We Surveyed the 2020 Democrats on Gun Control. Here Are the New Dividing Lines.

[MaverickNH]

We Surveyed the 2020 Democrats on Gun Control. Here Are the New Dividing Lines.

"All 19 candidates support an assault weapons ban. The biggest disagreement: whether people who already own those weapons should be required to sell them to the government, or simply given the option to do so. There is also some support for a federal gun registry, an idea that many Democrats used to dismiss exasperatedly as gun-lobby scaremongering."

Here's the detailed responses from all candidates.

 

[one-eyed Jack]

All 19 candidates could not correctly define "Assault Weapon". Jack.

 

[Prepper]

All 19 candidates could not correctly define "Assault Weapon". Jack.

Yup, so it is basically a semi auto rifle ban. Perhaps a semi auto pistol ban as well.

 

[Palladin]

F them

 

[FrugalFannie]

what the hell is the "boyfriend loophole?"

 

[mikeyp]

All 19 candidates could not correctly define "Assault Weapon". Jack.

They can't correctly define male or female, let alone "assault weapon"

 

[Dennis in MA]

what the hell is the "boyfriend loophole?"

That only applies to gay prostitution rings in DC. I guess you could say your semi-auto rifle identifies as a gay man.

 

[Bill Katt]

what the hell is the "boyfriend loophole?"

Without reading any of that crap, I will venture to guess that they calling it a "loophole" when somebody's 'significant other' who is NOT a PP goes out and purchases a firearm for they're boyfriend/girlfriend who is a PP (straw purchase). So, making something that's already illegal, illegal.

JMO/YMMV

ETA: After reading other comments, I could be wrong...lol.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

Ugh you made me click on the New York Times a newspaper that today is quite literally lower in ethics than a supermarket tabloid.

 

[June4th]

All have declared war on your freedom and should hang on a lamppost if there is such a thing called justice and rule of law.

 

[allen-1]

Ugh you made me click on the New York Times a newspaper that today is quite literally lower in ethics than a supermarket tabloid.

It's better bird cage liner, not as glossy, the bird pee sinks in.

 

[Broc]

These are the same people that told us Hillary would win. Dont forget that.

And what would registering the gun with the fed gov do?

The last time I checked, my rifles werent trying to break out of the safe, regardless of their registration status. My handguns are also just laying there in the safe, they are not going out and shooting people.

So, I'm guessing g this registration can only mean one thing ... they need a way to track who owns what to confiscate it at a later date.

 

[milktree]

These are the same people that told us Hillary would win. Dont forget that.

And what would registering the gun with the fed gov do?

The last time I checked, my rifles werent trying to break out of the safe, regardless of their registration status. My handguns are also just laying there in the safe, they are not going out and shooting people.

So, I'm guessing g this registration can only mean one thing ... they need a way to track who owns what to confiscate it at a later date.

I wonder if there has ever been a case where registration has saved a life or prevented a crime.

I’m trying to imagine what circumstances, however unlikely, would (or could) prevent a crime.

 

[Bonesinium]

what the hell is the "boyfriend loophole?"

It’s made up, like every “loophole” they talk about.

They use it to refer to domestic violence and the applicability of the Lautenberg Amendment.

 

[Guyute]

what the hell is the "boyfriend loophole?"

It's when someone commits domestic violence against their girlfriend they could still be able to purchase a firearm whereas if you commit it against you wife you can't. Closing that would mean any domestic violence would disallow you from possessing a firearm.

 

[Broc]

I wonder if there has ever been a case where registration has saved a life or prevented a crime.

I’m trying to imagine what circumstances, however unlikely, would (or could) prevent a crime.

Never happened. Never will. A criminal could care less if a gun is registered or if it isn't.

This reminds me, I had a buddy that worked in a program in South Carolina where they fired every gun sold, kept the casing and logged it into a database to match the gun with crimes.
Millions of dollars and several years later ... the program didn't solve a single crime.

His job was to shoot handguns and rifles at a water tank, he did that as an intern.

This program did not stop people from shooting people and people from stealing guns and using them to commit crimes.

 

[mothybee]

what the hell is the "boyfriend loophole?"

I think that's when you tie up your boyfriend in knots.

 

[Radtekk]

Is there something that we need to know besides the fact that they all seek to violate constitutionally protected natural rights?

No.

 

[308rifleman]

Never happened. Never will. A criminal could care less if a gun is registered or if it isn't.

This reminds me, I had a buddy that worked in a program in South Carolina where they fired every gun sold, kept the casing and logged it into a database to match the gun with crimes.
Millions of dollars and several years later ... the program didn't solve a single crime.

His job was to shoot handguns and rifles at a water tank, he did that as an intern.

This program did not stop people from shooting people and people from stealing guns and using them to commit crimes.

Canada had a long gun registry for many years. Each and every hunting rifle and sporting shotgun had to be registered. The Canadian government did away with it a few years ago because of the expense and wasted manpower. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police have much more important things to do than arrest a squirrel hunter for owning an unregistered single-shot .22 rifle

 

[eboos]

The "boyfriend loophole" is a ridiculous issue. The elements under Lautenberg are that the couple be current or former spouses; share a child; cohabitate; or be "similarly situated" to a spouse. "Similarly situated" to marriage is understood to not require the elements of a common law marriage in states that recognize it, but encompasses more than a mere dating relationship. Under many state laws, Massachusetts being one of them, "domestic violence" includes couples in a "substantial dating relationship" which the above elements (cohabitation or having a child together) are used to determine. If the couple is merely in a dating relationship, it is then outside the scope of Lautenberg and outside of the clear legislative intent.

There is no "boyfriend loophole". The relationship is either substantial and fits within the definition, or it is not and does not fall within Lautenberg. If the legislature wished to include all intimate relationships as under the scope, how would it define such a relationship? Where would the thresholds be? To broaden Lautenberg to cover all intimate relationships may as well make any simple assault against anyone result in becoming a prohibited person.

Edit: I intentionally left out issues regarding parents or guardians in this commentary.

 

[timbo]

what the hell is the "boyfriend loophole?"

Don't forget that these idiots have no problems with "loopholes" unless it has to do with something they don't like or would benefit them. They use them all the time when it comes to paying their taxes.

 

[milktree]

Never happened. Never will. A criminal could care less if a gun is registered or if it isn't.

This reminds me, I had a buddy that worked in a program in South Carolina where they fired every gun sold, kept the casing and logged it into a database to match the gun with crimes.
Millions of dollars and several years later ... the program didn't solve a single crime.

His job was to shoot handguns and rifles at a water tank, he did that as an intern.

This program did not stop people from shooting people and people from stealing guns and using them to commit crimes.

WARNING: DEVIL'S ADVOCATE PORTION FOLLOWS!

<devil's advocate>
I can imagine that the fear of getting in trouble for letting your registered gun get into the hands of a "bad" person might make people more likely to lock up their guns better, or not give them to "bad" people.
</devil's advocate>

I can't imagine there's any data anywhere to support the above.

 

[MaverickNH]

And WTF is a "voluntary" Assault Weapon buyback? Who's been buying AR15s since the AWB ban lapsed in 2004 that intends to sell them "back" at a loss?

 

[drgrant]

Never happened. Never will. A criminal could care less if a gun is registered or if it isn't.

This reminds me, I had a buddy that worked in a program in South Carolina where they fired every gun sold, kept the casing and logged it into a database to match the gun with crimes.
Millions of dollars and several years later ... the program didn't solve a single crime.

His job was to shoot handguns and rifles at a water tank, he did that as an intern.

This program did not stop people from shooting people and people from stealing guns and using them to commit crimes.

I didn't know SC tried this, I was thinking that was a Maryland thing. Maryland was the only state I knew of that tried ballistic fingerprinting this way... eventually I think they gave it up, as it only "helped" with one crime and it was a crime where they had other corroborating evidence anyways. In other words, even in that case, it wasn't the thing that made or broke the case...

-Mike

 

[Dadstoys]

And WTF is a "voluntary" Assault Weapon buyback? Who's been buying AR15s since the AWB ban lapsed in 2004 that intends to sell them "back" at a loss?

Not even at a profit .

 

[SpaceCritter]

The Donks are presently trying to out-Donk one another. Moment it switches to the general, whomsoever becomes the Head Donk will be waving off those positions like a fat man blaming his fart on the skinny guy next to him. Even the fake Indian. You watch. They're banking on people being stupid and having short memories.

 

[mothybee]

The Donks are presently trying to out-Donk one another. Moment it switches to the general, whomsoever becomes the Head Donk will be waving off those positions like a fat man blaming his fart on the skinny guy next to him. Even the fake Indian. You watch. They're banking on people being stupid and having short memories.

Unfortunately, they are and do.

 

[MagGus1820]

The average D voter is 90% disconnected from politics. They hardly look into it beyond a couple headlines. This is why their candidates are such hardcore flip/floppers.

 

[wiryone1]

Ugh you made me click on the New York Times a newspaper that today is quite literally lower in ethics than a supermarket tabloid.

They have always had low ethics. They just sprinkle good reporting in to make it seem like they are balanced without an agenda. John Solomon is an excellent investigative journalist and he did a stint at the NYT. They have always been leftest, communist sympathizers with regards to leadership.

In the 1940’s the buried downplayed the holocaust.

Or how about this guy:
Walter Duranty - Conservapedia

 

[Palladin]

regarding the democratic debate