Re: Elizabeth Warren 2020

151
somebody needs to take her out to the range, teach her to shoot targets and have fun. i'll vote for her if necessary because not trump, but prefer others.
i'm retired. what's your excuse?

Re: Elizabeth Warren 2020

153
DispositionMatrix wrote: Fri Jan 31, 2020 10:25 am
lurker wrote: Fri Jan 31, 2020 9:43 am somebody needs to take her out to the range, teach her to shoot targets and have fun.
MIght be fun for someone, but there is no reason to think that would have any effect on Warren's proposed policies regarding firearms.
i like to think that most restrictionists suffer from an unreasoned fear of guns arising out of lack of familiarity and a belief that guns have no utility other than to kill people. but as someone here likes to say, "shooting stuff is fun", so maybe just maybe a little familiarization could prevent some of the nonsense surrounding guns and gun control. there was a time i had no use for guns, and thought them an unnecessary hazard, but that's changed, so maybe others can change too. i'm sure it's more complex than that, but it's a place i could start from: gently educate them, one at a time.
i'm retired. what's your excuse?

Re: Elizabeth Warren 2020

154
YankeeTarheel wrote: Fri Jan 31, 2020 9:14 am I realize this is heresy, but I don't see mandatory registration as an impingement on the 2nd. The 7th Amendment guarantees the right to sue in Federal court, but doesn't allow you to refuse to register your lawsuit so it's in the records.
I'm specifically referencing the 7th rather then using motor vehicles as an example, because the 7th, like the 2nd, is one of the original Bill of RIghts' amendments.
May I dissect this a bit?

First, the policy is a national firearms license (registration would be in the mix, I'm sure). While in theory, I don't have problem with just licensing, it brings a host of issues I'll bitch about below.

The second is optics/intent. If we pretend that licensing would be objective, fair and inexpensive (to not otherwise burden the right with expense and subjective "good cause"), we can imagine it would be tied to a background check (in fact, the proposal states such). I'm cool with that, even though background checks have very limited ability to reduce gun violence because the majority of those firearms are stolen or illegally acquired. So, we can now assume that those people with licenses are good'uns, right? Right. So they should therefor be able to purchase, possess and carry any commonly available weapon (yes weapon, the 2A is not just about firearms--it extends to tazers, nunchucks, knives, etc.) they want to, right? Because that's what the 2A and Heller says and the politicians say gun control is about keeping guns from bad folk solved by licensing and background checks. But that's not what will happen. Licensing will become just another layer of bullshit on top of the other layers of bullshit.

Third is that registration is not necessary and facilitates efforts at future confiscation. There is an adequate paper trail already. I don't care if the government knows I own a firearm(s). I do care that they'd know how many and of what type. It's none of their fucking business, just like it's none of their business what church I don't go to or what I say in the freedom of my own fiefdom.

Fourth is that this legislation isn't just about registration/licensing, the thing they say is needed to make sure bad people don't have guns. It is about "assault weapon" bans and magazine limits and age limits. See my second point--they are saying we don't give a shit if you're law abiding, you're still a latent homicidal maniac, no "assault weapon" for you.

It's an endless slippery slope with Dems and I'm, quite frankly, done with it. They have moved me from considering reasonable regulations to "fuck that" because it never ends. They want to license me and then continue to treat me as a latent mass killer by taking the weapons most consistent with the true intent of the Second Amendment and least associated with gun violence. They are unwilling to look at root causes.

Re: Elizabeth Warren 2020

155
From what I heard when she ran for the Senate, she is familiar with guns and her family had guns when she grew up in Oklahoma.
Last edited by TrueTexan on Fri Jan 31, 2020 12:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: Elizabeth Warren 2020

156
lurker wrote: Fri Jan 31, 2020 11:11 am
DispositionMatrix wrote: Fri Jan 31, 2020 10:25 am
lurker wrote: Fri Jan 31, 2020 9:43 am somebody needs to take her out to the range, teach her to shoot targets and have fun.
MIght be fun for someone, but there is no reason to think that would have any effect on Warren's proposed policies regarding firearms.
i like to think that most restrictionists suffer from an unreasoned fear of guns arising out of lack of familiarity and a belief that guns have no utility other than to kill people. but as someone here likes to say, "shooting stuff is fun", so maybe just maybe a little familiarization could prevent some of the nonsense surrounding guns and gun control. there was a time i had no use for guns, and thought them an unnecessary hazard, but that's changed, so maybe others can change too. i'm sure it's more complex than that, but it's a place i could start from: gently educate them, one at a time.
There is a colossal difference between an individual changing his or her stance and a politician who has demonstrated a substantial commitment to firearm prohibition, operating publicly within a party wholly committed to firearm prohibition, changing her schtick. Firearm prohibition is a vehicle for her.

Re: Elizabeth Warren 2020

157
DispositionMatrix wrote: Fri Jan 31, 2020 11:21 am There is a colossal difference between an individual changing his or her stance and a politician who has demonstrated a substantial commitment to firearm prohibition, operating publicly within a party wholly committed to firearm prohibition, changing her schtick. Firearm prohibition is a vehicle for her.
i understand. there are donors and constituents to be catered to. :bow: i'm just trying to do my little part. :wall:
i'm not happy with liz. i'm not happy with any of the dems on this particular issue. i doubt any of us here at the LGC are. :thumbsdown: sanders is clearly (in my mind) the lesser of the evils, but i'm not sure a social democrat can win. what to do, what to do? :think:
i'm retired. what's your excuse?

Re: Elizabeth Warren 2020

158
lurker wrote: Fri Jan 31, 2020 11:29 am
DispositionMatrix wrote: Fri Jan 31, 2020 11:21 am There is a colossal difference between an individual changing his or her stance and a politician who has demonstrated a substantial commitment to firearm prohibition, operating publicly within a party wholly committed to firearm prohibition, changing her schtick. Firearm prohibition is a vehicle for her.
i understand. there are donors and constituents to be catered to. :bow: i'm just trying to do my little part. :wall:
i'm not happy with liz. i'm not happy with any of the dems on this particular issue. i doubt any of us here at the LGC are. :thumbsdown: sanders is clearly (in my mind) the lesser of the evils, but i'm not sure a social democrat can win. what to do, what to do? :think:
I would have to see proof that a change in a politician's personal view on firearms would have any bearing whatsoever on his/her public persona and supported positions to believe it. Also, I would never share a range with an activist or politician so publicly committed to firearm prohibition, given there is no telling what that person--out of sheer stupidity--might see as an opportunity to promote his or her cause. Too dangerous. Put another way, the self-absorbed who view all others as lowly pawns and firearms don't mix.

Re: Elizabeth Warren 2020

159
I don't care for Warren's or Sanders stand on guns but I like the other firm progressive stands to help the majority of the people not just the rich donors. I don't trust Biden as far as I could throw him. He is a Wishy-Washy Corporate Dem that will say what ever to get elected. Once elected would go for helping the big donors. As Vice President remember his advice to buy a double barrel shotgun and shoot through the door for home defense. He has the history of gun control.
Biden’s plan is not as ambitious as that of other candidates in the race, but it would still amount to the largest changes to America’s gun laws in more than two decades. It includes universal background checks, an assault weapons ban, more resources toward the enforcement of existing laws, a public push for the development of “smart guns,” and incentives for states to adopt “red flag” laws, which allow courts to confiscate guns from people deemed a risk to themselves or others and develop gun-licensing systems.

As part of the plan, Biden boasts that he has “taken on the National Rifle Association (NRA) on the national stage and won — twice.” As a senator in 1993, Biden helped pass the federal background checks law that still stands today. The year after, the now-controversial crime bill Biden helped write included a 10-year assault weapons ban.
https://www.vox.com/2019/10/2/20894951/ ... ntrol-plan
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: Elizabeth Warren 2020

160
The "endless slippery slope" argument ignores history. Remember the 1990s Assault Weapons Ban? It ended.

Mulford Act was signed by Governor Ronald Reagan on July 28th, 1967. The law banned the carrying of loaded weapons in public.

GOP likes to restrict guns, too.
It is an unfortunate human failing that a full pocketbook often groans more loudly than an empty stomach.

- Franklin D. Roosevelt

Re: Elizabeth Warren 2020

161
TrueTexan wrote: Fri Jan 31, 2020 1:11 pm I don't care for Warren's or Sanders stand on guns but I like the other firm progressive stands to help the majority of the people not just the rich donors. I don't trust Biden as far as I could throw him. He is a Wishy-Washy Corporate Dem that will say what ever to get elected. Once elected would go for helping the big donors. As Vice President remember his advice to buy a double barrel shotgun and shoot through the door for home defense. He has the history of gun control.
Yup. If Biden is the candidate, I'll have some serious soul searching to do to convince me to plug my nose. At least Warren and Sanders come with something beneficial for the regular citizens of this country lumped in with the gun control. Sad state of affairs, all around.

Re: Elizabeth Warren 2020

162
K9s wrote: Fri Jan 31, 2020 1:28 pm The "endless slippery slope" argument ignores history. Remember the 1990s Assault Weapons Ban? It ended.

Mulford Act was signed by Governor Ronald Reagan on July 28th, 1967. The law banned the carrying of loaded weapons in public.

GOP likes to restrict guns, too.
No, the endless slippery slope does not ignore history--sunsetting does not qualify. Take a look at CA, NY and now VA and tell me that shit is both reasonable infringement and not slippery. The Dem candidates are telling us they will take it nationally.

Yes, GOP likes to restrict guns too, but they aren't openly promising to take away semi auto rifles and standard capacity magazines.

I think voting for a candidate and hoping "the other side" and/or SCOTUS stops their anti-constitutional proposals is pretty wrong headed. They are telling us what they'll do with their power. We'd best believe them.

Re: Elizabeth Warren 2020

163
featureless wrote: Fri Jan 31, 2020 1:38 pm
K9s wrote: Fri Jan 31, 2020 1:28 pm The "endless slippery slope" argument ignores history. Remember the 1990s Assault Weapons Ban? It ended.

Mulford Act was signed by Governor Ronald Reagan on July 28th, 1967. The law banned the carrying of loaded weapons in public.

GOP likes to restrict guns, too.
No, the endless slippery slope does not ignore history--sunsetting does not qualify. Take a look at CA, NY and now VA and tell me that shit is both reasonable infringement and not slippery. The Dem candidates are telling us they will take it nationally.

Yes, GOP likes to restrict guns too, but they aren't openly promising to take away semi auto rifles and standard capacity magazines.

I think voting for a candidate and hoping "the other side" and/or SCOTUS stops their anti-constitutional proposals is pretty wrong headed. They are telling us what they'll do with their power. We'd best believe them.
1. I don't have to explain NY or CA to you. You live in CA, I don't. And you own at least one firearm. Explain that self-rationalization to yourself. You know CA isn't changing any time soon.

2. Virginia GOP is primarily to blame for any gun control they get. They could have used the Florida model and compromised. The VA GOP have been vindictive and misogynistic a**holes to NOVA voters for decades. Too bad the GOP are upset and claiming to be victims now. I have no sympathy for them at all. It should be a warning to people that "liberal tears" have consequences.

3. I am wrong-headed because I believe that GOP Senators plus Manchin, Tester, Sinema, and the rest of the "conservative" Dem Senators won't vote for AWB or registration? I am pretty sure I am right about that.

4. You assert "the endless slippery slope does not ignore history" but provide no evidence. If it were true, we would have no scary guns for sale right now. AWB ended, it didn't expand.
It is an unfortunate human failing that a full pocketbook often groans more loudly than an empty stomach.

- Franklin D. Roosevelt

Re: Elizabeth Warren 2020

164
Appreciate your perspective, as always! And the numbered list.
K9s wrote: Fri Jan 31, 2020 2:06 pm 1. I don't have to explain NY or CA to you. You live in CA, I don't. And you own at least one firearm. Explain that self-rationalization to yourself. You know CA isn't changing any time soon.
Precisely my point and my provided proof of the slippery slope. We get a half dozen or more new gun laws every year, none get repealed, none sunset.
K9s wrote: Fri Jan 31, 2020 2:06 pm 2. Virginia GOP is primarily to blame for any gun control they get. They could have used the Florida model and compromised. The VA GOP have been vindictive and misogynistic a**holes to NOVA voters for decades. Too bad the GOP are upset and claiming to be victims now. I have no sympathy for them at all. It should be a warning to people that "liberal tears" have consequences.
There's that compromise word. Compromise would indicate that each side gets and gives something. That's not how this works, so it isn't compromise. I have no sympathy for the GOP, either, so we're in agreement there!
K9s wrote: Fri Jan 31, 2020 2:06 pm 3. I am wrong-headed because I believe that GOP Senators plus Manchin, Tester, Sinema, and the rest of the "conservative" Dem Senators won't vote for AWB or registration? I am pretty sure I am right about that.
No, you are not wrongheaded. I was being general, targeted toward all of us that will vote for a Dem hoping someone else stops the 2A infringement. It's self defeating and wrong headed on all of our parts. It is tacit approval, electing those who campaign on gun control, essentially saying "please, sir, may I have some more."
K9s wrote: Fri Jan 31, 2020 2:06 pm 4. You assert "the endless slippery slope does not ignore history" but provide no evidence. If it were true, we would have no scary guns for sale right now. AWB ended, it didn't expand.
I did provide evidence based on several states. In California, first you could buy and AR15. Then you had to register it. Then you could buy an AR15 with a bullet button. Then you had to register it. Now you may buy an "AR15" if it includes the "functionality" of breaking the action to change the 10 round magazine. Magazine fed semi-auto rifles were almost banned entirely, except Brown didn't sign it (yep, legislatures put it on his desk). Oh, and registered assault weapons cannot be inherited or transferred, so they'll be extinct here in a generation.

Our safe handgun roster now includes microstamping for any new models, not one of the original requirements--it was championed by Harris. The net effect is that any new model introduced does not qualify. Older models continue to drop off the roster as manufacturers stop making it or get sick of paying the fees to keep it on the roster. No new Smiths, no new Rugers, no new Glocks, no new Sigs, no new CZs, etc. Yeah, you can still buy handguns, but eventually, it will be down to a few 1911s and revolvers or the heavily inflated used market (off roster used guns go for 50-100% above MSRP). And now that you've found a gun, waited your 10 days to pick it up, you get a background check to buy ammo (with a 20% denial rate from DOJ paperwork errors). Sounds consistent with Heller, no?

The Federal AWB sun setting is a bullshit example to disprove slippery and you know it. The only way it passed in the first place was with a sunset clause. Next time there's a federal dem super majority, they'll fix that oversight.

Don't get me wrong, K9s. As I've told you before, if I lived behind your enemy lines, I'd see the world differently. But I live behind my enemy lines where guns are the debil and every effort is being made to make them as difficult to acquire, feed, keep, and bear as possible. And every effort is made to conflate gun owners with the most awful elements of society--a tactic used by anti civil rights activists for ever. This is not what I want out of my federal representation. This is not what I wish for my fellows in other states. But that's what we'll get. Especially if we vote for it.

Re: Elizabeth Warren 2020

165
didn't mean to start an argument. i think we can agree that none of the dems are ideal because of this one issue, and none of the reeps are acceptable because of most of the other issues, and because of the bundles they offer us we're just going to have to accept some chit with our cheeseburger and hope the damage isn't too bad.
i'm retired. what's your excuse?

Re: Elizabeth Warren 2020

166
No argument here. Just perspective of what gun control will become. I value everyone's perspectives here but can be a little surly about this particular issue. Sorry.

Re: Elizabeth Warren 2020

167
K9s wrote: Fri Jan 31, 2020 2:06 pm2. Virginia GOP is primarily to blame for any gun control they get. They could have used the Florida model and compromised.
Can you give a concrete example of this alleged legislative compromise on firearm laws in Florida?

Re: Elizabeth Warren 2020

168
DispositionMatrix wrote: Fri Jan 31, 2020 3:08 pm
K9s wrote: Fri Jan 31, 2020 2:06 pm2. Virginia GOP is primarily to blame for any gun control they get. They could have used the Florida model and compromised.
Can you give a concrete example of this alleged legislative compromise on firearm laws in Florida?
Gov. Rick Scott signs compromise gun control bill in wake of Florida school shooting
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gov-rick-s ... -shooting/
The bill signed Friday falls short of what many of the shooting's survivors advocated for, but Scott, a Republican, said it balances "our individual rights with need for public safety."

It raises the minimum age to buy rifles from 18 to 21, extends a three-day waiting period for handgun purchases to include long guns and bans bump stocks that allow guns to mimic fully automatic fire. It also creates a so-called "guardian" program -- a controversial provision that enables teachers and other school employees to carry handguns.
It is an unfortunate human failing that a full pocketbook often groans more loudly than an empty stomach.

- Franklin D. Roosevelt

Re: Elizabeth Warren 2020

169
K9s wrote: Fri Jan 31, 2020 3:20 pm
DispositionMatrix wrote: Fri Jan 31, 2020 3:08 pm
K9s wrote: Fri Jan 31, 2020 2:06 pm2. Virginia GOP is primarily to blame for any gun control they get. They could have used the Florida model and compromised.
Can you give a concrete example of this alleged legislative compromise on firearm laws in Florida?
Gov. Rick Scott signs compromise gun control bill in wake of Florida school shooting
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gov-rick-s ... -shooting/
The bill signed Friday falls short of what many of the shooting's survivors advocated for, but Scott, a Republican, said it balances "our individual rights with need for public safety."

It raises the minimum age to buy rifles from 18 to 21, extends a three-day waiting period for handgun purchases to include long guns and bans bump stocks that allow guns to mimic fully automatic fire. It also creates a so-called "guardian" program -- a controversial provision that enables teachers and other school employees to carry handguns.
Two new-at-the-time restrictions and the Guardian Program? Where is the compromise part of that compromise? What do regular firearm owners--not special classes--get out of it?

Re: Elizabeth Warren 2020

170
Maybe you should read up on it. After Parkland, Florida could have become another gun control state. The compromise is obvious to Floridians. Both sides were at each others throats - like Virginia - but the GOP relented a bit and kept power. VA GOP mocked and bullied and lost all power. How will that work out for gun owners?
It is an unfortunate human failing that a full pocketbook often groans more loudly than an empty stomach.

- Franklin D. Roosevelt

Re: trans athletes

174
pablo wrote: Fri Feb 21, 2020 6:10 pm Can't say I agree with Warren on this one... biological males shouldn't be allowed to compete in h.s. girls sports. I'd be angry if I had a daughter get aced out of a podium finish in such a situation. www.google.com/amp/s/www.nationalreview ... ports/amp/
The National Review skews that position until it is unrecognizable. She was talking about trans athletes. Very rare situation.

Trans people are the easiest for almost everyone to pick on and demonize. Doing so makes it easier to pick on the rest of us who aren't con artist fake patriots and fake Christians.
It is an unfortunate human failing that a full pocketbook often groans more loudly than an empty stomach.

- Franklin D. Roosevelt

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest