Why I will support Trump 2020, we need to learn the lesson of places like New York

Unfortunately I just can't bring myself to read the first two posts as I gather that they are pretty good. I am as disappointed as most (not all) here on Trump's record on 2A but he's my man unless he does something really drastic or God shits out a better choice in the next month or two. I love the way he treats the rest of the world rather than bowing to them every time they meet. He's relentlessly poking the loonies in the eye (figuratively speaking), takes no shit and refuses to let them drag him off track no matter how hard they try. #MAGA #KAG.

Oh, and Trump 2024.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclejumbo

The tired trope that Trump has enacted more gun control than Obama makes me mad. It's parroted by people that are more interested in memes than know their subject.

The Obama administration removed the right to own a firearm from some SS recipients.


Trump undid that. He restored the rights of those people. While I'm not happy about bumpstocks, it pales in comparison to people being barred from owning firearms because they can't manage their finances.

---

Agreed and once again abstract reasoning is needed. Yes Trump enacted the bump stock ban, you and I are on the same wave length about them. But does anyone really think that Hillary would not have realized she could have done the same thing? Does anyone really doubt that she wouldn’t have?

After Las Vegas, I have no doubt she would have done the same exact thing. So would have a Harris, Warren, Sanders or Biden.

Once again thinking abstractly, is it too hard to see the type of gun control that might have been passed if Hillary was in office. Las Vegas, the Pulse Nightclub, Parkland have occurred. The media is in full force anti 2nd mode. Democrats are calling for “Common Sense Gun Control”. Newspapers are non stop pushing the issue. Shaky Republicans are starting to waver and saying “maybe a little gun control is good, just “assault” weapons and high capacity magazines”. Hillary is using her bullipulpit to push for moderate gun control. Hollywood is in full propaganda mode (since they don’t have Trump to spend all their energy on). The Dems have the house.... and the Senate caves. Legislation is passed and goes to President Clinton which she gleefully signs. (As opposed to Trump who has said he will veto legislation)

The legislation is challenged and it eventually goes to the Supreme Court where a bunch of judges appointed by Obama and Clinton easily uphold the legislation. Millions of gun owners become criminals overnight because they don’t want to turn in or register their AR’s or magazines.

It’s not that hard for me to see and I can easily see this path unfolding if Hillary had won. It is easy to get complacent with Trump in office. Guns and ammo readily available. Abstractly thinking..... does anyone really think it would be like this with Clinton in office? Hellllll Noooooo.

Sometimes you have to judge a president not just by what is happening during their tenure, but what is not happening. Judging by what is not happening takes abstract thinking. If people aren’t willing to think abstractly I don’t think that they get a complete idea of how important Trump has been for the 2nd.

Why am I voting for Trump, over the next couple of days I am going to take a look at his competitors. Since this is a gun site I will be focusing on the 2nd Amendment.

Below is the stance of Democratic Candidate Eric Swalwell. Let’s see if this is a guy that Pro 2nd amendment voters might want in office instead of Trump.

Hmmmm How many members here have “military style assault weapons”? Yes I know that AR-15 most Americans buy and such aren’t weapons used by the military, but not according to Eric Swalwell.

He mentions the assault weapons ban from 94-2004. Instituting a ban like that is not enough for him. Not even a permanent one. In his eyes millions of Americans already own theses guns so a ban is nowhere near good enough. He would like to see an Australian type of buy back where a tax is levied to buy the guns Americans already own. Anywhere from 3 billion to 15 billion depending on how much they want to pay for a firearm. this would not apply to shooting clubs or police agencies. What if an American does not want to give up their property..... he wants to prosecute them turning millions of people into criminals.

There are some gun owners who don’t own “military style” guns and don’t see the need for them. To them the above may not seem that bad. Maybe Swalwell is their guy, can he really be that much worse than Trump?

Ummm let see,

he also wants a 48 hour cooling off period between when you buy a gun and when you pick it up. I guess this will stop someone from doing something bad, after all there are no other ways to hurt someone.

He wants background checks for all firearm and ammunition buys. I’m sure going through background checks for ammunition wont cost anything, clog up pics type of systems or be too much of a burden on citizens.

He wants everyone who buys or sell a gun to have insurance. Hey it’s only money, not a burden or check for poorer people who want to defend their homes.

He wants a national firearms registry. Because control is cool.

He wants people to only be able to buy one gun every 30 days. Wow you can still buy 12 guns a year! Honest citizens who have money and like to try out new toys at the range..... screw you.

He wants to prohibit on line sales of Ammo. Damn.... SGAMMO I will miss you.

Ban and buy back bump stocks. (Well there it is, he is in fact better than Trump because he want to buy back bump stocks. I guess everything else in this post does not matter. Let’s help swalwell get into the White House because he is so much better). He also wants to ban magazines that hold more than 10 rounds...... I’m sure not many people here have magazines that hold more than 10 rounds..... right, and ban silencers.

He wants to prohibit owning more than 200 rounds of any caliber. I’m sure we are all good here. Who needs to save money or be prepared for shortages. Who needs to be able to spend a day at the range shooting what they please and as much as they please. Who needs to buy .22 in bricks. Swalwell 2020.

Oh by the way, if someone commits a crime with a gun, it’s not their fault, he wants to repeal the lawful commerce arms act which place the blame on the manufacturer. I am sure that gun manufacturers won’t immediately be sued out of existence, I mean they will be making so much other money with Swalwells plans that paying lawyers and bogus lawsuits will barely be an inconvenience.

And states will not have the ability to decide if teachers should be more than sitting ducks should some criminal decide to shoot up a school under Swalwells. Plan.

And of course he also says “We are not just here to stand up to the NRA, we are here to beat the NRA!”

I think I will stick with voting for Trump over Swalwell.







Rep. Eric Swalwell rolls out gun control plan
by Julio Rosas | June 17, 2019 04:14 PM
Outside the National Rifle Association headquarters in Fairfax, Va., 2020 candidate Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., rolled out his complete gun control plan for the nation.

The issue of gun violence has been central to his campaign, and accompanying Swalwell were some family members of victims of gun violence.

In his plan, the California Democrat reiterated that, if elected president, he will ban and buy back "military-style semiautomatic assault weapons," with the exception of storing them at shooting ranges and hunting clubs. As he has said before, Swalwell's plan states they will criminally prosecute any person caught defying the buyback, including the possibility of jail time.

Unveiled today, Swalwell's plan also includes:

A 48-hour cooling-off period between the time a person purchases a firearm and the time they take possession of it.

Implement background checks for all firearm and ammunition purchases.

Require that liability insurance be purchased before a person can buy, trade, or otherwise receive a firearm.

Create a national firearm registry that is linked to individual firearms, and require that all purchases, transfers, and donations of firearms be mandatorily registered.

Prohibit individuals from purchasing more than one handgun per 30-day period.

Prohibit the online sale of ammunition.

Ban and buy back bump stocks, large-capacity magazines that are capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition, and silencers.

Prohibit individuals from hoarding ammunition in quantities exceeding 200 rounds per caliber or gauge.

Repealing the Protection for Lawful Commerce in Guns Act.

Prohibit states from arming teachers.

"We're not just here to stand up to the NRA ... we're here to beat the NRA," Swalwell said.

Swalwell has remained unapologetic for his tough gun stance. "Iowans care about ending gun violence. Americans care about ending gun violence. I am the only candidate calling for a #BanAndBuyback of military-style assault weapons; I will be your champion for this issue," he tweeted.

Of the more than 20 Democrats running for president, Swalwell is polling at an average of .4%, according to RealClearPolitics.

Trump has spurred the economy with more high paying jobs for Americans, has worked as hard as humanly possible to fight the deep state to stop illegal immigration, has appointed two Constitutionally correct Supreme Court Justices and federal Judges beginning the replacing of the once very leftist Federal Judicial make up, is negotiating fair trade deals with China and stopping the intelectual property theft so prevalent in the Chinese way of doing business, has brought North Korea to the bargaining table on nuclear arms and has engaged Kim Jong Un in a one on one dialog, has repealed Obama era rules that made it more difficult for elders and disabled vets to purchase firearms for self defense, has lowered taxes on persons that actually work for living.

There many more things Trump has done to improve the life of Americans and make the country stronger but since I'm a very simple one way person and have no idea how money and power works inside of the government and only see things through a very narrow limited vision because that's all I'm capable of I find myself at the point where I cannot support Trump because of plastic range toys. The future of plastic range toys is now on your shoulders friends so it's your job to go out and elect a democrat funded third party candidate. I can see it happening this time on the issue alone.

How about Kamala Harris. Would she be better for the 2nd than Trump?

Let’s see, she has promised to take executive action on firearms if elected and congress does nothing within 100 days.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kamala-...ted-president/

She has promised to ban all imports of ar-15 weapons if elected. she also wants to ban high capacity magazines.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kamala-...ted-president/


Here’s what on the issues has to say about her gun control stance. I can’t see allowing her to get into office by not voting in 2020.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2020/Kama...un_Control.htm

Kamala Harris on Gun Control
Democratic candidate for President; California Senator

No reason we have assault weapons in a civil society

While fielding a question about gun violence, Harris called out Congress for the lack of gun control legislation. She even suggested "harsh" means to encourage Congress to introduce a new bill. Harris started her discussion about gun reform by saying: "You can be in favor of the second amendment and also understand that there is no reason in a civil society that we have assault weapons around communities that can kill babies and police officers."
Harris became even more impassioned while discussing the inaction by congress following the 2012 Sandy Hook elementary school shooting that took the lives of 20 children between the ages 6 and 7. She said: "I think somebody should have required all those members of Congress to go in a room, in a locked room, no press, nobody else, and look at the autopsy photographs of those babies. And then you vote your conscience."

Source: Yahoo Entertainment Video on 2020 presidential hopefuls , Jan 29, 2019
We cannot tolerate society with our babies being slaughtered

Sen. Kamala Harris is increasingly positioning herself for a what is expected to be a crowded Democratic primary for the White House in 2020, allowing her to seek the progressive mantle.
Harris has sought to highlight her positions on gun control while carving out an identity as a hard-core critic of the National Rifle Association. This week, she was quick to highlight an attack by the NRA's chief at the Conservative Political Action Conference. "I am not going to be silenced by attacks from the NRA or anyone else," she wrote on Twitter, minutes after NRA chief Wayne LaPierre labeled Harris and other Democrats as "new European-style socialists bearing down upon us."

Last week, after the nation began another discussion on gun control following the shooting at a Florida high school, Harris immediately weighed in on MSNBC.

"We cannot tolerate a society and live in a country with any level of pride when our babies are being slaughtered," she said in a video that quickly went viral.

Source: Amie Parnes in The Hill on 2020 presidential hopefuls , Feb 26, 2018
No gun ownership for dangerous convicts or mentally ill

Harris said she wants to bring a rational approach to issues such as drug policy and gun control that doesn't cast them as all-or-nothing choices, though she was took liberal positions on those issues. "It's just pretty simple, reasonable stuff. If somebody has been convicted of a felony that proves them to be a dangerous person, they should not be able to own a gun. If somebody has been found by a court to be mentally ill to the point that they are danger to themselves or other people they should not be able to own or possess a gun," she said.
Source: San Gabriel Valley Tribune on 2016 California Senate debate , Apr 25, 2016
Rated 7% by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record.

Harris scores 7% by NRA on pro-gun rights policies
While widely recognized today as a major political force and as America's foremost defender of Second Amendment rights, the National Rifle Association (NRA) has, since its inception, been the premier firearms education organization in the world. But our successes would not be possible without the tireless efforts and countless hours of service our nearly three million members have given to champion Second Amendment rights and support NRA programs.

The following ratings are based on lifetime voting records on gun issues and the results of a questionaire sent to all Congressional candidates; the NRA assigned a letter grade (with A+ being the highest and F being the lowest).

What the Grades Mean:
A+: A legislator with not only an excellent voting record on all critical NRA issues, but who has also made a vigorous effort to promote and defend the Second Amendment.
A: Solidly pro-gun candidate including voting record.
AQ: A pro-gun candidate whose rating is based solely on the NRA-PVF Candidate Questionnaire and who does not have a voting record.
B: A generally pro-gun candidate; may have opposed some pro-gun reform in the past.
C: A candidate with a mixed record or positions on gun related issues, who may oppose some pro-gun positions.
D: An anti-gun candidate who usually supports restrictive gun control legislation. Regardless of public statements, can usually be counted on to vote wrong on key issues.
F: True enemy of gun owners' rights. A consistent anti-gun candidate.
?: Refused to answer the NRA-PVF Candidate Questionnaire, often an indication of indifference, if not outright hostility, to gun owners' rights.
Source: NRA website 10-NRA on Aug 11, 2010
Supports restrictions on right to bear arms.

Harris supports the CC survey question on Second Amendment
The Christian Coalition Voter Guide inferred whether candidates agree or disagree with the statement, 'Further Restrictions on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms' The Christian Coalition notes, "You can help make sure that voters have the facts BEFORE they cast their votes. We have surveyed candidates in the most competitive congressional races on the issues that are important to conservatives."

Source: Christian Coalition Survey 16_CC10 on Nov 8, 2016

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by internet troll

How about Kamala Harris. Would she be better for the 2nd than Trump?

Let’s see, she has promised to take executive action on firearms if elected and congress does nothing within 100 days.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kamala-...ted-president/

She has promised to ban all imports of ar-15 weapons if elected. she also wants to ban high capacity magazines.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kamala-...ted-president/


Here’s what on the issues has to say about her gun control stance. I can’t see allowing her to get into office by not voting in 2020.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2020/Kama...un_Control.htm

Kamala Harris on Gun Control
Democratic candidate for President; California Senator

No reason we have assault weapons in a civil society

While fielding a question about gun violence, Harris called out Congress for the lack of gun control legislation. She even suggested "harsh" means to encourage Congress to introduce a new bill. Harris started her discussion about gun reform by saying: "You can be in favor of the second amendment and also understand that there is no reason in a civil society that we have assault weapons around communities that can kill babies and police officers."
Harris became even more impassioned while discussing the inaction by congress following the 2012 Sandy Hook elementary school shooting that took the lives of 20 children between the ages 6 and 7. She said: "I think somebody should have required all those members of Congress to go in a room, in a locked room, no press, nobody else, and look at the autopsy photographs of those babies. And then you vote your conscience."

Source: Yahoo Entertainment Video on 2020 presidential hopefuls , Jan 29, 2019
We cannot tolerate society with our babies being slaughtered

Sen. Kamala Harris is increasingly positioning herself for a what is expected to be a crowded Democratic primary for the White House in 2020, allowing her to seek the progressive mantle.
Harris has sought to highlight her positions on gun control while carving out an identity as a hard-core critic of the National Rifle Association. This week, she was quick to highlight an attack by the NRA's chief at the Conservative Political Action Conference. "I am not going to be silenced by attacks from the NRA or anyone else," she wrote on Twitter, minutes after NRA chief Wayne LaPierre labeled Harris and other Democrats as "new European-style socialists bearing down upon us."

Last week, after the nation began another discussion on gun control following the shooting at a Florida high school, Harris immediately weighed in on MSNBC.

"We cannot tolerate a society and live in a country with any level of pride when our babies are being slaughtered," she said in a video that quickly went viral.

Source: Amie Parnes in The Hill on 2020 presidential hopefuls , Feb 26, 2018
No gun ownership for dangerous convicts or mentally ill

Harris said she wants to bring a rational approach to issues such as drug policy and gun control that doesn't cast them as all-or-nothing choices, though she was took liberal positions on those issues. "It's just pretty simple, reasonable stuff. If somebody has been convicted of a felony that proves them to be a dangerous person, they should not be able to own a gun. If somebody has been found by a court to be mentally ill to the point that they are danger to themselves or other people they should not be able to own or possess a gun," she said.
Source: San Gabriel Valley Tribune on 2016 California Senate debate , Apr 25, 2016
Rated 7% by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record.

Harris scores 7% by NRA on pro-gun rights policies
While widely recognized today as a major political force and as America's foremost defender of Second Amendment rights, the National Rifle Association (NRA) has, since its inception, been the premier firearms education organization in the world. But our successes would not be possible without the tireless efforts and countless hours of service our nearly three million members have given to champion Second Amendment rights and support NRA programs.

The following ratings are based on lifetime voting records on gun issues and the results of a questionaire sent to all Congressional candidates; the NRA assigned a letter grade (with A+ being the highest and F being the lowest).

What the Grades Mean:
A+: A legislator with not only an excellent voting record on all critical NRA issues, but who has also made a vigorous effort to promote and defend the Second Amendment.
A: Solidly pro-gun candidate including voting record.
AQ: A pro-gun candidate whose rating is based solely on the NRA-PVF Candidate Questionnaire and who does not have a voting record.
B: A generally pro-gun candidate; may have opposed some pro-gun reform in the past.
C: A candidate with a mixed record or positions on gun related issues, who may oppose some pro-gun positions.
D: An anti-gun candidate who usually supports restrictive gun control legislation. Regardless of public statements, can usually be counted on to vote wrong on key issues.
F: True enemy of gun owners' rights. A consistent anti-gun candidate.
?: Refused to answer the NRA-PVF Candidate Questionnaire, often an indication of indifference, if not outright hostility, to gun owners' rights.
Source: NRA website 10-NRA on Aug 11, 2010
Supports restrictions on right to bear arms.

Harris supports the CC survey question on Second Amendment
The Christian Coalition Voter Guide inferred whether candidates agree or disagree with the statement, 'Further Restrictions on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms' The Christian Coalition notes, "You can help make sure that voters have the facts BEFORE they cast their votes. We have surveyed candidates in the most competitive congressional races on the issues that are important to conservatives."

Source: Christian Coalition Survey 16_CC10 on Nov 8, 2016

---

Dude, you have surpassed Bogey1 with the shit too long to bother with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Walleye Hunter

Dude, you have surpassed Bogey1 with the shit too long to bother with.

---

I’m putting my thoughts and reasons for voting for Trump out there. I like to back my statements and positions with sources to support those reasons. If people don’t want to read that info it’s no problem, I’ve been there before. It’s one of the reasons why I separate my thoughts in blue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by internet troll

[COLOR="#0000CD"] . . .

It’s also worth noting that Stolarczyk was in such financial distress that he couldn’t even afford to keep the electricity on at his home, to say nothing of paying the endless fees involved in trying to get a permit to own a handgun. If this guy winds up doing time over a “crime” like this, there’s simply no justice in the unhinged state of New York.

---

This is a good reason why everyone might want to become better informed on the subject of jury nullification.

One of the things that I thought was very noticeable during last nights debate was the Democrats willingness to address gun control. In the past it was almost a taboo subject for the most part, now they are proudly making it part of their platform.

How about Cory Booker? Where does he stand on gun control? This article lays out what he wants to do if he gets into the Whitehouse.

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2...ng-plan-policy

Cory Booker now has the most ambitious gun control proposal of any 2020 candidate
Booker wants to require a license to buy and own a gun in the US — going further on guns than any other Democrat in the 2020 race.

Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) sums up his ambitious new gun control plan in one sentence: “If you need a license to drive a car, you should need a license to own a gun.”

On Monday, Booker unveiled his proposal to tackle America’s gun problem as part of his bid for the presidency, detailing a plan that sets a high bar for the rest of the Democratic field.

His plan includes the typical Democratic proposals: universal background checks, an assault weapons ban, better enforcement of existing gun laws, and more funding for gun violence research.

But Booker’s plan goes further by requiring that gun owners not just pass a background check but obtain a license to be able to purchase and own a firearm. It’s a far more robust gun control proposal than any other presidential candidate has proposed. The idea has solid research behind it, and real-world experience in nine states that currently require a license or permit for at least handguns, including Booker’s home state of New Jersey.

The plan would go toward addressing a very serious issue: America currently leads the developed world in gun violence. One big reason for that is that America has the laxest gun laws — and the most guns — of any developed country. The research has consistently found that places with easier access to guns and more firearms have more gun deaths.

So far in the 2020 campaign, guns have not, surprisingly, gotten much attention. More than a year ago, the March for Our Lives movement that came out of the Parkland, Florida, school shooting revitalized America’s broader debate about guns, pushing the issue to the forefront in the 2018 midterm elections. But so far, 2020 Democrats have mostly stuck to a tried script on gun control, even as they push for fairly sweeping ideas in other areas, like single-payer health care, the Green New Deal, and dramatically hiking taxes on the superrich.

Booker’s proposal stands to change that. Not only is it the most sweeping gun control plan out of the 2020 Democratic candidates, but it’s among the most far-reaching of any presidential campaign ever.

Booker’s plan seeks to treat guns a bit more like cars

Booker’s proposal would require people to obtain a license to purchase and own a gun. To obtain a license, people would go to designated outposts — similar to the passport system — to get a federal license, administered by the FBI. Applicants would need to pay a fee; submit paperwork, a photo, and fingerprints; sit for an interview; pass a comprehensive background check; and go through gun safety training to get a gun. The license would be valid for five years, although it could be rescinded if someone breaks the law or otherwise proves to be a danger.

That’s similar to what states that currently mandate licenses for guns already do. Booker’s home state of New Jersey, for instance, requires that people obtain a permit from local or state police to buy a gun. The process entails extensive vetting in which applicants submit personal details (including about their past), go through a typical background check, and waive confidentiality for psychiatric and mental health records.

Booker’s plan would also let states go further than the federal requirements. For example, police in Massachusetts, which has arguably the most expansive gun laws in the country, have discretion to deny a license even if someone meets the explicit legal requirements for it. The idea behind this discretion is that there are some things that may not pop up in a person’s criminal or mental health record but are relevant to whether someone should be able to purchase and own a firearm — like, for instance, if police are constantly called to a man’s house for domestic disturbances, even if that man is never charged.

Booker’s plan doesn’t build in discretion, so the FBI wouldn’t have discretionary powers to deny a license. But it’s the kind of thing that states could do or keep doing on top of federal law. In general, the idea is to avoid interfering in states that already have a licensing scheme that’s equal to or stricter than Booker’s proposal.

Beyond licensing, Booker’s plan would also establish a national database to register and track guns. This, again, is a key component of Massachusetts’s law: By providing a way for law enforcement to track all guns in the state, they’re also able to know which weapons to take away if someone’s license is revoked due to, say, criminal activity.

Booker’s plan also includes a limit on purchases, allowing people to buy just one handgun a month. The idea is to stop people from going to places with looser gun laws, buying a lot of guns, and taking them back home to resell them illegally. Advocates of this proposal point to Virginia, where gun trafficking out of state reportedly worsened after the state repealed its purchasing limit.

And the proposal includes more typical Democratic ideas, including universal background checks, an assault weapons ban, and more stringent oversight of the gun industry.

Critics say that licensing and other restrictions put too much of a burden on gun owners. But in Massachusetts, for example, more than 95 percent of applicants get approval. While the process does take time and effort, advocates say it does a better job weeding out potential wrongdoers than simple background checks.

The ideas, from universal background checks to licensing, would require Congress to pass a bill — an unlikely ask as long as Republicans control either chamber. Should Congress not act, though, Booker also vows to use executive actions on day one to tighten gun laws as much as possible. But executive action is going to be much more limited, enacting changes at the edges rather than establishing sweeping proposals like a new gun licensing scheme.

If Congress were to follow Booker’s lead, however, it’d place a whole new layer of checks on buying and owning a gun in the US. And there’s evidence that would save lives.

Requiring a license to own a gun has strong research behind it

Booker’s pitch to go further on guns than the typical Democratic proposals is supported by much of the current research on gun policy.

On gun licensing, the big studies so far come out of Connecticut and Missouri. In Connecticut, researchers looked at what happened after the state passed a permit-to-purchase law for handguns — finding a 40 percent drop in gun homicides and a 15 percent reduction in handgun suicides. In Missouri, researchers looked at the aftermath of the state repealing its handgun permit-to-purchase law — finding a 23 percent increase in firearm homicides but no significant increase in non-firearm homicides, as well as 16 percent higher handgun suicides. All of that suggests that gun licensing saves lives.

Meanwhile, recent research has suggested that universal background checks — the most commonly touted idea by Democrats, largely because of their popularity — actually aren’t that effective on their own. Several studies from researchers at UC Davis, UC Berkeley, and Johns Hopkins have found that universal background checks alone at the state level and in urban counties were not linked to changes in firearm homicide or suicide rates.

Previously, the research base on background checks was limited but promising. A review of the evidence released by the RAND Corporation early last year looked at the best US-based studies for all sorts of gun policies, including background checks.

RAND found “limited” to “moderate” evidence that background checks in general reduce violent crime, including homicides, and suicides. But RAND also cautioned that the research just on closing the background check loopholes and making the system more comprehensive or universal was “inconclusive” when it came to firearm homicides. The newer studies fill in that gap — and they don’t look good for universal background checks.

In short: Establishing a background check system, as the US has already done on a national scale, likely has an effect. But making the system more comprehensive or universal doesn’t seem to have a significant effect on its own, at least at a population level. Researchers say that could be linked to several factors, from the difficulty of enforcing universal background checks to poor record-keeping for some states’ existing laws.

Similarly, other research has suggested that while an assault weapons ban may have some impact on the deadliness of mass shootings, it would have little to no impact in other areas. That’s in large part because the great majority of gun deaths — more than 70 percent of homicides — involve handguns, not assault rifles.

That’s not to say that the non-licensing measures would do nothing. In fact, universal background checks are an inherent part of the licensing systems that exist so far: Such background checks are necessary to verify that someone really should be able to obtain a license.

But licensing specifically would likely be far more effective than the typical proposals put forward by Democrats. A Johns Hopkins study, which found that comprehensive background checks alone correlated with more firearm homicides in urban counties, found that licensing systems were the one policy associated with fewer firearm homicides.

Until Booker’s plan, 2020 Democrats were generally playing it safe on guns

The Democratic primary has been filled with innovative new ideas on all sorts of policy issues. Thanks to Sen. Bernie Sanders’s (I-VT) advocacy in 2016, Medicare-for-all — or at least some sort of health care expansion — has set the terms of the debate on health care policy. There are also proposals like the Green New Deal to tackle climate change; Sanders’s estate tax expansion; Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-MA) plans to institute a wealth tax, make college debt-free, lower generic drug prices, and tackle the opioid epidemic (Warren has quite a few ideas); Sen. Kamala Harris’s (D-CA) proposal to raise teacher pay; several anti-poverty ideas; and much more.

But on guns, the 2020 candidates have, until Booker’s plan, generally stuck to old ground. The candidate supposedly focused on guns, Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA), has mostly spoken about background checks and an assault weapons ban. Harris’s widely touted gun proposal would just use executive actions to, in effect, expand background checks and enforce existing gun laws.

In a primary that’s supposed to be all about fresh ideas, some gun control advocates have found the lack of big thinking disappointing.

“You have progressives who are running for president talking about single-payer, talking about Green New Deal, talking about breaking up large tech companies, talking about a super surcharge on multi-multi-millionaires,” Igor Volsky, the executive director of Guns Down America, told me prior to Booker’s proposal. “On an issue that is so important to so many Americans — the issue of guns — it’s unconscionable to me that the solutions we’re hearing from the folks running for president are focused on incremental reforms that they’ve been selling for the last 20 years.”

If nothing else, the lack of ideas on guns has pushed away the attention that could be going to gun violence in a Democratic primary — because it’s hard to debate an issue when all the candidates’ proposals are basically the same. As Peter Ambler, executive director of the advocacy group Giffords, previously told me, “The candidates have so little contrasts on the issue that it’s going to dampen the attention that the candidates themselves pay to the issue and dampen the news media coverage of the issue.”

One reason for sticking to the old policies is that they still haven’t happened after all this time. If an idea like universal background checks — that consistently polls above 80 percent support — can’t get through Congress, why bother with even more ambitious proposals?

But the thinking, as Volsky details in his book Guns Down: How to Defeat the NRA and Build a Safer Future with Fewer Guns, is to start pushing the country over time toward where gun control advocates would like to see the issue go: Just like Sanders helped move Democrats toward supporting single-payer health care plans, and just like the LGBTQ movement slowly pushed the nation toward backing same-sex marriage, gun control advocates should use moments like 2020 to move toward their ideal agenda.

“We need a fundamentally different approach in the next 20 years,” Volsky said. “We need to ask for what we really want, not what we think moderate, centrist voters would go for. In the book, I argue that should be a future with fewer guns.”

Besides, ideas like gun licensing do appear to have strong support. Surveys have found that more than 70 percent of Americans, including a majority of gun owners, support requiring a license to buy a gun. That suggests there’s room for Democrats to go further.

No one was really making that push in the 2020 primaries. That changed with Booker’s plan.

Many reasons why I wont vote for Beto O’Rourke or sit out the election as he gets in. Where does he stand on the 2nd?

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...n-ar-15-sales/

Beto O’Rourke Renews Call to Ban AR-15 Sales
27 Jun 2019

MIAMI, FLORIDA - JUNE 26: former Texas congressman Beto O'Rourke speaks to the media in the spin room after the first night of the Democratic presidential debate on June 26, 2019 in Miami, Florida. A field of 20 Democratic presidential candidates was split into two groups of 10 for the …

Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke renewed his call for banning the sale of AR-15s and other commonly-owned semiautomatic rifles during Wednesday night’s Democrat debate.

O’Rourke described the semiautomatic rifles as “assault weapons” and “weapons of war,” and called for an end to the sales of such firearms.

Following the lead of the students marching for their lives, we need to implement universal background checks, pass red flag laws, and keep weapons of war on the battlefield—so they’re not trained against our communities in synagogues and churches, concerts and movie theaters.

O’Rourke’s push to ban AR-15s and other commonly-owned semiautomatic firearms is a continuation of a policy he began pushing during a February 2018 interview with CBS News. In discussing raising the legal age for buying an AR-15 O’Rourke said, “I don’t know that we should raise the age for buying an AR-15 I just don’t think we should be selling AR-15s in this country.”

On October 18, O’Rourke noted Texas’ proud gun heritage then explained his desire for Texas to lead they way on gun control by adopting the gun laws being pushed everywhere else.

On March 16, the Hill reported O’Rourke indicating current owners of AR-15s ought to be able to keep them, but all future sales should be prohibited. He said, “If you own an AR-15, keep it. Continue to use it responsibly and safely. I just don’t think that we need to sell anymore weapons of war into this public.”