Yep, though the gun manufacturers, via the NRA, probably drive that one. They LOVE it when a Democrat is in office because they can say that and watch gun sales rise.
I’m convinced they also love shootings, or at least did, for similar reasons - I’m sure, for a while, gun owners worried this latest shooting might be the one that generates new restrictions on gun purchases, so out they went to buy. At this point I don’t think they have anything to worry about; we as a country seem to have decided mass shootings are Just Great, so that little fear probably doesn’t work as well any more.
Let’s never forget the NRA’s solution to school shootings, after Newtown, was literally, “More guns in schools.”
Obama didn’t increase firearm restrictions, but Trump did with the bump stock ban. Which, incidentally, is due to be overturned by the Supreme Court this year.
It wasn’t for lack of trying though, because Obama did call for and back legislation to ban certain scary guns. Their attempts at the taking of guns simply failed the standard legislative process. Many of you probably weren’t of voting age at the time, but this process of attempting to take the guns actually did happen during the Obama presidency.
I was of voting age in 2008. Banning or heavily regulating certain types of guns is not the same as sending the national guard into every home in the US to search for and confiscate them, which is exactly what conservatives have been saying will happen for at least a decade now. Iirc trump banned some kind of bump-stock-adjacent device, but I don’t recall any gangs of roving feds going door to door to round up all the ones that have already been purchased.
Let me make sure I’ve got what you’re saying correct:
Banning or heavily regulating guns that people already legally own, guns that have been widely considered a constitutional right for >75 years, is not the same as “taking your guns”, is that correct? Would it be fair to say that they only thing you would consider to be “taking your guns” would be house-to-house confiscation of all firearms in private hands?
In re: bump stocks - it turns out that a lot of people that purchased them (and forced reset triggers, which are a similar concept) got letters from the ATF telling them that they had to turn them in or destroy them. Because, see, the ATF could just force the companies that sold them to disclose customer records, which means yeah, they could come to your door and take it. Unless you paid cash at a gun store, there’s an electronic trail, and the ATF followed it for a whoooooooole lot of people. Continuing to keep one that you purchased legally at the time? That’s a felony, because the ATF has re-classified them as machine guns, which means you can’t own one since they were produced post-ban, and there’s no way to make it legal. (Currently, there’s an appeals court that has ruled the ban illegal, but we’ll have to see how that plays out.)
If you genuinely and unironically thought bump stocks and pistol-ARs weren’t going to have a reckoning, you are the perfect example of why we need to start taking guns away from conservatives.
Every good old boy knows a fascist making ghost guns in their garage.
Quit your fucking pathetic 2A pearl clutching and just admit it’s about the killing fetish already.
I’ll bet that if someone called you a pearl-clutching 1A fetishist that just wanted to groom children, you would–rightly–argue that no, civil rights like the ability to read books about gender identity and sexuality are protected civil rights that the gov’t shouldn’t touch.
Or if someone said that if you have nothing to hide, then you should care if the gov’t spies on you, you would tell them to fuck off and come back with a warrant.
…But as soon as it’s a civil right you don’t personally like, well, then it’s ammosexuals and murder fetishes.
The right is already trying to take your 1A rights in regards to press and religion–and largely succeeding!–but by golly!, you’re gonna just hand them your 2A rights so that when they finish taking your 1A and 5A rights you won’t be able to do dick except say mean things in public that will get you arrested on domestic terrorism charges (see also: cop city protests in Atlanta).
guns that have been widely considered a constitutional right for >75 years
That was really only a result of the NRA having a coup and going from a sporting organization to a 2A advocacy group in the 1970s. They lobbied for multiple decades and had a couple of supreme court victories in 2006 and 2012 that made it an individual right to own whatever the fuck kind of gun you want. It’s very, very recent.
Yeah, no. It simply wasn’t considered an issue before that point for the most part. Then you had Reagan passing bullshit laws because he was afraid of black people, and, well, shit took off.
It’s pretty clear from a reading of the documents surrounding the writing of the US constitution that it was always intended as an individual right–and legal obligation in many instances!–and that it was intended to mean military arms.
Moving the goalposts, not allowed. I will return the discussion back to course.
Banning of guns is what people generally think of as “$politician taking the guns” and is what drives 2A voters to vote against $politician. In the above discussion we were discussing Obama, and he did in fact do what I said he did.
So this is the new “Obama’s gonna take all your guns!!1!” trope.
Which of course he didn’t. Either of the times the GOP leaders said he would. And they knew it. It was just to create hysteria among their base.
Yep, though the gun manufacturers, via the NRA, probably drive that one. They LOVE it when a Democrat is in office because they can say that and watch gun sales rise.
I’m convinced they also love shootings, or at least did, for similar reasons - I’m sure, for a while, gun owners worried this latest shooting might be the one that generates new restrictions on gun purchases, so out they went to buy. At this point I don’t think they have anything to worry about; we as a country seem to have decided mass shootings are Just Great, so that little fear probably doesn’t work as well any more.
Let’s never forget the NRA’s solution to school shootings, after Newtown, was literally, “More guns in schools.”
Obama didn’t increase firearm restrictions, but Trump did with the bump stock ban. Which, incidentally, is due to be overturned by the Supreme Court this year.
It wasn’t for lack of trying though, because Obama did call for and back legislation to ban certain scary guns. Their attempts at the taking of guns simply failed the standard legislative process. Many of you probably weren’t of voting age at the time, but this process of attempting to take the guns actually did happen during the Obama presidency.
I was of voting age in 2008. Banning or heavily regulating certain types of guns is not the same as sending the national guard into every home in the US to search for and confiscate them, which is exactly what conservatives have been saying will happen for at least a decade now. Iirc trump banned some kind of bump-stock-adjacent device, but I don’t recall any gangs of roving feds going door to door to round up all the ones that have already been purchased.
Let me make sure I’ve got what you’re saying correct:
Banning or heavily regulating guns that people already legally own, guns that have been widely considered a constitutional right for >75 years, is not the same as “taking your guns”, is that correct? Would it be fair to say that they only thing you would consider to be “taking your guns” would be house-to-house confiscation of all firearms in private hands?
In re: bump stocks - it turns out that a lot of people that purchased them (and forced reset triggers, which are a similar concept) got letters from the ATF telling them that they had to turn them in or destroy them. Because, see, the ATF could just force the companies that sold them to disclose customer records, which means yeah, they could come to your door and take it. Unless you paid cash at a gun store, there’s an electronic trail, and the ATF followed it for a whoooooooole lot of people. Continuing to keep one that you purchased legally at the time? That’s a felony, because the ATF has re-classified them as machine guns, which means you can’t own one since they were produced post-ban, and there’s no way to make it legal. (Currently, there’s an appeals court that has ruled the ban illegal, but we’ll have to see how that plays out.)
If you genuinely and unironically thought bump stocks and pistol-ARs weren’t going to have a reckoning, you are the perfect example of why we need to start taking guns away from conservatives.
Every good old boy knows a fascist making ghost guns in their garage.
Quit your fucking pathetic 2A pearl clutching and just admit it’s about the killing fetish already.
I’ll bet that if someone called you a pearl-clutching 1A fetishist that just wanted to groom children, you would–rightly–argue that no, civil rights like the ability to read books about gender identity and sexuality are protected civil rights that the gov’t shouldn’t touch.
Or if someone said that if you have nothing to hide, then you should care if the gov’t spies on you, you would tell them to fuck off and come back with a warrant.
…But as soon as it’s a civil right you don’t personally like, well, then it’s ammosexuals and murder fetishes.
The right is already trying to take your 1A rights in regards to press and religion–and largely succeeding!–but by golly!, you’re gonna just hand them your 2A rights so that when they finish taking your 1A and 5A rights you won’t be able to do dick except say mean things in public that will get you arrested on domestic terrorism charges (see also: cop city protests in Atlanta).
Cool, nice chat.
That was really only a result of the NRA having a coup and going from a sporting organization to a 2A advocacy group in the 1970s. They lobbied for multiple decades and had a couple of supreme court victories in 2006 and 2012 that made it an individual right to own whatever the fuck kind of gun you want. It’s very, very recent.
Yeah, no. It simply wasn’t considered an issue before that point for the most part. Then you had Reagan passing bullshit laws because he was afraid of black people, and, well, shit took off.
It’s pretty clear from a reading of the documents surrounding the writing of the US constitution that it was always intended as an individual right–and legal obligation in many instances!–and that it was intended to mean military arms.
Moving the goalposts, not allowed. I will return the discussion back to course.
Banning of guns is what people generally think of as “$politician taking the guns” and is what drives 2A voters to vote against $politician. In the above discussion we were discussing Obama, and he did in fact do what I said he did.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
You seem hostile and easily perturbed. Exactly the sort of person that I hope is running around with a gun in their pants.
Removed by mod
No, I said you were very smart. You can clearly read. Those were my exact words. Are you moving the goalposts?