1995 wasn’t ancient history and I recall Diane Feinstein saying on 60 minutes Mr and Mrs America, turn them ALL in … I keep seeing responses along the lines of “ban some specific guns, not all guns.” The 1994 Assault Weapons banned 19 specific models of firearms, and defined an “assault weapon” as having two or more specific features. This wasn’t as far a Feinstein wanted to go, but it was what was able to be passed. A “features test” is not specific guns. Does it have a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon and accepts detachable magazines? Then it’s an “assault weapon” and it’s banned. In 2013 Feinstein tried again. This time the bill contained 157 specific firearms, “copies, duplicates, variants, or altered facsimiles with the capability of” of the 157 specific firearms, a one feature test for defining an “assault weapon”, and a ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds. If you ban enough “specific” (or nonspecific) guns, you get to a total ban piecemeal. This is called incrementalism.
Isn't she dead? I have issues with how Democrats approach the gun issue mainly from the perspective of them ignoring the security concerns of minority groups the right wing and GOP target. When the mainstream GOP does things like make up stories of certain minority groups grooming children or eating pets these groups deserve self protection and if we ban semi automatic rifles, the dudes who already have them will be grandfathered in and the dudes who disproportionately have them are disproportionately racist white men in this country who buy into these type of "Hatians are eating our pets" narratives. And we know the cops are right wing adjacent and usually side with right wing groups so these minority groups can't rely on the police for protection. Minority groups deserve protection from people like you.
I know. That's the problem. People like you disproportionately have all the semiautomatic rifles and the people who are often targets from right wing hate rhetoric from people like you don't have them at least anywhere near the rate as people like you.
Also another aspect I don't like about how Democrats do gun control is how they tax on things like machine guns effectively making them firearms only the wealthy can obtain. Any gun control that simply makes firearms more accessible to certain wealth classes is bad gun control and goes against the spirit of the second amendment. Either ban machine guns out right or allow them to be affordable to not only wealthy people.
If your wife lives in Texas and suffers a miscarriage, pray—because she likely won't receive the proper healthcare she needs. Project 2025, through specific Executive Orders, seeks to ban abortion pills and medical equipment used in abortions. It directs the FDA to withdraw approval for mifepristone and misoprostol ("abortion pills" but are drugs that are also used in non-abortion procedures) and aims to redefine the HHS mission to 'protect life from conception.' It also mandates states to monitor and report abortions, while pushing Congress to enact the strictest anti-abortion laws. These effectively ban abortion as healthcare nationwide—exceptions or not. Trump can issue these orders without needing Congress, and the Supreme Court is unlikely to stand in his way when it comes to further restricting abortions. What’s happening in Texas could soon become the norm nationwide, or even worse. P.S. It also seeks to strip HHS of its role in sex education and require studies on the long-term negative impacts of contraception (read between the lines here).
Machine guns are effectively banned due to the 1986 law, which prohibits civilian possession of machine guns manufactured after that year. However, there is a 'grandfather' clause that permits the ownership of pre-1986 machine guns, provided they are registered. These registered machine guns are typically rare, expensive, and often kept as historical collectibles.
Actual full auto weapons aren't expensive. The issue is regular public can't buy a new one. They have to buy ones which were made before May 1986 which, to your point, makes the ones available for purchase expensive.
A m249 SAW isn't an antique. Modern Marine Corps infantry fire teams still use the SAW for suppressive fire. You see them actioned off often and the prices are only affordable to the upper middle class and wealthy.
That effect is meaningless in the manner of the wealthy accounting machine guns. It's not like machine gun technology advanced so far since then. Army and Marine infantry units still use the same machine guns pre 1986 as we speak as their standard issue machine gun to the designated machine gunner or SAW gunner with the 240 Golf and M249.
Exactly. Either outright ban it or make it available to all economic classes. Currently it's only available for the wealthy which just doesn't jive with me well.
Fair enough, but that’s why I used the term 'effectively.' The law makes the M249 SAW both expensive and rare. In Japan, you can own guns, but it requires a very stringent process. Sure, only few can 'afford' it, but that’s not a reason to abandon regulation if an outright ban isn't feasible. Perfection is the enemy of effectiveness.
Expensive is why it's rare. It's rare because only the wealthy can afford it. I don't want the wealthy to be the only people with machine guns. Id rather have machine guns as available as hand guns then limit them to one class of citizens that have disproportionate power, control labor etc. So this isn't about "perfection is the enemy of effectiveness" because in this case "effectiveness" is "only wealthy people have all the machine guns".
we will never break the duopoly with attitudes such as yours. when both primary candidates are disqualifyingly compromised, we look elsewhere. I voted 3P in 1980, '84, '92, 2016, and 2020. I will do so again in 2024, and be extremely comfortable with my vote.
