They won't turn you into a mighty army against tyranny and they didn't change the outcome of the last election.

It was corrupt media, Russian interfence, Comey's treason, gerrymandering, and plain old sexism.

Sorry for the cold water of reality, but there it is.

Agreed, they won't.
Respect is the enemy of tyranny; restriction is its friend.

There are many red areas of the state and the margin was ~ 68,000 votes.

http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president/pennsylvania/

but he still believes in common sense gun laws... AND he voted for Hillary.

Really good background checks for everyone. Limiting ammunition (like no drums, for instance). He would even go for treating the military style rifles the way machine guns are regulated. Longer waiting periods in many cases. He thinks it's ignorant to open carry so I'm sure would agree with taking away open carry. He also doesn't like the Stand Your Ground law the way it's currently written.

We have to start somewhere. We talked about this at length after Sandy Hook. There are things that can be done that won't hurt responsible gun owners but could cut down on the misuse of firearms. Nothing will completely eliminate gun deaths, but we can surely cut down on many of them.

What do these mean?
- Really good background checks
- Limiting ammunition (like no drums...
- ...military style rifles the way machine guns are regulated
- Longer waiting periods in many cases
- ...taking away open carry
- ...doesn't like the Stand Your Ground law

The devil is in the details.

but I'll try to be more specific.

Background checks: Make them mandatory. In this age of computers and smartphones there should be a way to do this. We should then make the original owner partially responsible if he/she did not do the background check and the gun is used in a crime. There are some laws on the books already that just aren't being enforced and they should be.

Drums and large cartridges that hold a lot of ammunition should be more difficult to get, more expensive and in some cases denied. If they can't buy a gun legally, they shouldn't be able to buy ammunition at all.

I'm sure you already know how machine guns are regulated. Just treat the military style rifles (that so many call assault rifles) the same.

If the background check can't be completed in the three days time (or whatever it is) the gun shouldn't be handed over until it's complete, but there should also be some sort of control over backlogging cases. Everything in moderation.

Open carry is an accident waiting to happen and should be limited. There is no need to openly carry a firearm in stores and on the sidewalk that I can think of.

Stand your ground. I believe if someone breaks into your house you have a right to protect yourself. No question. But it's a bit too open to abuse.

I tend to believe that there should be stronger penalties for "accidents" where children find loaded guns around their house and shoot someone, or the next door neighbor tries to shoot a crow and ends up shooting his neighbor's child.

It's terrible that we even have to discuss making a law that mandates some common sense, but it seems we're there for some.

I'm sorry if I'm not giving you the details you desire. You posted about losing elections and I replied. I do not personally own guns and I've rarely done any target shooting so this is not my area of expertise. My husband has had guns since he was a little kid and went hunting with family and friends. He lived in the country and most people had a great respect for gun safety. He doesn't leave loaded weapons out where anyone can get them but locked in a gun safe. We have talked about a lot of possibilities and he has stated that gun laws should be enforced and tightened. I gave you some examples. Hope it helps.

BTW, I do not really dislike guns, I have no trouble with people who hunt to provide food (although it doesn't keep me from feeling bad about Bambi), but I have a great deal of trouble with trophy hunters like the trump boys.

Yes, I absolutely believe that the general public should have access to background checks if they are selling a gun in a private sale. If we make it less difficult for gun owners, they might not object so much.

You read my mind... I was thinking of the Roof case and I also think you and the Pinellas County Sheriff are right about having a target on your back if you open carry. Concealed carry is much smarter.

We do keep loaded guns in the house but they are in the gun safe and we have no kids, nor any who visit.

I really do believe that there are compromises that could be made on both sides.

not always for the best reason, like why Florida banned open carry in 1893. The Gun Control Act didn't help the crime rate in the 1960s and 70s.
Yes, we did have a long discussion then. Unfortunately, it was less than a logical and rational discussion. The worst offenders were Piers Morgan and Wayne La Pierre. Morgan incapable of a cogent argument, and Wayne pulling out the video game canard and a "mental health registry", which disgusted me.
I'm a strong believer in strict scrutiny. If there is no valid evidence of a cause and effect, the restriction should not exist. That applies to everything.
There is no functional difference between an AR15 and a Ruger 10/22 with a wooden stock. ARs are popular target rifles in the US, Canada, and much of Europe. Even the UK has them, just modified. One thing about the NFA that should change is that a single shot rifle or shotgun with the wrong barrel length is regulated as a machine gun. No other country does that. Open carry is really a nonissue. It would be the regulation that serves no purpose. Simply "because I don't like it" isn't a good enough reason. I think smoking pot is a stinky nasty habit like tobbacco, but I support legalization.

While I think it is stupid for a number of reasons, at least in populated areas, I do open carry when backpacking. That isn't a federal issue.
SYG is a use of force law. Each state, mostly common law, varies. Florida's SYG is different than California's, or the UK's for that matter. For example, California's is common law and allows counter attacks, Florida's by statute does not.
Duty to retreat is unique to the US, even then in a minority of states. SYG simply means "no duty to retreat" if you safely can. Out of the self-defense shootings, or stabbings, I have looked at, I haven't found one where the defender didn't try to escape if possible. My biggest issue with SYG is simply the intellectual laziness and dishonesty of pundits and politicians. Here is a good overview on the subject.

Here is the dirty little secret about drum magazines. There is a reason why mall ninjas buy them, but military and cops don't use them. Outside of practicing clearing jams, they are a C note of junk. The Aurora shooter did more damage with a pump shotgun because the drum magazine caused a jam on the second or third round. That doesn't mean I think they should be banned, I just think they are stupid.

on a basis similar to a driver's license with photo ID? Have a really good background check the first time and then not have to fill out all the paperwork if you have that license? The license is good for a certain length of time, then must be renewed (for small fee) and then the actual check would only have to be for the time since the last license issue? You would use that license to buy ammunition too.

Still, there's the safety issue and too many kids are shot every year because of irresponsible parents. We mandate all sorts of other responsibilities, why not guns... and then if there are laws, enforce them.

I can't disagree about poverty, but I have to tell you, Sandy Hook was a bridge too far for me.

I already kind of do that. Wyoming is one of the states the feds allow CCWs being "good enough" for NICS checks. It has photo ID, fingerprint based background check by FBI and Wyoming DCI. I can carry without a permit in the state, but I live in Mayberry, so no real reason to. But, it does serve a purpose.
It is an idea worth exploring.
I wouldn't have a system like New Jersey or New York. Maybe a shall-issue system.
Gun accidents are the lowest since 1903. Even one is too many, and the few that happen is national news. I'm OK with irresponsible parents being charged as long as it applies to Drano. Household chemicals used to kill a lot of children until a lot of PSA commercials came out about securing cleaning chemicals.
Viniger and acid water is far safer and greener, just thought I would mention it. Works just as well. I suggest we start with similar PSAs and see if that works.

It isn't the poverty, it is the inequality. There is an evolutionary reason for it. There is a lot of value in evolutionary psychology. This Tronto University prof. explains it best.

but yes, it sounds similar. I'd be happy to charge parents with neglect if their kids eat Drano or other toxic chemicals. I'll have time to watch the video in a bit and I will watch it. Thank you!

"Gun accidents are the lowest since 1903. Even one is too many, and the few that happen is national news."

the reason for that is because they are so rare. think about it, everyday occurrence never make the news. however rare and obscene actions are part of the daily news.

what i mean is, a child being shot is so rare it makes the news. while average day occurrence are never mentioned.like me taking a piss doesn't make the news, neither does me going to work on time. these are expected outcomes. while people being shot or injured are not.

the news reports on stuff that is shocking/unexpected. not normal day to day stuff.

i do agree that there is more we can/should do to prevent accidental shootings.

the nra's Eddie eagle program is a good start.

Their idea of " gun safety" is to make sure only government employees have them.

what does blm, and pink pistols have to say about this statement? lets ask Nicki Stallard https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/22/opinion/the-lgbt-case-for-guns.html?_r=0

Violence toward L.G.B.T. people is real. We are victimized at far greater rates than other minority groups. We often face multiple assailants. The attacks are frenzied and quickly escalate from harassment, to fists, to something altogether different. People die.

I’m not the only one who thinks the L.G.B.T. movement is making a mistake by lining up behind gun control measures. In the days since Orlando, Facebook membership in my pro-gun L.G.B.T. group, Pink Pistols, has quadrupled, from around 1,500 to more than 6,500, and new chapters are starting across the country. Gun stores are reporting a spike in sales to L.G.B.T. buyers, and gun trainers are reaching out, offering free training or discounts.

These are people who understand that if you’re gay or transgender, you can’t simply hope that laws will protect you. They won’t. And you can’t rely on the police. Orlando is proof you could bleed to death in the time it takes for them to stop the shooter.

It has a photo ID. To get one requires a background check and you have to submit your fingerprints. You also need proof of some form of firearms safety training such as a concealed weapons class. The license is good for seven years and costs $102 (which includes the fingerprinting fee). Renewing the license costs $50 and you do not have to get fingerprinted again.

all rifles/firearms are military styled weapons. the matchlock musket was the military achievement of its time.

are swords, bows,and crossbows military style weapons?

Some days there would be over 30 buses. We never once went to rural PA, always Philly burbs. I guess that GOTV does not work outside of Philly.

The depressed turnout is more a case of a lackluster GOTV effort. People confused sentiment with energy - the Trump voters were more inclined to vote than the Democrats because they had been charged up with repeated visits by Trump & Co.

L-

Why do you suppose loyal Democrats in rural PA (and probably other states) weren't motivated to encourage others to vote?

And to vote for HRC...

The big flips were in Lackawanna County, Philadelphia and Erie. Urban counties where "gun" politics are minimal.

She also lost because many people voted third party (200k vs 70k in 2012). These flips were primarily due to Hillary ceding the vision to Trump. One other thing which occurred was that her GOTV effort was misdirected and ended up targeting large amounts of Trump voters.

Guns only energized Trump voters, it is really a non-issue for most Dems.

Were you? We had adult men who were afraid to go out for fear of running into a trump voter.

There was not a single small business that did not have the workers behind bullet proof glass. Assume that was due to a lot of bullets. Zero Trump voters. But that was not the fear.

People that don't own guns and don't plan on owning them generally don't get worked up on the issue.

People that do own guns and/or plan on buying guns DO get worked up on the issue. And given the history of the Dems the last 30 years on the issue, it's entirely reasonable to assume that, given a chance, Democrats will outlaw broad categories of guns.

California was the first state to outlaw "assault weapons", followed by New Jersey and Connecticut, then a Federal ban appeared for a decade. Other states enacted their own laws so if/when the Federal ban expired it would still be in effect in those states. Then states began expanding what an "assault weapon" was, and after Sandy Hook, the proposed New AWB was introduced and voted on Federally.

A lot of policy stuff is very cerebral and indirect. But gun owners know their guns: real physical items that they paid hard-earned cash for. And since two central points of the gun-control effort is banning "assault weapons" and magazine-capacity limits, you have the following thoughts going through gun-owners heads:

Why can't I have a pistol grip on my rifle or shotgun? Why does that get them so damn worked up? Why should I have to register my rifle with a pistol grip? Why can't I buy a rifle with a pistol grip any more? And now if I want to sell it, I have to sell it out of state? Why should I tolerate THEIR irrational fears?

And now I can't buy regular-capacity magazines anymore? And I have to register the ones I have? And I can't sell them to anybody in the state? WTF?

And, while economic theories might be hard to understand and counter-intuitive, the gun stuff isn't.



Far more lives are going to be lost due to the repeal of Obamacare than could possibly be saved by another AWB. And this fact bugs the SHIT out of me damn near every day since election day!!!

"Newtown" aired earlier this week. It was heartbreaking to watch. Anyone who thinks our gun laws are just fine as they are simply has no understanding of what a gun is capable of doing to a human being....which is explains why the firearm lobby/NRA continues to push back on that point of firearm violence.

Been suggested:

💯 % BGC on all sales.
Mag / Clip / Drum capacity limits.
Mandatory license.
Mandatory Safety training.
Revocation of the right of ownership if convicted of a crime or declared mentally compromised.

That would be a good start. The ability to obtain is woefully inadequate vs the consequences. While it is a right it should be a right that is earned given lethality technology has brought to firearms making them capable of killing multiples of people in less then a few minutes.

that has been federal law since 1938, and law in most if not all states. The Federal Firearms Act was repealed and replaced by the Gun Control Act that made felon in possession a mandatory min among other things.
Mandatory safety training because...........? The average deer hunter in Wyoming are safer and responsible than NYPD.

Here is a question, if a license is required, what is the point behind the BGC? If we are going to have federal licenses, why not do what Canada and other countries do? This is how Canada does internet sales. At "checkout" you type in your PAL license. Once, say, Canada Ammo verifies it with the RCMP, they ship to your door.

You confuse the difference between rights and privileges. Privileges are earned, rights are not. Rights are based on being born, or being on US soil.

In the context of Sandy Hook, CT had all of that including an "assault weapons" ban. The AR was not an "assault weapon" as defined by law. Since Adam stole the rifle after murdering his mother, how would licensing and safety training, which isn't hard. Read the owners manual, seriously.

Right's or Privilege... you assume much.

1st- Safety training for the same reason you have to take and pass a test to drive (Yes, driving is a privileged but as I stated previously the zero fail nature of a firearm should require the same. Many seem not to understand this and end up leaving the firearm in the couch for the 3 yr old to find.) The safety training is to show that one is capable / competent and fully understands the responsibility involved with owning a firearm.

2nd- BGC upon purchase. A yearly license/tag renewal would ensure your right to own has not changed, not everyone buys a firearm every year.


3rd- If that is what Canada does... good for them. A person should have to go to a licensed dealer to get inventory. It should not be deliverable to the front door. A chain of custody should exist.


4th- Your point about Sandy Hook.... short an outright ban on all firearms (which I do not favor, I enjoy my pistols and shotgun) tragedies are still going to happen. We have allowed firearms to proliferate unabated for decades but that is not a reason, which i see used often to do nothing...that and the other super silly meme of "only criminals would have firearms" if we made laws address the firearm violence...

We have BGC on purpose. With vehicles, it is a way to make money. With guns, it simply costs money and serves no public safety interest. That is why New Zealand and Canada stopped registering the most commonly owned guns. Most commonly owned there, not here.

I take you prefer how internet sales work in the US, it has to go to a licensed dealer.

"1st- Safety training for the same reason you have to take and pass a test to drive (Yes, driving is a privileged but as I stated previously the zero fail nature of a firearm should require the same. Many seem not to understand this and end up leaving the firearm in the couch for the 3 yr old to find.) The safety training is to show that one is capable / competent and fully understands the responsibility involved with owning a firearm."

You did a comparison to a privilege, which you noted, so let's actually compare it to a right.

Let's say, we have a test of English composition/comprehension before you are allowed make a 1st Amendment proclamation (Of course, you have your standard 15 day waiting period before your comments can be posted, just so you can "cool off".) And, no high speed computers, fax machines, or printers allowed without a special, expensive federal license. (With another BGC, to boot.)

Then, take another test, get a license, and do a BGC before voting. No, strike that. Do a BGC to get a voting license, then another at the poll to make sure you haven't lost your voting rights since the last election.

Hire an attorney? Fiscal BGC, just to make sure you can/can't afford one.

Seems rather silly, when you start comparing it across the board, doesn't it.

Won't make any difference. Add one Gun Owning NRA Member (Republican husband), and one Anti-Gun (Democratic wife) Member. Mixed Marriage. Pretty much a wash with us new residents living in Monroe County.

I will give you this though. If my Republican husband does not like a Republican candidate (Bush and Trump), he doesn't vote at all. I have never not voted for a Dem candidate, although I really preferred Sanders over Hillary, but not enough to keep me from voting at all.

old age of 20 and was raised on the mantra "Democrats want to take your guns."
I know first hand how most gun owners fear their guns being seized by Dems. Any mention of a need for additional gun restrictions, laws, etc. is viewed as code for "They (Dems) are after my guns again." That is the reality in my deep red state.

Twice

more. After all, it would be a black man taking their guns then.

Right after Obama instituted Sharia Law.

...the Obama administration (IIRC) did favor an AWB but IMHO, the young people and the idea of fresh air on the scene became old cliches by last year and those Democrats to whom the RKBA was important may have just stayed home. Any small number of thinking but traditional Republicans who also valued the RKBA but hated their party's racist probably stayed home as well.

Many aspects of the RKBA ought to be more universally accepted by ALL political parties in the US. The AWB issue is more of wedge and, as a law, will be ineffective on crime and non-uniformly enforced.

Guessing, and claims of probability and all.

People that had never voted in their lives registered and showed up this year. One such 60 something woman proudly said it was the first time she had ever voted because it was the first time we ever had someone she could like running for president. Registered voters made sure their 18 year old kids got registered and they dragged them to the polls. The only people that did not show up were the democrats. It was disgusting and very hard to sit there and keep my mouth shut.

My home sweet home.

"Nothing"... really? Nothing at all?

Effective efforts to get out the vote kind of really start with having some common ground with those you address.


No pub intended but continuing with AWBs and Australian style confiscation is a shot to foot for the party.

The main employers around here were strip mining and trucking the coal. Joy Global is no longer making coal miners and coal shuttle cars and has closed their doors for good and Cooper Bessemer shut down during the Bush years. So jobs and health insurance were the main issues. No one was talking about people taking their guns.

A hard line pro life stance cost republicans votes and gun control cost democrats votes. Those issues also play a role in a person deciding which party to belong to. Hillary saying she favored an Australian style gun ban cost her at least some votes. It's hard to believe some people don't get that.

One of my neighbors was upset because he had to buy health insurance or be penalized. When I told him we always had health insurance and probably paid for some of his medical visits because of higher prices and now my husband had cancer and without Obamacare our insurer could drop us, he did not give a shit as long as he was not forced to pay for health insurance. There were a lot more issues that played a much bigger role than guns. And most of them were people believed Trumpery would make their lives glorious, free and grand and they did not have to do anything to achieve that but vote for him. He would make sure whites were supreme, meaning their fat, lazy asses. Somehow they would be the elite in their trailers.

I am not dissing people that live in trailers, what I am implying is the elite don't normally live in them. And Trumpery voters believed all his lies and some still do while he shoves crap up their rectums. He is their God. Period.

I think if the republicans don't "fix" or repeal/replace ACA it's going to cost them congressional seats in 2018 and hurt them in 2020. Health care has definitely become a big voter issue since 2010. I also don't think they will fix it. They may claim to but all they'll do is screw it up.

I personally feel, and I may be wrong, that the way the ACA was rolled out cost us the house in 2010, and the ACA coupled with the large push for gun control after Sandy Hook cost us the Senate in 2014. There's a lot of voter issues and I'm not implying that gun rights/gun control is the biggest, just that since roe v wade the reps have paid a cost in voters, and since Bill Clintons AWB the Dems have paid a cost in voters. Now I think health care is the new kid on the block and depending on how it goes could gain or loose votes for one party or the other, but pro life pro choice and gun rights will always be at play and cost votes for both parties respectively.

...change the party into the "anti-gun party". It's like nothing matters as much being against guns. Any new law is good; any law removed is bad. It also seems that most of the folks who favor bans or extreme regulation are also in denial that having the party clinging to AWBs and such costs votes.

Welcome.

their rights.


It's time we become the progressive 2A party. Freedom is a good thing...

I think denial is more powerful in mind control than waterboarding or anything else. Consider Stockholm Syndrome:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

I'm very impressed with the intelligence of most of the people that post in this group. I hope yall don't mind me saying that.

...just to remind you people that the pro-gun movement was instrumental in delivering the White House to trump. In so doing, pro-gun militants installed precisely the sort of crazed, despotic chief executive that pro-gunners have claimed the Second Amendment was designed to protect the public against. That's right, friends and neighbors, it's just like you've been preaching to us for years, now: the sacred 2nd isn't about something as unimportant as hunting, oh my, no---it's about preserving the ability of the people to take up arms against oppressive, overreaching regimes. Like the one we're subject to, right fucking now.

OK, that's all I wanted to say. You folks can go back to griping about the Democratic Party, now.

Thanks for the drive by

major factor in how one votes.

Dems are more urban as are those that write policy.

Gun ownership has been in sharp decline for 5 decades. The numbers of people sick and tired of wackos with guns is increasing.
The obscene amounts of money the NRA has injected into our political system is directly connected to their need to increase purchases by existing gun owners and the lack of representation offered to those hoping to stop the maddness. NRA board members are overwhelmingly represented by manufactures of arms and munitions.
Sooner or later the numbers will stop to add up for these corporate raiders of our democracy and they will make investments in other areas and the smaller and smaller numbers of gun owners will loose their influence over the majority of Americans who want to live without the violence created in our over armed citizenry.

I'm not an NRA member. I don't read their propaganda.

Violence is not created by weapons.

There are reasonable measures that can be taken via legislation.
Becoming the enemy of a third of all Democrats isn't progressive nor will it lead to progress.
"Nationally, 35% of all Democrats own a gun."

Violence is a human reaction that we have always fought to control. Permit a violent person to possess a weapon and their violence is no longer confined to themselves. When the right to own a weapon denies the very right of life to others we, as a civilized nation, need to find solutions.
Making guns available to mentally challenged people is not a step in any progressive future.
I seriously doubt that 35% of Democrats own a gun when only 38% own at least one gun in the reddest of states.
And I may add 35% is a poor showing in our equally divided nation.

...on how many own what kind of gun and is ownership falling, rising or stable. I don't like having violent criminals easily acquiring guns. I don't like mental patients who present a danger to themselves or others or those who are deranged having guns. I can think of examples of laws that go to far and laws that don't go far enough. I favor having violent criminals in prison for life or until someone develops a means to assure they've been adequately rehabilitated.

I do know this: there is nothing so easy to create as an enemy. We pro-RKBA folks are not the enemy. AR pattern rifles are not the enemy.

I know most people, a large undisputed majority, favor your points.
I know 38% is a losing number and will only get smaller to the point that even the "smart responsible" gun owners will lose the argument over what is and is not a "right" to own a fire arm. All without facing any "enemy".

I was referring to the ideological enemy that some otherwise loyal Democrats have been made into.
I know you see the number or percentage of gun owners shrinking.
What if you're wrong?


FYI: I have dinner plans and have to go soon but I do appreciate this respectful exchange.
Have a nice night if I don't get back to you right away.

"Gun ownership has been in sharp decline for 5 decades.", those numbers are taken from polls, I believe. Here in IL, we just got concealed carry a couple of years ago. The CC license #'s are climbing. We also have a Firearms Owner ID card, the FOID. The last several years, the #'s on those have been climbing. I am merely comparing polling data to real "ownership" numbers in a BLUE state.

If someone calls me, stating they're from XYZ polling, and ask if I have guns in my home, I would tell them no.

A: It's none of their business.

B: It might be a set up for a robbery.

Trust the polls that show very high numbers of DGUs?

If not why do you reject those yet accept polls showing decreased gun ownership in spite of increased gun sales?

his home state and mine.

It's not a winning issue everywhere.

hubby live in rural CO and the fear of "liberals want to take our guns" is a huge issue, a deal breaker for many. These are farmers and ranchers. My daughter and husband own guns and are responsible people, as are most gun owners. The message from dems needs to be supportive of gun owners, respectful of them. The message of responsible gun ownership has to begin with acknowledging that a vast majority of gun owners are responsible gun owners. Of course battling the anti- liberal NRA will be very hard.

their guns but who did nothing whatsoever to limit their access to their hobby.

Gun hobbyists had 8 years of hoarding more guns every time there was a mass shooting because the NRA blatantly manipulated them and told them they HAD to have more because THEY'RE COMIN' FER YER GUNS!

Your post points out that those same dolts who allowed themselves to be so thoroughly conned by the hysteria and fear mongering of the NRA are exactly the people who gave us Donald Trump.

And now you're saying what? After their stupidity has been put on display so publicly and convincingly and for such a long time, you're saying we need to follow their directions?

Well...that's really dumb!

...guns are not the answer the gun lobby says they are nor are they evil that many of us say they are.
"...follow their directions..."??? No, I expect every Democrat to examine the issues and consider proposed legislation from Democratic leaders. I expect a good Democrat to call their representatives in government on meaningless laws that do divide the party.

Progress begins with getting a Democratic candidate elected. Having a good reason why they were defeated, not so much.
It is time to stop ignoring the fact that a third of all Democrats own a gun.

In the months and years after Newtown he expressed frustration on multiple occasions that Congress did not pass stricter gun-control laws, like background checks and magazine limits and banning "assault weapons". He came out very strongly in April of 2013 after the Senate shut down several such laws. 2012 was the year we had both the Aurora shooting and the Sandy Hook shooting.

Gun owners are pretty much correct in thinking that, given a chance, Democrats will outlaw certain types of guns and limit magazine capacities; it's in the party platform and has been for a couple of decades now.

You're mocking people for thinking that Democrats will do what Democrats have stated they want to do.

???

I guess it depends on your POV, if you should or shouldn't and if that's good or bad.

In a Quinnipiac University poll on June 21-27, 2016 83% of democrats supported stricter gun laws. So until you come up with some facts or figures to support your claim that's all it is.
Link. http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

Really? Stricter than what? Were those polled queried in some way their knowledge of existing law? I've read a few times (right here on DU) that there ought to be background checks and people shouldn't be allowed to have machine guns.

Feel free to discount all of my thoughts, ideas and opinions. I'm not seeing that sort of denial as an election winner but knock yourself out.

"Do you favor or oppose a law to ban the sale of assault weapons and semi-automatic rifles?" 74% of democrats favor.
Is that cut and dried enough for you?

I know many folks hate anything that looks like an AR.
I am unaware of any study that shows an AWB lowers violent crime.
I have little interest in trying to talk you out of hating a style of gun.

I do have a question: Were those polled predominately living in mostly urban/suburban areas?

Using your logic, if almost a third of democrats stayed home because they opposed Clinton's gun stances then the inverse is also true that more than two thirds would have stayed at home if she had a weak gun stance.

I supported/support Democrats regardless of my stand on the RKBA.
I think enlightening people on issues leads to folks talking about their reps voting records, why laws are the way they are and helps form support for laws.

I am not someone who opposes any new laws on guns. I do oppose the meaningless ones.

"Tell me how talk of gun restrictions don't lose us votes."
"Of the 4,217,456 registered Democrats, one third did not vote. Nationally, 35% of all Democrats own a gun. I'd guess that, in the 56 more rural PA counties that did not vote for HRC, ownership is probably higher. Those counties have a total of over 1.6 million registered Democrats. "
So what were you saying?

I'm saying many, maybe even a majority of them own guns.

It is my opinion that an AWB is meaningless and I've had numerous others agree with me.
I think the AWB in the party platform needs to go.

Zip code 17601.
74% of Democrats disagree with you on the AWB.

No one I work with does not own a gun.

I actually like them. I probably know more history of the ar-15 than most people. Trying to change the subject and make claims on me will not help you.

I believe you and I like them as well and I wasn't trying to change the subject.

BTW, I really appreciate a good exchange like this. Thanks

We can discuss things without being nasty and I really appreciate that. Thank you very much!.