If the Democrats want to win seats next election...

[Carnal_Flower]

Nothing but b.s.

Being pro-gun safety does not equal being "anti-gun."

There's nothing in the D Platform about being anti-2A, is there? No.

You're repeating conservative attacks that mis-represent the actual D stance.

Democratic Party platform. Of course, there's no sense in any of it, and no pro-gun voices left in the Democratic leadership.

It's part of the reason why the Democrats lose in states like PA, MI, WI, and now MN.

If you care about winning elections, don't demonize the people who have supported you for generations (gun-owning working class).

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Tell that to the OP

They don't give a fuck about gun safety, they want prohibition.

Well no they don't run AS "anti-2nd Amendment"....they all say they TOTALLY support 2A.

But when asked want to ban guns, gun accessories, limit access and otherwise infringe the fuck out of the 2nd Amendment because super good reasons!!!

Making them anti-2A....

No matter how much they say they aren't, as long as they support legislation that infringes on 2A, they aren't pro-2A.

Just like people who say they support free speech, but want to ban/censor all sorts of speech....aren't actually pro-free speech.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Nothing but b.s.

Being pro-gun safety does not equal being "anti-gun."

Access restriction ideas from flat out bans to unaffordable taxation =/= gun safety...it's prohibition, which is anti-2A.

There's nothing in the D Platform about being anti-2A, is there? No.

Well they don't put it out there on the official platform.

Just like (R)'s official Platform doesn't say anything about keeping black people from voting.

So no (R)'s are racist right??

You're repeating conservative attacks that mis-represent the actual D stance.

So (D)'s don't want to ban Semi-Automatic weapons?

(D)'s don't support "Assault Weapons Ban's" ??

(D)'s never supported ammo restrictions/tax bans???

(D)'s never supported handgun bans????

(D)'s never supported magazine size limits?

(D)'s don't support the extra controls we have on machine guns, tanks, jet fighters and other destructive devices??

REALLY??? What Democratic party are you talking about???

 

[Carnal_Flower]

I don't recall Semi-Automatic and Handgun Bans being a prominent part of any D platform or candidate.

Otherwise, it's just gun safety, not running on being "anti-gun" or "anti-2A"

Once again, the only person who's threatened to take guns away without due process is the Orange Dotard.

So (D)'s don't want to ban Semi-Automatic weapons?

(D)'s don't support "Assault Weapons Ban's" ??

(D)'s never supported ammo restrictions/tax bans???

(D)'s never supported handgun bans????

(D)'s never supported magazine size limits?

(D)'s don't support the extra controls we have on machine guns, tanks, jet fighters and other destructive devices??

REALLY??? What Democratic party are you talking about???

 

[Hypoxia]

Once again, the only person who's threatened to take guns away without due process is the Orange Dotard.

His call to ignore due process may fit into articles of impeachment.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I don't recall Semi-Automatic and Handgun Bans being a prominent part of any D platform or candidate.

They don't have to be a prominent part....they just have to support policy that infringes on the right to keep and bear arms.

Otherwise, it's just gun safety, not running on being "anti-gun" or "anti-2A"

Prohibition and support of DIRECT infringement on 2A through various means of prohibitions =/= gun safety.

Running on bans and promises to support legislation that directly infringes on 2A rights is running on being anti-gun and anti-2A...even if they say they aren't against 2A.

Once again, the only person who's threatened to take guns away without due process is the Orange Dotard.

Due process wasn't the goalpost, being anti-2A was.

Don't let that stop you from running about with it though.

 

[cowslinger64]

Access restriction ideas from flat out bans to unaffordable taxation =/= gun safety...it's prohibition, which is anti-2A.

You only support the 2nd amendment because you believe it suits your narrative.. as well as the Heller case. Heller was a 5 -4 decision right down party lines.. Having a court stocked with conservatives made it so.

However..


Snip


The Supreme Court in 2008 made it clear that the right to “keep” a gun is a personal right, and that it means one has a right to keep a functioning firearm for self-defense within the home. But it has refused repeatedly since then to take on the question of whether that right exists also outside the home. If there is a separate right to “bear” a gun (and the Court, in fact, did say in 2008 that the two rights were separate), it has not said what that means.

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog...es-it-mean-that-there-is-a-right-to-bear-guns



Saying that any discussion and/or change about the second amendment makes you anti amendment is just stupid. Which is no surprise.

The left isn't about getting rid of all guns. Your constant repeating that the left is, doesn't make it true.. nor that the ACA is a failure. You can say all the stupid shit you want as much as you want, and you will still be wrong. Over and over and over.


Dumbass

 

[BotanyBoy]

You only support the 2nd amendment because you believe it suits your narrative.

I believe it suits my narrative? Nice attempt to sound smart there cheese dick.

LOL, I've always supported 2A rights...but don't let that stop you from making things up.

Saying that any discussion and/or change about the second amendment makes you anti amendment is just stupid. Which is no surprise.

I didn't say that....learn to read.

The left isn't about getting rid of all guns. Your constant repeating that the left is, doesn't make it true..

I never said that in the first place.

I said that supporting legislation to infringe on 2A rights makes you anti-2A...because DUH.

nor that the ACA is a failure.

I didn't say that either, I said it was a rip off and a regressive tax against the working/middle class/small bidnizz owners....because it is.

And in that respect your beloved RomneyCare is working great....exactly as Republicans planned.

You can say all the stupid shit you want as much as you want, and you will still be wrong. Over and over and over.


Dumbass

No amount of your ascriptions will make those things mine.

I've met beagles that can read better than you, un-fuck yourself.

 

[cowslinger64]

I believe it suits my narrative? Nice attempt to sound smart there cheese dick.

LOL, I've always supported 2A rights...but don't let that stop you from making things up.



I didn't say that....learn to read.



I never said that in the first place.

I said that supporting legislation to infringe on 2A rights makes you anti-2A...because DUH.



I didn't say that either, I said it was a rip off and a regressive tax against the working/middle class/small bidnizz owners....because it is.

And in that respect your beloved RomneyCare is working great....exactly as Republicans planned.



No amount of your ascriptions will make those things mine.

I've met beagles that can read better than you, un-fuck yourself.

Go fuck yourself, fat ass. Your astounding stupidity is unbelievable. I've honestly never been engaged with someone so motherfucking idiotic as you.


Jeezus.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Go fuck yourself, fat ass. Your astounding stupidity is unbelievable. I've honestly never been engaged with someone so motherfucking idiotic as you.


Jeezus.

Ohhhhhhhh NAME CALLING!!! That makes you right AND the winner of the internet!!


Your rhetoric and debate skills are MOST impressive.

https://media.giphy.com/media/EysAMIOt4GOmk/giphy-downsized-large.gif

I bet they are legendary in Detroit!!!
https://media.giphy.com/media/wHYE325vXXcn6/200.gif

 

[Antryg_Windrose]

Your astounding stupidity is unbelievable. I've honestly never been engaged with someone so motherfucking idiotic as you.

You haven't met my brother-in-law yet.

 

[richard_daily]

According to Pew, over 90% of gun owners cite "protection" as their reason for owning a gun. So, yeah, terrified. And a large part of Trump's win was down to fear. That's why his campaign hammered the scary brown men message so hard.

Odd, because many of the gun owners I know are people of color.

So since they don't fit into your narrative, they don't have a place in the Democratic Party either.

That's your choice, and the choice of people that think like you.

 

[richard_daily]

Being pro-gun safety is not the same thing as "running as" an anti-gun candidate.

None of these people have run for office as "anti-2nd Amendment."

No D has.

Bullshit.

Name a single pro-gun democrat in party leadership.

There are none.

They are all anti-gun, and that's the reason why the Democrats lost in 2016.

You want to keep trying the same failed policies, be my guest.

 

[richard_daily]

Well they don't put it out there on the official platform.

They actually do:

• Repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which would make gun makers liable for the crimes criminals commit while using their firearms.
• Ban standard capacity magazines.
• Pass “No Fly, No Buy” legislation that strips people who are on a secret government list of their rights.
• Increase funding for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives so it’s easier for it to punish gun dealers who don’t comply with their new regulations.

That's from 2016.


Are there any calls from the Democratic platform to defend gun rights?

No.

Is there an "honest discussion" going on from the Democratic leadership on guns?

No.

Are any of the proposals coming from Democratic leadership "common sense" or will they solve any problems they proport to?

No.

 

[BotanyBoy]

They are all anti-gun, and that's the reason why the Democrats lost in 2016.

Not THE...but one facet or aspect of .

Their major loss with the white middle class Obama voters this round they were counting on being in the bank then ruh-roh!!! they weren't there..... wasn't just because HRC was anti-2A.

There were several factors leading to that and at this point in the 2016 race for the WH autopsy everyone knows it, even HRC.

 

[BotanyBoy]

They actually do:

.

I stand corrected.

 

[richard_daily]

Not THE...but one facet or aspect of .

Their major loss with the white middle class Obama voters this round they were counting on being in the bank then ruh-roh!!! they weren't there..... wasn't just because HRC was anti-2A.

There were several factors leading to that and at this point in the 2016 race for the WH autopsy everyone knows it, even HRC.

I'd say it was the single most important and vastly under-examined issue.

CNN recently reported that the NRA got 3 times the donations that they normally do after parkland happened, and they couldn't figure out if it was due to NRA outreach, or lobbying....

Couldn't have anything to do with the fact that the people who make up the members of the NRA saw the assault on gun-rigths coming down the pipe, could it be?

I don't like the NRA for personal/political reasons, but I don't pretend that they're some kind of demonspawn either.

The majority of the media doesn't understand gun rights and gun ownership, and has no interest in examining their ignorance on the subject.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I'd say it was the single most important and vastly under-examined issue.

I think you give it too much credit.

The same issue didn't scare them off Obama and he has every bit the anti-2A history HRC has if not more so.

Obama had the support of the white middle class...HRC counted on that support and wound up not having it and it cost her the election.

She didn't loose the white middle class that already cares little to nothing about 2A rights because she didn't support 2A rights.

Her being exposed as colluding with Debbie to undermine Sanders really hurt her image, it made her look dirty AF, a problem she already had.

It made her look like a DINO republican to all the lefty (D)'s, THEN she hopped on the social justice "White guys are horrible!!!" bandwagon to try and make up for it....WAY over correcting and totally loosing control. The left no longer trusted her and now the middle class white people hated her.

Only DNC partisan loyalist went and voted for her...she alienated everyone else.

That's how she lost to a guy pretty much anyone else in the DNC could have beat by just sitting there letting Trump run his yap.

 

[Hypoxia]

I don't like the NRA for personal/political reasons, but I don't pretend that they're some kind of demonspawn either.

Those attacking victims and survivors are the lowest fecal scum.

Name a single pro-gun democrat in party leadership.

You might empathize with Sen. Feinstein, who as rotating chair of the SF Supes had to announce the gunshot murders of her colleagues... by another colleague.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Those attacking victims and survivors are the lowest fecal scum.

You might empathize with Sen. Feinstein, who as rotating chair of the SF Supes had to announce the gunshot murders of her colleagues... by another colleague.

That was a former colleague - Dan White. And there was only one colleague - Harvey Milk. Mayor George Moscone was also murdered, by a former cop and member of the Board of Supes.

 

[Hypoxia]

That was a former colleague - Dan White. And there was only one colleague - Harvey Milk. Mayor George Moscone was also murdered, by a former cop and member of the Board of Supes.

Dan White escaped conviction with his notorious Twinkie Defense but had the grace to eat his revolver later. And you needn't parse 'colleague' too closely. These were all elected officials in SF City Hall and thus colleagues. White had recently resigned from the Board and was still "one of them" to staff.

My point is that only the fickle trigger-finger of fate and timing took Diane Feinstein from being just another Supe, to the mayoralty, to the US Senate. She is quite aware of the repercussions of firearms. I suspect anti-regulation activists haven't faced such effects.

 

[richard_daily]

Those attacking victims and survivors are the lowest fecal scum.

So being a victim or a survivor make you infallible and all of your opinions sound?

I disagree fully.

There is a respectful way to disagree with victims of a crime, especially when they don't seem to be interested in holding the person responsible for the crime accountable.

I have seen members of the NRA engage in disrespectful methods, just as I have seen anti-gun people engage in disrespectful methods, and the opposite is also true.

 

[Hypoxia]

So being a victim or a survivor make you infallible and all of your opinions sound?

Look at the scum who attack victims and survivors and ask yourself if you want to be associated with them.

Perhaps youdl feel differently if your own friends and family were shot.

 

[richard_daily]

Look at the scum who attack victims and survivors and ask yourself if you want to be associated with them.

Perhaps youdl feel differently if your own friends and family were shot.

Who are we talking about? Killer Mike? I think he's right. Some Faux news anchor? Of course they're off their rocker.

I don't want to be associated with overly-emotional assholes, be that a Faux news anchor or a rabid anti-gunner.

And I've had friends and family shot.

Would you allow me my opinion now?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Look at the scum who attack victims and survivors and ask yourself if you want to be associated with them.

Perhaps youdl feel differently if your own friends and family were shot.

Ohhhh major deflection with an appeal to emotion fallacy....typical dishonest and always degenerate Hypoxia.

Who are we talking about? Killer Mike? I think he's right. Some Faux news anchor? Of course they're off their rocker.

I don't want to be associated with overly-emotional assholes, be that a Faux news anchor or a rabid anti-gunner.

And I've had friends and family shot.

Would you allow me my opinion now?

Nah...control freaks aren't big on that any more than they are on allowing you your civil rights.

Especially the "progressive" ones like Hypoxia.

EVERYTHING must be degraded down to the lowest common denominator in the name of equality.