Gun-related violent crime: Have the Democrats/liberals ever suggested...

... making it easier for the law abiding to defend themselves?

Personally, I cannot think of single such instance - indeed, their 'solution' to the issue almost always revolves around making it harder for the law abiding to defend themselves.

Why is this?
I have often said the left wants the state to have a monopoly on force, which it knows cannot happen so long as the citizenry remains armed - seems to me making it harder for the law abiding to defend themselves fits right into this.

Thoughts?

 

Is it easier to defend ourself against a crazy person with a semi-auto rifle shooting at you from 100 yards who doesn't have to reload for 100 shots or is it easier to defend yourself against a crazy person who doesn't have a semi-auto rifle with 100 rounds? It's all in the perspective of what's happening on the ground, isn't it. I'm not against private gun ownership, but let's be realistic about the consequences.

 

Ah - you can't think of an instance where Democrats/liberals suggested making it easier for the law abiding to defend themselves either.
Why do you think that is?

 

Then why do so many firearm-related restrictions pertain to all categories of firearms, rather than being crafted exclusively for rifles?

 

IMO, the ”government monopoly of force” concern was the very reason for the codification of the pre-existing RKBA in the 2nd Amendment. The militia preamble in the Amendment is a statement against giving the federal government a monopoly on force. But the actual right which was included in the Amendment—and IMO was recognized because it prevents a government monopoly of force—is simply a subset of the natural right of self-defense.


Sometimes we get ourselves so caught up in the militia preamble that we forget the nature of the actual right we codified. The militia preamble is not the right itself. It merely states a policy goal of relying on a militia rather than a standing army when possible, and because the individual RKBA was the source of militia arms at the time of the founding, this policy goal was listed as one reason for recognizing and protecting the right.


But the actual “right of the people” which the 2nd Amendment recognized and protected flows from the broader right of self-defense. See Heller:


“[T]he threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens' militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right — unlike some other English rights — was codified in a written Constitution. JUSTICE BREYER'S assertion that individual self-defense is merely a “subsidiary interest” of the right to keep and bear arms, see post, at 714 (dissenting opinion), is profoundly mistaken. He bases that assertion solely upon the prologue — but that can only show that self-defense had little to do with the right's codification; it was the central component of the right itself.” District Of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 598-599 (200 (emphasis in original)



In short, the codification of this RKBA is itself the greatest example of recognizing and protecting the citizen’s right of self-defense that any American legislator could lay claim to.

 

The consequences is that in real life (not theory, but reality), about twice as many people were murdered by fists/human body (672) than by all rifles (297) (of which semi-auto rifles are just a subset) and about 5 times as many people were murderd by knives/cutting instruments (1515) than rifles. In real life, handguns are the major murder instrument (6600), not assault rifles which are constantly demonized.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....018/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls

 

Now all you have to do is figure out how to get crazy people to follow laws.

I am a sane person who has never raised a hand in anger. Can you think of anything the government can do that only affects the crazy mans ability to harm others?

 

can’t think of a single law that the Republicans have suggested that makes it safer for law abiding citizens either!

 

You're starting to catch on. Thinking of new laws is a waste of time.

 

Semi automatic rifles are used i. An absurdly small amout of gun violence..

A ban on any type of rifles doesn't address gun violence at all. It's literally a stupid idea. Bad guys use hand guns.

 

With that rational one assumes you believe that laws are never a deterrent to crime.

 

Thats why the term ASSUME has 2 meanings.

 

They do not. Laws exist only to define a specific action as being illegal, and specifying how it may be punished.

 

Laws may deter some rape/murder, but bullets stop it!

 

This one:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/38

 

It makes me sad that Paul Ryan and the rest did not handle this when they had the majority. Two years that man wasted time.

 

Those at the top, 'the leadership', want a monopoly on force. Those at the bottom merely want to live peaceably without having to worry about defending themselves.

As to how they think that could ever be possible... Im at a loss.

 

Exactly, it may be a long time before we see an opportunity like that again.

 

The only argument American gun owners need is the God given right acknowledged by the founding fathers to keep and bear arms without infringement.

Gun control guns are unconstitutional and gun rights to keep and carry are sacred

 

That's great, but it was introduced by a Republican.

 

So we need to have govt. funded kevlar vest for all?

 

Ah - you also cannot think of single such instance - indeed, their 'solution' to the issue almost always revolves around making it harder for the law abiding to defend themselves.
Why is this?

 

Why is this? It has never been hard for me to defend myself so I assume many folks do not have that killer instinct to survive.
The better question is why are humans in the US so violent and feel the need to kill indiscriminately when they live in a nation that is wealthy and they have it made.. Evidently it is a mindset and not a need to survive.