Holder wants to explore gun tracking bracelets

[Anabolistair]

I think what actually happens is that gun lobbyists misinterpret or deliberately misinterpret stuff like this and then ignorant Southerners get pissed and/or afraid and go out and buy more guns and send checks to the GOP. So things pretty much work exactly as intended.

Way to generalise peoples. That's an ingorant elitist comment...

 

[SMEAC]

The right and disagreement on the left means you're not going to have to worry about it.
Do you think it unreasonable that gun manufacturers be required to include trigger locks with new guns?

Yes it's unreasonable and its a false sense of security.

 

[Islam Imamate]

The left doesn't want to ban guns. The argument is about some relatively minor regulatory differences. Again, I think this thread has been a great demonstration of my point about the asymmetrical passion on the issue, and the resulting effectiveness of industry/political propaganda for one side.

An assault weapons ban is a ban on guns isn't it? And its the Democrats who have it on their national platform, not to mention the areas in the US that have stricter gun laws tend to be more left leaning like NY.

Its one thing to say the left cares less for gun laws than the right does(I would agree with that statement) but its another to say that they don't want to ban guns. I think many on the left do want to ban guns, they just don't care enough to do so especially when it can cost them reelection. They would rather focus their efforts on other issues and wait until something like Newtown happens so any gun control measures they want to push will have a better chance of succeeding.

 

[RerouteToRemain]

You said in terms of substance there is very little difference and yet one party has it in their national platform that they want to ban an entire class of weapons that includes the most popular rifle in America while the other wants to make it easier to carry guns across state lines. Seems like a significant difference to me.

Lmao how he can even act like his argument is legitimate and genuine is amazing. Irrelevant minor differences lol. Weapon's ban to jack somehow equals they don't want to ban guns. The fact that the party even mentions a gun show loop hole shows how uneducated on the subject they are.

 

[Jack V Savage]

An assault weapons ban is a ban on guns isn't it?

No. Is a ban on Granny Smiths a ban on apples?

Its one thing to say the left cares less for gun laws than the right does(I would agree with that statement)

Good. That's central to my point. Remember, my involvement came in noting how this is just the latest team-building nonsense from right and that the left just isn't interested in this issue. Imagine if liberals got it into their heads that the right wanted to outlaw atheism, and every time some conservative politician said something bad about atheism, MSNBC started screeching about it and claiming that the GOP was going to repeal the 1st Amendment, and liberals started flooding the Democratic Party with donations. You would just laugh at that, right? That's how I see the gun stuff.

but its another to say that they don't want to ban guns. I think many on the left do want to ban guns, they just don't care enough to do so especially when it can cost them reelection.

So they secretly want to but they don't care enough to try, and they don't want to admit it? You don't see how crazy that sounds?

 

[Quipling]

I don't really care about the 2nd amendment, correct. I don't oppose it; I just consider it a pretty irrelevant issue (especially given that there is no *real* disagreement about it) that's just used as a distraction by politicians to get ignorant people to vote against their economic interests. And, no, you're totally just buying political propaganda there. Trust me, the "political left" doesn't give two shits about guns and gun owners.

Disagree, a bit. The left doesn't care about guns and gun owners in national campaigns, but there is variance at the local level for people running statewide or on smaller scales. We saw some of those people trying to lead the charge in the wake of recent shootings, but the democrats were hardly unified behind them.

 

[Islam Imamate]

No. Is a ban on Granny Smiths a ban on apples?

Its a ban on some apples so yes, it is a ban on apples just not a ban on all apples. So when you said the left doesn't want to ban guns, you really meant the left doesn't want to ban all guns. That's disingenuous. If a politician ran on a platform that stated he didn't want to ban guns but then introduced legislation that banned some guns, like a handgun or assault weapons ban, don't you think that would be disingenuous? Do you really see a politician standing in front of a podium using your defense? "When I said I didn't want to ban guns, I meant I didn't want to ban all guns so assault weapons are fair game".

Good. That's central to my point. Remember, my involvement came in noting how this is just the latest team-building nonsense from right and that the left just isn't interested in this issue. Imagine if liberals got it into their heads that the right wanted to outlaw atheism, and every time some conservative politician said something bad about atheism, MSNBC started screeching about it and claiming that the GOP was going to repeal the 1st Amendment, and liberals started flooding the Democratic Party with donations. You would just laugh at that, right? That's how I see the gun stuff.

I do think that a lot of this is fear mongering by some on the right but to act like there's zero basis is wrong IMO. Clearly there are left leaning individuals with some influence(though obviously not enough to get anything done on a federal level) who want to ban guns, generally the mythical assault weapon.

So they secretly want to but they don't care enough to try, and they don't want to admit it? You don't see how crazy that sounds?

Its not crazy at all. Gun control is a losing issue in many parts of the country so it would make sense to avoid pushing it even if you privately believe its the right thing to do if you want to get elected and reelected. The only times it would make sense would be after tragedies like Newtown when the countries perception of guns changes, if only for a little while.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Its a ban on some apples so yes, it is a ban on apples just not a ban on all apples. So when you said the left doesn't want to ban guns, you really meant the left doesn't want to ban all guns. That's disingenuous.

I'd say that calling a ban on assault weapons a ban on guns generally is disingenuous.

If a politician ran on a platform that stated he didn't want to ban guns but then introduced legislation that banned some guns, like a handgun or assault weapons ban, don't you think that would be disingenuous? Do you really see a politician standing in front of a podium using your defense? "When I said I didn't want to ban guns, I meant I didn't want to ban all guns so assault weapons are fair game".

We actually have seen the Democratic Party say:

We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements--like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole--so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.

Which sounds perfectly reasonable to me and is an honest statement of their intention.

I do think that a lot of this is fear mongering by some on the right but to act like there's zero basis is wrong IMO.

So we're pretty much on the same page.

Its not crazy at all. Gun control is a losing issue in many parts of the country so it would make sense to avoid pushing it even if you privately believe its the right thing to do if you want to get elected and reelected. The only times it would make sense would be after tragedies like Newtown when the countries perception of guns changes, if only for a little while.

You can't enact policy without openly stating your intention to do so, and there isn't even a movement among donors to try to change public perception on the issue. Hence, the fears are hysterical and just stirred for team-building and fundraising purposes.

 

[Calmete]

No. Is a ban on Granny Smiths a ban on apples?

Of course. What, is it a ban on peaches? You're nutty.

 

[LucasWithLidOff]

Of course. What, is it a ban on peaches? You're nutty.

Jack is just one of those people who will continue to argue even after he realizes he was wrong.

 

[45ACP]

Jack is just one of those people who will continue to argue even after he realizes he was wrong.

I don't think he ever actually realizes he's wrong. I think he truly believes his own bullshit.

 

[spamking]

No, gun nuts are the people who are getting mad, and lobbyists and other propagandists are the ones who are riling them up with these scares.

So I ask again . . . what was misinterpreted . . . by anyone.

 

[spamking]

The right and disagreement on the left means you're not going to have to worry about it.
Do you think it unreasonable that gun manufacturers be required to include trigger locks with new guns?

Mechanical, keyed locks? Nope, not unreasonable.

Electric, RFID driven locks? Those I'd think would be unreasonable and only increase the cost of guns.

 

[spamking]

I'd say that calling a ban on assault weapons a ban on guns generally is disingenuous.

Holy crap Jack . . . are you sure you want to stick with that?

So you're pitching a fit about someone making a general statement about a ban on guns when in your mind they need to be more specific and say a ban on AR-style semi-automatic sporting rifles?

My goodness. :icon_lol:

 

[__Big_D__]

Well, except that Allentown is the third largest city in the state, likely with a significantly higher population than the backwoods mountain town you probably live in.

Shit, Billy Joel even wrote a song about it. Doofus.

I'm a city boy and no, Allentown is peanuts in comparison.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I'd say that calling a ban on assault weapons a ban on guns generally is disingenuous.

Would you say an assault weapons ban is better described as a gun ban or as something that is in no way designed to ban guns.

We actually have seen the Democratic Party say:

We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements--like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole--so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.

Which sounds perfectly reasonable to me and is an honest statement of their intention.

That's what I'm saying, it is an honest statement of their intention, part of which is to ban guns. Not all guns but some guns and that's a lot more than the Republican party has in their platform so I think its inaccurate to say there are no relevant differences and that the left does not want to ban guns.

You can't enact policy without openly stating your intention to do so, and there isn't even a movement among donors to try to change public perception on the issue. Hence, the fears are hysterical and just stirred for team-building and fundraising purposes.

The Democratic party has stated its intention to ban guns and yet you just keep on pretending they haven't.

 

[UpaLoompa]

I'd say that calling a ban on assault weapons a ban on guns generally is disingenuous.

How so? An assault weapons ban obviously isn't a ban on all guns. It clearly is, however, a ban on a class (aesthetic class at least) of guns.
Your position makes very little sense.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Mechanical, keyed locks? Nope, not unreasonable.

Electric, RFID driven locks? Those I'd think would be unreasonable and only increase the cost of guns.

Don't disagree.

 

[Jack V Savage]

How so? An assault weapons ban obviously isn't a ban on all guns. It clearly is, however, a ban on a class (aesthetic class at least) of guns.
Your position makes very little sense.

When gun nuts accuse "the left" of wanting to ban guns, they mean ban all guns, not a particular type that isn't even that common. In the context of the discussion, to parse it like that, "Ha! Democrats think some types of guns should be illegal so yes they do want to ban guns!" is skipping over the substance of the discussion to claim a narrow, semantic victory.

My broader point in this whole, way-over-drawn-out discussion is: "Calm down, gun nuts. No one is taking your guns because the politically relevant left fully supports the 2nd Amendment and because the pro-gun people care far more about the issue than the less-fanatical supporters of gun ownership." Everything that's been posted in the thread has added weight to that point. Fox was just promoting yet another scare that isn't going to amount to anything because they know it riles up their base (and hence, Sleepyboy's comment that it was bad politics from Democrats misses the point completely that it's not Democrats putting this stuff in the news).

 

[ruthless robert]

Maybe he should use that to find the guns the Feds sold to the cartels. We have dimwits and malevolent people running this country.

exactly, only during the Obama admin will we have people commit felonies, and then either stay in power, or be given more power. it's a slap to the face of the tax payers and the people who voted for "change"

the main push of "change" in 2008 was anti corruption and "cleaning up the white house" but it seems like it's not only dirty but they air their dirty laundry, brag about it, have their liberal media outlets spin and justify it or ignore it all together.

if Bush was in power during Benghazi, or if there were an IRS scandal discriminating dems, progressives, and liberals. Or be behind "operation fast and furious" the dems would have his head on a noose.

But let Obama do it and it's everybody else's fault and not that big of a deal so republicans need to chill and accept their corrupt behavior.....

pathetic.