SFOGuysays...

Here's the thing: what is the audience for this incredibly well made video? Because 94%+ of Republicans say they will vote for the President again.

Are the Lincoln folks trying to set up a future in which they were not the ones who went down with the Trump ship? (he's still even odds in Vegas to win the election)

I dunno. I enjoy the ads--but---I'm not sure who the audience is.

newtboysaid:

I'm Donald Trump, and I disapprove this message.

newtboysays...

That's people who are still willing to call themselves Republicans. That number has dropped sharply in the last 45 months.

My take is it's for people who were Republicans before the party lost it's mind. I know many who say they didn't leave the Republican party, it left them. They need to be reminded of how God awful Trump is on every topic so they can palate voting for a Democrat, even a middle of the road Democrat like Biden is hard for them to swallow, but better than Trump.

SFOGuysaid:

Here's the thing: what is the audience for this incredibly well made video? Because 94%+ of Republicans say they will vote for the President again.

Are the Lincoln folks trying to set up a future in which they were not the ones who went down with the Trump ship? (he's still even odds in Vegas to win the election)

I dunno. I enjoy the ads--but---I'm not sure who the audience is.

BSRsays...

I think what's also important is that these videos live forever. They are a timeless warning to future generations. Even if Trump is not elected there is going to be some serious denial lingering afterwards. These videos are a record of the fight for Democracy and how it was won. Everybody, winners and losers will learn something.

SFOGuysaid:

Here's the thing: what is the audience for this incredibly well made video? Because 94%+ of Republicans say they will vote for the President again.

Are the Lincoln folks trying to set up a future in which they were not the ones who went down with the Trump ship? (he's still even odds in Vegas to win the election)

I dunno. I enjoy the ads--but---I'm not sure who the audience is.

SFOGuysays...

I hope that's true--it would be nice if it were!

newtboysaid:

That's people who are still willing to call themselves Republicans. That number has dropped sharply in the last 45 months.

My take is it's for people who were Republicans before the party lost it's mind. I know many who say they didn't leave the Republican party, it left them. They need to be reminded of how God awful Trump is on every topic so they can palate voting for a Democrat, even a middle of the road Democrat like Biden is hard for them to swallow, but better than Trump.

SFOGuysays...

I had not considered this---and it's a valid point--a "best hits" reel will be quite the document for a future generation to view and wonder: whoa---how did they elect that guy?

BSRsaid:

I think what's also important is that these videos live forever. They are a timeless warning to future generations. Even if Trump is not elected there is going to be some serious denial lingering afterwards. These videos are a record of the fight for Democracy and how it was won. Everybody, winners and losers will learn something.

surfingytsays...

There's also a number of 3rd-party voters that will be voting "the lessor of two evils" this election. These videos help ease their minds too.

When Trump loses this election by a very wide margin it will send a huge message to those in charge and those who lost.

newtboysaid:

My take is it's for people who were Republicans before the party lost it's mind. I know many who say they didn't leave the Republican party, it left them. They need to be reminded of how God awful Trump is on every topic so they can palate voting for a Democrat, even a middle of the road Democrat like Biden is hard for them to swallow, but better than Trump.

newtboysays...

Yes, but not all. I just can't convince my brother in Texas to forego his symbolic libertarian vote this year in favor of saving the country, but my lifelong Republican mother in California is voting for Biden.

Don't count your chickens before they're hatched. Guaranteed this will be the dirtiest, most dishonest, most interfered with by foreign powers, most unfounded October surprises, most rigged election in living memory.
Nothing's guaranteed.
For example, Imagine if some early ballots are found with white powder in them, slowing deliveries further, and 95% of mail in ballots never get delivered....Trump likely wins and blames Antifa. Expect nothing less.

Imo, there are two simple things people can do to help keep mail in ballots from overwhelming the usps....1) don't order packages for delivery after Oct 14 or earlier, and 2) hand deliver your ballot to an official drop box or polling place, making certain to sign wherever necessary.

surfingytsaid:

There's also a number of 3rd-party voters that will be voting "the lessor of two evils" this election. These videos help ease their minds too.

When Trump loses this election by a very wide margin it will send a huge message to those in charge and those who lost.

Mordhaussays...

I'll be voting Republican for all except Trump. I'd vote Libertarian but that is a wasted vote. I would vote Democrat, but they are hard set on anti gun legislation and I don't agree with some of their fiscal policies. I support abortions and a lot of the rest of the things they are for, but they lose me on gun laws and fiscal policy.

My views really match those of they guy on The Newsroom, the one Jeff Daniels played.


newtboysays...

What anti gun legislation do you mean? All I know of is closing a few loopholes that allow people legally banned from gun ownership to obtain them anyway without background checks. I disagree that that is anti gun legislation, and across the board background checks are something a vast majority think is proper.

There's plenty of misinformation on this topic floating about. Is there other actual legislation in the works, or just rumors of other legislation the left will enact....and only according to the right?

Mordhaussaid:

I'll be voting Republican for all except Trump. I'd vote Libertarian but that is a wasted vote. I would vote Democrat, but they are hard set on anti gun legislation and I don't agree with some of their fiscal policies. I support abortions and a lot of the rest of the things they are for, but they lose me on gun laws and fiscal policy.

My views really match those of they guy on The Newsroom, the one Jeff Daniels played.

SFOGuysays...

So I got curious: Could only find one quick data point --the Gallup Polls (since the early 2000s) asking: what do you identify yourself as? Republican, Independent, or Democrat? (respondents in percentages)

----------------R-----I-----D
Feb 2017---31---37---31
July 2020---26---41---31

To win in 2016, Trump needed all his core and then a majority of the electorally important independents (only 6 states matter).

But--he's been bleeding his core; and maybe independents are less in love with him.

I guess, we'll see.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

newtboysaid:

That's people who are still willing to call themselves Republicans. That number has dropped sharply in the last 45 months.

My take is it's for people who were Republicans before the party lost it's mind. I know many who say they didn't leave the Republican party, it left them. They need to be reminded of how God awful Trump is on every topic so they can palate voting for a Democrat, even a middle of the road Democrat like Biden is hard for them to swallow, but better than Trump.

scheherazadesays...

Assault weapon bans. Effectively making illegal the most common rifle in the country (ar15) - even though it's statistically tiny in terms of gun killings.
(~450 people killed per year with all forms of rifle. Only some of that is ar15. That's the ~same amount of people as what die yearly from falling out of bed.)

Suppressor bans. Illegalizing an item that has been statistically as good as nonexistent in firearm crimes.

Banning DIY non-commercial firearms. Illegalizing firearms that have been statistically as good as nonexistent in firearm crimes.

Banning Private Sales (aka gunshow loophole). Effectively banning transfers between family and friends. Even though nearly all illegal arms are acquired by straw purchase at conventional stores by girlfriends.
And commercial sellers at gun shows have to do background checks anyways - this is much ado about old geezers trading collectible wild west / ww2 / antique shit.

Nearly all people are killed by pistols. Nobody is calling for a pistol ban. It makes things like an AWB look like a disingenuous effort - because you can pass all sorts of non-pistol-banning gun control laws and there will be no effect on gun death stats. Meaning you can just make more and more stuff illegal forever so long as you save what really matters (pistols) for last.

Between city, county, state, federal, existing gun laws are fat like an encyclopedia. Most people, unless they are 'gun folk', don't even realize the ways you can go to jail. Put a vertical grip in a pistol and posted it to instagram? Enjoy your time with the ATF. 10 years and $100k, assuming you're lax enough to not hire a lawyer to knock it down a bit. Literally volumes of ways to go to jail for shit you wouldn't even imagine would matter.

Many things people complain about aren't even a thing. Like complaining about buying guns online (you can't, not without an FFL involved), or crazy people buying guns (they can't, unless they've yet to be caught doing crazy shit).

Too many laws as it is. Erase a bunch first.

-scheherazade

newtboysaid:

What anti gun legislation do you mean? All I know of is closing a few loopholes that allow people legally banned from gun ownership to obtain them anyway without background checks. I disagree that that is anti gun legislation, and across the board background checks are something a vast majority think is proper.

There's plenty of misinformation on this topic floating about. Is there other actual legislation in the works, or just rumors of other legislation the left will enact....and only according to the right?

scheherazadesays...

Good video.

I would criticize it the same way I would criticize fox news - it's myopic (in regards to the reference videos of protests).

Republicans aren't spewing fear about /those/ protests. They are worried about /these/ protests :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZPeD2miyF8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zthJUf31MA
(Btw, I dig this dude's style. He's trying to be funny, but he's got more authentic coverage than most mainstream stuff I've seen.)

-scheherazade

newtboysays...

Silly, just a ban on selling one style of rifle, not a type. Are they still actually working on that, or are you talking about past attempts? I thought that has gone nowhere since Jan 2019 when it was introduced and shelved. New bill number please.

Supressors/silencers, not a firearm but an accessory, like bump stocks. That's not anti gun.

D I Y, good luck. Who's actually trying any such thing? They would have to ban each design, because they can't ban the method. I've not heard of any actual legislation, just moaning. Bill number please.
Ghost guns, pre manufactured kits but requiring assembly, should be treated like any gun imo. That means serial numbers and background checks, that's not anti gun legislation.

Private sales loophole, exactly what I mentioned, and in no way anti gun. They aren't trying to ban private sales, just require background checks.
I think you're making that up, where did you get the idea most illegal guns are bought by girlfriends?
I bought a new gun from a dealer at a show in Florida with no check myself once, so nope. You're just wrong.

I feel like you are almost certainly just parroting right wing claims without actually seeing if they're true. Give me current bill numbers in the house or Senate please.

Banning modifications is not anti gun, it's anti modification.

You can buy guns online, just not safely or legally. You can buy prostitutes and fentenal online. You can buy kits that require you to make one drill hole to make a functioning unlicensed unregistered unidentifiable gun online legally.

Crazy people can certainly buy guns, in private sales with no background checks. That's why the loopholes should be eradicated, or do you support giving terrorists a method to secretly buy guns legally? That's the outcome of fighting closing loopholes.

scheherazadesaid:

Assault weapon bans. Effectively making illegal the most common rifle in the country (ar15) - even though it's statistically tiny in terms of gun killings.
(~450 people killed per year with all forms of rifle. Only some of that is ar15. That's the ~same amount of people as what die yearly from falling out of bed.)

Suppressor bans. Illegalizing an item that has been statistically as good as nonexistent in firearm crimes.

Banning DIY non-commercial firearms. Illegalizing firearms that have been statistically as good as nonexistent in firearm crimes.

Banning Private Sales (aka gunshow loophole). Effectively banning transfers between family and friends. Even though nearly all illegal arms are acquired by straw purchase at conventional stores by girlfriends.
And commercial sellers at gun shows have to do background checks anyways - this is much ado about old geezers trading collectible wild west / ww2 / antique shit.

Nearly all people are killed by pistols. Nobody is calling for a pistol ban. It makes things like an AWB look like a disingenuous effort - because you can pass all sorts of non-pistol-banning gun control laws and there will be no effect on gun death stats. Meaning you can just make more and more stuff illegal forever so long as you save what really matters (pistols) for last.

Between city, county, state, federal, existing gun laws are fat like an encyclopedia. Most people, unless they are 'gun folk', don't even realize the ways you can go to jail. Put a vertical grip in a pistol and posted it to instagram? Enjoy your time with the ATF. 10 years and $100k, assuming you're lax enough to not hire a lawyer to knock it down a bit. Literally volumes of ways to go to jail for shit you wouldn't even imagine would matter.

Many things people complain about aren't even a thing. Like complaining about buying guns online (you can't, not without an FFL involved), or crazy people buying guns (they can't, unless they've yet to be caught doing crazy shit).

Too many laws as it is. Erase a bunch first.

-scheherazade

newtboysays...

Nope, Republicans from the president down are spewing fear about any protests, claiming Portland is completely lawless and burning like Atlanta and the villains are coming to your town next to burn your home, and repeatedly used video from other states as their evidence of Portland's destruction, and doctored photos to indicate who the enemy is by adding antifa agents (not a real thing btw) to photos of arson and looting, intentionality ignoring the reality that there are only 2-3 blocks of unrest in Portland, not the entire city by any stretch, and not for decades as the president claimed on live tv.

Spewing fear and lies about national protests, yes they are. Sorry.

scheherazadesaid:

Good video.

I would criticize it the same way I would criticize fox news - it's myopic (in regards to the reference videos of protests).

Republicans aren't spewing fear about /those/ protests. They are worried about /these/ protests :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZPeD2miyF8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zthJUf31MA
(Btw, I dig this dude's style. He's trying to be funny, but he's got more authentic coverage than most mainstream stuff I've seen.)

-scheherazade

Mordhaussays...

I would go hunting for the videos, but Biden has already stated that he fully plans to empower Beto to be his gun control 'czar'. Beto has already said that he absolutely is coming for "our" guns. He plans a forced turn in or buyback of all assault style weapons, presumably those also covered by laws that allow them under federal tax stamps (full auto).

In addition, Biden lists the following on his website as his plans:

1. Hold gun manufacturers accountable. In 2005, then-Senator Biden voted against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, but gun manufacturers successfully lobbied Congress to secure its passage. This law protects these manufacturers from being held civilly liable for their products – a protection granted to no other industry. Biden will prioritize repealing this protection. (Only this is misleading. Do shoe manufacturers get sued if you kick someone in the face? Do knife manufacturers get sued if you stab someone? Do car manufacturers get sued when you get into an accident? No and neither do most other manufacturers. Putting this in place means that any time a gun is used in a crime, they can try to sue the manufacturer of that gun into non-existence. It doesn't even have to be an 'assault' weapon, any gun manufacturer is at risk. The only thing that wouldn't count is blackpowder guns since they aren't classed as firearms.)

2. Ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Federal law prevents hunters from hunting migratory game birds with more than three shells in their shotgun. That means our federal law does more to protect ducks than children. It’s wrong. Joe Biden will enact legislation to once again ban assault weapons. This time, the bans will be designed based on lessons learned from the 1994 bans. For example, the ban on assault weapons will be designed to prevent manufacturers from circumventing the law by making minor changes that don’t limit the weapon’s lethality. While working to pass this legislation, Biden will also use his executive authority to ban the importation of assault weapons. (So this would be a perma ban on assault weapons and would also anticipate changes to circumvent the law. This would be the assault ban of 1994 on steroids.)

3. Regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act. Currently, the National Firearms Act requires individuals possessing machine-guns, silencers, and short-barreled rifles to undergo a background check and register those weapons with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Due to these requirements, such weapons are rarely used in crimes. As president, Biden will pursue legislation to regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act. (So even if he doesn't get Beto to push through a buy back, he can force owners of assault rifles to be subject to the EXTREMELY restrictive NFA. Not only that, but it's expensive and would be a tax on gun owners yearly.)

4. Buy back the assault weapons and high-capacity magazines already in our communities. Biden will also institute a program to buy back weapons of war currently on our streets. This will give individuals who now possess assault weapons or high-capacity magazines two options: sell the weapons to the government, or register them under the National Firearms Act. (Covered this already. But if this does go through, you likely won't be seeing me on here anymore as it will be a cold day in hell before I surrender my guns or pay the government to be allowed to own them.)

5. Reduce stockpiling of weapons. In order to reduce the stockpiling of firearms, Biden supports legislation restricting the number of firearms an individual may purchase per month to one. (Once you get this through, it is far easier to get legislation passed to cap how many guns a person can own total. Fuck that.)

6. Require background checks for all gun sales. Today, an estimated 1 in 5 firearms are sold or transferred without a background check. Biden will enact universal background check legislation, requiring a background check for all gun sales with very limited exceptions, such as gifts between close family members. This will close the so-called “gun show and online sales loophole” that the Obama-Biden Administration narrowed, but which cannot be fully closed by executive action alone. (I can deal with this, just means you need to go through an FFL.)

7. Reinstate the Obama-Biden policy to keep guns out of the hands of certain people unable to manage their affairs for mental reasons, which President Trump reversed. (Not 100% on this one, but it isn't a deal breaker)

8. Enact legislation prohibiting an individual “who has been convicted of a misdemeanor hate crime, or received an enhanced sentence for a misdemeanor because of hate or bias in its commission” from purchasing or possessing a firearm. (Felony yes, but that already exists. Misdemeanor, fuck no.)

9. Close the “Charleston loophole.” (yeah, no problem with this one)

10. End the online sale of firearms and ammunitions. Biden will enact legislation to prohibit all online sales of firearms, ammunition, kits, and gun parts. (So if I want to build another AR15 I can't? Fuck that. You still have to get the primary receiver through or shipped to an FFL. Which means a background check every single time.)

11. Create an effective program to ensure individuals who become prohibited from possessing firearms relinquish their weapons. (I would be for this if it wasn't for the fact that it is one step away from the government outlawing guns. Once this mechanism is in place at a federal level, all that means is you are one vote away from having your guns seized.)

12. Incentivize state “extreme risk” laws. Extreme risk laws, also called “red flag” laws, enable family members or law enforcement officials to temporarily remove an individual’s access to firearms when that individual is in crisis and poses a danger to themselves or others. (Sounds good, but nobody is willing to state the guidelines that the family or LEO will have to follow. That means that it is completely up to family members and LEO's to decide what constitutes a 'crisis'. Bet you a lot of LEO's in protest states would red flag most protesters immediately if this law existed now in all states.)

13. Give states incentives to set up gun licensing programs. (This is above and beyond the federal checks. This would mean any gun owner or potential owner would have to maintain and pay for a separate gun license. Also, it allows states and locales to decide what constitutes the requirements for the gun license. There are already some states doing this and you have to get permission to even own a gun from the sheriff or other official. Fuck that.)

14. Put America on the path to ensuring that 100% of firearms sold in America are smart guns. (Are you fucking kidding me? What if the battery runs out, what if it gets hacked, or what if the government decides to flip a switch and shut them all down? I'll never agree to this.)

15. Require gun owners to safely store their weapons. Biden will pass legislation requiring firearm owners to store weapons safely in their homes. (IE, locked in a safe or partially disassembled, possibly a combination of both. Why bother having a gun for home defense if it can't be used without spending 5-10 minutes to make it available/functional?)

16. Stop “ghost guns.” (This is just stupid. 3d printed guns might be able to fire a few shots before reaching a critical failure. You can't 3d print a lower or upper receiver that matches a stock one. Yes, they made lowers for the original m-16s, but they swapped from those because they were shit. They broke constantly. And those weren't printed, they were molded from a tougher plastic. A 3d printed one is not nearly as strong. Either way, I don't care too much about this because it is a buzzword for non-gun people. Just like bumpstocks. You can still bump-fire a regular ar-15, the bumpstocks were just training wheels for idiots.)

Now he has a shitload more laws he wants to pass, but most of them I don't care too much about. I won't bother covering all of them. In any case, he is going to go after guns on a scale unseen to this point. If the dems get control of both houses, he will get these laws passed. Then the only hope is that SCOTUS votes them down as unconstitutional.

I won't vote for Trump, but I will be doing my part to maintain a split congress. Which means straight republican ticket other than Trump.

newtboysaid:

What anti gun legislation do you mean? All I know of is closing a few loopholes that allow people legally banned from gun ownership to obtain them anyway without background checks. I disagree that that is anti gun legislation, and across the board background checks are something a vast majority think is proper.

There's plenty of misinformation on this topic floating about. Is there other actual legislation in the works, or just rumors of other legislation the left will enact....and only according to the right?

newtboysays...

Hmmmm...ok, that's not legislation but is what I meant. A forced buyback program is going to have issues.

1) I have no problem with companies having to answer for injuries caused by the prescribed, advertised proper use of their product. If shoes were sold as having the greatest shin kicking power, doing the most damage when you kick someone, shoe manufacturers should be sued by those who get kicked. If manufacturers haven't modeled and advertised in a way that suggests dangerous uses, the suits will lose. Lawyers don't take loser cases, so it won't be an issue imo. Special protections from liability are a problem imo.

2) I've never understood the endgame there. What is an assault rifle, and how are their capabilities special? That said, no one is clamoring for Uzis to come back. Without a legitimate reason for high capacity fast shooting rifles, and no attempts to ban semi auto rifles, I'm just not that bothered by it, but I do think it's placating not meaningful legislation.

3) I have zero issues with registration or background checks. That seems the right way to deal with "assault rifles". There's no reason it should be expensive or time consuming if records are up to date. If they make it expensive as a tax disincentive against ownership, I have a problem. Shooting isn't a cheap sport, $10-20 a year shouldn't bother those who spent $2k on one rifle.

4) No issue at all with voluntary buy backs. Involuntary buybacks are going to be a legal and practical nightmare.

5) one purchase per month, a bit much. One purchase at a time, I'm ok with, that's 3 a month, right? I'm suspicious of anyone who needs multiple guns quick before they calm down.

6) I'm all for universal background checks. I don't want nutjob and violent criminals buying guns they aren't allowed to own.

7) I'm all for not allowing those who can't handle day to day existence to buy guns. I'm even ok with TEMPORARY removal of their guns in some cases, but only if they're returned immediately after they're deemed competent.

misdemeanor hate crime? I thought hate crime was an enhancement charge that took a misdemeanor up to felony level. I'm definitely against taking gun rights away permanently for misdemeanors.

9) dunno what that is.

10) the problem is you can buy a receiver that needs to be finished, as little as one tiny drill hole is enough, with no serial number or registration. It's just a chunk of metal until it's finished. No problem with a background check for every purchase, but a maximum of one check per month seems a reasonable compromise.

11) with proper oversight and a system that ensures it's not abused, no problem for me.

12) Yes, strict guidelines and quick return seem necessary. 48 hours without a doctor stating it's necessary would work, but as of now they aren't ready for prime time on that it seems.

13) had that in cali forever, not an issue yet.

14) as designed, smart guns wouldn't be hackable, there's no reason for wireless connectivity. Battery? Make it charge itself by shaking it like some flashlights? I like the idea that guns can only be used by the owner, solves so many issues, mainly being shot with your own gun.

15) depends on what constitutes "safe". I agree, guns for home defense need to be available quickly.

16) some ghost guns are milled on professional cnc mills but unfinished. 3d printed guns, I'm not a fan. 3 shots is plenty to murder someone, and with no identification it's a near perfect weapon for crimes.
3d printing is advancing constantly. You can print in metal with fine details now on home equipment. I think it won't be long before stable guns can be printed if they aren't already.

Thanks for doing the research. I seriously doubt most could pass even a democratic congress but some would, and most won't pass court challenges, but I understand your reluctance to put that to the test.

If you're going to fight the swamp thing, I won't argue against leaving a few snakes in the black lagoon. Some opposition is healthy, but the ability to be obstructionist on every idea is gridlock. I don't see it getting better.

Mordhaussays...

I hearken back to the ACA, it would never have passed in a split congress. But it did because it was a perfect storm of all dem leadership and I still have issues with some of it. Without going too deep, the ACA has seriously fucked up my life as many family doctors in my area simply gave up and went full concierge (or just started refusing insurance). So now my options are to go to a clinic with no primary doctor or go back to my family doctor and pay 2k per year on top of insurance.

The same thing could happen to guns if the dems take both houses and the presidency. At the very least it ends in a return to the ban of 96 and is likely to be far worse. I support some gun control, but 80% of what they are suggesting is no bueno with me. Are these phantom fears? Possibly, but I trust the dems about as far as I can throw one in regards to gun control.

newtboysaid:

Hmmmm...ok, that's not legislation but is what I meant. A forced buyback program is going to have issues.

1) I have no problem with companies having to answer for injuries caused by the prescribed, advertised proper use of their product. If shoes were sold as having the greatest shin kicking power, doing the most damage when you kick someone, shoe manufacturers should be sued by those who get kicked. If manufacturers haven't modeled and advertised in a way that suggests dangerous uses, the suits will lose. Lawyers don't take loser cases, so it won't be an issue imo. Special protections from liability are a problem imo.

2) I've never understood the endgame there. What is an assault rifle, and how are their capabilities special? That said, no one is clamoring for Uzis to come back. Without a legitimate reason for high capacity fast shooting rifles, and no attempts to ban semi auto rifles, I'm just not that bothered by it, but I do think it's placating not meaningful legislation.

3) I have zero issues with registration or background checks. That seems the right way to deal with "assault rifles". There's no reason it should be expensive or time consuming if records are up to date. If they make it expensive as a tax disincentive against ownership, I have a problem. Shooting isn't a cheap sport, $10-20 a year shouldn't bother those who spent $2k on one rifle.

4) No issue at all with voluntary buy backs. Involuntary buybacks are going to be a legal and practical nightmare.

5) one purchase per month, a bit much. One purchase at a time, I'm ok with, that's 3 a month, right? I'm suspicious of anyone who needs multiple guns quick before they calm down.

6) I'm all for universal background checks. I don't want nutjob and violent criminals buying guns they aren't allowed to own.

7) I'm all for not allowing those who can't handle day to day existence to buy guns. I'm even ok with TEMPORARY removal of their guns in some cases, but only if they're returned immediately after they're deemed competent.

misdemeanor hate crime? I thought hate crime was an enhancement charge that took a misdemeanor up to felony level. I'm definitely against taking gun rights away permanently for misdemeanors.

9) dunno what that is.

10) the problem is you can buy a receiver that needs to be finished, as little as one tiny drill hole is enough, with no serial number or registration. It's just a chunk of metal until it's finished. No problem with a background check for every purchase, but a maximum of one check per month seems a reasonable compromise.

11) with proper oversight and a system that ensures it's not abused, no problem for me.

12) Yes, strict guidelines and quick return seem necessary. 48 hours without a doctor stating it's necessary would work, but as of now they aren't ready for prime time on that it seems.

13) had that in cali forever, not an issue yet.

14) as designed, smart guns wouldn't be hackable, there's no reason for wireless connectivity. Battery? Make it charge itself by shaking it like some flashlights? I like the idea that guns can only be used by the owner, solves so many issues, mainly being shot with your own gun.

15) depends on what constitutes "safe". I agree, guns for home defense need to be available quickly.

16) some ghost guns are milled on professional cnc mills but unfinished. 3d printed guns, I'm not a fan. 3 shots is plenty to murder someone, and with no identification it's a near perfect weapon for crimes.
3d printing is advancing constantly. You can print in metal with fine details now on home equipment. I think it won't be long before stable guns can be printed if they aren't already.

Thanks for doing the research. I seriously doubt most could pass even a democratic congress but some would, and most won't pass court challenges, but I understand your reluctance to put that to the test.

If you're going to fight the swamp thing, I won't argue against leaving a few snakes in the black lagoon. Some opposition is healthy, but the ability to be obstructionist on every idea is gridlock. I don't see it getting better.

newtboysays...

Just remember, Texas refused the federal money to implement the ACA. It worked better, still not perfectly, in states that embraced it.

It's possible they could go overboard on guns, but I think there are plenty of democrats out there that want more gun control but not gun eradication or removals. They won't back representatives that back extreme gun laws.

You're probably right about the 96 ban returning and becoming permanent if dems have full control.

Mordhaussaid:

I hearken back to the ACA, it would never have passed in a split congress. But it did because it was a perfect storm of all dem leadership and I still have issues with some of it. Without going too deep, the ACA has seriously fucked up my life as many family doctors in my area simply gave up and went full concierge (or just started refusing insurance). So now my options are to go to a clinic with no primary doctor or go back to my family doctor and pay 2k per year on top of insurance.

The same thing could happen to guns if the dems take both houses and the presidency. At the very least it ends in a return to the ban of 96 and is likely to be far worse. I support some gun control, but 80% of what they are suggesting is no bueno with me. Are these phantom fears? Possibly, but I trust the dems about as far as I can throw one in regards to gun control.

Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists




notify when someone comments
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
  
Learn More