Biden vs Gun Owners

[EKYHunter]

I don’t think that the creation of more social programs is the answer to the question of keeping bad guys away from guns. Not sure why that would even be suggested. Don’t we already have enough laws such as isn’t it already illegal to kill someone? Aren’t straw purchase already illegal? Isn’t it already illegal for a convicted felon to be in possession of firearms? Now some will say that’s over simplified but I disagree. It is that simple. People know right from wrong and choose to act accordingly. I live in eastern Kentucky. Various news organizations like to report that we have the highest rates of substance abuse and mental health issues than anywhere in the country. Well we also have substance abuse treatment and mental health treatment in every town, including inpatient residential treatment facilities. It is literally everywhere!!! And there are plenty of programs to pay the bill for those seeking treatment. So to say that we should have more social programs and funding for them so that folks won’t do bad things with guns, so that folks won’t want to ban guns, just seems like a circular argument to me.

 

[406dn]

The real risk is not in 2021, but if the Trumpists continue to drive suburban and other moderate conservatives away from the party there is a real risk in 2022 or 2024 that the Dems get to 60 in the senate. And then you can say goodbye to a lot more than the 2A - it will be all AOC/Warren/Bernie all the time. Time for the rightest of the right to see the writing on the wall and start dancing with the broad coalition of moderate conservatives.

I've stayed away from the 2A debate willfully, because it will not be settled here.

Saying that will be all AOC/Warren/Bernie all the time is pretty much as hyperbolic as the cold dead hands crowd. No wing of any party gets its way all the time to the exclusion everyone else. Would they have greater sway, yes,,, and if the people vote for it ,that's the way it works.

I'd point to the present situation in Montana where Republicans enjoyed a very successful election. Some of what they have brought forth has been met with stiff resistance. Every party finds out that if they get too extreme, it causes a substantial backlash.

 

[AlaskaHunter]

I've stayed away from the 2A debate willfully, because it will not be settled here.

Saying that will be all AOC/Warren/Bernie all the time is pretty much as hyperbolic as the cold dead hands crowd. No wing of any party gets its way all the time to the exclusion everyone else. Would they have greater sway, yes,,, and if the people vote for it ,that's the way it works.

I'd point to the present situation in Montana where Republicans enjoyed a very successful election. Some of what they have brought forth has been met with stiff resistance. Every party finds out that if they get too extreme, it causes a substantial backlash.

There is a continuum of values and beliefs and most are unlikely to change.
Towards one end of the continuum are those "never give an inch", "slippery slope", etc.
Towards the other end are those that see mass shootings consistently involving high capacity magazines,
remember the 10-year ban, etc.

 

[stevejfarms]

I don’t think that the creation of more social programs is the answer to the question of keeping bad guys away from guns. Not sure why that would even be suggested. Don’t we already have enough laws such as isn’t it already illegal to kill someone? Aren’t straw purchase already illegal? Isn’t it already illegal for a convicted felon to be in possession of firearms? Now some will say that’s over simplified but I disagree. It is that simple. People know right from wrong and choose to act accordingly. I live in eastern Kentucky. Various news organizations like to report that we have the highest rates of substance abuse and mental health issues than anywhere in the country. Well we also have substance abuse treatment and mental health treatment in every town, including inpatient residential treatment facilities. It is literally everywhere!!! And there are plenty of programs to pay the bill for those seeking treatment. So to say that we should have more social programs and funding for them so that folks won’t do bad things with guns, so that folks won’t want to ban guns, just seems like a circular argument to me.

I don’t know about Eastern Kentucky, but in Missouri there are mental health care facilities as well. They are understaffed, underfunded, and completely overwhelmed by the needs of their communities. I have tried to get someone help and it is next to impossible. I bet it’s very similar there.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Well we also have substance abuse treatment and mental health treatment in every town, including inpatient residential treatment facilities. It is literally everywhere!!!

It is my wish that you never have to learn first hand, but our mental health system is grossly inadequate. My family had a major mental health event two years ago and even though we live in one of the metro areas recognized as having world-class facilities, and my employer gives us truly outstanding insurance, and my wife and I are educated and have experience in the medical field, and we were able to write any check that was needed, we still had to move hell and earth to find an open spot in a proper facility - a family of more modest means doesn't have a chance.

But your reaction demonstrates my concern - lots of pro-2A folks on HT have said, gun violence is an economic and mental health problem, and gun control won't fix those. But then when actually asked to lean into those problems they take a pass. So really the original argument was phony and they just don't care as long as they keep the guns they like.

As for why is this an economic problem (and a mental health problem)?

Two reasons, the first is simple political math. 80% of voters don't care about gun philosophy - the NRA's or Bloomberg's - they react to the world they directly experience, a majority of Americans that is an urban/suburban experience. So when a 14 year in the city has no hope and has already lost family members to gun violence and joins a gang out of hopelessness and to find a sense of belonging and then shoots somebody on a street corner it doesn't matter if background checks work or no - the suburban/urban voters will vote to "do someting about guns" - they don't care what, they just want to know somebody is doing something (pretty much sums up most voters understanding on most topics). And when some 17 yo has a mental health breakdown and gets no mental health treatment and shoots a bunch of classmates they again demand something be done. That gives great power to the politicians that will pander to these concerns. We are far better off showing voters we can address their concerns by attacking the root causes than by looking the other way and letting the gun control folks have carte blanche with this large group of voters. As economics improve, crime goes down (there is no serious debate on this point amongst economists) - as crime goes down it is likely demands for gun control will go down with enough voters that it will return to a non-issue.

The second reason is a moral reason. It is the right thing to do. We have many welfare programs, but you and I seem to agree that they are ineffective. The answer is to try something different, not to walk away. In fact, a big reason they are ineffective is because walking away and just sending a check doesn't work. Those blessed with stable families and good jobs need to re-engage our poor communities (urban and rural). We have the skills, experiences and $$ -- it is not enough just to send in a check to a bureaucratic system and think we have done our part for our fellow man.

 

[Sytes]

I've started doing that myself and as of now I've sent emails on the Border Security/Immigration, their desired Firearms laws, and the Pipeline that Biden just shut down. We can chat back and forth amongst ourselves, but unless we take the same amount of time and direct it at folks where it might actually make a difference, then what we are mostly doing here is pissing in the wind. If we don't let our opinions and concerns be heard then we don't have a right to bitch when things go to hell on us.

This.

Immigration is about to become the free flowing "Keystone" Pipeline right up America's arse with Biden's political donors pressing their agendas and now just announced their "Gun Control" agenda.

Statement by the President Three Years After the Parkland Shooting | The White House

Three years ago today, a lone gunman took the lives of 14 students and three educators at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. In

www.whitehouse.gov

This Administration will not wait for the next mass shooting to heed that call. We will take action to end our epidemic of gun violence and make our schools and communities safer. Today, I am calling on Congress to enact commonsense gun law reforms, including requiring background checks on all gun sales, banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and eliminating immunity for gun manufacturers who knowingly put weapons of war on our streets.

 

[VikingsGuy]

This.

Immigration is about to become the free flowing "Keystone" Pipeline right up America's arse with Biden's political donors pressing their agendas and now just announced their "Gun Control" agenda.

Statement by the President Three Years After the Parkland Shooting | The White House

Three years ago today, a lone gunman took the lives of 14 students and three educators at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. In

www.whitehouse.gov

If he had the votes he wouldn't be "calling" for anything, they would be voting and signing. Until he has the votes this is all political theater.

 

[ImBillT]

Sincerely curious as to your thoughts here, as I would guess the other way.

The Senate currently requires 60 votes to move non-budgetary legislation. To remove this rule they would need Manchin's vote to get to 50+VP which he has said he will not give. Even if Manchin agreed to drop fillibuster rule he would then have to vote for gun control, and other than an extension of existing background checks to gun shows and other third party private sales he has said he doesn't support going further. And even if Manchin changes his mind, there are at least 3 or 4 other Dem Senators that will tread lightly on the issue. On the flip side the House rules by 50.001% and already has a 10 vote cushion. While the house does have some members in "swing" districts that may also tread lightly, all in all the senate seems a lot safer.

The real risk is not in 2021, but if the Trumpists continue to drive suburban and other moderate conservatives away from the party there is a real risk in 2022 or 2024 that the Dems get to 60 in the senate. And then you can say goodbye to a lot more than the 2A - it will be all AOC/Warren/Bernie all the time. Time for the rightest of the right to see the writing on the wall and start dancing with the broad coalition of moderate conservatives.

There is more than one Democrat in the house that is closer to center, there is only one of those in the senate. There also appears to be a lower percentage of pseudo-conservative Republicans in the house. House members are much closer to their constituents due to their shorter terms and smaller areas of representation. You can have vast areas of a state go essentially unrepresented by their senators due to their elections being statewide.

I don’t trust Manchin to stick to his guns. It’s been a long time since he voted counter to rest of his party on anything meaningful.

I don’t trust Swamp Rat McConnel or his father-in-law.

I don’t trust Rubio.

Murkowski and Collins are total libs that just keep the R in front of their names and do occasional conservative things because they have to to win in their states.

This seems right up Rand Paul’s alley, but he does really weird things sometimes. He’s either mentally defective or perhaps being blackmailed. We would have repealed Obama Care if he had voted on the first more conservative repeal, but he voted against it and claimed that it wasn’t conservative enough. Republicans rewrote the repeal bill to be more liberal so that they could pick up Collins or Murkowski, and Rand Paul then voted for the more liberal version, but McCain came in and did voted against it even though he had just won re-election claiming that he would repeal it. Something is not right with Rand Paul.

Mitt Romney is a liberal.

John Cornyn is a liberal.

The Democrats have the majority in the senate 53-47 with Collins, Murkowski and Romney. Manchin is the only one that might vote to get rid of the filibuster.

According to my understanding, the senate filibuster rule is not constitutional law. Schumer can theoretically hold a vote whether he has 60 vote consent any time he wants, then Biden can sign a bill with only 51 senate votes, or 50 senate votes plus Harris, and will become law, and that will likely hold up in the Supreme Court. Would he prefer that he stayed within senate rules by changing the rules with a 51-49 vote? Sure. When he does either one, it will be after a major controversial bill fails with 3-7 Republican supporters.

 

[Sytes]

Until he has the votes this is all political theater.

Political theatre is placing a microphone in the face of a child to explain to adults why law abiding citizens should have firearm restrictions beyond Heller. This is one of many steps to pump up the volume... as we already discussed... This is the Bloomberg, et al politically purchased "noise" going into America's Executive arm to begin it's official broadcasting from the Oval Office.

If you believe this noise is inconsequential, I differ from your thoughts.

 

[VikingsGuy]

There is more than one Democrat in the house that is closer to center, there is only one of those in the senate. There also appears to be a lower percentage of pseudo-conservative Republicans in the house. House members are much closer to their constituents due to their shorter terms and smaller areas of representation. You can have vast areas of a state go essentially unrepresented by their senators due to their elections being statewide.

I don’t trust Manchin to stick to his guns. It’s been a long time since he voted counter to rest of his party on anything meaningful.

I don’t trust Swamp Rat McConnel or his father-in-law.

I don’t trust Rubio.

Murkowski and Collins are total Lihat just keep the R in front of their names and do occasional conservative things because they have to to win in their states.

This seems right up Rand Paul’s alley, but he does really weird things sometimes. He’s either mentally defective or perhaps being blackmailed. We would have repealed Obama Care if he had voted on the first more conservative repeal, but he voted against it and claimed that it wasn’t conservative enough. Republicans rewrote the repeal bill to be more liberal so that they could pick up Collins or Murkowski, and Rand Paul then voted for the more liberal version, but McCain came in and did voted against it even though he had just won re-election claiming that he would repeal it. Something is not right with Rand Paul.

Mitt Romney is a liberal.

John Cornyn is a liberal.

The Democrats have the majority in the senate 53-47 with Collins, Murkowski and Romney. Manchin is the only one that might vote to get rid of the filibuster.

According to my understanding, the senate filibuster rule is not constitutional law. Schumer can theoretically hold a vote whether he has 60 vote consent any time he wants, then Biden can sign a bill with only 51 senate votes, or 50 senate votes plus Harris, and will become law, and that will likely hold up in the Supreme Court. Would he prefer that he stayed within senate rules by changing the rules with a 51-49 vote? Sure. When he does either one, it will be after a major controversial bill fails with 3-7 Republican supporters.

Any time a conservative or Trumpist blasts McConnel or Pence at this point all credibility goes out the window for me. This is a democracy, not a cult of personality.

The filibuster is a senate rule that can be changed by the senate at its whim - but rule changes require 60 votes too. At some point, the "nuclear option" theory was developed and bounced around (both by DEMS and GOP over the years). The nuclear option used a different rule that allows a "point of order" objections. Such objection is first ruled on by the senate chair and then by the body as a whole. Such point of orders are subject to simple majority - 50 votes + the VP. The point of order in this case is something along the lines of, "the filibuster is unconstitutional as it overrides the principles of one man, one vote". It was first used by the DEMS for non-SCOTUS judicial appointments of Obama. It was next used by the GOP (and that sketchy leftist McConnel) to extend to SCOTUS appointments by Trump. The objection can continue to be limited or could be the whole. Meaning one could object only in the matter at hand, or generally "to matters of public safety" or completely abolish - all are possible, depends on the wording of the objection.

 

[TheJason]

If you believe this noise is inconsequential, I differ from your thoughts.

Noise isn't inconsequential, as the lasts four years have taught us.

 

[Sytes]

Noise isn't inconsequential, as the lasts four years have taught us.

We agree.

 

[VikingsGuy]

If you believe this noise is inconsequential, I differ from your thoughts.

I agree that noise is something to be paid attention to. But if we are always reacting at 10, how will we go to 11 when the threat really comes? The daily reposting of scary facts that we already heard in December (or 5 years ago) by both sides wears everyone down and does nothing to drive good decision making in my opinion

 

[Straight Arrow]

There is more than one Democrat in the house that is closer to center, there is only one of those in the senate. There also appears to be a lower percentage of pseudo-conservative Republicans in the house. House members are much closer to their constituents due to their shorter terms and smaller areas of representation. You can have vast areas of a state go essentially unrepresented by their senators due to their elections being statewide.

I don’t trust Manchin to stick to his guns. It’s been a long time since he voted counter to rest of his party on anything meaningful.

I don’t trust Swamp Rat McConnel or his father-in-law.

I don’t trust Rubio.

Murkowski and Collins are total libs that just keep the R in front of their names and do occasional conservative things because they have to to win in their states.

This seems right up Rand Paul’s alley, but he does really weird things sometimes. He’s either mentally defective or perhaps being blackmailed. We would have repealed Obama Care if he had voted on the first more conservative repeal, but he voted against it and claimed that it wasn’t conservative enough. Republicans rewrote the repeal bill to be more liberal so that they could pick up Collins or Murkowski, and Rand Paul then voted for the more liberal version, but McCain came in and did voted against it even though he had just won re-election claiming that he would repeal it. Something is not right with Rand Paul.

Mitt Romney is a liberal.

John Cornyn is a liberal.

The Democrats have the majority in the senate 53-47 with Collins, Murkowski and Romney. Manchin is the only one that might vote to get rid of the filibuster.

According to my understanding, the senate filibuster rule is not constitutional law. Schumer can theoretically hold a vote whether he has 60 vote consent any time he wants, then Biden can sign a bill with only 51 senate votes, or 50 senate votes plus Harris, and will become law, and that will likely hold up in the Supreme Court. Would he prefer that he stayed within senate rules by changing the rules with a 51-49 vote? Sure. When he does either one, it will be after a major controversial bill fails with 3-7 Republican supporters.

Persistent political pigeon-hole pegging perpetrates perpetual political puke.

 

[Sytes]

But if we are always reacting at 10, how will we go to 11

If you're (You in general) at a 10, you need to slow yourself down. I'm running 6 of 10 vs the 3-5 the past 4 years. Biden has big Anti 2A backers expecting him to peruse this... This noise is meant to build further traction.

Have you seen this on Biden's own web page?

Joe Biden also knows how to make progress on reducing gun violence using executive action.

Joe Biden's Plan to End Gun Violence | Joe Biden for President

Joe Biden's plan to end gun violence will tackle America's gun violence head on, and treat it as the public health epidemic it is.

joebiden.com

 

[ImBillT]

Any time a conservative or Trumpist blasts McConnel or Pence at this point all credibility goes out the window for me. This is a democracy, not a cult of personality.

The filibuster is a senate rule that can be changed by the senate at its whim - but rule changes require 60 votes too. At some point, the "nuclear option" theory was developed and bounced around (both by DEMS and GOP over the years). The nuclear option used a different rule that allows a "point of order" objections. Such objection is first ruled on by the senate chair and then by the body as a whole. Such point of orders are subject to simple majority - 50 votes + the VP. The point of order in this case is something along the lines of, "the filibuster is unconstitutional as it overrides the principles of one man, one vote". It was first used by the DEMS for non-SCOTUS judicial appointments of Obama. It was next used by the GOP (and that sketchy leftist McConnel) to extend to SCOTUS appointments by Trump. The objection can continue to be limited or could be the whole. Meaning one could object only in the matter at hand, or generally "to matters of public safety" or completely abolish - all are possible, depends on the wording of the objection.

I’ve been blasting McConnel since Obama’s first term. He was far better under Trump than he ever was before Trump was elected, and he will slide right back to his shady roots relatively quickly. I didn’t even mention Trump in the post you quoted. I don’t follow personalities. McConnel stood by Trump on some issues because he couldn’t afford not to politically. McConnel was a waste of space while Obama was president, and he will be a waste of space under Biden/Harris.

Going into 2016 Hannity promised to do everything within his power to find and support primary candidates to beat McConnel and Ryan or at least help Republicans in the house and senate find someone else to put in leadership. Trump won, Hannity forgot how bad Ryan and McConnel had been, and never went through with it. Ryan and McConnel squandered the first two years of Trump’s presidency because Ryan and McConnel aren’t conservatives and never actually wanted to do any of the things most Republicans ran on.

The idea that someone loses credibility for thinking McConnel is a shady senator shows your very shallow thinking of the people you encounter. Can you not look farther back than Jan 6th 2020? If you don’t like Mitch McConnel you must be a Trumpist? Really?

I know what the nuclear option is. Again, a lot of the senate rules have nothing to do with the constitution and are not law. I see no reason why a bill can’t land on the desk of the president with 51 votes, get signed, and become law. The reason that it doesn’t happen, is due to senate rules that the senate chooses to follow. No one is going to step in and force them to follow their own rules if they simply choose to ignore them. Schumer may or may not choose to change them while following their rules, he may or may not choose to change them without following their rules, and he may or may not choose to ignore them altogether. If he chooses to change them or ignore them, it will be after a bill fails with 3-7 Republicans supporting the bill.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I didn’t even mention Trump in the post you quoted.

I didn't mention Trump at all other than in passing context of the nuclear option which was simply factual info for folks who wanted to understand the filibuster better.

I did refer to "Trumpists" - there is a difference, Trump is a one-term charlatan who spent most of his life as a NY democrat. "Trumpists" are rebranded Dixiecrats with broader geographic appeal but with the same old school "values" - they existed before Trump and will exist long after Trump is selling timeshare condos on late night infomercials. They lurked in the Democratic party for decades before they quit, were quietly welcomed into the GOP by Nixon, but kept largely out of sight. But Trump saw the opportunity they presented and went all in and expanded the franchise. Not to society's benefit in my opinion.

 

[4ohSick]

I didn't mention Trump at all other than in passing context of the nuclear option which was simply factual info for folks who wanted to understand the filibuster better.

I did refer to "Trumpists" - there is a difference, Trump is a one-term charlatan who spent most of his life as a NY democrat. "Trumpists" are rebranded Dixiecrats with broader geographic appeal but with the same old school "values" - they existed before Trump and will exist long after Trump is selling timeshare condos on late night infomercials. They lurked in the Democratic party for decades before they quit, were quietly welcomed into the GOP by Nixon, but kept largely out of sight. But Trump saw the opportunity they presented and went all in and expanded the franchise. Not to society's benefit in my opinion.

 

[ImBillT]

Persistent political pigeon-hole pegging perpetrates perpetual political puke.

So he asks me why I think the senate is more dangerous for 2A legislation than the house, I explain that there are more Democrat house members that won’t blindly follow Pelosi than there are Democrat senate members that won’t follow Schumer, and then name Republican senators that have gone against their own party on major issues, you call it “pigeon-holing”. If I call a Republican a liberal, it’s because they have supported a lot of liberal things, liberal things that are opposed to planks of the Republican platform.

 

[ImBillT]

I didn't mention Trump at all other than in passing context of the nuclear option which was simply factual info for folks who wanted to understand the filibuster better.

I did refer to "Trumpists" - there is a difference, Trump is a one-term charlatan who spent most of his life as a NY democrat. "Trumpists" are rebranded Dixiecrats with broader geographic appeal but with the same old school "values" - they existed before Trump and will exist long after Trump is selling timeshare condos on late night infomercials. They lurked in the Democratic party for decades before they quit, were quietly welcomed into the GOP by Nixon, but kept largely out of sight. But Trump saw the opportunity they presented and went all in and expanded the franchise. Not to society's benefit in my opinion.

Now explain how being anti-McConnel should legitimately cause a person to lose credibility.

I suppose your definition of “Trumpist” can be whatever you want it to be, but A) the name implies that it’s anyone who supported Trump, and B) your definition of it does not describe the majority of Trump voters.