Inspired by @susanr and @ebola1 : Do democrats want people to be able defend themselves?
The dems have been on the wrong side of history since the beginning of this country’s foundation of political parties.
Conservatives have succeeded in anything they put out. If going by the definitions of conservatives (traditional) and liberal (anti-traditional), it obviously liberals have prevailed.
^^^i put that comment in the wrong place, though the point kinda stands. I’ll change the wording to fit your comment though.
Liberals have been in the right side of history, as shown by slavery, segregation, monopolies, women’s voting rights, and currently, gay marriage. Conservatives have yet to be right in anything.
No, they want people to be victims just like them.
More victims, more Democrats; more Democrats, more victims. It's a self-sustaining cycle.
Guys you finally cracked it Democrats are actually the ultimate evil in the world and want secretly rejoice every time people are victimized.
No. I believe they want to sit around the camp fire with rattle snakes and sing kumbaya.
No. They want no one to threaten others.
Ah, so my safety has to be jeopardized in order for them to come closer to this childish and unrealistic ideal?
I don't believe as they do.
Obviously not with guns. But maybe with baseball bats and knives.
The latest darlings of the Democrat party, the fascist AntiFa, prefer padlock in socks. They can cause brain damage with no gun powder residue.
I'm not a Democrat, but I'd happily beat the shit out of robber with a baseball bat.
Yes, but they’d also like to minimize the occurrence rate of situations that require said self-defense.
I think everyone would like that
Personally I'd like to hear from the folks who don't want any, or at least not any *more*, restrictions on gun purchases, and see what ideas they have about what on earth could possibly be done to stop the mass shootings in particular. I know they're not the only problem *by far*, but some of the other issues seem to be more "hot button" issues that go off in unhelpful directions too fast, when we try to talk about it. (They definitely do need to be explored and worked on, hopefully by people from all backgrounds putting their heads together.)
Agreed, Voc, as with many issues, we want the same outcome, but disagree on how to get there.
Susan, it’s definitely time to start the conversation about solutions, it’s honestly long overdue.
Sadly, in a free society of 330 million people, utopia is not possible!
Susan, @derekwills is a proponent of zero gun restrictions. He’s also pretty smart when it comes to this stuff. I don’t agree with him, but he has interesting views and expresses himself well. Maybe he’ll come in here and answer this.
We need to defend ourselves.
To remove guns, does not deliver you to utopia.
I am a licensed conceal carry, NRA member. For the record.
Thanks for the tag, @voc .
Yes, I am a 2A purist. Restrictions and regulations do literally nothing to prevent evil. Evil will always, always, always find a way to commit evil acts. The guy in New York used a Home Depot truck. The Oklahoma City bomber used a Rider truck and fertilizer. The 9/11 hijackers used box cutters. The Boston Marathon bombers used pressure cookers.
The ONLY people who follow gun restrictions and regulations are law-abiding citizens. If criminals followed laws, they wouldn’t be criminals. Furthermore, NICS checks are pointless. A person convicted of robbery can be rehabilitated and merely want to protect himself and his family just as someone with a squeaky clean background can want to shoot up a concert crowd.
There is no solution to homicide. It will always happen, and to be honest, it is not a problem despite the news. Homicide by firearm makes up 0.4% of deaths, and only affects 0.03% of all Americans. More people die from pneumonia every year...
than are maliciously murdered at the barrel of a firearm.
No. They firmly believe that that is the government’s job. It’s all about control of the citizens, and that cannot be accomplished by honoring the Second Amendment.
Tom ... agreed. Yet when faced with what appears to be the incompetence of government to prevent this guy from getting a gun, the left simply screams louder, hoping to drown out any decent that we need more government control.
They put more importance on the police for protection, which is odd, since they're the ones who mostly say police are corrupt and super brutal and racist. From my point of view at least
Yep. Conservatives want easy access for criminals to get guns.
What’s wrong with you?
Truth hurts. Democrat Gun control has three main parts: ban on “assault weapons”, stronger background checks, and banning guns for people with criminal record or severe certain mental health issues. The conservative response to the third point is “we shouldn’t ban guns for them because they’ll get it anyway”. This effectively gives them straight-up and easier access to guns.
Your comment was idiotic! No conservative wants any criminal to have a gun.
Question 1: Do you honestly believe a criminal will get a background check?
Question 2: Who will determine if you have a mental issue?
Question 3: Do you know what laws are already on the books in order to purchase or own a gun?
I agree with pcbis on this one. If someone wants a gun bad enough, they’ll get it. I have no idea what the right answer is, but I know that to be true.
That's true, voc. It would slow down many people or perhaps even stop *some* people, but certainly not everyone. Johonmilla's point was about *easy* access, though, and I do think there's something to be said for that. Otherwise, why have any background checks at all?
That’s true too.
Conservatives want criminals dead or in jail. It's the liberals who are trying to put them on furloughs and probation.
Susan, it would stop people who respect the law enough to jump through those hoops. You're not stopping gang members with these laws.
Why do conservatives always deal in absolutes? They want criminals either dead or in jail. Why not rehab or change some of the laws to decriminalize some things?
Gun laws don’t stop law abiding people from “jumping through those hoops” much like traffic laws don’t stop people from buying cars. I own several guns. Never once have I complained about having to do a background check. I wouldn’t complain if they made you take a gun safety class before you bought your gun. I’m not complaining that I can’t take my gun into a bar. Etc
And you wouldn't complain if the gun was illegal and you couldn't buy it at all.
Umm...I never said that. I don’t want to ban guns. Any of them. Please don’t put words in my mouth.
I’m sure this is a first but I agree with pcisbs here.
If democrats only have these few restrictions in mind for the federal level, and thus we should give in, then why is it that every dem controlled city has essentially banned all guns?
Ummm.....probably because that’s not a true statement. There is no city that has “essentially banned all guns”.
Go to Chicago and try buying a gun then.
You can buy a gun in Chicago. This store is in Chicago along with several others.
Plus, gun laws are mostly made by the states not cities. I’m pretty such Illinois residents have access to gun ownership.
They do. As does every citizen that isn’t a felon. No one has banned guns. Please don’t believe everything you see on SOH. There’s a lot of bad info.
Yes, with words and flowers and soft hugs
No, they want the government to step in
The same government that supposedly targets minorities
Just like everything else, they want the government to take care of it. Good luck with that.
I don’t like to assume people have bad motives. The left probably thinks that guns are not necessary to self-defense or most people don’t ever need to defend themselves or the amount of people who use guns the wrong way outweighs the benefits or something like that. I highly doubt that a large segment of the population just wants everyone including themselves to be attacked constantly. It doesn’t make sense.
I can’t think of a single prominent politician from either side who wants to ban guns. I do see the left being more responsible in who gets the ability to purchase them though.
To be a little fair, I think the gun lobby sees any regulation as a slippery slope & keeps the right in constant fear of them supporting a primary challenge.
Holy crap! That’s 22 years old!
Having said that, I said I couldn’t think of one. I didn’t say there wasn’t one. Who knows how her views have changed in that time & that wasn’t really the point of my comment in the first place.
Yeah it’s old but she hasn’t changed. Introduces a new bill every other year and twice on mass shootings
yes, but with the pen, not the sword
Well, they *say* they do here (so far, anyway... small sample as I write; just 8), which is different than what was *claimed* that they said, in a different poll that asked a different question, in which the conclusion that that was what they meant was (incorrectly and illogically, in my opinion) inferred from the poll question.
Of course some conservatives are going to say that they *don't* because that's what they believe about liberals (or Democrats; whatever). But it's not what Democrats say - so far, at least, in this poll - and maybe conservatives ought to pay at least a little attention to that.
Some conservatives still insist that liberals want to "take all our guns," and personally I've never heard a liberal that *I* know say that, and I've heard *almost* no liberals at all say that. So if that's what conservatives are basing their belief on, that's also extremely illogical.
Absolutely agree susan
Very. I say what I think, and people tell me (or state in comments about me or people like me in general) no, this is what you (and people like you) think.
And this, of course, is only one example of it.
Most liberals that I've encountered do not want to ban all guns, but it's not hard to find those who do. I've seen a few here on SOH.
There a few gun-proponents who will argue for zero restrictions for any reason here on SoH as well.
As you say - those 2nd amendment absolutists are not hard to find.
We all need to remember that the edges do not define the middle, regardless of the size of their megaphone.
But, to be fair, Ebola1, who asked the original question was reasonable, after a brief discussion with Susan and voc. He concluded, “I do understand your and Voc’s point and don’t really disagree with your reasoning.”
That's correct, GA, and thank you for pointing it out. It did take a couple rounds of appealing to him but he did say that after the 2nd one. I should have mentioned that myself, and wish that I had.
Zachhh , next time you see that, could you tag me please?
Ebola is usually pretty reasonable
And now we have 3 Democrats (10%) among the voters here who voted no. I'm curious to know what their stance is - do they not even want to be able to defend *themselves*? I really don't get that attitude, in anyone.
And please note, the poll question doesn't even specify guns. WTF? Maybe they're all "turn the other cheek" Christians? (I've known exactly *one* person who *truly* meant that, in all circumstances, in my 71 years.)
@voc - I said this wasn't an easy question to ask; this is part of why.
Lol! I like a challenge!
I would love for the 3 dems that voted no to speak up. I’d like to hear their reasoning.
The next reason why this question is difficult to ask is that you get non-Democrats speaking *about* Democrats declaring no, Democrats *don't* want people to be able to defend themselves (and then giving various explanations of what they think Democrats do want), when it's pretty clear to anyone who *is* a Democrat (and/or who knows a lot of Democrats) that they're speaking about a subset of Democrats - perhaps a small minority of them.
It makes me want to go ask each of them, "Are you saying that *all* Democrats want that, or *most*, or *some*, or you've read it somewhere but you really don't know, or *what*?" But I don't want to get into any protracted discussions, because I either get "Oh, well, I wasn't talking about *all* of them," or "I wasn't talking about *you*, of course," or else I get an earful of namecalling or something else. And around and around we go.
And has anyone learned anything?
Well, I would think it would be safe to ask Tom something like that, but I’ve had my fill of think for the month. I know what his response would be.
Sure, voc. If you'd like to see an example now, go look at Jenna's poll about mass shootings after Las Vegas. She stated that she is in favor of a total ban on firearms.
Which Jenna? I was thinking lofidityjenna, but she doesn’t have a poll on the shooting
Sorry, just saw the Las Vegas part. I need to read the entire thing
Well I’ll let that one go. She took enough shit from cowboy on that poll lol. Let me know about any others though.
Wait. Are we in an alternate reality?
Welcome to Trumtopia.
Some do, some don’t, but I think most want us to rely on the govt to protect us.
I think they do.
Sure, learn karate.
I can say trinitrotoluene. LOL
No I don't think they do. They'd rather imbue the government with a monopoly on force.
Which is directly contrary to the common belief that the police are not properly trained in conflict de-escalation and use of their firearms.
I can at least applaud the AnComs of Antifa for their consistency on the issue. They understand that the 2nd amendment is there to protect against tyranny.
The average lefty journo screams out, "Trump is literally cheeto Hitler" and "The NRA are murderous thugs". What are they going to do when their greatest fear Holla!-Caust 2: Gas Muslims Boogaloo happens? Lay down and die?
I gotta wonder what “lefty” sources you read, because on average my sources absolutely do not.
It’s the weirdest thing. Susan says no they don’t because they want to take all our guns, and Ebola says they do and he wishes Obama were back in office.
🤣😂🤣😂😜😜😜 Did hell freeze over, Voc? Surely, you’re pulling our leg!
💠 voc asked:
Inspired by @susanr and @ebola1 : Do democrats want people to be able defend themselves?
What poll? Lol
Yes, he's joking. But now I'm going to get a reputation for saying that, and I'll never be able to shake it!