From the other group: "Now the Gun Nuttery begins . . ."

[friendly_iconoclast]

Reposted so that *all* DUers may discuss, if they so desire.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/126213607

After four years of relative quiet the gun nuts are, well, going nuts. I have a google search set up for 'gun control' (and other variations). For the last four years it usually turns up a mixed bag of gun nuttery and news about actual gun safety legislation and not much of either. Since the Biden/Harris win things sure changed.

Today's search turned up a letter to the editor in The Union Leader decrying the restriction of carrying guns on school property. The writer refers to such restrictions as 'a perversion' that only effects 'law abiding citizens' who NEVER shoot up schools. Too bad that's not true as 80% of mass shootings, including Sandy Hook are committed by non-felons who got their guns legally. But then you never know when one of those savage Kindergarten students will lay down killing fire on any 'law abiding citizens' in the area.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/

Next in the search was an opinion piece in the Washington Examiner that calls out Kamala Harris for her support of a buyback plan. 'Kamala Harris' common sense gun control is total confiscation!' As always there are the references to 'second amendment guarantees' (there are none) and labeling the new administration as the 'most anti second amendment' in history.

Following that was a piece from The Federalist calling Biden 'the most overtly anti-gun president in American history', who would immediately issue executive orders: Banning pistol braces, Banning homemade firearms/80 percent receivers and Banning online firearm and ammunition sales. After that with the help of congress he would pass measures Banning “assault weapons”, Banning “high capacity” magazines and Requiring universal background checks. Funny, I don't recall any of that in any speech, campaign add or anywhere else. I do recall a whole lot about this virus that's killing 3000 Americans a day. Now I'm not saying that none of this will arise during a Biden administration, but 'first thing'?

Then there was this oopsie being fixed in USA Today when a MAGAT tweeter was corrected by David Hogg

Link to tweet

I did say the search turned up a mixed bag, right?

After David cast enough shade on the MAGAT to look like a solar eclipse came another Opinion in from the Eastern New Mexico News by a self styled 'champion of liberty' who claimed to be in the parking lot of the El Paso Walmart during the tragic mass murder there. The author laments the use of signs asking people not to bring guns onto their property claiming that criminals won't obey these signs so they only restrict the rights of law abiding citizens. Well, it seems the shooter bought his gun through a legal importer in FL, had it delivered to a legal gun store in Allan TX where he presumably passed a background check and was therefore NOT A CRIMINAL but a law abiding citizen. Hmmm, didn't the Federalist just rail against any online restrictions for gun purchases and universal background checks because they restrict the rights of law abiding citizens? Why would anyone want that? And what about the 80/20 statistic researched by Mother Jones?

The Augusta Chronicle printed a reader comment lamenting the gun grabbing Dem candidates running for Senate there saying that Chicago and Illinois have the most strictest gun control laws and are a war zone. Only two problems with that: neighboring states have some of the least restrictive laws and compared to Louisiana and Alaska that have the least restrictive laws in the nation make Illinois look downright peaceful.

The last three pieces in today's search were from AmmoLand. Need I say more? I mean, bless their little pea pickin' hearts, they regurgitate the same old head-up-the-ass gun talking points. They defend John Lott as a superior statistician and scholar with the courage to tell the TRUTH about More Guns, Less Crime, lament that some states have local control of guns in public and shed tears over restricting guns at protests in some localities (I mean, what could go wrong? Remember Kyle Rittenhouse?)

Anyway, that's ONE DAY's worth of 'gun control' headlines from Google. It's going to be a long 4 years (8? 12?) putting up with this unmitigated bull shit. It's gonna be a fact free, reason free and fantasy filled time.

My question: Why does the subject of gun control seem to bring out those who like the theory of 'precrime'?

'Cause a mass shooting definitely qualifies as a felony in most places that I'm aware of...

[Thomas Hurt]

1. Of course! A Democratic Pres means it is time to roll out the tried and true bee ess...

gun fear mongering, family values, fiscal responsibility after four years of the opposite.

Trump did, AFAIK, one way or the other his entire term on guns. Status quo, but the RWNJs will screeching about every conspiracy and plot afresh.

[friendly_iconoclast]

3. Trump's ATF did this a week ago: "Feds raid 'ghost gun' maker whose products they say are linked...

...to 'hundreds of crimes'"

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/11/us/atf-raid-ghost-gun-manufacturer-invs/index.html

The NRA is already blaming Biden, of course-they would never hold Donnie responsible for anything.

[msongs]

2. why don't they say exactly how many guns obama took away from anybody? like zero? nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

4. Or mention that *Trump* was the one who banned bump stocks?

[krispos42]

7. Obama definitely advocated for more gun control...

...and was publicly pissed about it when the new, stricter AWB failed to pass Congress.

Getting rid of "assault weapons" is in the Party platform, and something Obama advocated for.

When you prohibit sales of an entire class of firearms, and current owners of those firearms can't transfer them to anybody but the government, what would you call it?

[msongs]

8. how many of those guns were actually taken away? nt

[krispos42]

9. None.

There was an attempt; it did not work.

On January 24, 2013, Dianne Feinstein and 24 Democratic cosponsors introduced S. 150, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013, into the U.S. Senate.[19][20] The bill was similar to the 1994 federal ban, but differed in that it used a one-feature test for a firearm to qualify as an assault weapon rather than the two-feature test of the 1994 ban.[21] Such a move would deter the average gun owner from wanting to purchase a neutered rifle.[22] In addition, it banned: the sale, transfer, importation or manufacture of about 150 named firearms; firearms with thumbhole stocks and bullet buttons; the importation of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines; and high-capacity ammunition magazines (defined as those capable of holding more than 10 rounds).[21] It would grandfather in weapons legally owned on the day of enactment and exempt more than 2,000 specific firearms "used for hunting or sporting purposes."[21]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Weapons_Ban_of_2013

After a specific date, you can no longer buy a broad category of guns, and if you have one, you can not transfer it to anybody except the government. It's confiscation by attrition over the course of most of a century as owners of granfathered guns die off.

That's the Democratic plan to address mass shootings: expand the definition of "assault weapon", then spend 80 years confiscating them. And this is the signature gun-control effort by the DNC.

I would have some respect for them if they simply said "all semi-automatic rifles are banned, no exceptions". What they're doing is useless pandering that puts republicans in charge.

[yagotme]

10. Key question, is,

How many guns did they attempt to take away? A lot. That means a lot of pissed gun owners, and , believe it or not, several of those gun owners are members of the Democratic Party, like myself, and others I know. Why do you want to alienate a chunk of the Party over such an actually, trivial item. If you want to save kids, take away their bikes and swimming pools.

And, if I remember correctly, the Sandy Hook shooter broke into his mom's place, and stole the rifle. Not "acquired" it legally.

[Rick Rolle]

12. Great idea for a new reality tv show.

We get politicians that support gun confiscation and send them, along with a camera crew, to some Florida rednecks house. We could all watch as they knock on the door and demand that Bubba surrender his guns.

Funny thing is, the people who are pushing for gun confiscation, and there are plenty, won't be the ones who have to enforce that law. Kinda like the people who vote to send Americans into combat are rarely willing to go themselves. Few politicians even have military experience these days, and the ones that do are not so quick to send someone else's kids into a war, just so big corporations can turn a profit. (I'm looking at you Haliburton, KBR, etc.)

[Rick Rolle]

11. Gun confiscation is a pipe dream.

The sheer number of guns, especially since most states don't register or other wise keep a list of guns and owners, makes it impossible to even begin to confiscate guns. Too many guns, not enough cops, and that doesn't even take in to account the large number of police officers who would simply refuse to play along. I can't imagine too many small town cops or sheriffs are gonna go knocking on the doors of armed citizens and simply demand they hand over their guns.

Calling for gun confiscation plays well with some voters, but it certainly alienates others, and in the end just helps drive gun up gun sales with no good result for anyone, except gun manufacturers.

[keithbvadu2]

5. John Lott fabricated his statistics for his report and then claimed that he lost his source material

John Lott fabricated his statistics for his report and then claimed that he lost his source material.

[thucythucy]

6. It was probably in the same package

with all that election fraud evidence that Tucker Carlson assured us was in the mail.

[Straw Man]

13. The canard about mass shooters ...

... being "law-abiding" until they commit their crimes is a red herring when used to defend gun-free zones. I've yet to hear any explanation of how a "gun-free" designation deters a person who is bent on mass murder. Such designations are meaningless unless accompanied by metal detectors and armed guards at every entrance, as in courtrooms.

Today's search turned up a letter to the editor in The Union Leader decrying the restriction of carrying guns on school property. The writer refers to such restrictions as 'a perversion' that only effects 'law abiding citizens' who NEVER shoot up schools. Too bad that's not true as 80% of mass shootings, including Sandy Hook are committed by non-felons who got their guns legally.

There's some seriously flawed logic there -- see above. The only people who obey such restrictions are those who mean no harm anyway. That is mind-numbingly obvious, as is the fact that you can't call a person who shoots up a school "law-abiding."