36
37

Republicans for Hillary? (self.PoliticalDiscussion)

defcon1959 が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]bored-now [スコア非表示]  (37子コメント)

And the thing is, he's always leaned more right than left. But he registered democrat because the one thing he agreed with the democrats more than the republicans was that if we are going to be a "Christian Nation" then we need to be a more charitable society. And that means we need to take better care of our poor, our tired and our hungry, which is something that the GOP just doesn't do very well.

But with Hillary saying a gun buyback is worth considering this makes him twitchy. He's pro-second amendment and was mostly ignoring the NRA and the "THEY'RE COMING TO STEAL ALL YOUR GUNS" rhetoric, but the democrats have been steadily moving to getting closer and closer to saying "Yeah, we're going to take away all the guns... fuck the 2nd amendment" and law abiding, safe gun owners like us are all "Hey!"

And you know, I get it. No one likes gun violence. No one likes it when things like San Bernardino or Columbine or Sandy Hook happen. Honestly, I don't know of a single person that say "Fuck yeah!" when it does.

But the knee jerk reaction to ban ALL guns when it does isn't the right thing to do. Gun safety is a nuanced, complex issue and that's something that both sides seem to be forgetting as the NRA pushes their "ARM ALL THE TEACHERS AND PREACHERS!!" rhetoric and the anti-gun nutz are all "THEY'RE GOING TO KILL US ALL IN THE CHIPOTLE!!!" rhetoric.

But because Trump has come out against gun control, that's where my husband is going to be voting, and it's making me sad.

[–]DJPortlane [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

But because Trump has come out against gun control, that's where my husband is going to be voting, and it's making me sad.

Don't worry. By next week or so, Trump will say he's in favor of gun control.

[–]Bamont [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

then claim he never said it and that he loves guns

[–]tealparadise [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

It's funny because I'd basically forgotten about gun control this cycle because we're talking about taking away people's healthcare, deporting refugees, weakening free speech, ramping up torture etc. But I guess it's a good reminder that some people will always be single-issue voters. Having a personal gun is apparently very important.

[–]compuzr [スコア非表示]  (6子コメント)

But the knee jerk reaction to ban ALL guns when it does isn't the right thing to do.

It's probably not accurate to characterize a decades-long running debate as a "knee jerk reaction".

Also, if a person considers a gun buyback program to be "gun control", then that person is very much a pro-gun extremist.

[–]TehRoot [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

Also, if a person considers a gun buyback program to be "gun control", then that person is very much a pro-gun extremist.

She's calling for confiscation like Australia, not some pissant poorly run voluntary buyback shitshow run by local PD's that net them 80 year old non-functioning revolvers, airsoft guns and poorly constructed zip guns.

[–]lol-da-mar-s-cool [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Doesn't make gun owners feel any better.

[–]TehRoot [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Buyback programs are bullshit.

They're either police departments and idiots being conned into giving away money, or the government going full Orwellian.

[–]compuzr [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Let's not get carried away; she did mention that Australian program as something worth looking at, which made the NRA go nuts. But in the same Q&A session (and this was all just from a Q&A last October) she said it would be like Obama's "cash for clunkers" program, which was a voluntary buyback program. If she understood Australia's was a mandatory buyback program, I can't imagine why should would have compared it to the Clunkers program.

And of course when she was asked a couple days later if she meant she supported a confiscatory program, she responded "of course not."

[–]TehRoot [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

And of course when she was asked a couple days later if she meant she supported a confiscatory program, she responded "of course not."

Inflammatory shit like what she said about Australia hurts her even among the most liberal gun owners and she backpedaled because she's a conniving whore who wants votes like whores want money.

"Confiscation?! o-o-of c-c-course not, I merely meant voluntary buyback, that I did" - Hillary 2015

[–]compuzr [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

What an utterly thoughtless, low-class comment.

[–]triple13 [スコア非表示]  (20子コメント)

The "THEY'RE COMING TO TAKE YOUR GUNS" argument is one of the dumbest arguments that gun owners could possibly believe. What are the logistics of it, are we sending police door to door in a country of 300 million people to search houses for guns? Are we making everyone gather and throw their guns into a large fire in the middle of town?

No one is taking away guns, we have a Supreme Court that would never allow it. Controlling who has access to guns is a different story, but we aren't taking guns away from law abiding citizens.

Making gun manufacturers responsible for safe use of their product is like making car companies put seat belts in cars. I still have yet to hear ANY politician say they're in favor of banning all guns, contrary to what dipshits like Ted Cruz may say in his stump speech.

[–]WhenX [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Remember when President Obama came to take everyone's guns, and instead gun owners got the right to carry them into national parks and other fun stuff like that?

And this was even against a backdrop of domestic terrorism now taking the form of terrorists legally buying firearms in the US and then using them to mass murder us? And still the harrowing "They came for our guns!!1" moment promised by reactionary gun nuts has yet to transpire. Nor will it ever.

I know I'll get downvoted because Reddit, but Jesus, you'd think decades of the "Second Amendment-Hating Dem" stereotype getting busted as junk, would be enough to finally guide rational political debate on the subject of gun ownership vs. responsibly dealing with the growing problem of gun violence.

[–]StrngBrew [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Yup. Fact is that gun rights have expanded under Obama.

Not that he's wanted them to, but they have.

The histrionics and silly panic the right tried to drum up about him were predictably silly.

[–]UNSTUMPABLE [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

No one is taking away guns, we have a Supreme Court that would never allow it.

Gay marriage isn't going away either, but it doesn't stop people from freaking out about the fact that the next President is likely going to appoint at least one justice. The balance of the Court can change, and there's no reason to believe Hillary wouldn't nominate an anti-2nd Amendment justice.

[–]triple13 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

An anti-2nd Amendment justice can't repeal an amendment, that's not how it works. Even the most extreme interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, which is what they can do, wouldn't allow for a round up of guns from every citizen.

[–]UNSTUMPABLE [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

What? Sure they can. All they have to do is reinterpret the second amendment to mean that only state militias have the right to own guns. It would no longer be an individual right.

Look at how the fourth amendment is getting chipped away.

[–]ser_dhusti [スコア非表示]  (14子コメント)

put seatbelts in cars

Guns already have a safety switch. Making gun manufacturers liable is like making car companies liable if you run someone over.

controlling who has access

People with mental illness, right? How exactly do they evaluate that? Which psychological conditions should preclude someone from owning a firearm?

[–]compuzr [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

Guns already have a safety switch.

Cars already had bumpers.

The Bic stick lighter in my kitchen has a more robust safety switch than my gun.

[–]TehRoot [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

The Bic stick lighter in my kitchen has a more robust safety switch than my gun.

Mind if I ask which gun you're actually talking about?

[–]compuzr [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

Which one? :D Any of them. The lighter has a release mechanism. Guns have a lock mechanism.

[–]TehRoot [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

I don't get the difference between the two. Both require discrete actions by the user in order to work, and don't just work on their own spontaneously.

If I want to fire my handgun with an manual safety, I have to physically move the switch, and it's not a trivial amount of force, you can do it one handed on my handgun but it's not something that can be manipulated by chance

I could see somewhat of an argument against grip or trigger safeties, but I prefer external safeties anyway since I like physical proof of the mechanism in play.

Those mechanisms still require user manipulation past a certain point to operate. You're not going to get a grip safety to work unless you're applying the correct amount of pressure with your hand and you're not going to get a trigger safety to work if you're carried properly in a holster or you apply the appropriate amount of pressure to the trigger itself.

[–]compuzr [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

A release mechanism defaults to locked. So the mechanism is always locked unless you specifically release it.

Safety's can be confusing (is it locked or not?), can be unintentionally left in the off position, or could even be accidentally unlocked.

[–]TehRoot [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I disagree that they're ambiguous. My AR-15 safety is clear, it's in fire mode when vertical, and safe when horizontal.

My LH9N safety has an orange dot that becomes visible when the safety is off, and is not visible when the safety is on.

Grip safeties default to off, and so do trigger safeties because they require a constant or consistent physical manipulation to be off.

[–]triple13 [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

I'd say any psychological conditions which could cause harm to ones self or others around them would be a good place to start.

[–]TehRoot [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

So anyone whose ever had depression? Anxiety? or a myriad of other issues that a huge portion of the population has?

[–]ser_dhusti [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

So depression, PTSD maybe?

I think that places an even bigger stigma on mental health issues. Not only that, with patient confidentiality, how do you monitor who is and isn't mentally ill? Should they register or self-report?

[–]Hartastic [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

Guns already have a safety switch.

Eh, but that doesn't mean we couldn't design a better safety.

Mass shootings aside, I'd like to think we all can get behind moving towards a future in which you're not way more likely to have your kid accidentally shoot themselves than actually use your gun for self-defense.

[–]ser_dhusti [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Sure, but how does suing gun companies move us towards that future? What kind of "seat belt" do we have in mind here?

[–]StephenGostkowskiFan [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

But that's the point though, we don't know but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Maybe the finger print on the trigger thing, which yes I know doesn't work. It's those kind of ideas though that can help a lot of people.

It's just a good idea to attempt to make guns safer from accidents. I'm not even saying the right is disagreeing, all I mean is society will be better if guns are safer.

[–]TehRoot [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

couldn't design a better safety.

This doesn't mean anything. If the safety is on "safe" the gun doesn't fire.

[–]Hartastic [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Yes, the gun doesn't fire. Now design one that keeps three year olds from shooting themselves without impacting normal responsible use.

A bottle of Tylenol has better childproofing.

[–]lilelliot [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Gun safety isn't actually nuanced at all. Guns kill people. Not having guns around eliminates gun-related deaths. This is indisputable. What is under dispute is whether the risk of allowing extremely liberal private gun ownership is worth the crime & injury/death that result.

(and don't throw the tired old "if we ban guns, then only criminals will have them" crap at me. That's almost entirely false, and if you add in the number of injuries/deaths resulting from private carry attempts at personal defense versus the injuries/deaths they're claimed to prevent, the math doesn't look good.)

Current laws make it far too easy to legally purchase firearms, period. The fact that this has been the case for >100 years also means there it's far to easy to purchase one of the millions of undocumented or illegal firearms floating around, too. These are problems that must be addressed, whether you're a gun fanatic or an anti-firearm crazy.

[–]bruin11awp [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

This reminds me of the "if you don't want to get pregnant, being abstinent is the only 100% guaranteed method to avoid it". There are clearly better ways to go about this. Stricter background checks, better safety measures, and a limit on the type of guns that could be bought would be things to consider. Not taking away all guns. That would be taking away an important part of America's history and tradition.

[–]Mjolnir2000 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

But it doesn't bother him at all that Trump has hinted it should be illegal for people to criticise him? Free speech is unimportant?

[–]bored-now [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I think there's just so much about Hillary that he doesn't like that he'll vote for just about anyone as long as it's no Hillary.