• Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s just idiots being idiots and an election system that doesn’t make sense.

    Gun owners that are dumb enough to make gun ownership their only compass to decide who to vote for even if it goes against their general best interests would have voted Republican no matter who was there as a candidate.

    In the meantime here’s reality when you’re the country with the most guns/people

    https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting

    • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Gun owners that are dumb enough to make gun ownership their only compass to decide who to vote for even if it goes against their general best interests would have voted Republican no matter who was there as a candidate.

      There are a lot of single issue voters out there, who will vote for whoever takes their stance on their one issue regardless of anything else.

      Frankly, this is one Democrats need to drop - any bill they might pass is either a violation of citizen’s constitutional rights or isn’t going to do much to curb actual gun violence. At the same time “Democrats want to take away your constitutional right to bare arms” is one of the easiest wedges to draw people to vote for ever-shittier Republicans. And most of the people doing the shooting don’t particularly care if their gun is owned legally or not.

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        The Constitution has been amended in the past and could still be amended and it wouldn’t be the first time that an amendment removed a right to ownership.

        • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Right, but that requires, you know, amending the Constitution. Which requires 3/4 of the states sign on. 3/4 of the states are not going to sign on to throwing out the 2nd Amendment. 2/3 of states wouldn’t sign on to that. I don’t think you could even get 1/2 of the states to sign on to that.

          Especially because no Republican is going to vote for it, and neither is anyone representing a rural area. And we’re talking state legislatures, and Dems aren’t great at expanding their influence in state legislatures.

            • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Is there a threshold of sensationalism of such events that changes the number of states required to ratify the thing? That would change the number of supporting Congressional members?

              I’m amazed you still believe this is feasible despite the lack of support for such a measure.

              • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                The number of states required doesn’t change, but maybe people will someday realise that the number of deaths by guns in the USA is ridiculous and they’ll vote for people who want to solve the issue.

                • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  How likely is it any such shift is going to approach the 2/3 point necessary?

                  I find it more likely voters will continue to reject such absurd hyperbolic appeals.

    • Danc4498@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’re preaching to the choir. But that doesn’t change anything. Those idiots are a massive number of voters, and they were willing to elect an obvious terrible presidential candidate because of the threat of losing their guns.

      Even if democrats wanted this, there is literally no path we could take towards this. So saying, “get rid of your guns and you won’t have a problem” is the least helpful thing somebody could say.

      • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Have you considered… not making the threat?

        No, surely it’s the voter’s faults for rejecting candidates for their stated positions…

      • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Guns aren’t the issue that makes fascists vote fascist. Even if you make gun violence activist shut up completely they’ll just lie and say they’re under threat anyway or that trans people are going to steal their children or Christians will be banned from buying gas stoves. Every single Democrat not appropriately muzzling themselves isn’t what causes Republicans to vote Republican.

    • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Gotta vote for the fascists so we can have our personal arms in case the fascists take power.