• Bonskreeskreeskree@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    1 year ago

    I support the 2nd. I also support single payer healthcare, including dental coverage and expanded mental Healthcare services. Then again, I dont support Republicans.

    • Spacehooks@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If dems got off the 2A stuff they would get more voters ::cough cough:: Texas. I know people that are like yeah abortion is not a deal breaker for me but guns are. Mostly people who are too old to have kids anyway. I’m sure Mass shooting will go down once we have social nets to get people the help they need. Guns are like Cars. Fine when used by responsible adults baaaad otherwise. No one does these things because they have happy content lives.

      • agitatedpotato@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Watching beto shoot himself in the foot with the gun grabbing line should have been a bigger indicator. Theres plenty of room for pro 2a dems and dems with complex views on the issue. Gun ownership is rising in both parties, dems faster than republicans. Dems cant pass laws even if they win, they can’t afford to do stupid no chance moves that cost them seats.

      • SupraMario@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        If Dems focused on what actually would curb the violence, and dropped guns. They’d sweep the elections for decades.

        • TechyDad@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          One problem was that the CDC was banned from studying the causes of gun violence from 1997 until 2018 due to the Dickey Amendment. We should have had big studies done to see just what the problems were (I’m sure it’s not just one) and what solutions might give the best results while infringing on people’s rights the least. Instead, even studying why gun violence was a problem was banned.

          Thankfully, the Dickey Amendment was clarified (but not repealed) and gun violence research is allowed. Still, the studies aren’t allowed to call for gun control so they are still hobbled. So while new proposals based on studies can be made, gun control won’t be one of them even if it would be effective.

          • Spacehooks@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Our leadership has time and time again daid it’s mental health, they know it. No research is needed. Just expand mental Healthcare before the Joker movie becomes a reality.

          • SupraMario@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            No they where not, they weren’t ever banned from studying gun violence. They just weren’t allowed to use it as a way to sway public opinion…which is what the, at the time, acting leadership of the CDC wanted to do.

        • JonEFive
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          That’s downright fantasy talk. Voters minds have been so poisoned that they don’t give a shit about policy anymore. Republican politicians haven’t had an actual platform for at least a decade.

          Their platform is only to stimie any progress and protect the rich. They may say lots of words but one need only look at the way they vote and yet are still consistently reelected.

          They say they’ll fix things but never do even when they control both houses and the presidency. That should have been a republican free for all in 2016, but nothing of value happened for those two years. No immigration reform. No healthcare reform. No gun reform. Oh, but they did pass a tax reform bill and guess who that helped.

          • oldbaldgrumpy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            You said voters minds have been poisoned … … then went on a they they they rant proving your point. You get that, right?

            • JonEFive
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              My rant illustrated my point, yes, but I don’t think it’s the gotcha that you seem to think it is.

              My point is that people are voting for politicians who are actively working against many of their constituents interests. And they’re tending to vote that way because they believe politicians’ words instead of observing their actions.

              If you care to refute any of my points, feel free.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      I support legal safe gun ownership, usage, and training. I believe the second amendment doesn’t apply anymore though. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…” This is not true anymore. It was written in a time where standing professional armies weren’t the norm by people who never expected the US to reach a state to have one.

      Gun ownership should be protected by the 9th amendment to an extent though, as abortion and all of our other traditionally held rights are.

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Very well could be true, which is part of why I don’t mind (and appreciate when done properly) gun ownership. That doesn’t change the fact that the wording of the second amendment is for something that isn’t true anymore. Again, your rights are (or should be at least) protected by the 9th, which is much more important but most people haven’t even heard of.

          The basis of the 2nd is just not true anymore. It’s like saying “physical currency, being necessary for the purchase of items, the right to possess coins shall not be infringed.” It doesn’t take into account the changes that may occur. We don’t need militias to protect the nation anymore, since we have a professional army, and we don’t need physical currency anymore, because most people don’t use it now anyway.

          • MonkeMischief@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Kinda funny actually, since we’re starting to see a movement that looks to effectively ban physical currency by making it a headache.

            Same motivation: surveillance and control.