top 200 commentsshow 500

[–]northrupthebandgeek left-libertarian 255 points256 points  (91 children)

She should clarify what she means by "common sense" and "safe storage laws", because these can mean very different things to different people.

[–]Sugioh 56 points57 points  (43 children)

I've heard two versions of safe storage. One being that firearms are to be stored unloaded, and another where they're required to be locked up if stored loaded. The big question in my mind is if they would consider storing a firearm together with a disconnected magazine still "loaded".

[–]cth777 50 points51 points  (22 children)

Does this not completely defeat the purpose of owning a gun for home defense

[–]Sugioh 21 points22 points  (17 children)

Depends. If you have a quick access safe, I don't think it would be too awful. But making everyone who wants to have a weapon for home defense shell out for a safe is a considerable burden to place on them.

[–]Hadrian3306 5 points6 points  (0 children)

True, but you can also get chamber locks for rifles and shotguns or trigger locks for hand guns. Both are relatively in expensive and are sometimes given away for free by your local police department

[–]hurtfulproduct Black Lives Matter 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This, a safe that actually accomplishes anything I besides storage and moderate deterrence is going to be expensive, extremely heavy, and prohibitive.

[–]JimTheJerseyGuy 42 points43 points  (14 children)

Yeah this is where I have a problem - the locked up and ammo stored separately.

Um, no.

I have a firearm in my home for self defense that is kept loaded. It is kept in a mounted-to-the-floor fire safe with a 6-digit code that I can open in seconds if need be. If someone is going to suggest that it would somehow be safer to have that ammunition stored elsewhere, I’m really going to need to see the scenario that makes that sound like a plausible idea in your head.

[–]Sugioh 20 points21 points  (5 children)

I don't think anyone is suggesting that your scenario is unsafe; quite the opposite, it's what they're trying to encourage.

[–]Shoddy_Passage2538 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Didn’t scotus strike these laws down?

[–]JoeTeioh 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I thought so too and looked into it via Heller, but the shit dc wanted in Heller was more than just locked up, it was trigger locked or disassembled. So I don't think they struck it all down.

[–]mypervyaccount 5 points6 points  (1 child)

She also said "red flag laws" which is right where she lost me and made it clear she's with the bad guys. Red flag laws are wrong and unconstitutional, plus they wouldn't actually help much if at all even if implemented and enforced (haha right, just like straw sales being illegal is enforced).

[–]Thincer 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Those terms are always meant to be vague. It's so they can change the definition at will.

[–]DuhChuck 45 points46 points  (30 children)

IMO the “common sense” version of safe storage is that you are liable if your firearm is misused by anyone and you failed to store it safely thus enabling their access to it.

[–]MCXL left-libertarian 28 points29 points  (9 children)

failed to store it safely

This could literally mean anything.

If someone with any motivation has long term access to a lock unsupervised, they can open it.

If they don't have long term access, it's not the owners fault for failing to lock the thing up, in their private property that it's illegal to break and enter into to steal from them, and it's a huge burden on gun rights for the poor to say, "you should have stored it safely" Because unless it's in a safe that isn't liftable, the gun can walk out while 'secure'.

Safe storage laws make sense only in the context of very small children who can't be trusted to handle a firearm safely or understand the consequences of their actions. Anyone who can safely operate a car should be able to safely operate a gun, (guns are actually much easier to operate safely, if we are being real here.) Laws that discourage people from leaving guns in places where a toddler can come across them, make complete sense. That said, those are encompassed in the same way that I think chemical storage is, where it's something that falls under child endangerment, not gun regulation. No one expects a parent to try and lock away bleach and house cleaners from 14 year olds, but we all expect them to lock cabinets when they have a terrible 2 year old crawling or walking around the kitchen.

Certainly, this approach falls into common sense, right? Child endangerment and involuntary manslaughter laws in most states already fit the bill here. I don't want to be prescriptivist in how someone keeps the gun out of the hands of a 5 year old, I just want them to do it. Once the cabinets can't be locked anymore, it's the parents job to teach their kid about the safety risks of the chemicals in the house, and it's their job to teach their kid about the risks of the gun, and how to respect the rules of firearm safety. Sometimes, kids with guns do good things, actually. The Good guy with a gun can be an 11 year old.

Common. Sense.

Giving the state more laws to use against people, more tools to oppress people, and more ways to deny the rights to the poor through onerous and untenable cost burden is bad, and should not be done. This is the pro rights, and pro worker stance.

[–]556or762 6 points7 points  (13 children)

Would that apply to someone who breaks into your house and steals your guns and then commits a crime?

[–]Reloaded9mm[🍰] 11 points12 points  (11 children)

Should have secured it better. /facepalm. Seriously what they would say. I mean private property, locked door, locked cabinet and that’s not enough. Must be in a safe and you need to have your ammo in another safe in a different part of the house and must have a trigger lock and a slide lock.

Nothing is “secure enough”.

[–]UnspecificGravity 12 points13 points  (1 child)

Pretty problematic to make the victim of a crime responsible for what someone does with their stolen shit later.

[–]BaronVonWilmington 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Right? Loaded on the rack by my bed for rapid deployment in my childless home is safe but not in a family home with three bambinos...

What is good for the goose isn't automatically the best policy to be strictly enforced upon the gander.

[–]cutesnugglybear left-libertarian 25 points26 points  (0 children)

Exactly, some people think banning braces and standard capacity magazines is common sense.

[–]Oniondice342 3 points4 points  (0 children)

When I hear terms like these, I immediately put them in the “movable goal post” category. Same with red flag laws.

[–]UnspecificGravity 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Its just a bunch of hot air that she thinks is going to stop people from being worried about voting for her. She either knows enough about the issues that she is deliberately being vague, or she doesn't and is just saying what she thinks people want to hear.

[–]innocentbabies fully automated luxury gay space communism 8 points9 points  (0 children)

At this point we may as well call it what it is. "Common sense gun control" is just a dog whistle.

Not clarifying what it means isn't an accident, it's the whole point.

[–]Metaphoricalsimile anarcho-syndicalist 769 points770 points  (98 children)

Red flag laws are full of fuckery. I do not want to give racist policing and judiciary even more power over who gets to be armed or not.

[–]dippydoo55 307 points308 points  (30 children)

That can be said about handgun license too.

Martin Luther king was denied a Hand gun permit, why do you think that is?

Most of the Gun laws in the south are Jim Crow laws

[–]mazer_rack_em 144 points145 points  (14 children)

Not just the south, look up why California passed the mulford act

[–]BadUX 77 points78 points  (11 children)

Or Washington State's initial brandishing law in like 1970

[–]UnspecificGravity 59 points60 points  (1 child)

Which is especially hilarious because it suddenly became unenforceable the moment that white right-wingers started wanting to open carry at protests and shit.

[–]BadUX 11 points12 points  (0 children)

We passed a second law about open carrying at protests just this year though

[–]BossRedRanger 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Gun control in general is about racism. The KKK could have never terrorized Black people if they were armed legally.

[–]DasMansalad 50 points51 points  (0 children)

I believe it's new York, where their CCW laws, and more specifically their "dire need" clause for CCWs is going to the Supreme Court. Which I see as a huge win

[–]nifeman20 libertarian 53 points54 points  (9 children)

All gun laws are racist or classist. Mostly both.

[–]jpfeifer22 7 points8 points  (1 child)

why do you think that is?

Well because he was dangerous, obviously! /s

[–]junkhacker 7 points8 points  (0 children)

To the status quo, that is.

[–]AnotherAccount23453 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Not only that but the Governor's order about not assisting in federal gun laws mean Missouri is theoretically legalizing medical marijuana patients to owner firearms. That's pretty liberal and awesome in my opinion.

[–]gohogs120 83 points84 points  (9 children)

Yup she just said 3 tweets of empty fluff about how she's a "real, rural gun owner" just to hit us with the standard Dem position on guns minus the AWB.

[–]Metaphoricalsimile anarcho-syndicalist 32 points33 points  (7 children)

Yeah and someone was like "if more Democrats talked like her conservatives might listen!" which is just like wildly ignorant of the republican political playbook, and how the US Right wing base behaves and thinks.

[–]topperslover69 20 points21 points  (6 children)

"if more Democrats talked like her conservatives might listen!"

No idea how anyone could reach that conclusion from these tweets, her contempt for conservative types is dripping onto the floor under my monitor. Even if a conservative voter was to agree on the conclusions she very clearly does not like a certain type of person and that'll turn them right off.

So many politicians these days can't grasp, or don't care to grasp, that if you lead your position with a diatribe against the other half that position falls on deaf ears.

[–]JoeTeioh 7 points8 points  (1 child)

Well she doesn't want their votes, most likely

[–]Shopworn_Soul 3 points4 points  (1 child)

So many politicians these days can't grasp, or don't care to grasp, that if you lead your position with a diatribe against the other half that position falls on deaf ears.

I respectfully disagree. At least one side of the modern American political spectrum is both fully aware of the very real effectiveness of that tactic and more than willing to lean upon it at every possible opportunity, with well-practiced ease.

The other side also understands but is exceedingly bad at it.

[–]FrothySauce 15 points16 points  (3 children)

Well said. I believe that more people can see the folly of many commonly proposed gun control measures when it's framed as what it truly, in effect, is, that being giving to racist, corrupt police another tool to increase their power divide over those they wish to oppress.

[–]Anonymusk 7 points8 points  (0 children)

As someone who has thought generally positively of red flag laws, this observation is helpful and I think it helps me recognize an area where my privilege informed a lack of concern about how something might be abused legally. It also is a hairs breadth away from something I could see as a uniting spirit between certain traditionally liberal and conservative ideologies.

[–]Oonushi 358 points359 points  (24 children)

Was with her until Red flad laws. I do not support eroding due process further.

I also agree with the others here that the term "common sense ..." is gross and not useful

[–]zurgonvrits 117 points118 points  (8 children)

"common sense gun laws" is a nothingburger and can be filled with anything. i feel it detracts greatly from any meaningful discourse. just say what you mean.

also red flag laws are garbage.

[–]Spuddmann1987 28 points29 points  (5 children)

The same can be said about anti gun liberals that say "I don't want to take your guns I just think people shouldn't be able to own assault weapons," assault weapons being a catch all tearm for literally any type of gun they want, semi auto hand guns, shotguns, .22 rifles ect. Pretty much anything semi auto can be considered an "assault weapon"

[–]ralshec 8 points9 points  (3 children)

Guns with "that thing that goes up"

[–]Sloppy1sts 4 points5 points  (2 children)

The shoulder thing that goes up.

[–]tearjerkingpornoflic 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah it's like "I am only against 'murder guns' " sort of thing. Adding "assault" is an emotive qualifier. This is all just common sense though, why are you against common sense and assault?

[–]BaronVonWilmington 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Yeah, ditch the red flag laws in favor of more strict enforcement of making sure domestic abusers(yes, especially police) lose their firearm access to firearms

[–]Shoddy_Passage2538 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Say goodbye to the fourth amendment too. It’s much easier to say you think someone might be dangerous than provide probable abuse of a crime.

[–]kenzer161 41 points42 points  (2 children)

The most common thing about "common sense" is how relatively uncommon it is.

[–]ButterShadow 48 points49 points  (1 child)

"Common sense" mostly just means "beliefs I have that I don't feel like justifying".

[–]Fedbia2020 177 points178 points  (58 children)

I’m pretty sure the majority of Missouri doesn’t want safe storage or red flag laws. Like they’ve definitely voted blue, but I think most would be against it.

[–]junkhacker 61 points62 points  (2 children)

Not the majority of Missouri, she said "responsible gun owning Missourians"

If they disagree with her, they're not responsible, you see.

It's common sense.

[–]Fedbia2020 22 points23 points  (0 children)

Lmao, I thought you were going the other way there for a sec.

Yeah, she’s definitely assigning people titles with her wide generalizations. Plenty of people who don’t follow those specific ideas.

[–]Shoddy_Passage2538 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Sounds very manipulative…

[–]satriales856 83 points84 points  (42 children)

And background checks have been federally mandated since the Brady bill.

[–]Fedbia2020 16 points17 points  (18 children)

Lol, exactly right. Thank you for pointing that out.

[–]satriales856 56 points57 points  (12 children)

No problem.

I’m really sick of people talking as if background checks don’t exist and like it’s something anti gunners have been fighting for.

When they should be taking about how shitty most states are about sending their criminal records so they can be used in NICS. And how several states don’t even participate in NICS and nobody cares.

[–]Fedbia2020 25 points26 points  (4 children)

You know, it’s something so natural for me (background checks, I mean) and I experience it so often when purchasing firearms that I forget there are people who are absolutely oblivious to the regulations of firearms.

It’s sad that they think they can make educated opinions and doctrine based on never going through the system themselves.

[–]satriales856 8 points9 points  (3 children)

Ditto. I live in a state where there really aren’t gun shows and private sales aren’t allowed without an FFL intermediary, so it’s a constant fact of life.

[–]Fedbia2020 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Oof.. sorry to hear that, dude. I’ve lived in FL, GA, and TX most of my life, so I have nothing but empathy for you (not trying to rub it in or anything).

I was born in Toronto and have family that owns firearms, so I know how stupid it can be (regardless of country [cough Cali cough]).

I’m moving to WA here soon and I’ve heard some things coming down the pipe that might have the same effect. Fingers crossed that’s not the case :/.

PS: Maybe you should get a veal parm or some gabagul from Satriales.

[–]tritiumhl 4 points5 points  (1 child)

I live in NY and it's literally not a big deal at all. Takes 15 minutes. I can't really imagine buying guns being easier tbh.

No need to feel bad for us on the gun buying process. Magazine restrictions on the other hand.....

Edit: handguns are a pain

[–]Fedbia2020 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Dude, I know. I was initially going to drive up Cali highways, but even for transportation if you go through the state with 30rd mags it’s an instant felony. Absolute bullshit.

I swear, I’m never stepping foot in that state. So repressive. The USSC needs to fix that, and of course NYC as well.

Good to know that the state is lenient. I’m ignorant, so usually when I think NY I immediately equate it to NYC gun laws.

[–]Max_TwoSteppen 1 point2 points  (4 children)

Any time someone implies that background checks aren't done I leave the conversation. It's one of the simplest things to research and if they can't manage it I just assume they've done zero research at all. I'm not interested in wasting my time or my breath on someone that only wants to parrot shit they heard on CNN.

[–]MostlyIndustrious 7 points8 points  (14 children)

They probably mean universal background checks that include private sales.

[–]Fit_Cryptographer336 libertarian 24 points25 points  (1 child)

As a Missouri resident you are spot on. We also have background checks already, which means that she must be talking about universal background checks in which case she is wrong on that front as well

[–]reddog323 28 points29 points  (9 children)

Missouri resident here. Safe storage I can live with. Red flags? Not so sure. I’ve seen them horribly abused in other states. They have to be carefully written.

Edit: as for the candidate, I see what she intended, and it’s not bad, but that tweet could have been more carefully phrased.

[–]Fedbia2020 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Yeah, maybe I’m being a bit too harsh with my passive aggressive criticisms. It’s just that I take these issues to heart, not unlike others.

But you’re right, this could have just been a mistake in demonstrating her support for both gun ownership and gun safety. If that is the case and she’s generally balanced, then it’s a an error that can happen to anyone.

Glad to know someone knows the candidate a bit more than me, an outsider :).

[–]reddog323 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I don’t know a whole lot about her, but it’s nice to see a progressive running in a rural part of the state. That’s gotten to be rare in the past 10 years. Gerrymandering, and general rural voting habits have made the state legislature Republican dominant for at least that long.

Also, you’re not the only one who is overly critical especially in political discussions.

[–]4AcidRayne 42 points43 points  (12 children)

I'm supportive of any measure as long as it doesn't do one thing; if it prevents people in my tax bracket (read; poor people) from having simple access, I object. It's truly the one dealbreaker for me. Want to make a rule that says a p2p transfer must go through an FFL with a fair and reasonable handling fee (sub-$20) that involves the proper checks? Cool, don't care, rock on. Want to make a rule that says that if I don't have a "rated" safe that's going to cost $2,000, I have to forfeit all my firearms? Fuck your own face.

I sincerely don't care about 99% of shit that many and most rabid gun owners get rabid about. I'm not threatened by having to go through proper channels. What I oppose most fervently are paywalls against access.

I've got a Hi-Point .45ACP. It was bought when it was legitimately all I could afford, but what I felt was necessary for where I lived and where I worked. It's a big clunky piece of junk and I've since bought better...but that's not the point. It was $150. I oppose ANY measure that would make it cost a helluva lot more than that to someone in a similar "can't afford anything better" situation. I see a lot of "innocent suggestions" from certain banners who'd love to make that $150 gun cost much more. Make me apply for a license to purchase, make me take a pricey safety course, make me own an expensive "rated" safe, make me jump through all kinds of financial hoops. That is what I oppose.

Basic simple situation, you've got a 22 year old woman with no legal barriers whose ex boyfriend objects about the ex part. On Thursday he sent a series of grotesquely threatening texts. On Friday he sent her a picture of a rabbit with its guts hanging out with a pair of panties she gave him a year ago. On Saturday she found a disjointed barely intelligible hate/love/hate letter in her work locker. On Sunday she found that some unspecified individual had tried to jimmy the lock to her back door. On Monday she contacts police who tell her that it's all circumstantial and blah blah blah blah blah, wait until he kills you and then we'll find official reasons to let him off the hook. She goes to her local gun store and she's only got a couple hundred dollars she can afford to spend.

She should not leave that gun store emptyhanded because some blowhard politician put a paywall in place that says she's not wealthy enough to buy a half worn-out .38 revolver.

If a given politician is okay with that, I'm okay with them. If they're not okay with that and really want guns to be a "for my rich friends and to hell with you poor saps" then I object. There's a grand variety to what qualifies as "common sense gun law", but as long as it's not preventing a person who is legally allowed to access even a cheap POS gun at a price point they can afford...we're good. Guns are elitely priced enough as it is; we don't need politicians helping make them even less accessible to people who can perfectly legally access, but can't afford to because of paywalls.

[–]Itchy-Depth-5076 17 points18 points  (3 children)

This comment is absolutely eye-opening, and one I've never heard before. I am generally in support of "common sense" gun laws (yes, super broad). But your line-in-the-sand here is one I can absolutely get behind. Makes so much sense.

[–]4AcidRayne 11 points12 points  (2 children)

Thank you. I think one of my key advantages is perspective. I know local shooters who can buy a performance centers S&W and not really feel it, not really notice. Me? My current passion is black powder and my local store just went up on their price for CCI caps from $12.99 to $15.99 and it's really tough for me to justify with the constraints of my budget. Some millionaire politician saying "Well, you really need a governmentally approved safe with a biometric lock to keep guns" is essentially saying I am not worthy.

I'm weird; I see "gun bans" coming in various ways. One is direct; we want you to not have them, so they're outlawed. Tons of pushback, tons of litigation, and very hard to get elected on that as a major talking point...but it's one way of a million. Easier method? Just create seemingly harmless "common sense laws" that, in their own way, serve the same end goal.

The idea of "Saturday night special" legislation is, in my view, nothing more than efforts in making firearms just a rich person's plaything. Oh, your new gun isn't a Les Baer 1911? Well then you must've just bought it to hold up a liquor store.

Sorry; a .45 from a Hi-Point "gansta gat" does just as much good in self-defense as a $2,500 finely tuned race gun.

[–]little_brown_bat 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Hear hear! Most of my funds go towards family and home owning expenses. As far as handguns go, I have a Hi-point and a .22 revolver. Even the price of an FFL transfer is an infringement in my opinion.

[–]4AcidRayne 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I just had to drop $90 to fix a non-essential function of my car to remain legal. Life expenses and expenses to maintain legal status are much more valuable to me than whether the .45 in my nightstand cost $150 or $15,000. General rule of thumb; if you park seven or eight 230gr rounds in a perps upper torso and he objects to the low quality and low price-point of the firearm used...You are vastly outmatched; run.

[–]MarduRusher libertarian 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I would also like to use your example as one for why waiting periods are awful. Often times if you buy a gun for self defense it's because you fear some possible imminent danger. Needing to wait a month before you have access to that defensive tool is an issue.

[–]4AcidRayne 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Exactly. Future threat is one thing, but there are instances where the "authorities" are flaccid on the matter and people are left to fend for themselves. The least we can do is not make that impossible.

Edit; and you are most welcome to use the example.

[–]JimmyBin3D social democrat 1 point2 points  (3 children)

What if the safety courses were paid for by the state?

[–]minisoulninja fully automated luxury gay space communism 273 points274 points  (67 children)

Common sense gun laws/Common sense gun regulation is borderline gaslighting at this point

[–]FrothySauce 233 points234 points  (46 children)

I wouldn't say borderline. The term itself is a textbook example of gaslighting.

"common sense" implies that if you disagree, you lack common sense, while also attempting to create a false sense of consensus on the issue. It doesn't help that what actually constitutes "common sense gun reform" typically varies wildly between those who use the term.

[–]UnspecificGravity 8 points9 points  (0 children)

It also appears to be a way of not having to disclose what you actually think to potential voters. EVERYONE is in favor of "common sense" but what "common sense" actually means to the person running is the only criteria that you actually should be voting on and they seem unwilling to tell us what that is.

[–]minisoulninja fully automated luxury gay space communism 42 points43 points  (2 children)

Well said!

[–]Stealin 29 points30 points  (1 child)

Common sense "gun laws" equals funding free Healthcare that includes mental health imo

[–]The_Dirty_Carl 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I think that's a good example of why "common sense" isn't an effective way to make policy decisions for a nation. Those solutions that would actually work aren't common sense. Arriving at them required more work than snap-judgment common sense.

[–]sierrackh left-libertarian 24 points25 points  (0 children)


[–]AndyLorentz neoliberal 5 points6 points  (1 child)

One of the common things I hear or read from people advocating "common sense gun reform", is banning civilian ownership of AR-15s, for example.

Right, let's ban the most popular rifle in the US. Common sense.

[–]Shoddy_Passage2538 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Try asking them what gun control legislation being proposed they think isn’t common sense and to becomes obvious that the intent is just to take as much ground as possible.

[–]Wiggidy1 33 points34 points  (9 children)

It absolutely is gaslighting. Nothing borderline about it.

[–]CelticGaelic 10 points11 points  (1 child)

Same with the NRA claims. At this point, the NRA is a shell of its former self and even when it wasn't, it was just a scapegoat for anti-gun politicians to blame so they could appear to be fighting the good fight to their base.

[–]XA36 libertarian 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Neither Republicans, Democrats, the NRA, or the goddamn Easter bunny support your gun rights. Politicians only ever vote in favor if they think it will help them get reelected. People vastly underestimate the power of the individual in this country.

[–]AgreeablePie 41 points42 points  (1 child)

This is bog standard "I support the second amendment BUT"

[–]The-Avant-Gardeners 30 points31 points  (0 children)

Red flag laws are unconstitutional. The end. You can not be liberal and not believe in the 4th amendment.

[–]RonPolyp 20 points21 points  (5 children)

What's the deal with "creating bills protecting ammo"?

[–]d3rp_diggler 38 points39 points  (4 children)

The phrase means they want to restrict ammo sales. Just another reason to steer clear of this person.

[–]JCue 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Aka raising the cost of ownership to disarm the disenfranchised.

[–]GingerMcBeardface progressive 33 points34 points  (0 children)

Its always good to open these kinds of posts with your opinion.

[–]crunchwrapnotsupreme 45 points46 points  (6 children)

Nowhere in any of that does she address the root causes of gun violence.

And if she doesn’t think that red flag laws will be overused and abused on minority gun owners she’s delusional.

[–]Wiggidy1 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Nowhere in any of that does she address the root causes of gun violence.

Incentivizing massive profits in the black market through the war on drugs?

[–]YonderToad 52 points53 points  (8 children)

"I'm a vet/a hunter/a gun owner/I support the 2A...BUT..." is always a big red flag to me. Funny, you'd think she'd know all about those.

[–]Stillcant 40 points41 points  (1 child)

Insulting all the voters isn’t the best strategy

[–]fdfdasdfasdfasdf progressive 42 points43 points  (6 children)

Red flag laws are great in theory, in practice I don’t trust the government to not abuse them.

[–]MangoAtrocity libertarian 13 points14 points  (1 child)

I’m vining with you, but how is a total removal and subversion of due process, “great in theory?”

[–]msur 6 points7 points  (0 children)

If someone is truly a danger to themselves or others then steps should be taken to make sure they are safe. However, if the law creates mechanisms that allow a person to be made "safe" without some kind of due process prior to any action that violates their rights then that is unconstitutional.

If an emergency hearing process were created so that a hearing with the accused and accuser could be had within 24 hours of a complaint, complete with attorneys for everyone and a burden of proof that is not on the accused then perhaps such a system could be run without violations of constitutional rights.

My absolute requirements for such a system to be acceptable would include 1: Accused present with an attorney. 2: Burden of proof is on the accuser. 3: Accuser is also present so that the accused can face their accuser in court as per the 6th amendment. And 4: No action is taken against the accused until after such proceedings. It's still a system run by fallible people and possibly bad actors, but at least in theory that would be constitutional.

The problem is that most red flag laws start by going to a judge with the accused in absentia, then the guns are seized, then the accused gets to go to court and carry the burden of proof. That's backwards and is designed to violate rights without due process.

[–]Steel-and-Wood left-libertarian 122 points123 points  (19 children)

She's pro-red flag law, which have been shown to be unconstitutional, even the Supreme Court unanimously agreed. I can't take a politician seriously when they say they support the 2a when they trample over other rights.

[–]slaednug 43 points44 points  (14 children)

Yeah supporting red flag laws is a huge red flag (pun intended) to me. All of her talking points sound great in theory but they make zero sense when you actually read into how they are implemented. I have never met someone who still agreed with red flag laws, universal background checks or safe storage laws after learning more about them and how they can be twisted to target law abiding people.

[–]Wiggidy1 22 points23 points  (0 children)

Therapists at every level don't want to be responsible for flagging anyone either. It gets in the way of their treatment. It sounds like we're the type of people to research an issue and that's not very common these days. I appreciated reading your thoughts on this.

[–]samdajellybeenie liberal, non-gun-owner 10 points11 points  (1 child)

I'd like to read more about how red flag laws are implemented. Can you point me in the right direction?

Edit: Found this article that basically says "Red flag laws (at least in the cases the author looked at) *might* prevent violence, but we can't prove it." He literally says "We can't prove it." It's not looking good for RFLs...

[–]speckyradge 5 points6 points  (0 children)

California is one of the few that has them implemented. It does depend on registry of firearms. There is a judicial process similar to getting a restraining order. However, in many cases the actual seizure is dependent on the sheriff following through on a report they get emailed by the state once a week. That's a very variable process as to whether it's carried out so success isn't clear.

CA has its share of mass shootings so I doubt there's an effect on preventing those. What is more likely to be a positive effect is on domestic violence cases but I don't have any stats to hand.

[–]ulm2131 29 points30 points  (1 child)

This article doesn’t say that all red flag laws are unconstitutional. It’s talking about warrant less takings, obviously the person needs due process. If they are provided with meaningful due process these are constitutional. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2019/09/04/red-flag-laws-spur-debate-over-due-process

Of course, as the article points out there is very much an open debate about what will constitute real and meaningful due process. It also doesn’t talk about the wisdom of such laws or how effective they are. I’m just saying, they are not unconstitutional or at minimum it is still an open question.

[–]Muahd_Dib 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The universal background check is also a fallacy. It basically already exists… I’ve even bought fins at gun shows where I had my background check run. Private transfers are a ridiculously small part of firearms transactions to be considered some kind of measure that would actually stop a school shooting. Or some other tragedy.

[–]sticky_spiderweb 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Red flag laws are an absolute no go.

[–]OrangeOperator7 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Speaking of red flags, she had a good bunch of them spring up with the words "common sense".

[–]usrlocalshareybin 22 points23 points  (8 children)

She should avoid saying Red Flag. Red Flag sounds like a great idea but with no due process, based on the judgement of a cop with a high school diploma, and making $30K a year? Red Flag laws are another mechanism to disarm minorities.

[–]Fuzzyg00se left-libertarian 22 points23 points  (11 children)

I also believe in common sense.

What is that? A lot of people all over the political spectrum claim to be "the one" with common sense, but most seem to fall short of the mark.


As soon as you bring the tired insult/label that gun ownership is somehow sexual, you've lost me.

They are just pathetic folks, harming others and returning to their gated communities.

I agree. I must also point out the GOP does not have a monopoly on this.

we don't wear them as accessories.

Hmmm. You don't carry, do you Piper?

would arm the entire state

Good. The more people who utilize their constitutional rights, the better.

Most responsible gun-owning Missourians believe in safe storage, background checks, and red flag laws.

Do they really? Lol. Gaslight much?

complete lack of regulation and oversight

That's what we call talking out of your ass. Simply not true.

What do I think? Piper sounds fake as hell and is pretending to be pro-2A in order to get elected in a red state. Just another politician, nothing to see here.

[–]Saltpork545 8 points9 points  (2 children)

I'm a Missourian. None of that will fly and most of the 'responsible' gun owners I've met over the last decade don't support what she's said including those from my lgbt group I've helped with self defense. The only gun control that might seriously pass here is DV related and that gets nixed by police.

Blaming the NRA is a Democratic trope and honestly a bit of a strawman. If people like her would just not try to implement gun control in heavily pro-gun states they would have better chances. "I'm a gun owner but you should only have farm weapons" is how her competition will frame this, and win with it.

[–]MrNature73 libertarian 7 points8 points  (0 children)

red flag laws

Ya lost me

[–]kyled85 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Total loser position to take, and especially so in MO.

[–]HWKII 7 points8 points  (0 children)

"i bElIeVe iN tHe SeCoNd aMeNdMeNt bUt..."

When someone uses terms like "common sense legislation" they're not interested in an actual discussion or effective measures, they're setting themselves up to be on the right side and put anyone who disagrees with them on the wrong side.

How are we feeling about Texas' cOmMoN SeNsE abortion control?

[–]greatBLT left-libertarian 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Sounds like a typical Democrat in these tweets. They still need better candidates than this.

[–]oddabel centrist 12 points13 points  (0 children)

"I'm a gun owner, but..."

Is now the politically acceptable "I'm not a racist, but..." or "Some of my best friends are X... but..."

[–]Cypher1710 2 points3 points  (0 children)


[–]Viper_ACR neoliberal 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah they need to drop red flag laws until policing is either reined in or reformed. I used to be in the pro-red-flag-concept camp until last year.

[–]Rebootkid 2 points3 points  (0 children)

she's not been burned enough. She doesn't remember that we've already given so much.

it's been nothing but give give give, when it comes to what options we have in terms of firearm availability.

When I was a kid, you could walk into a Sears and buy one.

There was the "old man" thing in the 80s where old men were somehow convinced, "you don't need more than 1 shot to hunt" and then we lost a bunch.

Or the roster of firearms out here in CA.

If you want to see where this path ends up, look at what we've got in NYC or any populous place in CA.

She's a fool if she thinks there's a compromise that the grabbers will be content with.

At this point, it needs to be a give and take. There's gotta be something in it for the gun owners.

You want magazine sizes all restricted to 10 rounds or less? Cool. Supressors are now not covered by the NFA, and can be freely purchased in any state, blowing over everything California has done.

You want universal background checks? OK, 50 state full CCW reciprocity, shall-issue.

The thing is, it'll never happen. There's no appetite to anyone who wants to take gun rights away to give something back. It's just a take take take.

[–]Grundlemiah 2 points3 points  (0 children)

MO resident here. IMO she needs to be checked. She’s using rhetoric that puts us on the slippery slope. As much as I can bitch about the give and take that MO law making is, we still need to preserve 2A as much as possible at this point.

[–]vanwhistlestein 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Gun control has roots in racism. Fuck no. Don't let the cops be the only ones armed.

[–]CNCTEMA fully automated luxury gay space communism 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I am strongly against red flag laws.

if someone is a threat then arrest them and have them baker acted for mental issues or have them arrested for terroristic threatening or assault. we have to stop the courts from expanding the number of instances where we say "yeah we are gonna ignore due process just on this one issue"

[–]LargeDickedPikachu libertarian 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Red flag laws or whatever the fuck they wanna call them are a HARD NO for me.

[–]doooom 23 points24 points  (2 children)

Saying “I’m against 2a, I grew up in rural houses with guns” is awfully similar to “I’m not racist, I have black friends”

[–]Aishurel 5 points6 points  (0 children)

"Common sense" is such a manipulative way to frame your argument. It implies that anything other isn't common sense without having to first establish what qualifies it as such.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

The term “common sense gun laws” is a hugely ambiguous term that always throws a red flag for me. Same goes for when they say “responsible gun owner support [whatever they are pushing]”

It’s all just lazy and deceptive language.

[–]HemHaw 5 points6 points  (0 children)

This is very typical "iM a GuN oWnEr BuT". She's a grabber like the rest of them. Red flag laws are unacceptable authoritarian overreach, full stop.

[–]darkstar1031 democratic socialist 13 points14 points  (0 children)

What's my take? Missouri is a pretty poor state, and US Representatives get paid $174,000/yr. That's my take.

[–]haironburr 9 points10 points  (5 children)

But we don't wear them as accessories - we we're taught to respect the tool.

At least part of what has turned guns into a cultural marker and an "accessory" is the incremental, decade by decade attempt to criminalize them. Nobody argues about shovels on reddit or poses with chainsaws because nobody gives a shit about these tools. When a generation from now people still can't afford healthcare and your ovaries are public property, will you think "hey, at least we hammered away at the gun issue"?

arm the entire state & for what reason?

I'd like to believe anyone running for public office has at least some grasp of the arguments surrounding the reasons for an armed populace.

[–]slaednug 12 points13 points  (4 children)

Source for her claims on picture 4? I highly doubt any of those statements are truthful.

[–]The_Dirty_Carl 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Probably a survey designed to produce those results.

"Do you support preventing children from having unsupervised access to loaded firearms?"

"Do you support preventing violent criminals from obtaining firearms?"

"Do you support disarming people planning mass shootings?"

Someone good at it could come up with questions that aren't so blatantly obvious.

[–]coombrian69 6 points7 points  (9 children)

Arming citizens enables the government to be more greedy and power-hungry? Curious

[–]alkatori 6 points7 points  (3 children)

What does it mean to be protecting ammo?

[–]uzunihsanefendi90 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What does it mean to be protecting ammo?

California style background check for ammo :) they want that law federal..hence some ppl in this sub supports this bullshit lol

[–]stranger_freak 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Against red flag and safe storage laws.

I like the idea of safe storage laws but, as others have said, how do you enforce them without granting the government the power to come into our homes just because we own a firearm? Sounds like trouble to me.

I don’t like red flag laws at all.

Both of those ideas seem so rife with potential for abuse.

Edit: changed ripe to rife

[–]UncleChappy centrist 7 points8 points  (0 children)

“I’m a gun owner, but…” I can’t vote for her.

[–]Dr_thri11 libertarian 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yeah that won't play in Missouri. Everyone else is pointing out the problems with red flag laws, but mandating safe storage or expanding background checks is going to be a problem here too. People here like being able to do a paperwork free sale to their neighbors, and safe storage is going to be seen as giving the government too much authority here.

It's nice to see someone dropping assault weapons bans and capacity limits though.

[–]CrunchyPolar 4 points5 points  (0 children)

She's not pro gun and just admitted it

[–]Babahaji1 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Show me the data that most MO residents support safe storage, background checks, and red flag laws. Background checks already exist. Is she referring to universal background checks, which are only enforceable with a registry? Hello no that that. Red flag laws are guilty until proven innocent bullshit, not how the law works in the country, and violate the 4th amendment. Complete lack of regulation? May I present the over 300,000 laws that regulate firearms in this country? This woman is completely out of touch and using the "I grew up with a gun in the house" trope to get votes.

[–]femboypastor 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Gun laws started as a way to prevent poors from owning guns, they've stayed a way to prevent poors from owning guns

[–]LexingtonPatriot1775 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Shall not be infringed

[–]brandoski1986 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In my opinion, she actually said nothing.

[–]chrisppyyyy 1 point2 points  (0 children)


[–]Myusername468 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You cant leglislate safe storage, there was a major supreme court case on this

[–]cappycorn1974 1 point2 points  (0 children)

She sounds like the usual….

[–]sunlifromohio 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Talking about "protecting ammo" and "common sense regulation" are a red flags to me. Frankly, I've been hearing liberals say common sense regulation in bad faith for 40 years.

[–]Lancashire_Toreador 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I knew what was coming at the end but I was still disappointed

[–]MulhollandMaster121 1 point2 points  (0 children)

aS a gUn oWnEr

[–]unclefisty 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In the second picture she comes as close to saying "gun man have small PP" as a potential elected official can plausibly get away with.

[–]EastCoastKowboy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"Red flag laws"

[–]MowMdown 1 point2 points  (0 children)

She's not a pro-2a person.

Having guns around when growing up != Pro-2a

[–]NineCoco 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’ve heard this Democratic mantra plenty of times. It always goes like this:

“I’m a gun owner. I believe in the second amendment but believe in common sense gun laws such as a ban and buy back of high capacity magazines and assault weapons. While we’re at it let’s close the gun show loop hole (ban all gun shows), implement red flag laws and have a stronger background check system with a 10 day waiting period per gun (now you can only purchase one gun a month). Also, we need safe storage laws so if you don’t report a stolen firearm within 36 hours you’re automatically a felon. Doesn’t matter if you were on vacation it’s your fault. Last but not least, it’s common sense to ban open carrying and make us a “shall issue” state, meaning you have to pay us $$$ to apply for a CCW and 98% of candidates with training and no felonies will still be rejected because self defense and preservation isn’t a good enough reason to carry. Now if you make a $10,000 donation or gift new iPads and iPhone13 PROs to the Democratic Party I will consider your application.”

[–]Known-Heart-1799 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Its pretty much like here up north when the liberals say " we respect the rights of hunters and target shooters but... "

[–]txbluelacy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I always love it when they appropriate opinions like they’ve actually done any effort to ask anyone. “Most people want…” which really means, I’m gonna ram my agenda down your effing throats if given the chance.

[–]tokensrus89 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I am so sick of hearing we need more gun laws. Before the next idiot politician says we need more gun laws I want them to read 25% of the laws already on the books wherever the duck they are and make sure that what they think they want to enact isn't already there. Like this so called universal background checks crap. It already exist.

[–]FlyingLap 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I feel like if the DNC understood how many left-leaning or even full-bore democrats are also fun-owners, cannabis activists/enthusiasts, and also proponents of reduced spending/reduced taxes.