A federal judge on Wednesday temporarily blocked a California law that would have banned carrying firearms in most public places, ruling that it violates the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and deprives people of their ability to defend themselves and their loved ones.
The law signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in September was set to take effect Jan. 1. It would have prohibited people from carrying concealed guns in 26 places including public parks and playgrounds, churches, banks and zoos. The ban would apply whether the person has a permit to carry a concealed weapon or not. One exception would be for privately owned businesses that put up signs saying people are allowed to bring guns on their premises.
I think guns and abortion are great distractions because both sides will never stop fighting for them.
Meanwhile, we’re all getting fucked as the disparity in wealth continues to grow.
People can care about more than one issue.
If the republicans dropped abortion 100% or the democrats dropped guns 100% either could win nationally in a landslide.
So you’re saying if Democrats just ignore mass shooting problems after god knows how many dead schoolchildren, it’s worth it for the win?
No one said ignore mass shootings.
Just gun control in areas it’s unpopular.
There are other methods of attacking the problem than gun control. They won’t be as effective, but they will be more tolerated by the average American voter.
Take the Florida governorship. DeSantis won out by the skin of his teeth the first go around.
The reason Andrew Gilliam lost was he kept going on about bringing an assault weapons ban to Florida. Such a ban would have never made it though the legislature, so it was an empty promise on top of an unpopular one.
So he shot himself in the foot for no gain and we have been stuck with pudding fingers ever since
Democrats need to understand to pick their battles and read the room.
What exactly do you think Democrats want when it comes to guns? I hope you’re not buying the “they’re coming to take our guns” rhetoric from Republicans. Because I’ve been told that my entire life and I’m 46, so I’m thinking that isn’t part of their plan.
From my example it’s clear the average Florida voter doesn’t want an assault weapons ban, that’s for sure.
That’s not clear at all. In fact, it’s blatantly false.
https://www.mynews13.com/fl/orlando/news/2022/10/04/more-floridians-support-ban-on-assault-weapons
https://www.cbsnews.com/miami/news/majority-florida-voters-support-assault-weapons-ban/
It might be better to check and see if you’re correct before making such pronouncements.
No, but if they stopped actively encouraging them to generate political capital and focused on things that would actually prevent them rather than scapegoating legal and constitutionally protected gun ownership it would not turn away a massive amount of otherwise swing voters.
You mean like universal healthcare? Because I’m pretty sure they are focused on that. They also just want to do the absolutely horrible anti-American anti-freedom measure of keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people so there might be a handful fewer dead children.
But I suppose keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people is just scapegoating. After all, when has a psycho ever done anything dangerous?
So then why does every single proposal overwhelmingly affect law abiding citizens while only serving to give criminals even softer targets?
Also, are you talking about cable news style mass shootings like everyone thinks when they hear the term (Aurora, Pulse etc) or daily gang violence to inflate statistics? They are wildly different issues so actual meaningful solutions aren’t one size fits all (but with a surprising overlap).
Please demonstrate that every single proposal does that.
Sorry, are you saying that because mass shootings are not daily then they aren’t a problem?
Name a current proposal and I’ll explain the issues with it.
No, they are a problem but not one that can be solved with any of the current proposals. For cable news shooters the real issue is a societal one, the only legislative solution that could actually make a difference is in direct violation of the Bill of Rights so until people start caring more about stopping them than using them to promote a political view they are going to be a fact of life.
But will they discuss more than one issue at a time? It’s still completely valid to point out how asinine and unnecessary some conversations are. Eating up room is a valid deflection strategy, after all.
I don’t think it is productive to talk about gun regulation and abortion in the same conversation.
I’m not saying you should mix convos… I’m saying stop dragging out the stupid ones. The other poster is fully correct when they say some conversations are beyond meaningless and are absolutely used to distract people from bigger issues.
It’s only a stupid argument if you don’t care about children being shot up in schools. Me, I care about that.
Nice gaslighting. Where did I ever say I disagree that it’s a problem? Are you seriously going to get so upset that you’re going to miss the utterly obvious point of, “don’t take the topic change bait”? It’s literally the main way people deploy what-about-ism…
I’m pretty sure the attempt at changing the topic was the person who wrote:
Since that is not the topic of conversation in this thread. Hence my replying to them.