Would you want the Dem candidate for president to be pro-gun control if it costs them the election?
A) Yes. It's that important to stand on principle even if the election is lost
B) Obfuscate, then come out for gun control once elected
C) No. I suppose we have more public outreach to do before risking the presidency
D) Gun control is totally a winning issue!
E) I'm pro-RKBA so this is an easy choice for me
Bloomberg's bank rolling.
unfortunately, as we saw post Sandy Hook, Congressional Democrats have no self discipline and will drag out every gun control proposal imaginable if given the opportunity so they can impress their anti-gun constituents. Those are not the measures that will be popular in a national race where you have to win many pro-gun states.
which started George W Bush on the path to the White House.
One also has to wonder if Gore's gun control views cost him his home state of Tennessee in the 2000 election. For that matter, did Gore's views on gun control cost him any of the following states: NH, MO, OH or NV (all of which were decided with less then a 5% margin)?
If Gore had won in just ONE of those states, he would have won the Presidency regardless of what happened in FL.
For the simple reason that they were winning because they took a position against upholding people's rights. It is like asking:
"would you want a Democratic candidate to declare they would overturn Roe v. Wade if it would win them the election?"
"would you want a Democratic candidate to declare they make scary Muslims persona non grata if it would win them the election?"
"would you want a Democratic candidate to declare they would criminalize whistle-blowing if it would win them the election?"
"would you want a Democratic candidate to declare they would implement a national "stop & frisk" program if it would win them the election?"
I'd answer "no" to all of those as well.
wanted to remove licenses for CCWs and make it legal for everyone and anyone to carry
wanted to remove background checks for FFLs
wanted to remove restrictions of fully automatic firearms
wanted to remove restrictions on those that are now prohibited from owning or processing firearms.
wanted to expand "right to stand your ground" laws
The ones you answer no to having little or nothing to do with firearms.
Nor do I think that just because something is a "right" does not mean it cannot have limits and/or regulations. I presume we both agree that Roe v. Wade establishes certain reproductive rights, but that probably does not mean that you think an abortion clinic should be completely without regulations. You probably feel the same way about guns being completely without regulations. As do I.
But there is a difference between "creeping prohibition" and "regulation", and if the rhetoric on gun control here at DU is any indication, when people say "control" they mean the former and not the latter.
But to refer to a specific question above, Vermont has no licenses for CCWs and it is legal for everyone and anyone to carry (adult non-felons, anyway). And they have the lowest firearm murder rate in the country, though that is a topic for a different discussion. So, how do you feel about Bernie Sanders(I-VT) as a candidate given that he has represented Vermont since forever, and voted to not allow gun manufacturers to be subject to civil suits for the misuse of their firearms. To be specific, he voted against it twice. He would be a perfect example of a candidate who has never spoken out against license-free CCW in his home state, which is if not support for the policy, at least non-opposition to it. Do you have a problem with him?
If you think that firearm rights or any specific right exists in some separate continuum from other rights, I contend that you are part of the problem rather than part of the solution. And if a candidate holds that view, I think they are unsuited for public office, regardless of their political affiliation.
"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." Said by this guy:
However, if he is holding a bag of skittles, not so much.
That is the standard everywhere on the planet. Immediate threat, or reasonable belief of, death or grave bodily harm.
While it's certainly an important issue, it's not top tier. So as long as they aren't actually helping make it EASIER for idiots to get ahold of guns and shoot themselves, children, and people who just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, I don't mind a President who does nothing on making things better on gun control as long as they DO make things better on climate change and wealth inequality.
They said it would cost elections, but this time around candidates are including gay couples in their videos.
I don't worry about the fear mongers.
Democrats should just do what is right.
Absolutely. Democrats should defend Constitutional rights, including the 2nd Amendment.
Last edited Mon Apr 20, 2015, 10:08 AM - Edit history (1)
For an alleged college professor I'm surprised you don't seem to understand that the United States Constitution, along with many state constitutions, state that ownership of firearms is indeed a civil right.
SCOTUS, the Constitution, the President, the vast majority of states in this country and the people who WROTE the Constitution view that ownership of firearms is a civil right.
Your personal attack here seems to be based entire upon a lie.
even if you don't like that it is allowed.
You claim to be a college professor.
Given that most university and college professors have at least a Master's degree, one would think that the average university and college professor would have at least a working understanding of the basics of the US Constitution even if that wasn't their field of study.
Given that most university and college professors have at least a Master's degree, one think that the average university and college professor would have at least a working understanding of the basics of the US Constitution even if that wasn't their field of study.
Do you acknowledge that owning a firearm is a civil right?
But this has absolutely nothing to do with your personal attack above, which is based upon nothing more than your own anti-intellectualism.
I have made no mention of any political or governmental documents that you may use as scriptural references.
the basics about the US Constitution is "anti-intellectualism" and a personal attack? Ok then
And the US Constitution, state constitutions and US law are not "scriptural references".
...I said something about some political document when I didn't is simply lying, and the lies are apparently motivated by your anti-intellectualism, given how often you bash folks here simply for teaching at a public university.
We're apparently just a bunch of know-nothing egghead public employees to you.
In fact, I'm sure you can provide numerous links to all of those posts
I see you are back to making things up again
Your anti-intellectualism is on full display here in this thread.
There's nothing wrong with being a mathematician, but you act as if we are scum to be ridiculed for our profession.
And you make up lies in order to do it.
That's anti-intellectualism to an obsessive degree.
It is about your own anti-intellectual obsession.
I just happen to have a profession that you despise, and you want me to know how much you despise my profession, so you use it to bash me, that's all.
It's not about me at all. I'm just some random mathematician on the street.
It's all about you and your anti-intellectual obsession.
Last edited Tue Apr 21, 2015, 02:02 PM - Edit history (1)
I'm all for the right to own firearms. If I had my way, the Democratic platform / candidate wouldn't even mention it except to agree that it's a Constitutional right.