide rates. When someone tries to compare the US to literally ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE UNIVERSE the response is always more "special pleading". America is special so we cannot learn anything from comparing our performance to other humans.

In all reality I know an overall ban will NEVER work in America but SOMETHING has to give. The fact that you can't even understand simple concepts like where this whole complaint comes from just makes your responses nothing more than unrealistic bleating about your "riiiiiights" as if someone couldn't possibly moderate them on you.

But as you already know those rights have already been limited. So why would you assume the best defense is merely to restate you have "rights" as if that's a law of nature?

 

[Rucker61]

Are you serious? "Where this came from"? It's literally the whole point!

No, it really isn't.

You don't seem like you actually do. Most posters on here spend most of their time making special pleadings to somehow make the studies showing massive gun homicide rates AREN'T actually showing massive gun homicide rates. When someone tries to compare the US to literally ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE UNIVERSE the response is always more "special pleading". America is special so we cannot learn anything from comparing our performance to other humans.

yes, the homicide rate is higher than in Europe, Canada, Japan, etc. Based on the input of the leading gun control advocates like Biden and Moms Demand Action, the goal is "end gun violence". Period. That's unequivocal.

In all reality I know an overall ban will NEVER work in America but SOMETHING has to give.

We'll never get to where the gun control advocates want us to be, then, from a statistical viewpoint. They will always want more. They want no gun homicides, no school shootings and no mass shootings. We could pass everything on Biden's list and see virtually no improvement. Even a 90% improvement in the homicide rate, mass shooting rate and school shooting numbers still won't be enough for the Democrats.

The fact that you can't even understand simple concepts like where this whole complaint comes from just makes your responses nothing more than unrealistic bleating about your "riiiiiights" as if someone couldn't possibly moderate them on you.

They hate guns. That doesn't mean that they can impose whatever laws they wish to impose, because that hate will never go away regardless of what laws are allowed.

But as you already know those rights have already been limited. So why would you assume the best defense is merely to restate you have "rights" as if that's a law of nature?

I really don't understand why you think that previous restriction imply that we should accept and and all future restrictions. You might as well shred the Bill of Rights and allow government to do whatever it wants to.

 

[jaeger19]

How about 20 years?

You could say 2000 years.. and I would not bet against myself.
Whats your point?

That because I and others actively work to prevent gun bans...
We should put money on a gun ban being put in place?
In direct opposition to our goal?

Please explain your rationale.

 

[American]

Probably the same "end game"' as any Conservative or Independent who may "want to ban some firearms.". Less deaths.

Please the list the conservatives who want to ban guns.

 

[Hafnium1979]

I really don't understand why you think that previous restriction imply that we should accept and and all future restrictions. You might as well shred the Bill of Rights and allow government to do whatever it wants to.

Couple points:

1. Previous restrictions show that MORE restrictions are possible. That is a fact.

2. Comparing the Second Amendment to something like "free speech" or "freedom of religion" is unwarranted since, last I heard, no one went into a nightclub practicing their free speech resulting in dozens of people dead and bleeding on the floor. Nor would it be fair to say anyone has ever practiced their freedom of religion winding up with 20 little kids in coffins.

The Second Amendment is a very special and (as you no doubt know already) contentious point in American politics. To deny that it has been contentious for a long time is to hide your head in the sand. Right now the courts have given you sufficient lea way but that can change.

Now I know you're going to be tempted to start going on about "cancel culture" and its threat to freedom of speech (it isn't, based on how that particular right is already circumscribed in the Constitution) so I'm hopeful you won't make that flawed comparison. I bet a lot of gun owners would pitch a ginormous fit if a Muslim actually became President despite it being PERFECTLY constitutional.

No, the Second Amendment is special in this case. I totally agree with the gun advocates who say that getting America to the same point as say the UK is going to be made nearly impossible by the way we've wound up interpreting the Second Amendment so I actually agree America is in a "special position". But it isn't an uncontrolled variable. It is something we KNOW the root cause of and we KNOW what will result in a fix. We won't go that far but we know how to make this all work.

At the end of the day no one actually thinks gun violence will EVER be at "zero", nor mass murders. But you have to admit there's a huge gulf between where we are now and where normal, rational functional free societies elsewhere on earth are at.

Maybe if we could work our way TOWARD that it will be sufficient.

 

[CaughtInThe]

You could say 2000 years.. and I would not bet against myself.
Whats your point?

That because I and others actively work to prevent gun bans...
We should put money on a gun ban being put in place?
In direct opposition to our goal?

Please explain your rationale.

How about we do the bet that I proposed for 22 years? Are you in?

 

[Rucker61]

Couple points:

1. Previous restrictions show that MORE restrictions are possible. That is a fact.

No previous restrictions would show the same thing, in that there was a first restriction. This "fact" is worthless to the discussion.

2. Comparing the Second Amendment to something like "free speech" or "freedom of religion" is unwarranted since, last I heard, no one went into a nightclub practicing their free speech resulting in dozens of people dead and bleeding on the floor. Nor would it be fair to say anyone has ever practiced their freedom of religion winding up with 20 little kids in coffins.

The Second Amendment doesn't defend criminals uses of firearms. What a worthless point to make.

The Fourth Amendment is protecting pedophiles and drug dealers.

The Second Amendment is a very special and (as you no doubt know already) contentious point in American politics. To deny that it has been contentious for a long time is to hide your head in the sand. Right now the courts have given you sufficient lea way but that can change.

Yes, it can change. When it does, come back to us.

Now I know you're going to be tempted to start going on about "cancel culture" and its threat to freedom of speech (it isn't, based on how that particular right is already circumscribed in the Constitution) so I'm hopeful you won't make that flawed comparison. I bet a lot of gun owners would pitch a ginormous fit if a Muslim actually became President despite it being PERFECTLY constitutional.

I'm sure lots of non-gun owners would, too. I don't know why you're bringing this up in this thread.

No, the Second Amendment is special in this case. I totally agree with the gun advocates who say that getting America to the same point as say the UK is going to be made nearly impossible

Yet it's the only acceptable outcome to GCAs. They will keep proposing new gun laws ad infinitum until they're happy. Happy for the leadership means getting elected the reelected. Happy for the GCA voters is not being afraid. Those goals will never be reached without confiscation. If our strategy is to not fight back and allow them to pass laws until they're happy, then we might as well fight now rather than then.

by the way we've wound up interpreting the Second Amendment so I actually agree America is in a "special position". But it isn't an uncontrolled variable. It is something we KNOW the root cause of and we KNOW what will result in a fix. We won't go that far but we know how to make this all work.

So we can't fix the root cause but we will "make it work"? No amount of gun laws sans confiscation will reduce the gun violence rate to the level where the GCAs are happy enough not to want more gun laws. Even to get to Canada's gun homicide rate, and it's significantly higher than Europe's, Japan's or Australia, would require reducing gun homicides by 90%. None of the countries metioned here saw a 90% gun homicide rate decrease since 1980, even with lots more laws and gun confiscation.

At the end of the day no one actually thinks gun violence will EVER be at "zero", nor mass murders. But you have to admit there's a huge gulf between where we are now and where normal, rational functional free societies elsewhere on earth are at.

True. What the homicide rate or number of school shootings that we can achieve that will stop the GCAs from imposing more gun laws?

Maybe if we could work our way TOWARD that it will be sufficient.

It will never be "sufficient". The GCAs will always want more. Ask Shannon Watts how many school shootings should be allowed to happen if she could get every gun law she wanted passed.

 

[Hafnium1979]

No previous restrictions would show the same thing, in that there was a first restriction. This "fact" is worthless to the discussion.

The Second Amendment doesn't defend criminals uses of firearms. What a worthless point to make.

The Fourth Amendment is protecting pedophiles and drug dealers.



Yes, it can change. When it does, come back to us.


I'm sure lots of non-gun owners would, too. I don't know why you're bringing this up in this thread.



Yet it's the only acceptable outcome to GCAs. They will keep proposing new gun laws ad infinitum until they're happy. Happy for the leadership means getting elected the reelected. Happy for the GCA voters is not being afraid. Those goals will never be reached without confiscation. If our strategy is to not fight back and allow them to pass laws until they're happy, then we might as well fight now rather than then.



So we can't fix the root cause but we will "make it work"? No amount of gun laws sans confiscation will reduce the gun violence rate to the level where the GCAs are happy enough not to want more gun laws. Even to get to Canada's gun homicide rate, and it's significantly higher than Europe's, Japan's or Australia, would require reducing gun homicides by 90%. None of the countries metioned here saw a 90% gun homicide rate decrease since 1980, even with lots more laws and gun confiscation.




True. What the homicide rate or number of school shootings that we can achieve that will stop the GCAs from imposing more gun laws?


It will never be "sufficient". The GCAs will always want more. Ask Shannon Watts how many school shootings should be allowed to happen if she could get every gun law she wanted passed.

Good luck with this approach. If you screech "Rights" a bit louder I'm sure everything will be alright.

 

[Rucker61]

Good luck with this approach. If you screech "Rights" a bit louder I'm sure everything will be alright.

It's likely to have better results than repeated capitulation until the GCAs are happy.

 

[jaeger19]

PERSONALLY I'd be OK with severe restrictions on your guns. BUT (here's the part where you are having the most trouble) I realize that is unlikely and am merely suggesting to you that simply screaming "My Rights!" won't hold much water if people DO get fed up. And unless you don't read anything in the papers, there are a LOT of Americans who are getting fed up with being a nation of murder.

My point is (despite the hyperbole) that it is up to YOU and the other gun supporters to meet this large number of Americans half-way. Support stricter gun laws without immediately screeching about your "rights". Because if history is ANY guide when people get fed up they DO tend to overreact and there is a strong chance you will lose MUCH MORE because of that.

I know, I know, I know you have "rights" and you clutch your pearls whenever anyone even discusses limiting your rights. But you would have to be blind not to see how divisive this topic can quickly become.

So I guess the biggest question is: how can you be so bad at political strategy?

Hmm.. please detail exactly how gun owners and the gun lobby have been so bad at political strategy.

this is interesting... You say we should accept, the stricter gun regulations... THAT WE HAVE FOUGHT AGAINST AND WON...
for some perceived benefit.. of not having "even stricter gun regulations" put on later?

Hmm.. so would you expect that african americans in the US.. should support stricter voting restrictions so that later "they don;t have even stricter regulations".. put on them.

It doesn;t seem like your idea is very well thought out. But please explain why the gun lobby and gun owners political strategy has been so poor in since say the assault weapons ban and its being allowed to expire.

 

[jaeger19]

How about we do the bet that I proposed for 22 years? Are you in?

How about you explain your rationale.. rather than keep shooting your mouth off. ?

Oh wait.. you don;t have a logical rationale.

 

[CaughtInThe]

How about you explain your rationale.. rather than keep shooting your mouth off. ?

Oh wait.. you don;t have a logical rationale.

I've already explained the bet. I'm now willing to go 25 years. Are you in?

 

[Hafnium1979]

Hmm.. please detail exactly how gun owners and the gun lobby have been so bad at political strategy.

By acting like the problems don't exist or are unrelated to guns ("I'm not a bad guy! My guns are good!") and then repeating the mantra that "My rights are in the Constitution!" while a large number of Americans get more and more wigged out by the fact that the US has the highest per capita gun homicide rate of any developed first world country on earth.

Strategy would require you to do something OTHER than trying to ignore and deflect the problem.

It doesn;t seem like your idea is very well thought out.

You can denigrate my position as much as you like. But if you think for one moment there isn't going to be a day of reckoning in regards to "gun rights" in this country you are not thinking ahead.

Do you ever read the papers or watch the news?

But please explain why the gun lobby and gun owners political strategy has been so poor in since say the assault weapons ban and its being allowed to expire.

The GUN LOBBY has done an excellent job of playing you gun owners for fools for many years. Every time a Dem gets elected you guys slavishly (as if on strings) run out and stock up on guns and ammo. It's hilarious. Of course nothing has happened and that is in no small part due to the massive amounts of money the NRA and the gun lobby have lavished on law makers. Now that Wayne La Pierre is under investigation for tax fraud and the NRA is facing a serious crisis there's a possibility that lobby fund will dry up.

So what happens then? When politicians don't face NRA lobby money taking them out in the next election those of us who want more strict gun controls MIGHT get a hearing and taken seriously.

THAT is political strategy. The NRA has done quite well by you (as well as playing you) but its existence is integral into the current status quo. If that block falls out it changes the landscape.

Enjoy!

 

[Rucker61]

So what happens then? When politicians don't face NRA lobby money taking them out in the next election those of us who want more strict gun controls MIGHT get a hearing and taken seriously.

The NRA doesn't even make the top 100 of donors. Anti-gun financial supporter Bloomberg is #2.

Top Organization Contributors

Bloomberg LP topped the list of donors in theAll cyclescycle, with $451,922,699 in total contributions. See the rest of the top 100 contributors.

www.opensecrets.org

 

[jaeger19]

I've already explained the bet. I'm now willing to go 25 years. Are you in?

No you didn;t.
Why would I bet against myself. Please explain.
Please explain what you think this bet is supposed to prove?

 

[CaughtInThe]

No you didn;t.
Why would I bet against myself. Please explain.
Please explain what you think this bet is supposed to prove?

Of course I did. I laid out exactly what we would bet. It's not my fault you didn't read it.

Now go read it and tell me if you're ready to bet.

 

[Hafnium1979]

The NRA doesn't even make the top 100 of donors. Anti-gun financial supporter Bloomberg is #2.

Top Organization Contributors

Bloomberg LP topped the list of donors in theAll cyclescycle, with $451,922,699 in total contributions. See the rest of the top 100 contributors.

www.opensecrets.org

So now the NRA doesn't matter to politicians? Interesting.

This is interesting. Because, as per usual, the actual world has a very different view of the NRA's impact. (Go ahead, google it)

But I understand after speaking with you fine folks that reality isn't all it's cracked up to be. Words have no meaning. Special Pleading rules the day.

 

[Rucker61]

So now the NRA doesn't matter to politicians? Interesting.

This is interesting. Because, as per usual, the actual world has a very different view of the NRA's impact. (Go ahead, google it)

But I understand after speaking with you fine folks that reality isn't all it's cracked up to be. Words have no meaning. Special Pleading rules the day.

Red voters vote for Republicans. This isn't news.

 

[jaeger19]

By acting like the problems don't exist or are unrelated to guns ("I'm not a bad guy! My guns are good!") and then repeating the mantra that "My rights are in the Constitution!" while a large number of Americans get more and more wigged out by the fact that the US has the highest per capita gun homicide rate of any developed first world country on earth.

Well.. one guns aren't the problem and thus certainly gun laws are not the answer to those problems. But you explain. In Sandyhook.. a man with a history of mental health problems.. KILLS HIS MOTHER AND STEALS HER GUNS.. and the answer from anti gun people? WE NEED BACKGROUND CHECKS!!
He killed her. and stole her firearms.. and you think background checks are the answer?
And has been explained.. highest per capita gun homicide rate is an invalid statistic. Syria has a lower gun death rate. Do you claim its safer to live in Syria. I doubt it. Which proves that its a meaningless statistic.

Look.. the reality is.. only you anti gunners really believe your ideology. Rational people don't go.."gee.. a man willing to kill his mother and then go shoot children is going to be deterred by a sign saying "gun free zone"... but you do.
Rational people don't think criminals are going to line up to register their firearms.. but you do.

You can denigrate my position as much as you like. But if you think for one moment there isn't going to be a day of reckoning in regards to "gun rights" in this country you are not thinking ahead.

Do you ever read the papers or watch the news?

Well.. I have seen this reckoning before. I was alive during the 1994 weapons ban. And you know effective that was on crime? Studies showed that it had no statistically significant effect. Which is why it was allowed to expire. AND here is the thing. IT cost you democrats HUGE politically.
HUGE.
So.. the reality is that you pushing gun control? Is the quickest way to get Biden out of office and see a republican controlled Congress and presidency.
Its the democrats kryptonite. Its the third rail of politics for you.. and you just can't help grabbing it. Do you bother to read the papers or news?
Do you see how HARD Biden is trying to avoid the gun issue.? He knows its a death knell. Kiss his reelection goodbye if gun control gets enacted.

By by. and for what? It sure is heck isn;t going to do a thing about violence or make anyone safer. Cripes..many of the places where the "gun violence".. is worst? Is in areas.. like Chicago.. that have the toughest gun laws.

The GUN LOBBY has done an excellent job of playing you gun owners for fools for many years. Every time a Dem gets elected you guys slavishly (as if on strings) run out and stock up on guns and ammo. It's hilarious. Of course nothing has happened and that is in no small part due to the massive amounts of money the NRA and the gun lobby have lavished on law makers. Now that Wayne La Pierre is under investigation for tax fraud and the NRA is facing a serious crisis there's a possibility that lobby fund will dry up.

So what happens then? When politicians don't face NRA lobby money taking them out in the next election those of us who want more strict gun controls MIGHT get a hearing and taken seriously.

THAT is political strategy. The NRA has done quite well by you (as well as playing you) but its existence is integral into the current status quo. If that block falls out it changes the landscape.

Hmmm.. did you even bother to think about what you wrote.?
You say the gun lobby has played us.. by making us think that democrats are going to enact stricter gun controls (so we stock up)..
YET you are also saying tha?t there is going to be a giant gun control reckoning? And who do you think is going to enact that gun control? Republicans or democrats.
You don't seem to have enough sense to understand that you have been ADMITTING.. that you and other liberals (democrats)..want to enact gun control.. and in fact you admitted you would enact much stricter gun control.
Do you realize that you just proved the NRA correct?

Second.. you just admitted that the REASON.. that there hasn't been gun control.. is NOT because democrats don't want to enact stricter gun control..
but its BECAUSE OF THE LOBBYING EFFORTS OF THE NRA!.
Basically you just proved that the NRA is NOT playing us.. and that its BENEFITTING US.

I am not sure you understand how debate works.. but generally.. when debating.. you should try to avoid killing your own argument.

Now cue the critiques of punctuation and grammar.