Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,669 posts)
3. My point is...
Mon May 22, 2017, 12:55 PM
May 2017

...there's a group who (1) are very big on the idea of BANNING the evil black rifles.
There's another group (2) who like BANNING open carry.
Another popular mantra is (3) BANNING sniper rifles.
Still another, and likely one of the smaller groups, endorses (4) BANNING all handguns.

Hyperbole on> There are those who seem like they favor (5) restricting concealed carry to any bullet proof walk-in closet you may have in your home. <hyperbole off

What lots of folks don't see is that, with regard to items 1, 3 and 4, you can, with no change to the operative meaning of any substitute the words "relegate to a black market any commerce in" anywhere you see "BANNING".

There is of course overlap among those various groups.

IMHO taking an uncompromising (zero tolerance) position with regard to these and some other issues will impair the chances of any candidate of getting elected. There are a few places where these positions are well tolerated and not a handicap.

So, in general, what is a national political party to do when many geographical areas strongly support or oppose some of these causes?

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Latest opinions from the ...»Reply #3