• @bostonbananarama
    link
    -610 months ago

    This has been said about many issues in the past.

    Which issues? Civil Rights? Gay marriage?

    Those are issues in which the American people were opposed, and then societal views changed. As you pointed out, that isn’t the case here. Americans already favor reform, but they aren’t going to vote these people out based on the status quo.

    Newtown was the wake up call, if nothing changes after a bunch of small children get massacred, you’re not getting change. Not without wholesale changes. Proposing an AWB is political theater, nothing more.

    • @farcaster
      link
      9
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      If it’s popular, why wouldn’t the Democrats keep fighting for it?

      Whether it will realistically happen anytime soon, yeah I’d say the odds are very low.

      But let’s not just give up as it can’t ever happen.

      Also “political theater” is like half of actual politics, so don’t knock it too easily :P

    • @Maggoty
      link
      510 months ago

      It’s the worst political theater. It makes it look like something is being done when it isn’t. Gun sales go up and liberals feel good. More kids die.

        • @RaoulDook
          link
          English
          410 months ago

          The solution is for law enforcement to properly enforce the existing laws that could have stopped countless shootings already.

          My personal solution is not to worry about gun violence because it’s extremely rare and highly unlikely to affect me. America is quite safe to live in for the majority of us.

          • Flying Squid
            link
            010 months ago

            My personal solution is not to worry about gun violence because it’s extremely rare and highly unlikely to affect me.

            Oh, well as long as it is unlikely to affect you…

            I mean illegal abortion is unlikely to affect me, so why should I give a shit, am I right?

            • @RaoulDook
              link
              English
              310 months ago

              That’s really a bad comparison, because you’re arguing for the point of taking away rights from Americans, by making reference to a right that was taken away (since it was never properly added to the Constitution). I support all rights for all Americans - we should all have the rights to bear arms and to privacy + bodily autonomy.

              So instead of arguing to take away more rights, you should be arguing to add more rights. Lobby for the rights to privacy and bodily autonomy instead.

              • Flying Squid
                link
                -210 months ago

                Make up your mind. Do you care about things that don’t affect you or not?

                • @RaoulDook
                  link
                  English
                  310 months ago

                  Of course I do, and you should too. You should care about all the rights of Americans, just as I do and AS I ALREADY MENTIONED.

                  I have already addressed everything you mentioned previously, so now you’re just pissing in the wind.

                  • Flying Squid
                    link
                    -210 months ago

                    My personal solution is not to worry about gun violence because it’s extremely rare and highly unlikely to affect me

                    Your words.

        • @Maggoty
          link
          010 months ago

          I’m afraid at this point there’s no legislation that will survive the Supreme Court. The next realistic move is to mirror the federalist society. Get enough judges appointed with the idea that the second does not protect personal gun ownership and reach a critical state.

          If I could waive a magic wand without breaking the character of the US, we’d ban external magazines, have universal background checks, and stop federal funds from going to states that don’t send information to the National Instant Check System. There’s so much low hanging fruit. But even when SCOTUS wasn’t busy boofing beers the Brady Campaign gave us shit laws designed to harass people, not reduce violence.

          • @SupraMario
            link
            010 months ago

            None of what you just proposed would reduce violence…

            • @Maggoty
              link
              1
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              Frustrating the reload slows down active shooters. Solidifying the NICS means criminals can’t just go to the next state over. And Universal background checks takes away the secondhand market from criminals as well.

              A program to groom judges on this just like the conservatives did with Roe V Wade will do the most in the long term because we’ll be able to have laws based on the actual amendment, not just a few words of it.

              • @SupraMario
                link
                -110 months ago

                Yes…because no active shooters have ever made plans…and no active shooters have ever not been flagged correctly when they were prohibited already…and no one buys drugs on the black market cause that’s illegal…and no one makes straw purchases which are already illegal.

                RvW needs to be signed into a law, not used as a bargaining chip for votes for Democrats. They need to use their political capital to make it a federal law.

                • @Maggoty
                  link
                  110 months ago

                  This isn’t a good faith argument. The logical extent is that we can’t stop every criminal so we should have no laws at all.

                  • @SupraMario
                    link
                    -110 months ago

                    We already have laws for these things you listed… literally murder is illegal…so is buying or owning a firearm and being a prohibited person…you gonna make it double illegal? I’m not the one arguing in bad faith. You are