fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
IK's link said only about 50% of voters want stricter gun laws, but if you scroll down there's a survey that says 92% of the public favors requiring background checks for all gun sales.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Help Me Understand HR-8 Gun Control Bill (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Joe Bryant
- Start date
IK's link said only about 50% of voters want stricter gun laws, but if you scroll down there's a survey that says 92% of the public favors requiring background checks for all gun sales.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
I'm pretty sure you can find some specific gun control proposals that would get lopsided support from a majority of voters. But I think polls like the ones that Gallup does are useful for getting an overall vibe for how voters feel about a topic, and they're really good for looking at trends over time.
For example, it would not surprise me to learn that closing the gun show loophole is very popular among voters. When you get into things like an assault weapons ban, restricting handgun sales, and so on, there's just not as much support out there. And of course this all varies a lot from state to state too.
(None of that means that any of these proposals are bad of course -- just that there's an understandable reason why they're hard to enact.)
Last edited by a moderator:
glvsav37
Footballguy
and this is where I hate the rhetoric of "your a conservative so this is your fault" on individual issues like this. On any given day we have 100's of issues effecting real life. Its impossible, having only 2 choices for gov't to have every issues squarely in your column. Its just not black and white. I can agree we need better gun control, but not enough check marks land on the Dem side enough to cast my 1 vote for them. But yet "I'm responsible" for this...something that happened 2500 miles away from me in many people's eyes.
Uruk-Hai
Footballguy
sho nuff
Footballguy
And especially with midterms coming up.
Someone up for election in purple areas can't be seen as too hard or too soft on guns. Have to run to one side or the other to try and get elected.
Instead, like it seems with Schumer right now...nothing will really come up. It will just be used as a wedge issue during the lead up to midterms. Without anyone having to have an official vote on record.
Last edited by a moderator:
Insomniac
Footballguy
The polls that matter are polls of likely GOP primary voters. The GOP Senators should know where their voters stand better than any poll that includes liberals and moderates.
The fact that there are no Republican Senators that will agree to even allow a vote on the bill tells you where the base stands.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Hopefully soon. I have not seen it yet from statements by our elected officials or those up for election. But have seen it some on social media and on this board where people seem to be more accepting of some legal changes in regards to guns.
Alex P Keaton
Footballguy
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
Nugget
Footballguy
foxco
Footballguy
IIRC it was 1993 when the dems last had control of both (aside from right now, where they have been blocked for many things).
Cowboysfan8
Footballguy
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Obama had both (and 60 seats in the Senate for about 9 months) at the start of his administration. They used most of that time passing Obamacare so they didn't get a chance to do some other legislative priorities.
Cowboysfan8
Footballguy
the moops
Footballguy
This seems pretty irresponsible, wouldn't you say? We have folks in here talking about how many of these instances are related to lousy parenting, and I agree to an extent. I would put giving your guns to your son who failed a background check to be firmly in the lousy parenting category
Cowboysfan8
Footballguy
Cool
Girls can get a PFA by saying a guy threatened them.
So you’re saying a father shouldn’t be able to hand down a weapon to his son because a girl got pissed and made up a story ?
Cowboysfan8
Footballguy
This happens all the time in herethe moops said:
”Dems hate babies”!!!
“Republicans hate school children”!!!
”People that made a mistake should never own a gun”!!!
Theres always more to it than that
Philo Beddoe
Footballguy
This actually happened to me. My grandfather passed and left me a large collection. In Massachusetts you need a license to receive a transfer which must be done at an FFL. The CoP of our town stored the firearms until I went through the process for a Mass LTC. He fast tracked it but it still took several weeks. We then completed the transfer at a local gun store. Massachusetts requires registration. They are now registered under me.
The Commish
Footballguy
for them to act completely on their own, they need a super majority, which they haven't had.glvsav37 said:
Amused to Death
Footballguy
Massachusetts has one of the lowest rates of gun violence in the country. It's a good state to emulate IMHO.
DA RAIDERS
Footballguy
The only thing politicians are interested in, is keeping their jobs. Same as all of us. They will pander to who/whatever makes that happen. Term limits would be awesome.
I have a friend in the GA state assembly. He told me the most effective campaign marketing he does, was directed at an 8th to 10th grade education level.
He won yesterday.
I have a friend in the GA state assembly. He told me the most effective campaign marketing he does, was directed at an 8th to 10th grade education level.
He won yesterday. 
FairWarning
Footballguy
Depends on the gun. Is it a rare collectible vs a gun you can buy at a gun shop or Cabela's.
the moops
Footballguy
If all it takes for a person to fail a background check is a simple she said, than no, I would not be OK with that. But we are also talking about a tiny percentage of chances of this being a thing, right? The woman has to make up the story, the court needs to issue an order, and the father needs to pass away and have a gun(s) that he wants to gift to his child. Unfortunately, not every law is going to be perfect in executionCowboysfan8 said:
Gatorman
Supreme Elite Maximum Tier
I'd say this is a fair point,but I'm not sure that it is. GLV: Those issues you do not agree with, do they harm you or other Americans? The fact that this doesn't change your vote (you as a voting block, not you personally) disincentives those in power to even consider you in their decision making about whether this matters to them or not. If they "could" lose you for at least an election cycle bc of this then they would come to the negotiating table and perhaps compromise.
I am not a one issue voter either, but at times one issue will overwhelm any other issue I have on the table. I am pro-choice, but would bend a bit on that issue if republican lawmakers gave the same thought to "sanctity of life" outside the womb as they do inside the womb.
glvsav37
Footballguy
I think this is a fair point and one that worth discussing.
While my heart breaks for these families, I dont think these proposed legislation options would fix all of this. Curb, maybe but I also believe these are part of a larger issue here with mental health and the overall way we treat each other as fellow Americans—and that starts with the tone of the dialog that comes from Washington DC.
I would find it more effective to work on those within my party who are in the way then just give up my beliefs to the other side. IMO, giving my vote blue in the hopes that they could take over the super-majority "just for this 1 cycle" as you put it, to fix "this one issue" would be incredibly damaging for the America I want to see. Because if that happened, we know it wouldn't be just this 1 issue, and our government is set up to keep that from happening. And in today's gov't there is no magical "negotiating table or compromise" as you put it if my party lost me (or massive amounts of me), it would be a sweeping power grab and race to reshape America. Our politicians don't take to "hints" or "threats" from us, they use bully tactics and fear mongering to keep their base in line.
But again, you ask me if I am "harmed" by the other side, thankfully no, not in the context of this tread. I do have children in these schools and also a wife who is a teacher, so school-related anything will be part of my life for a while. I myself am an adjunct professor at a college with 10000% less lock-down/security barriers to enter then my wife's elementary school.
However the main reason I cannot vote democrat, and I've said this in other threads, is that I dont personally align with pretty much anything this current brand of blue is championing for. I don't, and I dont see the America that I believe we should be in them or the majority of their followers. I believe that voting for and hoping for a Democratic super majority would do so much long term damage to this country and the people that we would never recover. It may sound hyperbole, but I look at those who disagree with me, on even the smallest of issues, and frankly it scares the hell out of me to give them any type of real control.
But bigger picture, I honestly don't believe many politicians want these types of issues solved. For too long, the left and right have built their careers and staying power blaming the other side. "Fixing issues" is something that can be taken credit for initially, but eventually fades away. I believe that Democrats need gun violence and racial tension just as much as Republicans need things like abortion and financial stress. Sorry, just being honest. I dont trust our current gov't to fix much of anything anymore. Too long these issues have lingered and ironically seem to pop up at convenient times.
So, no...giving my vote to the democratic party just for gun measures alone will not be happening anytime soon.
However, back to the orignial topic, looking at the numbers, there has been a huge spike in gun sales over the last few years. You cant tell me that there is an equal number of new "sportsmen." No, and IMO this is a total breakdown of the traditional society trust. Many of these new gun sales are going to people who have given up on expecting protection from their local law enforcement, are fearful of mass rioting and living in a time where we are being told not to trust our very neighbors. And this is all fueled by the continuous discourse by our leadership/poiticans and the media. Look at our local police, they have become every-day SWAT teams this their heavy armor vehicles, body armor and long rifles. Add in the mass hysteria from Covid and the broadcasted images of citizens being rounded up and taken from their homes/families to unknown wherever. Add in the dialog from between the Vax and Anti-this-vax groups where there was talk about how the unvaxed are threats to society and should be segregated by force.
All of this often leads to a "bunker down" mentality in some people and their only recourse is to arm themselves, therefore brining more firearms into circulation in otherwise residential areas. Its also adds feelings of lack of hope or outcome in certain situations. Just in the last 2 years look at how people with an outside view or differing opinions were treated—ostracized, slandered, called names and blamed for the larger issues. Where do you expect people with poor coping skills to go??
Last edited by a moderator:
Gatorman
Supreme Elite Maximum Tier
Thank you for that response. It makes total sense to me. I will say in terms of what you feel about the left I feel about the right. When you look at countries like Brazil, Colombia, ETC where the dichotomy of very rich and very poor lead to almost a "walled lifestyle" where armed guards and kidnappings are a cost of living there I feel like the policies on the right are headed in that direction, and gun culture exacerbates that. I believe that a social safety net, solid law enforcement, and more than anything else health care makes a big difference in terms of peoples' "desperation".
More Germaine to this discussion is other countries simply do not have this gun violence problem, mainly bc they "bit the bullet" and took these weapons out of people's hands. As long as one side of this equation is more concerned for the rights of those "unborn" to those who are actually alive I cannot, in good conscience, ever vote for them.
glvsav37
Footballguy
all good and I respect the lines you and I both walk. But again I think both you and I would benefit from a 3rd party. I'm sure if you and I had a beer we could find compromise points on issues we were not really that far apart on. But we live under this current gov't where compromise and reaching across the aisle is openly discouraged and our leaders face political backlash from their own party for doing so. I feel thats the root of many of our problems and backlogs, neither side wanting to work together. I dont see how a republican leader can still be conservative but also be in favor of a gun registry. Thats why I said I would rather work on changing the minds of my own party members rather than abandon it over 1 issue for a party I disagree with 80+%. But even still, currently if the heads of the party want (or do not want) something, then that's the way it will stand.
it really is a shame.
Generally speaking politicians play the long game. When it comes to gun issues, a GOP congressman is more worried about their standing NRA. A vote for this legislation will likely result in a lowering of their NRA grade which could lead to decreased donations or a primary challenge from someone with a better grade. The political benefit of voting for it is minimal, the risk is much greater.
It’s the kind of issue that would quickly go from 50-50 to 100-0 if the NRA or GOP decide decides they are ok with it or feel that they have to let something pass. My guess is that background checks and federal red flag laws get passed.
It’s the kind of issue that would quickly go from 50-50 to 100-0 if the NRA or GOP decide decides they are ok with it or feel that they have to let something pass. My guess is that background checks and federal red flag laws get passed.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
I voted D for the first time ever in 2020. I did that specifically as a "just this one cycle" thing because I thought Biden seemed like a pretty good bet to reestablish some norms around democracy. It's still early, but I'm feeling like a bit of a sucker for having cast that vote, not that it mattered in the slightest.
I'll probably never vote for another Democrat again in the foreseeable future. If I'm given the choice between two norm-destroying parties, my choices are (a) sit elections out from now on, (b) vote third party, or (c) vote for the illiberal party that happens to be aligned with my demographic identity. I'm leaning very strongly toward (a) but might go with (b) depending on my options. Regardless, Biden or Harris or whoever won't be getting my vote in 2024. Sorry, but I gave your team a chance and you blew it.
Ted Lange as your Bartender
Footballguy
See I read this and all that goes through my head is open primaries, ranked choice voting and/or a viable third party. None of these will ever happen in significant numbers of course, but we’d be so much better off with any of these options instead of increased polarization after every election cycle.
LawFitz
Footballguy
Yup, this is where I am at. Least dirty shirt is what I find myself forced to wear each election day.
That said, IMO, the dirtier of the two shirts has become disgustingly filthy the last couple years, to the point where I won't even consider reopening the closet anytime soon.
LawFitz
Footballguy
^^^ The above stated, I am in favor of universal objectively-structured and structurally-durable background checks, regardless of retail/private sale or gifting to family or otherwise.
Where I draw caution and consternation is in what these checks entail, including potential for unreasonable subjectivity from the ivory tower that conducts them and/or whether there's any room for the tower to unilaterally and/or unreasonably shift the goal posts on the checks (a.k.a. fitness tests) over time.
That said, I have zero clue whether or not this bill has such room for political shenanigans. If it does, then I suggest it be revised accordingly or it has a much smaller chance of getting the true support it needs to get through the gun lobby gauntlet.
Where I draw caution and consternation is in what these checks entail, including potential for unreasonable subjectivity from the ivory tower that conducts them and/or whether there's any room for the tower to unilaterally and/or unreasonably shift the goal posts on the checks (a.k.a. fitness tests) over time.
That said, I have zero clue whether or not this bill has such room for political shenanigans. If it does, then I suggest it be revised accordingly or it has a much smaller chance of getting the true support it needs to get through the gun lobby gauntlet.
glvsav37
Footballguy
IvanKaramazov said:
this idea runs through my head each election cycle. I just feel like I want to puke most times when the final 2 get announced.
However, given the "historic turnout" of 2020 I have to drag my butt to the polls and (my thinking right now) is vote red regardless of who it is—same as the "blue no matter who" rally cry from 20. Which still makes me mad b/c I'm going to get stuck with someone I don't like, but is still better then the other option.
On top of that I live in a very blue state, NY, so regardless of all my internal discourse and complaints, my Red vote is like pissing into the wind anyway.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Republican politicians and the gun lobby deserve blame for contributing to the gun violence problem, but the crux of the problem is that roughly 1/2 of Americans believe guns make them and our country safer despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
I think the long term answer lies with the Supreme Ct and its interpretation of 2A. But the chances of a more reasonable reading of 2A in my lifetime ended with Mitch McConnell. So I’ve given up, personally. It’s will be up to future generations to hopefully be better educated on gun violence and hopefully less fearful than our current generation of conservative voters.
I think the long term answer lies with the Supreme Ct and its interpretation of 2A. But the chances of a more reasonable reading of 2A in my lifetime ended with Mitch McConnell. So I’ve given up, personally. It’s will be up to future generations to hopefully be better educated on gun violence and hopefully less fearful than our current generation of conservative voters.
Gatorman
Supreme Elite Maximum Tier
IvanKaramazov said:
Ivan: Respect you, but, we are not even two years into Biden's presidency and Its not like he has a senate that is willing to go along with him. Lets assume Manchin wasn't such a #####, the outcomes would be somewhat different. If anything, staying in for this mid term cycle and delivering 52 senate votes for Biden would allow a lot more to occur.
Bidens bad things: Inflation (not sure it is his fault), partisanship (also, not sure this is his fault).
Bidens good things: Well, the government isn't acting like a spoiled baby, NATO has seen itself strengthened, an infrastructure bill, and he has really cut back on the presidential decrees that both Trump and Obama seemed to overuse.
What is left on the "Biden agenda" that is being held up by 1 democratic senator and 50 republican ones: Sensible gun control, voting rights, immigration reform, the child tax credit (that BTW lifted 40 million kids out of poverty), codifying Roe V Wade. I'd say most of those concepts are not ones that you completely disagree with, but the Republican Headwinds continue to be strong in keeping these simple, sensible things that we likely all (or most of us) agree on from becoming law.
Personally, I think this is the time not to fold, but rather to double down. Roe and these shootings really expose the republican agenda for what it is: Money and power, not children and the "unborn"
The Z Machine
Footballguy
Blew it how? And what norms has Biden further destroyed?IvanKaramazov said:
From my perspective it looks like this administration has returned some sanity and stability to the executive branch.
The Commish
Footballguy
You aren't wrong. I understand and see exactly why the founding fathers made the decisions they did. The demographics of the country and the placement of the electorate lead to those decisions. All that's changed and a huge way. Of course, now that they are in power, politicians are looking at simply holding onto that power and NONE of what you posted makes it easier to hold onto that power.Ted Lange as your Bartender said:
jm192
Footballguy
Surely you think there’s more bad than inflation and partisanship.
Border?
The messy way in which we left Afghanistan?
Gas prices?
After promising us he would end Covid, we endured another year plus of terrible numbers. The pandemic moreso ran it’s course.
Gatorman
Supreme Elite Maximum Tier
Border: until you solve immigration, you are not going to solve the border. Trump didn’t solve the border either, he just moved it back and made it Mexico’s problem. (That’s a band aid on a hemorrhage).
afganistan: again, Biden was following the deal trump made w the taliban and he knew, as someone with experience in foreign affairs that it was going to be messy no matter who did it. He just had the mental fortitude to decide no more American lives will be lost in that forever war.
Gas prices: not going to be the first time someone tells you a president has little control on the price of gas and btw gas was this high during some of the bush years as well. I’d likely say that Trump handles this differently in that he is a “bully pulpit” kind of guy who would tweet threaten the oil companies and scare them away from profiteering during this time but that’s giving him a lot of credit for an imaginary presidency
COVID: well, again, not sure what you would like him to do differently there. He completed (and enhanced) the vaccine roll out, got at home test kits in the hands of all Americans and did everything he possibly could to get people vaccinated I guess you want to lay the blame on Biden for making the vaccine and masks political theater vs scientific reason? I think you are looking at the wrong guy there.
you can blame a president for a lot of things, and many presidents will take the heat for things that they really have no control over, and I don’t think Biden passes the buck on blame (he seems to shoulder more of it than I think he deserves to shoulder) but the impasse in the senate has been the real issue in America going back about 20 years now with gun control and immigration being front and center to this. The only way to solve these issues is to change the senate, whether that means getting rid of idiot careerists like Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio who like gun money and oil money and likely couldn’t be a gas station attendant in real life or by reforming the filibuster, or finally by simply laying blame where it should be lain until they’ve soulless shameful opportunists are finally swept up by Americans who are tired of watching people die from gun violence that no other country has to deal with
jm192
Footballguy
We have a MASSIVE immigration/border problem. Democrats are acting like it doesn‘t exist.
Afghanistan: I’ll give you that it was going to be a doodoo show no matter who actually pulled us out. But Biden ultimately made the call. He gets to shoulder much of the blame.
Gas prices: on one hand, I’ll give you, the Russia/Ukraine conflict would have presented the same challenges for any POTUS. On the other, we have untapped oil reserves.
Covid: this is actually my favorite Biden failure. He actually told us during campaign season that the POTUS had the power to make Covid go away. In fact, the only reason it had not gone away was Trump’s ineptitude. But then Biden became POTUS and it raged on. I would have never though the POTUS had the power to end a pandemic. But Joe Biden actually told me that’s the case.
rockaction
Footballguy
I looked at the data you provided. It's interesting. It would seem that there was a peak about doing something to restrict access to guns around 1991 and 1999, which has since lessened. It looks like according to the "more strict/less strict" gun law timeline that people seeking stricter gun laws was at about 67 percent in 2018-9 or so. That's quite a lot. It has since plummeted to around 52 percent.
As for semi-automatic weapons, a full-scale ban still shows 56-42 percent support among voters. That's quite a bit. It would seem that things could get done if it was solely that question. As others have noted, once you break down the question of "more strict/less strict" gun control generalities, it really seems that there's broad bipartisan support for strengthening background checks and banning assault rifles within the populace. I don't know how the support breaks down by population density, so that's a question to be asked also, but it seems like there's broad support for some changes.
I don't usually post about this topic, either. Just adding my two cents and observations to a worthwhile post.
pollardsvision
Footballguy
NPR did a podcast series about the Dorr brothers and the No Compromise movement
These guys think the NRA is a bunch of liberals, and have been effective at lobbying in the recent wave of states dropping permit requirements for concealed carry and such ("Constitutional Carry").
But to what you're asking Joe, their target was 24% for support on an issue. Not sure how accurate or effective that number is, but they teach that to get something done, you just need a very passionate 24% of the public to support it.
These guys think the NRA is a bunch of liberals, and have been effective at lobbying in the recent wave of states dropping permit requirements for concealed carry and such ("Constitutional Carry").
But to what you're asking Joe, their target was 24% for support on an issue. Not sure how accurate or effective that number is, but they teach that to get something done, you just need a very passionate 24% of the public to support it.
Gatorman
Supreme Elite Maximum Tier
We are getting a little off topic here, so I will address this, but the right’s unwillingness to do anything on gun control means this is their issue and they get to shoulder the blame. The left has moved to the right on this issue by not looking for outright bans anymore but more reasonable laws like closing the gun show loophole and red flag laws, something even the police agree with. Officers not wanting to engage the shooter bc they were out gunned should never have happened for any reason, but the reasoning that they were outmatched is nuts.
back to your points:
immigration: I agree w you, but the left cannot do anything if the right doesn’t either, and the right wants it to be political theater not a solved problem.
oil reserves: there are a ton of leases that are unused and untapped right now. Drill those first and then we will give you more. More importantly we need to pivot away from fossil fuels. Period. End of story. (I have solar on my home and will be purchasing an electric truck once they come to market so my personal reliance on oil is about to go down to a very small number)
COVID: I heard something quite different than you on the campaign trail. Biden never said “I can cure COVID” he said “we can cure COVID” and to an extent we did. Once again, the anti vax community has kept COVID alive and even w them COVID for most has become the common cold. Thank you Joe Biden for the vaccine roll out. Thank you Trump for operation warp speed. If only you hadn’t made COVID political maybe you’d still be president (probably not)
sho nuff
Footballguy
The covid thing is my favorite complaint...the complaint seems to be that Biden stated he could end it (of course...so did the previous guy and it was crickets from those now blaming Biden for campaign promises).
You knew Biden couldn't end it...so you blame him because he said he could? What is the logic there? Especially when again we see the percentages of who is getting it bad and who is dying from it.
Oil reserves? Seems we tapped into them...it didn't work. There is definitely criticism of policy trying to move us away from fossil fuels adding to where prices looked like they were already going to go coming out of Covid and adding in Russia/Ukraine. Biden certainly gets and deserves criticism there...wrong time to push the way he did with where things were going. Then again...when is it ever the right time to make the moves we need to move away from our reliance on oil.
Similar threads
