The Democratic Candidates

mickeyrat said:

Lerxst1992 said:

PJPOWER said:

benjs said:

PJPOWER said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mickeyrat said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mickeyrat said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mickeyrat said:

 How does it happen with(out (im presuming?)) major bloodshed?

Why would there be "major bloodshed"? 

Sounds to me like if it would cause major bloodshed -- wouldn't that be reason enough in and of itself to remove these rights?

And there wasn't any in Australia to my knowledge?

(please delete this post if its in the risk of losing posting privileges)

how compliant do you think gun owners would be in the US? hmm? voluntary buyback does jack shit here. Government wants them, they gotta take them. otherwise the whole exercise is bullshit talking point.

First off, are the rifles registered to people in the US? As in, is there a database where one can see who owns the specific rifles?

no.

That's one way to do it.

Hence the “slippery slope” arguments.  The gun rights activists have been preaching that registration leads to confiscation as a major political rallying point for years.  Now that we have a candidate openly saying “we’re going to take your guns”, their concerns are now 100% validated.  Now, it is going to be even harder to even push registration.  This is where Beto’s “we’re gonna take um” stance is undermining the gun control crowd.  We’re seeing that happening in TX right now.  Dan Patrick, a hardcore conservative, (for instance) mentioned registration
 and he is now most likely going to be voted out as the mud slinging has already begun.  No one really answered my question...How would confiscation even play out?  The buyback programs in the US so far have been duds.  

To say "X is going to happen" for years and years, and then X finally happens - doesn't mean there's some kind of Nostradamus in the NRA or GOP. All that means that a very likely combination of events/non-events (mass shootings for decades + mass unwillingness to correct the mistake for decades) caused a very logical reaction (people annoyed over mass unwillingness to correct a mistake resulting in slaughtered children, and calling for actions more extreme than previously rejected compromises and/or checks and balances). When you ask for a little and get nothing, then you have no choice but to demand a lot as the situation worsens.

I feel your understanding of the cause and effect (Republicans refuse to cede to Democrat requests because Democrats want huge gun reforms) is completely backwards, and I also feel that that misunderstanding, while it may be real for you, has been purposefully exploited by the likes of the NRA and GOP and been inaccurately communicated.

Still haven’t answered my question.  How would mass confiscation as Beto is pushing work?  Past buyback programs in the US have been complete duds...so what then?  You saying that I misunderstand does not make it so.  I feel that you are misunderstanding...see how that works?  But anyways, if you feel that Beto’s approach is helping gun control, then that’s great...I do not and would never vote for someone with his approach...that’s what really matters (if you still “feel” your vote matters).

I mentioned earlier,

Just a thought 

The  same way they enforce drunk driving laws.


 

with drive through check points that by law must be announced ahead of time?

Haha, exactly...

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJPOWER said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJPOWER said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJPOWER said:

Lerxst1992 said:

PJPOWER said:

benjs said:

PJPOWER said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mickeyrat said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mickeyrat said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mickeyrat said:

 How does it happen with(out (im presuming?)) major bloodshed?

Why would there be "major bloodshed"? 

Sounds to me like if it would cause major bloodshed -- wouldn't that be reason enough in and of itself to remove these rights?

And there wasn't any in Australia to my knowledge?

(please delete this post if its in the risk of losing posting privileges)

how compliant do you think gun owners would be in the US? hmm? voluntary buyback does jack shit here. Government wants them, they gotta take them. otherwise the whole exercise is bullshit talking point.

First off, are the rifles registered to people in the US? As in, is there a database where one can see who owns the specific rifles?

no.

That's one way to do it.

Hence the “slippery slope” arguments.  The gun rights activists have been preaching that registration leads to confiscation as a major political rallying point for years.  Now that we have a candidate openly saying “we’re going to take your guns”, their concerns are now 100% validated.  Now, it is going to be even harder to even push registration.  This is where Beto’s “we’re gonna take um” stance is undermining the gun control crowd.  We’re seeing that happening in TX right now.  Dan Patrick, a hardcore conservative, (for instance) mentioned registration
 and he is now most likely going to be voted out as the mud slinging has already begun.  No one really answered my question...How would confiscation even play out?  The buyback programs in the US so far have been duds.  

To say "X is going to happen" for years and years, and then X finally happens - doesn't mean there's some kind of Nostradamus in the NRA or GOP. All that means that a very likely combination of events/non-events (mass shootings for decades + mass unwillingness to correct the mistake for decades) caused a very logical reaction (people annoyed over mass unwillingness to correct a mistake resulting in slaughtered children, and calling for actions more extreme than previously rejected compromises and/or checks and balances). When you ask for a little and get nothing, then you have no choice but to demand a lot as the situation worsens.

I feel your understanding of the cause and effect (Republicans refuse to cede to Democrat requests because Democrats want huge gun reforms) is completely backwards, and I also feel that that misunderstanding, while it may be real for you, has been purposefully exploited by the likes of the NRA and GOP and been inaccurately communicated.

Still haven’t answered my question.  How would mass confiscation as Beto is pushing work?  Past buyback programs in the US have been complete duds...so what then?  You saying that I misunderstand does not make it so.  I feel that you are misunderstanding...see how that works?  But anyways, if you feel that Beto’s approach is helping gun control, then that’s great...I do not and would never vote for someone with his approach...that’s what really matters (if you still “feel” your vote matters).

I mentioned earlier,

Just a thought 

The  same way they enforce drunk driving laws.


 

Who is “they”?  State, local police an Sheriffs?  What do you mean “in the same way”?  “They” enforce drunk driver laws by determining the person is drunk (usually begins with an actual traffic violation), and then going a step further to prove that they were in fact under the influence.  What would be the probable cause to search a person’s property (car, house, etc) to find out they actually own an AR-15?  I’m not seeing your point...

Someone telling the appropriate law enforcement that a person is having an AR-15?

What would you do if you found your neighbor having the stolen Mona Lisa in his/her living room?

Sounds a lot like you are looking for reasons to not thinking changing the law is possible by playing up some weird fabricated daftness. Don't see the point. 

So you think the plan will work based on neighbors telling on their neighbors?  This is getting laughable...speaking of daft ness. What would you do if you found out your neighbor smokes marijuana?  That’s still illegal in Sweden, right?  Would you call the police if you found out your neighbor smokes pot?

Nope. 

But I would if I spotted an automatic rifle in their car.

Fair enough, I would if I spotted meth in someone’s front seat too.  But am I going to go around checking if people have meth in their front seat? No, and how exactly are you going to “spot” something in someone’s trunk, or closet, or gun safe, etc?  And you are anti-gun.  Pretty sure not many would turn others in for something they do not believe is right...just like they don’t with Marijuana.  Yeah, though, there are a “few” like yourself, but that is hardly something to hang a successful gun control plan on.

No one is asking you to go around checking peoples front seats?

Should Mariujana be legal in Sweden on the sole basis of people not reporting their neighbors? 

You are twisting and spinning the discussion. It is like hearing republicans trying to spin/divert from the Ukraina-call.

As i said before, should bike-theft be legal because of bike-thefts not being cleared up? 
Should having sex with someone under the legal age be legal, if most people won't report on it?
Should homemade nuclear reactors be legal just because no one will turn them in and no one will know if someone keeps one in their basement?
Should driving drunk be legal because 1 our of every 10.000 cases gets caught?

I understand you are pro-gun. But come on.

(I'm also not anti gun(?) - more anti-idiotic bullshit. Regardless of topic)

I tend to support enforceable laws.  I just want an actual plan that will work.  In my opinion, mass confiscation as supported by O’Rourke will not work...period.  Come up with a better plan than merely saying “we’re gunna take em’ from ya”.
You are the one twisting this into something it is not...
Most likely he will not be elected and all he will have accomplished is undermining years of gun control efforts by those with actual well thought out ideas that could actually make a difference.

PJPOWER said:

benjs said:

PJPOWER said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mickeyrat said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mickeyrat said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mickeyrat said:

 How does it happen with(out (im presuming?)) major bloodshed?

Why would there be "major bloodshed"? 

Sounds to me like if it would cause major bloodshed -- wouldn't that be reason enough in and of itself to remove these rights?

And there wasn't any in Australia to my knowledge?

(please delete this post if its in the risk of losing posting privileges)

how compliant do you think gun owners would be in the US? hmm? voluntary buyback does jack shit here. Government wants them, they gotta take them. otherwise the whole exercise is bullshit talking point.

First off, are the rifles registered to people in the US? As in, is there a database where one can see who owns the specific rifles?

no.

That's one way to do it.

Hence the “slippery slope” arguments.  The gun rights activists have been preaching that registration leads to confiscation as a major political rallying point for years.  Now that we have a candidate openly saying “we’re going to take your guns”, their concerns are now 100% validated.  Now, it is going to be even harder to even push registration.  This is where Beto’s “we’re gonna take um” stance is undermining the gun control crowd.  We’re seeing that happening in TX right now.  Dan Patrick, a hardcore conservative, (for instance) mentioned registration
 and he is now most likely going to be voted out as the mud slinging has already begun.  No one really answered my question...How would confiscation even play out?  The buyback programs in the US so far have been duds.  

To say "X is going to happen" for years and years, and then X finally happens - doesn't mean there's some kind of Nostradamus in the NRA or GOP. All that means that a very likely combination of events/non-events (mass shootings for decades + mass unwillingness to correct the mistake for decades) caused a very logical reaction (people annoyed over mass unwillingness to correct a mistake resulting in slaughtered children, and calling for actions more extreme than previously rejected compromises and/or checks and balances). When you ask for a little and get nothing, then you have no choice but to demand a lot as the situation worsens.

I feel your understanding of the cause and effect (Republicans refuse to cede to Democrat requests because Democrats want huge gun reforms) is completely backwards, and I also feel that that misunderstanding, while it may be real for you, has been purposefully exploited by the likes of the NRA and GOP and been inaccurately communicated.

Still haven’t answered my question.  How would mass confiscation as Beto is pushing work?  Past buyback programs in the US have been complete duds...so what then?  You saying that I misunderstand does not make it so.  I feel that you are misunderstanding...see how that works?  But anyways, if you feel that Beto’s approach is helping gun control, then that’s great...I do not and would never vote for someone with his approach...that’s what really matters (if you still “feel” your vote matters).

Fair on the question (you asked first). I have grave concerns over how mass confiscation would work in a culturally gun-obsessed environment like the States, and didn't say that Beto's approach is helping gun control (I didn't even bring up Beto or buybacks). I said that Republican talking points have planted seeds of paranoia in the minds of their supporters, which have led to even the most meagre gun control attempts being shot down for fear of the slippery slope creating a fully unarmed USA, which then creates more anger because of inactivity, so the DNC asks get bigger since the results are approximately zero since they're blocked by Republicans, and then Republicans continue the vicious circle by telling their supporters about how the Democrats want all of your guns.

Also, I reject your opinion that there's become some common ground in approaches. If my opponents in progress only throw me a bone very infrequently (and it's always less than I ask for), why would I ask for anything less than the moon in each negotiation (when I even have the rare opportunity to get this on the table in the Republican-controlled Senate)? Can you at least concede that there are non-starters coming from both Republicans and Democrats today? 

benjs said:

PJPOWER said:

benjs said:

PJPOWER said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mickeyrat said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mickeyrat said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mickeyrat said:

 How does it happen with(out (im presuming?)) major bloodshed?

Why would there be "major bloodshed"? 

Sounds to me like if it would cause major bloodshed -- wouldn't that be reason enough in and of itself to remove these rights?

And there wasn't any in Australia to my knowledge?

(please delete this post if its in the risk of losing posting privileges)

how compliant do you think gun owners would be in the US? hmm? voluntary buyback does jack shit here. Government wants them, they gotta take them. otherwise the whole exercise is bullshit talking point.

First off, are the rifles registered to people in the US? As in, is there a database where one can see who owns the specific rifles?

no.

That's one way to do it.

Hence the “slippery slope” arguments.  The gun rights activists have been preaching that registration leads to confiscation as a major political rallying point for years.  Now that we have a candidate openly saying “we’re going to take your guns”, their concerns are now 100% validated.  Now, it is going to be even harder to even push registration.  This is where Beto’s “we’re gonna take um” stance is undermining the gun control crowd.  We’re seeing that happening in TX right now.  Dan Patrick, a hardcore conservative, (for instance) mentioned registration
 and he is now most likely going to be voted out as the mud slinging has already begun.  No one really answered my question...How would confiscation even play out?  The buyback programs in the US so far have been duds.  

To say "X is going to happen" for years and years, and then X finally happens - doesn't mean there's some kind of Nostradamus in the NRA or GOP. All that means that a very likely combination of events/non-events (mass shootings for decades + mass unwillingness to correct the mistake for decades) caused a very logical reaction (people annoyed over mass unwillingness to correct a mistake resulting in slaughtered children, and calling for actions more extreme than previously rejected compromises and/or checks and balances). When you ask for a little and get nothing, then you have no choice but to demand a lot as the situation worsens.

I feel your understanding of the cause and effect (Republicans refuse to cede to Democrat requests because Democrats want huge gun reforms) is completely backwards, and I also feel that that misunderstanding, while it may be real for you, has been purposefully exploited by the likes of the NRA and GOP and been inaccurately communicated.

Still haven’t answered my question.  How would mass confiscation as Beto is pushing work?  Past buyback programs in the US have been complete duds...so what then?  You saying that I misunderstand does not make it so.  I feel that you are misunderstanding...see how that works?  But anyways, if you feel that Beto’s approach is helping gun control, then that’s great...I do not and would never vote for someone with his approach...that’s what really matters (if you still “feel” your vote matters).

Fair on the question (you asked first). I have grave concerns over how mass confiscation would work in a culturally gun-obsessed environment like the States, and didn't say that Beto's approach is helping gun control (I didn't even bring up Beto or buybacks). I said that Republican talking points have planted seeds of paranoia in the minds of their supporters, which have led to even the most meagre gun control attempts being shot down for fear of the slippery slope creating a fully unarmed USA, which then creates more anger because of inactivity, so the DNC asks get bigger since the results are approximately zero since they're blocked by Republicans, and then Republicans continue the vicious circle by telling their supporters about how the Democrats want all of your guns.

Also, I reject your opinion that there's become some common ground in approaches. If my opponents in progress only throw me a bone very infrequently (and it's always less than I ask for), why would I ask for anything less than the moon in each negotiation (when I even have the rare opportunity to get this on the table in the Republican-controlled Senate)? Can you at least concede that there are non-starters coming from both Republicans and Democrats today? 

It’s not really a concession as much as an agreement, but Republicans and Democrats produce plenty non-starters.  And that is where we were on two different pages, as I am talking specifically about O’Rourke and his “plan”.  I was trying to keep that narrow focus instead of a broad gun control argument as this is the “Democrat candidates” thread.  Democrats and Republicans are both guilty of lying to garner support for their platforms related to gun control.  

cincybearcat said:

PJPOWER said:

benjs said:

PJPOWER said:

benjs said:

PJPOWER said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mickeyrat said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mickeyrat said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mickeyrat said:

 How does it happen with(out (im presuming?)) major bloodshed?

Why would there be "major bloodshed"? 

Sounds to me like if it would cause major bloodshed -- wouldn't that be reason enough in and of itself to remove these rights?

And there wasn't any in Australia to my knowledge?

(please delete this post if its in the risk of losing posting privileges)

how compliant do you think gun owners would be in the US? hmm? voluntary buyback does jack shit here. Government wants them, they gotta take them. otherwise the whole exercise is bullshit talking point.

First off, are the rifles registered to people in the US? As in, is there a database where one can see who owns the specific rifles?

no.

That's one way to do it.

Hence the “slippery slope” arguments.  The gun rights activists have been preaching that registration leads to confiscation as a major political rallying point for years.  Now that we have a candidate openly saying “we’re going to take your guns”, their concerns are now 100% validated.  Now, it is going to be even harder to even push registration.  This is where Beto’s “we’re gonna take um” stance is undermining the gun control crowd.  We’re seeing that happening in TX right now.  Dan Patrick, a hardcore conservative, (for instance) mentioned registration
 and he is now most likely going to be voted out as the mud slinging has already begun.  No one really answered my question...How would confiscation even play out?  The buyback programs in the US so far have been duds.  

To say "X is going to happen" for years and years, and then X finally happens - doesn't mean there's some kind of Nostradamus in the NRA or GOP. All that means that a very likely combination of events/non-events (mass shootings for decades + mass unwillingness to correct the mistake for decades) caused a very logical reaction (people annoyed over mass unwillingness to correct a mistake resulting in slaughtered children, and calling for actions more extreme than previously rejected compromises and/or checks and balances). When you ask for a little and get nothing, then you have no choice but to demand a lot as the situation worsens.

I feel your understanding of the cause and effect (Republicans refuse to cede to Democrat requests because Democrats want huge gun reforms) is completely backwards, and I also feel that that misunderstanding, while it may be real for you, has been purposefully exploited by the likes of the NRA and GOP and been inaccurately communicated.

Still haven’t answered my question.  How would mass confiscation as Beto is pushing work?  Past buyback programs in the US have been complete duds...so what then?  You saying that I misunderstand does not make it so.  I feel that you are misunderstanding...see how that works?  But anyways, if you feel that Beto’s approach is helping gun control, then that’s great...I do not and would never vote for someone with his approach...that’s what really matters (if you still “feel” your vote matters).

Fair on the question (you asked first). I have grave concerns over how mass confiscation would work in a culturally gun-obsessed environment like the States, and didn't say that Beto's approach is helping gun control (I didn't even bring up Beto or buybacks). I said that Republican talking points have planted seeds of paranoia in the minds of their supporters, which have led to even the most meagre gun control attempts being shot down for fear of the slippery slope creating a fully unarmed USA, which then creates more anger because of inactivity, so the DNC asks get bigger since the results are approximately zero since they're blocked by Republicans, and then Republicans continue the vicious circle by telling their supporters about how the Democrats want all of your guns.

Also, I reject your opinion that there's become some common ground in approaches. If my opponents in progress only throw me a bone very infrequently (and it's always less than I ask for), why would I ask for anything less than the moon in each negotiation (when I even have the rare opportunity to get this on the table in the Republican-controlled Senate)? Can you at least concede that there are non-starters coming from both Republicans and Democrats today? 

It’s not really a concession as much as an agreement, but Republicans and Democrats produce plenty non-starters.  And that is where we were on two different pages, as I am talking specifically about O’Rourke and his “plan”.  I was trying to keep that narrow focus instead of a broad gun control argument as this is the “Democrat candidates” thread.  Democrats and Republicans are both guilty of lying to garner support for their platforms related to gun control.  

All gun control has been “non starter”. People pretend to be concerned about a slippery slope and all that nonsense as an excuse to keep everything the same and fool themselves into thinking they aren't part of the problem and they don’t share any responsibility for all the deaths. 

I agree. The vague "I'm all for common sense gun reform measures" quickly falls apart with any specific measure suggested and reverts to the "slippery slope" argument. 

Meltdown99 said:

YO They'd still miss the playoffs.

mrussel1 said:

Getting into the cold analytics,  Warren is having a pretty good week as the field begins to clear.  Bernie needs to take a step back for himself.  Joe has to fend off unfair allegations.  Pete could come out a winner too if he can somehow coalesce some moderates unsure about Liz. 

Bernie stepped back, though not by choice I presume.  Hospitalized for a blocked artery?

Yeah, really wild lately. Polls show Warren doing better with African Americans. 
I think the Ukraine Treason by Trump is gonna hurt Biden. Unfair I suppose, but just the perception of it all. Interesting to see how that plays out. If I had to bet today on who I think is getting the nomination, I’d put my money on Warren. 

mcgruff10 said:

I wish the man a speedy recovery but I don’t see him coming back from this type of surgery in time to stage an effective campaign.  

I agree. Not a fan, but feel bad for him to have this detail his dream. I wish a speedy recovery.

This is his chance to help the Dems and help control the nomination if not the election. If Bernie decides to drop out and throw his support to say... Warren...things get very interesting.