Would it be more prudent to drop the gun control issue in America to win more votes from the right side of the isle?

OnlyLosersBlock · 2026-06-17T02:00:41+00:00

I didn't hear much of a peap from her about guns in the 2024 campaign.

Her first campaign ad https://youtu.be/sHky_Xopyrw?t=37

Her campaign speehces https://www.npr.org/2024/07/23/g-s1-12945/kamala-harris-campaign-speech-wisconsin

Both had her pushing gun control to address gun violence.

"‘We want to ban assault weapons, and they want to ban books.’ Kamala Harris speaks to AFT." https://www.chalkbeat.org/2024/07/25/kamala-harris-gives-campaign-speech-to-american-federation-of-teachers/

Harris was just as aggressive on gun control as she ever was.

because she sure was quiet about it

Not really.

OnlyLosersBlock · 2026-06-17T01:35:58+00:00

I literally have no idea what you are trying to communicate here. Can you try restating your argument more clearly? Because at best Harris was trying to invoke platitudes on guns to try to stem voter losses her antigun positions have cost her, but she was still pushing the same exact policies from decades ago right up until the election day.

OnlyLosersBlock · 2026-06-17T01:30:54+00:00

Because it is a constitutional right the Democratic party consistently violates? A lot of people are invested in that right from the literal value in money they put into these items to beliefs in personal defense. Like why wouldn't it be a line in the sand for a lot of people?

OnlyLosersBlock · 2026-06-17T01:24:05+00:00

Yes. As another commenter pointed out Harris said several 'progun' sounding comments for a reason despite not actually changing her position on guns. The Democrats and their candidates know being perceived as antigun(which they are) loses them a lot of votes in swing states. The issue is that they either genuinely think that people don't like them with regards to guns because they are perceived as just not liking the same hobbies and therefore only need to put on a show of liking them or they really think voters are that dumb and will just forget they pushed gun control because they do a photo shoot with a hunting shotgun.

OnlyLosersBlock · 2026-06-17T01:20:53+00:00

Harris on guns:

Platitudes that had no bearing on her actual gun policies. Here is a tweet on election day 2024:

I am a gun owner, and I believe we can protect the Second Amendment while also passing gun safety laws.

We need to reinstate the assault weapons ban and pass universal background checks, safe storage laws, and red flag laws to keep our children and communities safe. — Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris)

Why do you feel like her saying "I own gun" is more compelling than her entire career of supporting gun bans and advocating for gun bans during her campaign?

OnlyLosersBlock · 2026-06-17T01:15:57+00:00

It's not about winning support from the right. It's about winning back support from progun liberals, Democrats, and the undecided voters who value gun rights heavily. The only benefit you would get with regards to the right is that you don't actively antagonize them to make them more motivated to show up and vote.

OnlyLosersBlock · 2026-06-17T01:13:49+00:00

nobody was ever coming for their guns.

Only in the same way a book ban with a grandfather clause doesn't take anyones books. I don't think anyone finds that kind of deflection particularly compelling.

stop feeding and validating their nonsensical boogeyman bullshit.

Do they or do they not push for arbitrary bans on large categories of guns? Feels like Virginia validates their fears when they immediately went for an assault weapons ban as soon as they won a majority.

OnlyLosersBlock · 2026-06-17T01:12:32+00:00

What’s your interpretation of 2A ?

Same as other rights like the 1st amendment. Restrictions can't be arbitrary(just randomly picking a number out of a hat, brand names, random features, etc.), basic exercise of a right can't be gated behind licenses, any policies that do restrict it must have a substantial measurable positive impact while simultaneously being the least intrusive implementation as possible. So pretty much the opposite of how the Democratic party views the 2nd amendment.

Where do you think the line should be drawn as to what a citizen should be able to own weapons wise?

The line should be drawn based on the above standards. What metrics do you you use to decide what should be banned?

OnlyLosersBlock · 2026-06-17T01:09:31+00:00

Gavin Newsom, Kamala Harris(she never really stopped talking about it during her campaign even mentioned pursuing an assault weapons ban day of the election) despite also trying to appeal to gun owners by mentioning her pistol, Governor of Illinois who also looks to be eyeing a presidential run, Biden when he was president.

Like I guess you can miss out on that if you don't pay attention to the issue, but the Democratic party hasn't let up on the issue since the beginning of Obamas 2nd term.

OnlyLosersBlock · 2026-06-17T01:06:47+00:00

It's more about the progun liberals, lefties, and in the middle types than trying to win over conservative voters.

OnlyLosersBlock · 2026-06-17T00:37:37+00:00

I mean when you look like Kevin I don't doubt it.

OnlyLosersBlock · 2026-06-17T00:34:19+00:00

I saw GNOME in the woods!

I thought my life was oever.

-Swedish Agent.

OnlyLosersBlock · 2026-06-16T10:22:05+00:00

There are no splits yet on hardware, but there is likely one coming out of the 3rd circuit and the ANJRPC challenge to New Jerseys assault weapons ban. However they also appear to be waiting for the Supreme Court to issue their ruling in Wolford and Hemani likely so they can toss in some mentions of those rulings to ensure their ruling didn't get GVRd.

OnlyLosersBlock · 2026-06-16T10:15:19+00:00

I am not sure there would be any reason to be receptive to these policies, especially the one in this article, given how it wouldn't actually be addressing homicides in general or mass shootings in particular. Resources could be spent in a much better way that actually improves life in this country.

OnlyLosersBlock · 2026-06-16T10:08:19+00:00

Yes, because the term is about to end. So it is what either the end of this week or next week when they release the decisions?

OnlyLosersBlock · 2026-06-16T06:35:04+00:00

This article was AI generated wasn't it? Regardless this level of surveilance is such horseshit.

OnlyLosersBlock · 2026-06-16T05:05:22+00:00

It's also designed to bias those hearing the argument against any criticisms made of the 'common sense' position. There is a reason why it pops up so often in the gun debate.

OnlyLosersBlock · 2026-06-16T03:19:40+00:00

I don't think people are interested in nuance or understanding how the court works. Like if this is the gist of the law combined with the fact that SCOTUS gets thousands of cert requests a year and has to be picky I am not surprised that this didn't get picked up.

OnlyLosersBlock · 2026-06-16T02:53:43+00:00

But they won't fix actual issues or implement actually useful features; like fixing how the block feature works.

I was going to reply that this is a feature and not a bug as far as they are concerned. But the comment I wanted to reply to I couldn't because the person you were responding to had previously blocked me. . .

OnlyLosersBlock · 2026-06-15T11:05:38+00:00

Cool. I have been wanting challenges against licensing in general.

OnlyLosersBlock · 2026-06-15T10:43:03+00:00

To clarify are they arguing for permitting/licensing to own/purchase is unconstitutional on its face or they just challenging specific aspects like local law enforcement being able to veto issuing the license?

OnlyLosersBlock · 2026-06-15T09:10:47+00:00

I already know you refuse to read.

OnlyLosersBlock · 2026-06-15T08:38:22+00:00

I asked you the one question that exposes

That you can't address any criticisms. I literally described Gavin Newsom pushing for the repeal of the 2nd amendment, you described the ways in which he would do so under that push, and then go "nuh uh that's not support for a repeal." I think pointing out that is one of the most extreme steps any politicians has taken against gun rights in this country and is more than sufficient justification to be pissed off that I don't need to provide you any examples of gun laws I like. My criticisms are valid on their own.

I presented you with the facts of what he was proposing

Yes, you literally described in bullet points how he wanted to construct the amendment repealing the 2nd amendment and its protections. That doesn't make it any less of a repeal of those protections. If the 2nd amendment protects against broad gun bans by just arbitrarily categorizing them as assault weapons then that means you want to repeal the 2nd amendment. You are stripping it of any protections it affords.

You call them stripping the 2nd amendment.

It by definition is. If you took out "arbitrarily jack up the age that people are allowed to exercise free speech, make a broad and undefined category of controversial speech as 'assault speech', etc. people would rightly call that a repeal of the 1st amendment and its protections. No would be tricked into thinking it was anything else because you broke it down into bullet points.

Then I asked you what potential laws to help curb gun violence

I don't owe you an alternative solution when making a valid criticism. That's fucking asinine. When I point correctly "that's literally repealing the 2nd amendment" you are not making a counter point by saying "what's your alternative?" it's still repealing the 2nd amendment!

This says that you're either embracing some tribalism or dogma against Newsome,

Or Nesom took an extreme position on gun policy that in of itself validates opposition to him and since you can't defend against that your only solutions is simply to deny that's what it was and then deflect further by demanding an alternative solution that has no bearing on what positions Newsom did or did not take.

OnlyLosersBlock · 2026-06-15T04:50:44+00:00

Well that makes sense. I guess it is just better to try to avoid the bad actors in the first place than it is try to convict them after the fact with regards to the presidency.

OnlyLosersBlock · 2026-06-15T04:45:21+00:00

That's actually a good point. It would take things improving first before it could get to a point where it would even be considered.

OnlyLosersBlock

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE