2020 Democratic Field

[mtangelsfan]

16 minutes ago, tennischmp said:

Both... it makes zero sense to ban weapons from continuing to be manufactured/sold while letting the millions of those out there already to continue to be used/kept. 

Yeah, that will go over well.  Nothing like putting more people in jail.

[Tank]

1 hour ago, tdawg87 said:

Are we talking about banning weapons from continuing to be manufactured/sold or straight up confiscating them? Because those are two very different issues.

 My suggestion would be to put an end to the manufacture of certain kinds of weapons, like an AR15. And before any of you get all bent out of shape, yes, I know this leads into the ambiguous assault weapons flustercluck, so lets just set that aside for now.

anyone who currently has an AR15 gets grandfathered in, but the immediate sale and manufacture of these weapons comes to a screeching halt.

while owning a gun is a constitutional right, there’s nothing that guarantees what kind of guns. One can still exercise this right with a variety of other guns.

I would include ending the sale and manufacture of bump stocks and high capacity magazines as part of this.

i have no issue with voluntary buyback programs.

i disagree with Beto’s stance constitutionally though emotionally I wouldn’t be bothered if happened.

 

[Jason]

22 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

Yeah, that will go over well.  Nothing like putting more people in jail.

How many prisons will it take to hold 10,000,000 people? Bernie will find a way to fund them

[Jason]

15 minutes ago, Tank said:

 My suggestion would be to put an end to the manufacture of certain kinds of weapons, like an AR15. And before any of you get all bent out of shape, yes, I know this leads into the ambiguous assault weapons flustercluck, so lets just set that aside for now.

anyone who currently has an AR15 gets grandfathered in, but the immediate sale and manufacture of these weapons comes to a screeching halt.

while owning a gun is a constitutional right, there’s nothing that guarantees what kind of guns. One can still exercise this right with a variety of other guns.

I would include ending the sale and manufacture of bump stocks and high capacity magazines as part of this.

i have no issue with voluntary buyback programs.

i disagree with Beto’s stance constitutionally though emotionally I wouldn’t be bothered if happened.

 

If outlawing the sale of certain firearms is to decrease the gun homicides then ban handguns, not semi-auto rifles. 

[fan_since79]

Beto used to write stories about running over kids with his car. I don't think guns are his thing.

[mtangelsfan]

50 minutes ago, Jason said:

How many prisons will it take to hold 10,000,000 people? Bernie will find a way to fund them

On the heels of the totally successful war on drugs, we bring you the war on guns.

[yvangelfan]

I see stores are now requiring patrons to leave their guns outside of their stores.

Has anybody here ever seen someone with a gun (legally) in a store?

Our local jewelry store owner carries a gun in a holster, but I've never seen a patron.

[yvangelfan]

1 hour ago, Jason said:

If outlawing the sale of certain firearms is to decrease the gun homicides then ban handguns, not semi-auto rifles. 

Chicago doesn't count.

[yvangelfan]

1 hour ago, tennischmp said:

Both... it makes zero sense to ban weapons from continuing to be manufactured/sold while letting the millions of those out there already to continue to be used/kept. 

The government is not letting people keep their guns. The constitution is.

[floplag]

17 hours ago, UndertheHalo said:

What do you imagine the root causes are ? The world is what it is.  America isn’t the only place with mentally ill people.  America is a place where  acquiring fire arms capable of rapidly killing large numbers of people is quite easy.  It’s a very obvious and simple distinction.  You say that other countries haven’t had positive outcomes with more restrictive gun control.  Wrong.  Demonstrably false.  You know flop, I’ve argued with you in the past about restricting whether a clinically diagnosed mentally ill person should be barred from purchasing fire arms.  You vehemently argued that they should not.  So you’ll have to forgive me for not taking your vague “common sense” comment seriously. 

And so what if guns are specifically mentioned in the constitution.  The constitution was written by flawed men more then 200 years ago.  Its not some holy dictate from a supreme being. The world has changed.  What the 2nd amendment discusses is the right to bear arms for the purpose of raising a “well regulated” militia if necessary.  I think the contemporary view about what that means.  Basically a gun for personal comfort.  Is highly debatable.  The founders couldn’t have had any any concept about modern weaponry.  Moreover, you should look into what most of the founders actually thought of the masses.  I hate to break to you Flop, but not a lot of respect for “will” of the common man.  

And I think this exercise about replacing the word gun with another right is a pointless one.  Making unencumbered gun ownership a red line about basic freedoms is just such a ridiculous thing.  You don’t need a gun to have a fulfilling and meaningful life Flop. 

Here you go again,  whining about “the mob” and majority rule.  As opposed to what Flop ? Minority rule ? Conveniently the minority you agree with.  The reality is that gun owners and gun advocates are the ones that hold the minority position. There isn’t a super majority that supports a blanket ban of guns.  So what.  Very few people advocate that anyway.  What people have talked about banning are the semi automatic long guns.  And, there is widespread support for that.  And far more restrictive gun control laws.  Also, wide spread support.  Both things you’ve argued strongly against here in the past.  All you guys have is making this about basic liberty.  And aligning guns with that is an obscene distortion of what actual basic freedoms are.  There’s no intervention when someone snaps and shoots up a place.  It’s done.  No one is a killer until they are.  The instrument is what makes it possible.  

No, were not, but were the only one actively fostering hatred and anger to trigger them in an environment that has them, what did you think would happen when our own leaders starting turning us on each other?  And you as usual misinterpret my view... i never said a mentally ill person should be allowed access, i said they must be guilty of something to deny them, there is a huge difference in those statements.  

It doesnt matter when it was written, its still intact until such time as it is changed or amended.  Law is law, period.  And while were on that topic im pretty sure murder has been illegal all along so how exactly do more laws make that any different?  It isnt about "comfort"... that right there proves how ludicrous your view is... if i was comfortable i wouldnt want one at all.   Youre interpretation support your opinion, not the facts.  

No, it isnt pointless, your view on the subject is.  Rights are right, period.  If you can take away one on a whim the precedent has been set to take away any you dont like or want someone to have.  They are rights for a reason.  The quality of my life has zero  to do with it, and again just goes to show the arrogance to look down on and assume something is missing in peoples lives who see things differently than you do, thats a you problem, not mine.. im not trying to tell you what you need.

I oppose mob rule in ANY situation, it isnt partisan.  CA voted to ban gay marriage not long ago, that was rightly over turned, the mob was wrong.  They will be again.   whether or not you support the mob or not, the mob must be opposed.  Its the very principal we are founded on, the reason why we were never a simple majority voting nation.  

The instrument does not make anything possible, the person does.  Mozart wrote symphonies, not the instruments.  

I dont even know why im defending this considering i support common sense laws and national background checks, and pretty much every other legal idea to ensure that those who should not have them dont... but thats not good enough for you even though all the modifications and tricks being used are already illegal and there  is no such thing as an assault weapon legal in this country and you just keep parroting the party line.   

You want to ban them all, and punish the 99% that have ne er broken a law for the 1% that has... and also does 1090% nothing about criminal access in a times when you also want to tell me the police are corrupt and cant be trusted.  How can you not see the big picture here? i may not have always agreed with you but i never thought you stupid... how can you not put all this together its such a simple puzzle 

[yvangelfan]

Just in: my highly leftist sisters-in-law like Kamala Harris for Prez.

[yvangelfan]

9 minutes ago, floplag said:

No, were not, but were the only one actively fostering hatred and anger to trigger them in an environment that has them, what did you think would happen when our own leaders starting turning us on each other?  And you as usual misinterpret my view... i never said a mentally ill person should be allowed access, i said they must be guilty of something to deny them, there is a huge difference in those statements.  

It doesnt matter when it was written, its still intact until such time as it is changed or amended.  Law is law, period.  And while were on that topic im pretty sure murder has been illegal all along so how exactly do more laws make that any different?  It isnt about "comfort"... that right there proves how ludicrous your view is... if i was comfortable i wouldnt want one at all.   Youre interpretation support your opinion, not the facts.  

No, it isnt pointless, your view on the subject is.  Rights are right, period.  If you can take away one on a whim the precedent has been set to take away any you dont like or want someone to have.  They are rights for a reason.  The quality of my life has zero  to do with it, and again just goes to show the arrogance to look down on and assume something is missing in peoples lives who see things differently than you do, thats a you problem, not mine.. im not trying to tell you what you need.

I oppose mob rule in ANY situation, it isnt partisan.  CA voted to ban gay marriage not long ago, that was rightly over turned, the mob was wrong.  They will be again.   whether or not you support the mob or not, the mob must be opposed.  Its the very principal we are founded on, the reason why we were never a simple majority voting nation.  

The instrument does not make anything possible, the person does.  Mozart wrote symphonies, not the instruments.  

I dont even know why im defending this considering i support common sense laws and national background checks, and pretty much every other legal idea to ensure that those who should not have them dont... but thats not good enough for you even though all the modifications and tricks being used are already illegal and there  is no such thing as an assault weapon legal in this country and you just keep parroting the party line.   

You want to ban them all, and punish the 99% that have ne er broken a law for the 1% that has... and also does 1090% nothing about criminal access in a times when you also want to tell me the police are corrupt and cant be trusted.  How can you not see the big picture here? i may not have always agreed with you but i never thought you stupid... how can you not put all this together its such a simple puzzle 

I can't remember California voters voting to ban gay marriage, but I'll believe you.

[Spirit]

On 9/13/2019 at 1:50 PM, tdawg87 said:

When does this cycle back to Cars? @Geoff?

 

Dems don't give a shit about people who die on our highways and byways, so probably never.

Good question though.  I'm glad it's top of mind for you!

 

[Vegas Halo Fan]

3 hours ago, Tank said:

 while owning a gun is a constitutional right, there’s nothing that guarantees what kind of guns. One can still exercise this right with a variety of other guns.

This is a very important point. When the Second Amendment was written, the most sophisticated weapons around were flintlock rifles. The Founding Fathers did not intend for citizens to possess military grade weapons that were capable of mowing down a crowd of people within a few seconds.

[Jason]

41 minutes ago, Vegas Halo Fan said:

This is a very important point. When the Second Amendment was written, the most sophisticated weapons around were flintlock rifles. The Founding Fathers did not intend for citizens to possess military grade weapons that were capable of mowing down a crowd of people within a few seconds.

Citizens then had the exact same weapons that the militaries had then. That was the point of the amendment. Last I checked today, we are not allowed to have the same weapons as them. You tell me, what specific arms or weapons does it allow us to have?

[yvangelfan]

40 minutes ago, Vegas Halo Fan said:

This is a very important point. When the Second Amendment was written, the most sophisticated weapons around were flintlock rifles. The Founding Fathers did not intend for citizens to possess military grade weapons that were capable of mowing down a crowd of people within a few seconds.

  When the 2nd amendment was written ,  military and citizens used flintlock rifles.  There were no restrictions for citizens back then. There are now.

An AR15 is not a military grade weapon.

[yvangelfan]

[Jason]

4 minutes ago, calscuf said:

Muskets.

So do we base the rest of our freedoms to what existed at that time?

[Angelsjunky]

47 minutes ago, calscuf said:

I’m not going to provide an opinion.  

But imagine if the women of AW couldn’t vote and some others only counted as 3/5 of a person....

All two of them?

[tennischmp]

1 hour ago, Jason said:

Citizens then had the exact same weapons that the militaries had then. That was the point of the amendment. Last I checked today, we are not allowed to have the same weapons as them. You tell me, what specific arms or weapons does it allow us to have?

The precedent was set when machine guns were banned that the 2nd amendment just states that people have the right to bear arms, the government decides which those are. They can ban all guns and bring back the musket. 

[tdawg87]

14 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

All two of them?

There are two women here?

[tdawg87]

So...Tank and....? Patty? 

[Vegas Halo Fan]

6 hours ago, Jason said:

Citizens then had the exact same weapons that the militaries had then. That was the point of the amendment. 

The citizens were the military, and that was the point of the amendment - hence the language regarding a "well regulated militia". The amendment was written for a fledgling country with no military and facing unknown threats that could arrive by sea at any moment. They weren't talking about Bubba in his cabin in backwoods Tennessee with his weapons collection and 10,000 rounds of ammunition.

[mtangelsfan]

3 minutes ago, calscuf said:

MT, it’s curious why you would sad MJ a message not for you.  

Should I not be concerned about the feelings of a fellow AW member?

Because you sound sad, empathy.

[Tank]

6 hours ago, tdawg87 said:

So...Tank and....? Patty? 

Your mom didn’t think your post was very polite.