Many Democrats are sure to be elected

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

HRC is one of them.

Now the bad news: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/10/04/clinton-believes-its-time-to-tackle-gun-violence/
Thanks to pablo_marmol in http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172200614#post22 I found this link.

While there are favorable aspects noted in the fact sheet, there are several problematic points that we must work to prevent.

The mostly favorable points:
>> "Advocate for comprehensive federal background check legislation."
>> "Close the “Charleston Loophole."
>> "Tighten the gun show and Internet sales loophole if Congress won’t."

The questions for these points that people need to consider include:
- How long is long enough to give NICS systems and personnel to complete a background check?
{Ideally the system would work instantly as the name implies. There are problems with that since there may be a prohibited person who shares certain identifying data with a qualified person.)
- What qualifies a person as "in the business" of selling guns?
- Should the federal government be involved or should this remain a domain of the states?
{In terms of firearm sales there are 2 groups of people in the US, those holding Federal Firearms License (FFL) to sell professionally and everyone else. The interstate commerce clause in the Constitution is what gives the federal government nexus to license and regulate FFLs. That leaves the individual states to regulate private in-state sales.}

A mix of good and bad:
>> "Support legislation to prohibit all domestic abusers from buying and possessing guns."
>> "Make straw purchasing a federal crime."
>> "Improve existing law prohibiting persons suffering from severe mental illness from purchasing or possessing a gun."
>> "Keep military-style weapons off our streets."
- Who should qualify as a "domestic abuser"?
{Certainly anyone convicted of domestic assault should be prohibited and probably anyone with a TRO or the subject of an order of protection should be prohibited for the duration of the order or a time attached to a court order.}
- Straw purchases are already federal crimes as well as state crimes in many areas. What changes are actually needed to this law? How can these crimes be prosecuted more effectively?
- What types mental disease should disqualify persons from owning a gun? What can the government offer to also support and empower families to help these folks?
- Should "military-style weapons" be the subject of laws at all? If so, why? Are you less injured via a 40 year old revolver or Fudd gun?

Industry related actions:
>> "Repeal the gun industry’s unique immunity protection."
>> "Revoke the licenses of bad-actor dealers."
- What makes a dealer a "bad-actor"?
{For sure dealers and commercial entities that break the law should be removed licensed enterprises. The ATF which licenses FFLs should have programs and inspections aimed at identifying these actions and prohibiting them from operating.}
- The PLCAA protects licensed businesses from simply being sued out existence for being unpopular. These businesses have been licensed at various levels by existing government agencies to conduct firearm manufacturing, repair, sales and related activities.
- How is it reasonable to say to business owner, that you can operate, you must do so by following these laws, you must remain available for inspection and perform background checks on your customers and if someone to whom you sell a gun having followed every rule and without your criminal intent, uses that gun in a crime, you can be sued possibly more than once, and simply defending yourself may cost hundreds of thousands dollars?


Finally, is there a Democrat for whom you can cast your vote in favor of empowering local agencies to address the root causes of violence rather than restricting simple tools owned by a third of all Americans?

[The Polack MSgt]

1. kick for visibility... nt

[Eleanors38]

2. Very good summation of the problems with proposed "gun control" measures.

[Kang Colby]

3. LOL

I voted for HRC, yet I don't support any of this nonsense.

[pablo_marmol]

4. I am *EXTRA* invested here, by virtue of the fact that I'm in Darrell Isshole's district.

Last edited Sun Nov 6, 2016, 12:55 PM - Edit history (1)

As I assume most DU'ers are aware, Colonel Doug Applegate is giving Issa a serious challenge this election cycle. A recent poll actually had Applegate leading by a narrow margin. By virtue of the fact that I get the GOP mail from a former right-wing tenant, I can report that Issa is nervous........letting his constituency know that every vote matters. Applegate is reminding voters about Issa's wealth accumulation while in Congress, while Issa is going after Applegate on personal matters relating to his divorce and a DUI.

I donated to Doug's campaign, and (obviously) voted for him by mail last week. Crossing my fingers for high Dem turnout, because with California's assinine new gun laws, good GOP turnout is all but guaranteed. Of course, Hillary's recent comments aren't helping a bit. If Applegate pulls this off, it will be in spite of Democratic Party insanity on the gun violence subject rather than because of it. If Applegate loses by a narrow margin, there will be absolutely no doubt that well-intentioned/misguided "gun control" played a large role in the defeat. Sweating bullets here -- no pun intended -- hoping that we get rid of the Slimeball Witch Hunter In Chief.

Now........to address your question:

Finally, is there a Democrat for whom you can cast your vote in favor of empowering local agencies to address the root causes of violence rather than restricting simple tools owned by a third of all Americans?

Hate to come off as negative/fatalistic -- but I tend to doubt it. Governor Brown reversed his intelligent position on "assault weapons", for example, and I suspect the reason that he did was to stay in good graces with the presumptive winner of the upcoming presidential election. That, and perhaps he's thinking legacy.......wanting to be remembered as a good & loyal Democrat. The lunatic right is almost completely self-radicalized -- but we've definitely tossed some petrol on the fire with our culture war surrounding gun violence. I truly fear what the next 4+ years will bring, as I don't see us coming to our senses anytime in the near future. If Clinton hasn't figured out that "assault weapons" bans are both dishonest as well as politically toxic, she never will.

[pablo_marmol]

5. "Close the “Charleston Loophole."

Want to win hearts and minds on a particular idea relating to "gun control"? Just slap the word loophole on the end of your label.

How pathetic we appear.