I was a registered democrat once. Not anymore. And I don’t know anyone who used to be a registered democrat that still is. The DNC showed a disregard for the people with it’s treatment of Sanders in the election cycle. Sure, he may not have had a chance anyway, but the DNC showed their true stripes and that was enough to drive a significant number of people away from the party.
I’m not disagreeing with these points. And I agree completely, if those were their reasons for voting for the Cheetoh, then yeah, they’re morons and assholes. But that doesn’t change the fact that if you’re a politician and running for office, you do NOT want to call people by what they are. Politics are a game you have to play, and telling the people the truth about how they think or what they believe is a stupid thing to do if you want to be elected.
It’s not pure pedantry. There is a drastic difference between a slide fire and an automatic machine gun. First off, rifles are not machine guns. Second, machine guns are extremely regulated and are pretty much not logically obtainable by just any civilian. Third, a slide fire is legal to purchase. We’ve already outlawed machine guns. To prevent someone from accessing a slide fire, we need to do something to stop them from accessing them.
It may seem pedantic, but that’s American law. If you don’t get as specific as possible, then there’s a loophole and people will work the law how they want. A machine gun in the USA is defined as a gun that will fire more than one round per pull of the trigger. (This isn’t even a good definition either. Look up an M249 Saw and then look up an M16. Both would qualify as machine guns, when only the former is technically a machine gun. The latter is a fully automatic rifle. But by defining this, they’re lumped together to avoid a loophole.) Passing legislation to ban machine guns (which are already banned) will not prevent anyone from modifying a weapon to emulate full automatic capabilities. There would need to be a law, specifically banning “any modification that may be used to modify a semi-automatic rifle to emulate a fully automatic machine”. So again, while you think the distinction is not important, it IS important because of how loopholes in our legal system work.
Well besides claiming to be a “pro-science” party and then being anti-science? They also claim that income inequality is a major crisis in America, but then they get bankrolled by the companies who are spending to prevent a fix to income inequality and give up trying to fight for it. Or how about how they claim that war is such a terrible thing, then turn and support policies that, oddly enough, support furthering our militarization?
Edit: I can tell you’re under the false impression that I’m a centrist voter that refuses to vote either Democrat or Republican. That’s not the case. I’m just not a blind follower.
The first argument is stupid and I hate when people try to use it. I don’t think there’s a consistently recognized definition of “assault rifle”, but generally it would be:
“Assault weapon is a term used in the United States to define some types of firearms. The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions, but usually includes semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, and sometimes other features such as a flash suppressor or barrel shroud.”
So, yeah. The SIG MCX is definitely, technically, an “assault weapon”, depending on jurisdiction.
Also, the argument about pace of shots is something I see frequently from the right arguing why gun control is bad. I’m not sure what their reasoning behind that is. “Well, the weapon held 30+ rounds of ammunition, but you can tell it’s a semi-automatic weapon, so gun control is bad.” I do not understand their reasoning for this. It makes no sense to me.
I like William B. Ruger’s thoughts on magazine capacity. I think implementing them would be a good step in the right direction (if just a Band-Aid while a better solution is found.)
“The best way to address the firepower concern is therefore not to try to outlaw or license many millions of older and perfectly legitimate firearms (which would be a licensing effort of staggering proportions) but to prohibit the possession of high capacity magazines. By a simple, complete and unequivocal ban on large capacity magazines, all the difficulty of defining ‘assault rifle’ and ‘semi-automatic rifles’ is eliminated. The large capacity magazine itself, separate or attached to the firearm, becomes the prohibited item. A single amendment to Federal firearms laws could effectively implement these objectives.” - William B. Ruger
I don’t think it would be the end all solution, but lowering access to high capacity magazines just makes sense. If you can only carry 10 rounds per magazine, you’re not gonna be able to cause the same level of destruction as the shooter in Vegas did. It’s obvious he had magazines with capacity of well over 30-40.