• Schadrach
      link
      fedilink
      41 year ago

      Gun owners that are dumb enough to make gun ownership their only compass to decide who to vote for even if it goes against their general best interests would have voted Republican no matter who was there as a candidate.

      There are a lot of single issue voters out there, who will vote for whoever takes their stance on their one issue regardless of anything else.

      Frankly, this is one Democrats need to drop - any bill they might pass is either a violation of citizen’s constitutional rights or isn’t going to do much to curb actual gun violence. At the same time “Democrats want to take away your constitutional right to bare arms” is one of the easiest wedges to draw people to vote for ever-shittier Republicans. And most of the people doing the shooting don’t particularly care if their gun is owned legally or not.

        • Schadrach
          link
          fedilink
          51 year ago

          Right, but that requires, you know, amending the Constitution. Which requires 3/4 of the states sign on. 3/4 of the states are not going to sign on to throwing out the 2nd Amendment. 2/3 of states wouldn’t sign on to that. I don’t think you could even get 1/2 of the states to sign on to that.

          Especially because no Republican is going to vote for it, and neither is anyone representing a rural area. And we’re talking state legislatures, and Dems aren’t great at expanding their influence in state legislatures.

        • Jeremy [Iowa]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          41 year ago

          How likely do you believe that is?

          Are you aware of what’s required to bring about such a thing?

            • Jeremy [Iowa]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              41 year ago

              Is there a threshold of sensationalism of such events that changes the number of states required to ratify the thing? That would change the number of supporting Congressional members?

              I’m amazed you still believe this is feasible despite the lack of support for such a measure.

                • Jeremy [Iowa]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  01 year ago

                  How likely is it any such shift is going to approach the 2/3 point necessary?

                  I find it more likely voters will continue to reject such absurd hyperbolic appeals.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      11 year ago

      You’re preaching to the choir. But that doesn’t change anything. Those idiots are a massive number of voters, and they were willing to elect an obvious terrible presidential candidate because of the threat of losing their guns.

      Even if democrats wanted this, there is literally no path we could take towards this. So saying, “get rid of your guns and you won’t have a problem” is the least helpful thing somebody could say.

      • Jeremy [Iowa]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        Have you considered… not making the threat?

        No, surely it’s the voter’s faults for rejecting candidates for their stated positions…

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -11 year ago

        Guns aren’t the issue that makes fascists vote fascist. Even if you make gun violence activist shut up completely they’ll just lie and say they’re under threat anyway or that trans people are going to steal their children or Christians will be banned from buying gas stoves. Every single Democrat not appropriately muzzling themselves isn’t what causes Republicans to vote Republican.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -11 year ago

      Gotta vote for the fascists so we can have our personal arms in case the fascists take power.