Thousands peacefully protest for Constitutional gun rights in Virginia, legacy media screeches, WV offers to annex pro-2A counties

[Heathen Hammer]

Again, your narrative resides on a premise that Democrats won in Virginia solely because of their stance on guns. You outright ignored every time proof for such a premise was requested. Nor did you provide any evidence for grassroots support for gun control.

[Cope]

The proposed assault weapons ban in VA has failed courtesy of a handful of moderate Dem. lawmakers.

[Prodromos]

Good work.

[Himster]

The proposed assault weapons ban in VA has failed courtesy of a handful of moderate Dem. lawmakers.

It's pronounced: actual liberals.

[Cope]

Good work.

Not according to Joe Biden.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

It's pronounced: actual liberals.

My apologies.

The proposed assault weapons ban in VA has failed courtesy of a handful of actual liberal lawmakers.

[Prodromos]

Not according to Joe Biden.

I know. Neither Biden nor any other Democrat will be able to do anything about it as president, and if they try, it'll only energize the gun rights movement, which is far too quiet under Trump.

[Cope]

I know. Neither Biden nor any other Democrat will be able to do anything about it as president, and if they try, it'll only energize the gun rights movement, which is far too quiet under Trump.

1. If the Dems. win Congress and the presidency (ie. Biden), a national ban on the sale of assault weapons will almost certainly be introduced. Every gun owner can then enjoy being listed on a federal register.

2. 2A absolutists have no reason to be energized while there's a friendly WH and Senate. They came out when necessary in VA and did enough to prevent Northam's most far-reaching proposals.

[Prodromos]

1. I was talking about the presidency, not Congress. Of course I hope Republicans keep their majority in the Senate.

2. Trump isn't really friendly on gun rights. He's made repeated overtures to the Democrats regarding 'universal background checks' (a trojan horse for a gun registry), and he's already banned bump stocks, something that even Obama refused to do. He also supports 'red flag' gun laws. Who knows what he'll do once he no longer has to worry about reelection.

Trump More Of A Gun Control President Than Obama - Bearing Arms

Most people in the gun rights community are very suspicious of him. He could go full New Yorker any minute, and thanks to party tribalism, most Republicans would be too dumb or too timid to stand up to him. On the other hand, if a Democrat president proposed a gun restriction, party tribalism would ensure near-unanimous opposition among Republicans. So having a Democrat as president would be better for gun rights than a leftist masquerading as a Republican.

[Cope]

1. I was talking about the presidency, not Congress. Of course I hope Republicans keep their majority in the Senate.

2. Trump isn't really friendly on gun rights.

He's more friendly than any Democrat (esp. Joe Biden) I can think of.

He's made repeated overtures to the Democrats regarding 'universal background checks' (a trojan horse for a gun registry), and he's already banned bump stocks, something that even Obama refused to do. He also supports 'red flag' gun laws. Who knows what he'll do once he no longer has to worry about reelection.

Trump More Of A Gun Control President Than Obama - Bearing Arms

Being in favor of the 2A doesn't mean opposing every limitation or regulation. Most people, including gun advocates, agree that firearms should be kept out of the hands of felons, the mentally ill and others who pose an obvious and extreme risk (Islamists, neo-Confederates, people who've issued credible threats etc.) If worded correctly, background checks - which do not require a register - and carefully formulated red flag laws are suitable ways of achieving this objective.

The problems start arising either when Democrats (who almost universally want to ban assault weapons) attempt to use such regulations as "Trojan horses" for sweeping disarmament or when the laws are abused by the police and/or the courts. Already in this thread, we've seen our resident libs. desperately trying to distract from VA's proposed AR/high capacity magazine ban by pretending that the state gov't had no such ambition.

Most people in the gun rights community are very suspicious of him. He could go full New Yorker any minute, and thanks to party tribalism, most Republicans would be too dumb or too timid to stand up to him. On the other hand, if a Democrat president proposed a gun restriction, party tribalism would ensure near-unanimous opposition among Republicans. So having a Democrat as president would be better for gun rights than a leftist masquerading as a Republican.

Again, there's no sense in supporting someone who openly advocates the banning of semi-automatic weapons (and gloats about his role in passing the FAWB) over someone who doesn't.

Yes, we can all play this game. Here's footage of your hero Mitt Romney advocating for abortion, licking Trump's boots in 2012 and opposing automatic weapons (which bump stocks simulate) for starters. And of course, its hypocritical of you to criticize Trump for historic comments he made about Clinton vis-a-vis Iran when you're now openly supporting a candidate who wants to resurrect the JCPA.

[Heathen Hammer]

Most people, including gun advocates, agree that firearms should be kept out of the hands of felons, the mentally ill and others who pose an obvious and extreme risk (Islamists, neo-Confederates, people who've issued credible threats etc.) If worded correctly, background checks - which do not require a register - and carefully formulated red flag laws are suitable ways of achieving this objective.

I disagree. At the end of the day such laws put one's rights to a whim of a government official - and as one's notions of what is "dangerous" are subjective, this would inevitably lead to political repressions in one form or another. Same thing with red flag laws - they could be easily exploited in various ways.
Also there is something ultimately hypocritical about politicians demanding such laws. Would Bloomberg or Biden want to have their own security detail disarmed? no, they want to leave the average Joe unable to defend himself, not themselves.
Anti-gun narratives are literally product of ivory tower trust fund politicians that scoff at an idea that average folks need to defend themselves.

[Cope]

I disagree. At the end of the day such laws put one's rights to a whim of a government official - and as one's notions of what is "dangerous" are subjective, this would inevitably lead to political repressions in one form or another. Same thing with red flag laws - they could be easily exploited in various ways.

As I stated, the problems start when these laws are used as Trojan horses by Dems. or they're abused by the police/courts. That's why red-flag legislation needs to be worded in such a way so as to require that any weapon seizures have the assent of judge acting on clear and credible evidence of a violent criminal threat. If, after an investigation, there is insufficient evidence to pursue criminal charges or the defendant is acquitted in a trial, the weapons should be returned.

Also there is something ultimately hypocritical about politicians demanding such laws. Would Bloomberg or Biden want to have their own security detail disarmed? no, they want to leave the average Joe unable to defend himself, not themselves.

Anti-gun narratives are literally product of ivory tower trust fund politicians that scoff at an idea that average folks need to defend themselves.

Nothing to disagree with here.

[Himster]

I disagree. At the end of the day such laws put one's rights to a whim of a government official - and as one's notions of what is "dangerous" are subjective, this would inevitably lead to political repressions in one form or another. Same thing with red flag laws - they could be easily exploited in various ways.

What if the constitutional requirement of the "well regulated militia" was actually enforced and those militias actually enforced reasonable guidelines?

Some level of regulation is inevitable, it'd be best if compromises were made soon, rather than a blanket repression in the future. Public opinion is shifting.

[Vanoi]

1. If the Dems. win Congress and the presidency (ie. Biden), a national ban on the sale of assault weapons will almost certainly be introduced. Every gun owner can then enjoy being listed on a federal register.

Why would they be on a federal register? Not even the Federal Assault Weapons Ban did that.

[Cope]

Because that's what Biden appears to be proposing:

Biden will also institute a program to buy back weapons of war currently on our streets. This will give individuals who now possess assault weapons or high-capacity magazines two options: sell the weapons to the government, or register them under the National Firearms Act.

[Prodromos]

If worded correctly, background checks - which do not require a register - and carefully formulated red flag laws are suitable ways of achieving this objective.

The problems start arising either when Democrats (who almost universally want to ban assault weapons) attempt to use such regulations as "Trojan horses" for sweeping disarmament or when the laws are abused by the police and/or the courts. Already in this thread, we've seen our resident libs. desperately trying to distract from VA's proposed AR/high capacity magazine ban by pretending that the state gov't had no such ambition.

No, not Democrats; Trump. Here's his gun plan:

Gun Rights Group Says Trump Has Gone From Supporter "To The Gun-Grabber In Chief"

In a televised meeting with lawmakers, Trump told fellow Republicans that they are "afraid of the NRA," and delighted Democrats by suggesting support for stronger background checks for gun purchases, bans on assault weapons, and raising the age to purchase AR-15–style rifles to 21...

"We believe he's gone from, in his own words, the Second Amendment's best friend to the gun-grabber in chief," Michael Hammond, legislative counsel for Gun Owners of America, told BuzzFeed News...

As the meeting went on Trump again seemed to suggest the government could ignore due process rights when confiscating weapons. When Vice President MIke Pence referenced a California law that mandates people named in restraining orders turn in their firearms, Trump interjected.

"Take the guns first, go through due process second," he said. "A lot of times by the time you go to court, it takes so long to go to court, to get the due process procedures. I like taking the guns away early."

That's from February 2018, but he's been very consistent on this. Here's from August 2019:

Gun rights supporters say Trump could lose their vote

And despite the campaign line, Trump called for new restrictions, outraging gun rights hard-liners.

Trump told reporters that he would “certainly” bring up a semiautomatic gun ban, and pushed lawmakers to expand mandatory background checks and to allow temporary gun confiscation.

“I'll be convincing some people to do things that they don’t want to do, and that means people in Congress,” Trump said, calling for “great legislation after all of these years."

Michael Hammond, legislative counsel of Gun Owners of America, which claims 2 million members and supporters, said Trump risks losing both conservative and traditionally Democratic Midwestern voters.

“I am no longer committed to voting for Donald Trump,” said Hammond, who spends most of his time in New Hampshire. “I think he’s about to make his ‘read my lips’ mistake. He thinks he can do anything on the Second Amendment and gun owners will love him.”

And this is in his first term, when he can't afford to alienate anyone in the gun rights community. Can you imagine what he'll do once he gets reelected and doesn't need to worry about losing Republican votes anymore?

If he wins reelection, he'll implement the strongest anti-gun measures in decades. There'll be plenty of Democrat and RINO votes for it, too. Once passed into law, it's highly unlikely that pro-gun Republicans will ever have the votes to repeal these gun restrictions in the future.

Getting rid of this guy should be the prime goal of the conservative movement.

[Cope]

No, not Democrats; Trump. Here's his gun plan:

Gun Rights Group Says Trump Has Gone From Supporter "To The Gun-Grabber In Chief"

That's from February 2018, but he's been very consistent on this. Here's from August 2019:

Gun rights supporters say Trump could lose their vote

And this is in his first term, when he can't afford to alienate anyone in the gun rights community. Can you imagine what he'll do once he gets reelected and doesn't need to worry about losing Republican votes anymore?

If he wins reelection, he'll implement the strongest anti-gun measures in decades. There'll be plenty of Democrat and RINO votes for it, too. Once passed into law, it's highly unlikely that pro-gun Republicans will ever have the votes to repeal these gun restrictions in the future.

Getting rid of this guy should be the prime goal of the conservative movement.

Setting aside the doom mongering (the only concrete proposals we saw from Trump on firearm restrictions can be seen here), I reiterate my previous point: even if you believe that the president is a covert coastal Dem plotting to overregulate the 2A, that still wouldn't justify your support for the king of the coastal Dems who speaks candidly about his desire to ban all assault weapons. In fact, the cognitive dissonance between the two positions (denouncing Trump's alleged lack of conservatism while simultaneously singing Biden's praises) is so flagrant that I can only assume it to be concern trolling.

[Prodromos]

Setting aside the doom mongering (the only concrete proposals we saw from Trump on firearm restrictions can be seen here), I reiterate my previous point: even if you believe that the president is a covert coastal Dem plotting to overregulate the 2A, that still wouldn't justify your support for the king of the coastal Dems who speaks candidly about his desire to ban all assault weapons. In fact, the cognitive dissonance between the two positions (denouncing Trump's alleged lack of conservatism while simultaneously singing Biden's praises) is so flagrant that I can only assume it to be concern trolling.

Trump openly admits that he "hates the concept of guns", and that he's "not in favor of them", and has repeatedly promised to pass the strongest anti-gun measures in decades. I don't think taking the president at his word is "doom mongering", especially since he's already successfully implemented several policies that go against traditional conservative beliefs.

And I already explained the benefits of negative partisanship with regard to gun control. Republicans will reliably block any gun control measure proposed by a Democrat president, whereas very few would go against Trump, as has been demonstrated time and time again.

[Heathen Hammer]

As I stated, the problems start when these laws are used as Trojan horses by Dems. or they're abused by the police/courts. That's why red-flag legislation needs to be worded in such a way so as to require that any weapon seizures have the assent of judge acting on clear and credible evidence of a violent criminal threat. If, after an investigation, there is insufficient evidence to pursue criminal charges or the defendant is acquitted in a trial, the weapons should be returned.

Well, that could work - in theory. But only after the current elites are replaced, otherwise it would be just exploited to suppress the dissenters.

What if the constitutional requirement of the "well regulated militia" was actually enforced and those militias actually enforced reasonable guidelines?

Some level of regulation is inevitable, it'd be best if compromises were made soon, rather than a blanket repression in the future. Public opinion is shifting.

I wouldn't count on that, given how attempts at imposing gun control in Virginia spectacularly failed. I guess we can blame leftist media, academia and politicians who attempt to create an impression that push for "gun control" is some kind of grassroots movement, while in reality it is just elites being afraid of their own people.

[Cope]

Trump openly admits that he "hates the concept of guns", and that he's "not in favor of them", and has repeatedly promised to pass the strongest anti-gun measures in decades. I don't think taking the president at his word is "doom mongering", especially since he's already successfully implemented several policies that go against traditional conservative beliefs.

Now let's look at your deliberately cropped quote in full:

"Well, I think you have to have the right to have a gun. Now, I hate the concept of guns. I’m not in favor of it, except for one thing: The bad guys are going to have them.”

This understanding of the 2A is absolutely correct. The point of the amendment is not about worshiping guns, its about ensuring that citizens have the tools to protect themselves from criminals or tyrants (aka "bad guys"). I too - along with all sane people - would rid the world of weapons were it possible, but so long as evil persists we have a duty to protect ourselves from it.

Now I will concede that his fleeting comments about forgoing due process and promising to consider Feinstein's bill were ham-fisted, but we all understand the way that this is the way the political game is played. It is expected for a president to make bipartisan noises in the aftermath of a national tragedy like the Parkland or El Paso murders. What actually matters is the concrete proposals (as linked above) that the administration support. The reason that the NRA has stayed firmly onside with the pres. is precisely because said proposals bare no resemblance to your doom mongering.

And I already explained the benefits of negative partisanship with regard to gun control. Republicans will reliably block any gun control measure proposed by a Democrat president, whereas very few would go against Trump, as has been demonstrated time and time again.

Very few congressional Republicans have "gone against Trump" because he's barely deviated from the neocon. agenda except to pursue national conservative policies (building the wall, negotiating the USMCA, cancelling TPP etc.) In fact I can't think of a single liberal bill or executive order which has come out of the federal gov't. since Trump has taken office. So once again, your criticisms strike me either as concern trolling, establishment pearl clutching or a combination thereof. Frankly, there is no other plausible explanation for why any conservative would support Biden (a liberal across the board, not just on firearms) over Trump.

[Vanoi]

Because that's what Biden appears to be proposing:

Biden says but i don't see any assault weapons ban passing Congress with that provision nor do i think it would hold up in a court since his idea seems more like confiscation than a buyback program.