His 2A stance is why few Republicans will vote for him. He started everytown for gun safety and through that organization, dumps massive amounts of cash into Democrat campaigns to push his agenda in elections where he is not a voting constituent.
Can someone explain to me why guns are so important to Republicans that if a candidate ran on a platform of "I will literally send goons to rape your wife, but your guns are safe" they'd win the Republican primary in a landslide? Like I get being pro-gun as a stance, but the amount of single-issue voters on this one stupid thing is mindblowing.
It's because almost every Democrat candidate wants to take away gun rights, or at least hinder them. However, with the supreme Court the way it is now, I don't think guns are going anywhere. Abortion rights, though, that's a different story.
Yeah but there's like a thousand other things that either Democrats want to do or the Republicans want to do. What makes this particular one so important that people will prioritize it above all else?
Because if we lose gun rights, we're never getting them back. "I'll give up my guns when everyone else does - including the police." - Hunter S. Thompson
Still makes no sense. What is the credible threat to gun ownership? The bigger issue is the retailers who don't want to sell guns in the wake of y'know, a bunch of dead kids....but I've yet to hear of a believable plan to even buy back guns at a broad scale, much less an "attack on the 2nd amendment". There are 300+ million guns in this country, rounding them all up would be impossible. It makes for good television and a lot of angry rhetoric. For the record, I'm liberal as fuck, but pro-gun. I've been in too many situations where the police are a good half hour away, and having a gun (or actors in said situation thinking you might) has prevented some undesired activities. That said...there sure are a lot of dead kids piling up for our "freedom". Also, the attempts to legislate guns have been idiotic at best...even in my home state of SC, there are weird laws about bump stocks, suppressors, etc. that make no coherent sense. Classic Republican wedge issues: abortion=baby murder and guns=guvmint taking your property, rendering you helpless and reliant on the state. Neither of these is remotely true, however the likelihood is scary enough for some people...and the mere prospect of a Democrat winning an election helps gun sales, because they somehow convince people to buy guns "before they are outlawed". To Juice's point above: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...os-drives-overnight-rate-up-by-most-in-months Something screwy is going on with the financial side of the house that no one seems to be watching. The yield curve inverting a few times, the overnight repo lunacy, and the interplay of the Fed, the trade wars and El Tangerino's tweets are combining to spell something odd economically. I have a suspicion that Trump's been using bailout tools to overheat the economy, ignoring that when the bill comes due (say, that $3T in debt he's added?) he will either be untouchable or long gone. I also think that no matter who the Dem nominee is, if the Republicans lose power, an economic recession is almost a certainty, if for no reason than you will have to cut spending or pay taxes and again, we've added THREE TRILLION to our deficit since Palm Beach Palpatine took office.
When has America ever made anything cheaper? I think this is a legitimate hurdle to any sort of overhaul: we are used to paying exorbitant prices for healthcare. No wonder you're all scared shitless of M4A, because you believe the prices we currently pay are accurate reflections of the care, or you think to lower prices corners will have to be cut somewhere (likely in quality of care). Logically, we KNOW there's a better way to do this. It makes no sense to tie healthcare to employment to the extent my company decides the level of financial ruin I face should I have the audacity to get cancer. It's a very complex set of tradeoffs, and the people involved in the discussion are either sitting there with millions of healthcare industry dollars in their pocket, or....are Bernie Sanders. Three simple solutions: 1. Overhaul medical malpractice (tort reform). One of the biggest things making healthcare so expensive is malpractice insurance. 2. Create a glut of supply, at the practice and practitioner level. Another big driver of expense is the limited supply...think of the expense of getting a medical degree ($250K in loans, anyone?), the tremendous workload (my GP sees up to 20 patients a day), and the stress of that job. Making a practice a safer bet, within range for more students, and lowering the costs of entry into the healthcare field is a great foundation for expanding coverage. As more people are covered and healthcare is an option, there will be an increased demand for services. 3. Slowly expand Medicare as the "public" option, allowing people to buy in over time, and transition the "primary" health care we have to supplemental. I actually like the idea of a "passport" service set: health insurance, 401k and retirement package that follows you from job to job, so that for the part-time, freelance or under-employed (you know, the majority of the jobs we've added since 2008) you can still have these things and it's not so much pressure to get a "traditional" salaried position. If Medicare is part of that insurance package, you solve for a healthy chunk of the insurance issue we currently have.
Because people (Republicans at least) understand that as long as you have guns, the goons aren't coming to rape your wife.
Where is your proof of this? I have never heard anyone I would believe as credible saying we need an outright gun ban a la Australia. This reeks of conspiracy theory nonsense to me, because it fails to address how the 300 million plus guns in circulation go away. Confiscation? Buy back? How is a ban enforced? Most of the measures I am familiar with are enforced at point of sale, badly. What would new legislation improve upon? I would say the NRA does a bit more fear mongering, at least unrealistically: personal protection shootings are far less common than mass shootings, and yet...
Based on context, of course. This did not apply to people like Philando Castile. And the guns rights people never said a word about him and still haven’t.
No suspicion needed, that’s exactly what is happening and has been. They’re essentially taking the securities and repos debt and weaponing it. As long as the economy holds steady, there won’t really be a bill that comes due in the traditional sense because it’s been monetized. Not surprisingly, that article doesn’t get into how the swings have started stabilizing a bit over the last couple months. No one really knows how this will shake out because it’s never been done before. That aside, Bloomberg (the org) straight out said it’s not going to publish anti-Mike Bloomberg articles and would do a full court press against Trump. I would take anything they publish with a grain of salt going forward, or at least a heavy dose of skepticism.
Because the right is very successful in playing up the few fringe lunatics the democrats are stuck with in their party as a credible threat to institute sweeping bans and buyback programs. The support for these things on the left even is marginal, but they're very good at making something that's a virtual political impossibility seem likely. That's my take anyway. I mostly support gun rights, but I don't get it either.
Yep. When this shit blows up it's going to be ugly. https://www.wsj.com/articles/fed-adds-83-1-billion-in-short-term-money-to-markets-11578582197
Try this link instead. Since September the Fed has been pumping in billions. The balance sheet is back up to previous highs. It's nuts. https://www.morningstar.com/news/do...-amid-demand-for-longer-term-liquidity-update
This statement is even more true of voting rights than it is of gun rights, and yet people will vote guns over votes despite your voting rights being in more danger than your gun rights.
Fringe? The Virginia state government was threatening to send the national guard after citizens for not turning in guns if they got their laws passed. Both Connecticut Senators both think that private gun ownership shouldnt be a thing other than bolt action hunting rifles. One of whom is the former state AG who aggressively tried to making getting a pistol license in the state very difficult. In Massachusetts, you can be denied a gun permit for any reason whatsoever because the local police chiefs have full authority to whom they issue permits. In the city of Boston, its essentially impossible to get one. I experienced 2 out of the 3 examples above first-hand, so no, its not just the fringe.
Come to Texas. You can get pretty much anything you want outside of full auto weapons. In generally under 15 minutes. And the go like this to get Chinese food.