Boosted_C5 posted:

This is what I'm talking about. I have no idea what the hell this means but MAN does it sound scary as gently caress.

We cannot abide POWERFUL ASSAULT WEAPONS in our society. Say it loud, say it proud, BAN 'EM.

Jackson Taus posted:

[1] - now to be fair, House of Delegates elections fall in odd years, and that does hurt us. But I don't think it hurts us to the tune of 15-20 seats.

enraged_camel posted:

This is about controlling guns, not banning guns.

Wow, I feel like I've accidentally stepped into an elevator with a bunch of Freepers.....

go3 posted:

im gonna assume the middle pages of this thread are about gun control and give this as exhibit A why the democratic party is going to continue to get slaughtered in the House

The Insect Court posted:

People without bizarre psychological fixations on guns are pretty down on the idea of a Second Amendment loving patriot blowing away a bunch of first graders with an AR15 that had a wood stock. It's just that the gun nuts fixate so powerfully on those big, black guns for some reason. You realize this, I'm sure. Take a look around the next gun show/survivalist convention/militia meeting you go to, lots of white guys who just love to wrap both their hands around some huge black weapon.


We don't have ADTRW posters flooding into these sort of threads and confidently declaring the key to the Democratic Party's future is lowering the age of consent, why do gun nuts feel the need to project their obsessions onto an American electorate which in every poll display strong support for the sort of commonsense gun safety measures the mere mention of which is enough to cause an ammosexuals' balls to un-descend.

blowfish posted:

why

what is the problem with having lots of casual sex, unless you think feminism is a synonym for ban sex

punk rebel ecks posted:

So far in this thread we have smaller district lines and back off of gun control as suggestions.

Anything else?

Smudgie Buggler posted:

No, that's a perfectly valid observation, but it's a) not what Troika said, and b) insanely banal.

A person whose job it is to deal with violence and crime on behalf of the community is more likely to shoot someone than Joe Citizen. Wow, holy poo poo.

It didn't even occur to me that the original thesis was that trivial. I doubt there's a first world country in which that isn't true.

Rent-A-Cop posted:

I'd actually be surprised if most western European police forces out-homiceded their populations.

Iceland's cops have killed what, like one person? Their total firearms murder rate can't be that high but I bet it's greater than one murder ever.

Helsing posted:

This is why I think the real test of Sanders will be whether the coalition of activists he's helped to build will actually remain intact after he loses. Because the kind of changes they envision are going to take decades of struggle to even be plausible, not a single cathartic and exciting presidential campaign.

Jarmak posted:

The problem with the assault weapon stupidity is that not only does it antagonize gun owners it's plainly stupid policy.

Seriously it's like so loving dumb to anyone with the slightest knowledge of guns it actively discredits gun control in the same way "the internet is a series of tubes" discredited the anti net neutrality crowd.

Only Ted Stevens' analogy made way more sense.

Liquid Communism posted:

Yes, which was one of the most embarrassingly useless federal firearms restrictions ever, and was allowed to sunset with little fanfare because it accomplished nothing .

The AWB is absolutely not what you want to model any effective gun control policy off of, because it was purely about scary looking cosmetics.

Regarding 'box magazines', you do realize that you are appealing to an effective ban on 90% of pistols and rifles developed in the last century, yes? Other than 1800's era tube fed rifles, revolvers, most shotguns, and the rare few break action rifles, the vast majority of firearms use a detachable box magazine.

Liquid Communism posted:

At the end of the day, mass shootings are a terrible thing to base sweeping gun laws on in the first place. They are the rarest of firearms crimes, and are generally committed by perpetrators whose plans are only obvious in hindsight, and for whom only mass confiscation of all privately owned firearms would really stand as a preventative measure. Most of them have clean backgrounds and no reason to be denied on a background check, or obtain their weapons (as the Sandy Hook killer did) via murder and theft.

icantfindaname posted:

Main Paineframe posted:

Shut up about guns. The Dems got into this situation by neglecting basically every major demographic of their base and rebelling against most of their traditional supporters, while pushing policies and platforms that are mostly virtually indistinguishable from those of Republicans, and completely abandoning the Democratic movements in many states to wither and die so they could focus more money on the presidential races - not by talking about maybe possibly putting common sense restrictions on your dumb single-issue that's already entirely dominated by a massive Republican lobbying agency anyway.

blowfish posted:

The average voter will vote against being inconvenienced, no matter how many people other he'd otherwise be in favour of supporting end up being oppressed.

Why is "people care about themselves more than about others" such a surprising concept

Main Paineframe posted:

Sure. The problem is that the "gun control is killing the Dems" people expect me to believe that these people would vote for higher taxes on themselves to support poor people, affirmative action that helps minorities but not themselves, and other assorted progressive measures that involve sacrificing their white privilege and economic prosperity and even safety in order to help the less fortunate, but the possibility of experiencing mild inconveniences in the course of their gun hobby is the one thing they absolutely have to vote selfishly on? Bullshit. They'd still be voting Republican even if the Dems left the status quo as otbis and didn't push further gun control.

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

Gun violence actual affects important Democratic blocs, whereas nobody is terroristing Alabama.

The Insect Court posted:

It amuses me that your unslaked gunlust causes you to abandon your usual half-assed pretense of being progressive on racial issues to repeat the 'Democrats need to court jittery shut-ins waiting for RAHOWA' line so beloved of hardcore NAMGLA members. Now tell us Democrats should propose mining the border so those poor misunderstood white supremacists will feel respected by Democrats.

Flowers For Algeria posted:

gun gun gun gun gun gun gun gun gun gun GUN

DeusExMachinima posted:

Then allow me to suggest, at the risk of becoming too abstract here, that you spend your time on something you can accomplish but that has also quantifiable significant public safety results?

Flowers For Algeria posted:

I don't follow.