[hcknwscommenter]

Your comment perfectly exemplifies why the blue collar vote in favor of the GOP is so mystifying. 64% of Americans support stricter gun laws, while 29% oppose them. And yet, many of those 64% vote GOP because they are convinced the DEM are going to confiscate/ban/etc.. That kind of noise comes exclusively from the GOP themselves. Believe me, some jerk signed me up for NRA e-mails once. It is a constant barrage (even today) that OBUMER is gonna take yer guns and herd you into a FEMA camp and DONATE NOW!! In reality, actual DEM proposed legislation places controls on certain features that increase likelihood of successful mass-killing (fully auto, bump stocks, very high capacity mags) and increases background checks.

Regarding abortion, the general consensus among DEMs is that abortion should be legal, safe, and rare. Rare to be obtained by increasing the social safety net for having a kid is not such a profoundly negative economic consequence.

I find it difficult to understand how such positions could be considered "opposite" of "things that empirically matter most to middle America"

[abstractbarista]

"they are convinced the DEM are going to confiscate/ban/etc"

This is a very legitimate and real fear for many. Remember Beto? "Hell yes we're going to take your AR-15's!"

That was met with overwhelming cheer and praise at the debate. Clearly many Democrats are not that vigorous, but you get the point...

[hcknwscommenter]

It may be a "real" fear. It is not in any way a legitimate fear. That would violate so many constitutional norms (the Constitution itself as well as 1st and 2nd and 4th amendments) as to be a non-starter.

Regarding the AR-15 itself. Yes, I am aware that many DEMS want stricter regulation of "assault weapons" that are really only good as offensive weaponry. The AR-15 is a terrible hunting rifle and hardly any better for defensive purposes. Why does the right love it so much? I suspect because they are the victim of propaganda. However, I'm all ears if you have another theory?

[BubRoss]

Because it's light and fun. AR-15s are cheap and customizable too. Having lots of different guns at a certain point has zero to do with need, if it ever did. Many people just like to shoot guns, but far fewer say that.

[hcknwscommenter]

I agree. Heck, it is fun to shoot stuff. I just don't understand why and how this turned into such a powerful political movement. My fun turns out to contribute to mass killing of children. Maybe my fun doesn't justify such lock-step ironclad opposition to additional gun control measures. If an "assault rifle" ban saved one life, and I can keep my .22 semi-auto pistol and my M1, what is the big deal? The NRA makes it seem like DEM gun control measures are an attempt to subvert a whole way of life, which is total nonsense.

[leereeves]

Maybe we should focus more attention on why some children are being hurt so badly that they lash out violently, and less on what weapon they use when they do.

[hcknwscommenter]

This is a false dichotomy. Why not both?

[Fjolsvith]

> It may be a "real" fear. It is not in any way a legitimate fear.

And yet there's no mention of what's happening in Virginia regarding gun rights.

Edit: As my ability to reply is disabled, I will not.

[hcknwscommenter]

I am really struggling to see your point here. Here is a decent link about what is happening in Virginia regarding gun rights: https://wtop.com/virginia/2020/01/faqs-what-is-happening-wit... . If all those measures pass, guns will still be extremely available for purchase or trade by the citizenry.

[QuarterReptile]

Fully automatic weapons have been strictly controlled for decades. Adding controls to them would probably have an unimpressive effect, since legal fully automatic weapons have been used in either 2 or 3 crimes since 1934.

[hcknwscommenter]

I don't know what you are trying to say here. Just because fully-auto are already strictly controlled does not negate my point that DEMs are highly in favor of such strict control.

[homonculus1]

It means you lack basic knowledge of the subject, which is a red flag that your viewpoint is not well-formed or generated from fact.

Imagine somebody tells you that abortion should be more strictly regulated, but can't properly describe women's anatomy or the standing law for abortion restrictions.

Imagine somebody tells you that strong crypto should be reserved for the military, intelligence, and law enforcement, but shows a thorough lack of understanding of features like public keys, password hashes, etc. That would be an indicator that they do not really have exposure to the topic and are reacting out of fear rather than a deep consideration of the fundamental freedoms at stake.

Yet such a basic ignorance of the issue is a staple of gun control proponents, even career activists. It is an absolute farce that politicians and lobbyists are demanding to ban tools they cannot even properly identify and that ought to send chills down the spine of any clearheaded person.

[hcknwscommenter]

Can you actually point to any ignorance of the subject? No you cannot. I never said full-auto was not regulated. You lack basic reading comprehension skills.

[QuarterReptile]

Your ad hominem attack is neither helpful nor civil. Furthermore, the idea it uses as a basis is false.

"... In reality, actual DEM proposed legislation places controls on certain features that increase likelihood of successful mass-killing (fully auto, bump stocks, very high capacity mags) ..."

You stated that full auto was a feature that Democrats were proposing to control to decrease likelihood of mass killing. In reality, that problem has not existed for 85 years; proposing to make it less likely is meaningless.

[grimjack00]

> 64% of Americans support stricter gun laws The problem with that statistic is that most of that 64% probably have no idea what the laws _actually_ are. As stated in another reply, full auto has been strictly regulated for _decades_. Anyone who thinks full-auto is a problem is either ignorant or lying, and that applies to many of the statements I hear from gun control supporters.

[hcknwscommenter]

I don't know what you are trying to say here. Just because fully-auto are already strictly controlled does not negate my point that DEMs are highly in favor of such strict control. Who is ignorant or lying here? Do you honestly believe we should STOP regulating full-auto so strictly? Do you have a position on certain semi-auto mechanisms that are very easy for DIY self-convert to full-auto? Or are you just parroting the right-wing caricature that DEMs don't know anything about guns? I suspect that your comment is entirely in bad-faith.

[homonculus1]

>Do you honestly believe we should STOP regulating full-auto so strictly?

Yes. The Constitution specifically forbids all gun rights infringements and there is no exception for automatics.

[homonculus1]

>why the blue collar vote in favor of the GOP is so mystifying

>"OBUMER is gonna take yer guns and herd you into a FEMA camp and DONATE NOW"

Truly mystifying indeed that people don't vote for the culture that holds this caricature of them.

[hcknwscommenter]

>Truly mystifying indeed that people don't vote for the culture that holds this caricature of them.

You completely missed the point. This is ACTUALLY the type of e-mail the NRA sends out daily (actually sometimes four times a day). Misspelling Obama in a purposefully derogatory way, actually mentioning FEMA concentration camp conspiracy nuttery, actually saying that if you don't act now you are going to lose your guns. This is all real. Not a caricature at all.