Should Democrats run on full Second Amendment repeal and gun confiscation?

[Joe Republic]

Not yet, no.  Wait for the popular tide to turn, a la gay marriage and universal healthcare.

[Landslide Lyndon]

If the far left wants this, and some of the Parkland teen activists, should the Democrats run on Second Amendment repeal and full gun confiscation, including hunting and recreational activities?

Obvious troll is obvious.

[Dr. MB]

Not yet, no.  Wait for the popular tide to turn, a la gay marriage and universal healthcare.

But unlike the two examples you listed, this one isn’t expanding freedom, it’s only limiting it. I only hope this never becomes a mainstream view, but unfortunately I think you’re right, popular opinion will shift.

[here2view]

This isn't even a serious question, it's a troll thread.

[An American Tail: Fubart Goes West]

pretty sure most people would not be single-issue voters on second amendment repeal. it would literally be impossible to do in the first place, so even if a voter opposes repeal would they necessarily vote for the republican? all these 50 state-landslide predictions are overdramatic

Yeah, it wouldn't be good for the Dems, but they wouldn't lose all 50 states.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Of course they shouldn't. But beneath the national level, in a district or state that a candidate can get away with being pro-gun control, I don't see the harm in advocating for a change in how we interpret the second amendment. If we want to accomplish even the most meager types of gun reform, we have to change our culture somewhat. This will probably take several decades to become widely accepted though, especially at the national level. We have had a decent start with the Parkland students of course.

[7,052,770]

No, but it's no less mainstream than the common Republican position of banning abortion in all 50 states without exceptions for rape or viability

[Joe Republic]

Not yet, no.  Wait for the popular tide to turn, a la gay marriage and universal healthcare.

But unlike the two examples you listed, this one isn’t expanding freedom, it’s only limiting it.

On the contrary, it'd be expanding the freedom to not get gunned down as often.

I only hope this never becomes a mainstream view, but unfortunately I think you’re right, popular opinion will shift.

Indeed, give it time.  Like most issues, the US just needs time to catch up to the rest of the civilized world.

[Joe Republic]

Of course they shouldn't. But beneath the national level, in a district or state that a candidate can get away with being pro-gun control, I don't see the harm in advocating for a change in how we interpret the second amendment. If we want to accomplish even the most meager types of gun reform, we have to change our culture somewhat. This will probably take several decades to become widely accepted though, especially at the national level. We have had a decent start with the Parkland students of course.

It would be a return to how it was previously interpreted prior to 2008.  Until 1977, even the NRA officially advocated the position that "well-regulated militia" meant... basically that, not that any random idiot can buy a semi-automatic if they feel like it.

[beaver2.0]

Why don't they also run on a platform of euthanasia of conservative voters, prohibition of Christianity, and changing the national flag to the rainbow one.

[DPKdebator]

pretty sure most people would not be single-issue voters on second amendment repeal. it would literally be impossible to do in the first place, so even if a voter opposes repeal would they necessarily vote for the republican? all these 50 state-landslide predictions are overdramatic

I think it's less about supporting the ownership of firearms and more about the fact that it would be campaigning to repeal one of the Bill of Rights amendments (which would be far more unpopular). Gun owners would vote in droves and margins unlike almost anything seen before against someone who vowed to repeal the 2nd Amendment.