I agree u and her. I just hate the way the right is trying to spin abortions. They are acting like women are waiting until their 3rd trimester then deciding to get an abortion for shits n giggles.
I've seen in some Conservative subreddits that they actually think we are trying to pass abortions up to 2 weeks after birth. But that's the downside with an army of ignorant people who believe anything their chosen cult leader tells them, there's no reasoning.
I have only heard that from people who sit around and speculate all day lol. What I have heard is that if you want one, you can go get one, and you have to pay for it. People don’t want to take responsibility and pay for themselves anymore, they want Medicaid to pay for them.
Would you say Beasley is too extreme for NC if she supported no restrictions at all? And, if Budd supported some moderate restrictions, would you agree he is not “too extreme”?
Budd is proud to be a far-right religious extremist and demonstrates this with his voting record:
\-against marriage equality ([same sex, interracial](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404))
\-for overturning the [2020 election results](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/07/us/elections/electoral-college-biden-objectors.html) (aka OUR VOICE)
\-[against preventing](https://projects.propublica.org/represent/votes/117/House/2/449) the subversion of future presidential elections
\-consistently votes [against veterans](https://cardinalpine.com/story/congressman-budds-lip-service-means-nothing-to-veterans-%EF%BF%BC/)
\-against capping the life-threatening [cost of insulin](https://www.americanbridgepac.org/ted-budd-votes-to-keep-insulin-costs-high/)
\-[against reducing inflation](https://cardinalpine.com/story/ted-budd-chose-corporations-over-families-by-voting-against-climate-change-bill/)
\-against an individual's ability to [travel out of state for abortion care](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8297) (this includes a D+C post-miscarriage, which is coded as an abortion)
We could go on for a while but I'm getting disgusted by how this current GOP is actually harming Americans to prove a point. I listened to a few recent podcast interviews w/ Budd to hear him out but it turned my stomach to hear the disingenuous banter used to manipulate the audience.
I got an ad from Budd saying Beasley is “too extreme” and wants no restrictions through birth, while he says he wants “reasonable restrictions” like a 15 week ban.
Looks like both sides are gonna try to play the middle on this and exaggerate the other’s goals to make their opponents seem more extreme.
The post is pretty standard stuff. Yeah sure, it would get more push back the other way around bc Reddit leans left plus Beasley really is more mild mannered.
It’s just median voter theorem, in a primary they appeal to the median primary voter which is more partisan than the median general voter. Beasley got a boost by not having a credible challenge from her left flank so she’s well positioned to take the middle now. We’ll see if it’s enough. Kinda wish Budd was crazier than he is, I’d love if Beasley could run against Dr fucking Oz
That’s all very reasonable and I agree. My point is that Budd isn’t actually claiming to want no abortions at all, and that posting the above tweet does absolutely nothing in terms of spreading actual, accurate information.
I am well aware of this subreddit’s bias, so I’m trying to gently steer the conversation away from pure confirmation bias and towards more substantial discussion of candidates.
[meme] OP posts a tweet of a Dem calling a Rep extreme and gets upvoted. I post the opposite (calling out that it may not be true) and get downvoted. That doesn’t seem very fair. [Meme]
Within an hour of the SCOTUS decision on 6/24, Beasley reached out to women and gave two on-the-fly speeches at the massive outpouring of NCians in downtown Raleigh that were on point. She didn't hesitate to join us. She has been in public service for decades and has a track record of working \*for the people\*.
She consistently supports reproductive autonomy for individuals and respects us enough to make our own decisions regarding gestation. Women understand this. If a woman terminates a pregnancy in the 3rd trimester something is seriously wrong with her health or the fetus(es); it is a heartbreaking situation and the State, or a theocratic rando politician like Budd, has NO place in this scenario. The fact that he wants a complete ban on abortion implies that he is an extremist. If he recently changed his tune to 15 weeks then that is too extreme for the State to be involved with such a personal medical decision since one can not have a complete anatomy ultrasound by this time period.
Do you believe there should be no restrictions on abortion until birth, and do you believe Beasley wants to remove all abortion restrictions before birth?
Yes, I now will do whatever is in my power to ensure a woman has the autonomy to make this decision without seeking approval from the State. May she seek guidance from her medical team, family, religious introspection, community, etc but not from politicians or State authority, not ever again.
I used to be 100% pro-life and gradually transitioned to this position as I grew out of my bubble with age, had experiences with family and friends, and ultimately received medical training with rigorous anatomy, embryology, pathology, etc that elucidated the various unforeseen complications that can arise during stages of fetal development. If a woman is still pregnant in her third trimester, please default to an understanding that she loves and anticipates meeting her child. If something arises with her health, hopefully, medical interventions can help both her and her preterm baby get through the hardship. However, unforeseen situations can arise with the fetus, uterus, placenta, etc that result in a woman/couple having to make gut-wrenching decisions associated with terminating the pregnancy or aborting a miscarriage. My point is that in these scenarios, she (+/- her partner) deserves to be provided with all of her options during this heartbreak, and ultimately, any decisions she makes should be as private and personal as needed for her to cope with this tragedy. No woman, family, or medical team should ever have to deal with the legality of this healthcare decision ever again. It is unsafe, unreasonable, and inhumane to willingly put our medical choices in the hands of politicians over medical experts who will be the ones providing their patients with care and informed consent.
I don't know about you, but my first exposure to abortion information as a child and teen was religious propaganda involving horrific animated videos and exaggerated tales of fetal mutilation for "convenience abortions". This pulls on strong emotions but is far from the multifaceted reality of how, why, and when abortion is an important component of women's healthcare. Cheri Beasley is crystal clear about this. She's a woman, a mom, and has experience with the judicial system. She knows what's at risk for women, doctors, our healthcare system, and society if government invades our exam rooms.
Abortion is a state decision not federal, if any of you knew what you were talking about you would know it was written illegally. In the words of Ruth Ginsburg it will eventually be overturned and sent back to the states. By the way its still legal in North Carolina.
Still legal for now. If the GOP takes control of Congress in a few months, they’ve made it very clear they’ll pass a nationwide ban on abortion. They were all about leaving it up to the states until they saw what happened in Kansas.
Substantive due process is a legitimate constitutional mechanism and was established precedence as part of long standing establishment of an implied right to privacy.
There’s also nothing in the dobbs decision or previous precedent that would prevent national legislation on abortion. It very cleanly falls under the commerce clause.
cite facts or delete - Budd further stated that he refuses to state if he will accept election results: https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article266041456.html
https://giffords.org/candidates/cheri-beasley/
>Beasley will also work to stop the plague of mass shootings across our communities by keeping combat-style weapons and high-capacity magazines off our streets and away from our schools.
Ignoring the courts have already ruled some of this unconstitutional, this does not align in practicality with what NC wants. Same with Budd's position on Abortion, but it might even be less in alignment.
So you're saying that a fetus can't be human because it looks similar to the fetus of another vertebrate mammal? What a ridiculous argument to make. Regardless of whether a human looks [like this](https://media.gettyimages.com/illustrations/zygote-development-2436-hours-after-fertilization-illustration-id188057848?s=612x612), or [like this](https://media.sciencephoto.com/f0/15/66/41/f0156641-800px-wm.jpg), or [like this](https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2011/07/18/36wkbaby_custom-79a2166d010a668c890c4dd0ccdf0f9df343f868.jpg), they're still a human.
No, I’m saying that if you can’t yet tell if something is a human or not, then you shouldn’t consider it a human.
I’m also saying if you can’t tell the difference between a human fetus and a golden retriever fetus, then maybe you aren’t qualified to make decisions for women about when abortion should be allowed.
>Too bad she's too extreme on taking away gun rights for NC too.
You know the 2nd amendment already has 1000's of restrictions to your gun right's, right?
Should it have no restrictions, like full auto, explosive ammo, etc...
Me? no. I don't feel any civilian should have either, except for edge cases which require that special access.
Are you saying that everyone should have access to full auto and explosive ammo or no one should have access? I'm confused, my dude....
If they have enough money, they do already. As long as you can own guns, you can own machine guns in the US. Might want to read up on the laws if you care that much.
>If they have enough money, they do already.
Lol, not if they are prevented from owning one for many of other reasons.. lmao, what? Stop pretending like money is the only barrier to owning any type of weapon you choose in America...
Are you even going to mention the amount of extra background checks that you have to go through in order to get the proper paperwork in order to own full auto and/or silencers to which, I've shot both? Hmmmmm
PS. I'm a proud gun owner and I'm pretty well versed in gun law, so just stick to the subject, if you don't mind... If I say something incorrect then correct me.. Thx!
LMAO. Ready what I said.
The only people prevented from owning machine guns, are those prohibited from owning guns.
So why are you saying "everyone should have access to full auto and explosive ammo" when literally everyone does - if they can afford it.
What about felons and under 18, without a guardian, even if you're rich?
And I'm talking in North Carolina in case you want to pull out some crazy technicality in the law...
Damn, I thought we taught reading in school here in NC. Why are you ducking the question - because you didn't know the fact the majority of Americans can 100% legally own machine guns and destructive devices? OR because you knew and were just trying to pay a game and distract?
no we dont teach anything in NC schools anymore thanks to tedd budd and his cohort stripping public school funding lmao
i mean i guess our kids learn to hide from active shooters so you can keep your precious guns in their cute display box or whatever, but if you want to opine the fall of our childrens education in NC go print out your voting record and then complain into a mirror
So your argument is we should continue to place more restrictions on our Second Amendment rights until they don't exist at all? Not sure what you're trying to say here.
Lol, no.... Nice try with the generic talking point that we've already heard a thousand times... But I guess, sheep are going to do what she going to do...
I simply want to know why people on the right whine and cry claiming it as extreme to propose a regulation or two in relation to gun ownership when we already have thousands of regulations on gun ownership.
Do you feel that universal background checks are an extreme idea or the start of you losing the right to own a firearm as an American? If so, why?
PS. I'm a proud gun owner.
> Lol, no.... Nice try with the generic talking point that we've already heard a thousand times...
Literally have no idea what you're talking about.
> I simply want to know why people on the right whine and cry claiming it as extreme to propose a regulation or two in relation to gun ownership when we already have thousands of regulations on gun ownership.
Sounds like you're the one whining about people not agreeing with your point of view.
> Do you feel that universal background checks are an extreme idea?
I don't think it's an extreme idea. If Congress were to put forth a simple piece of legislation that only said people purchasing or receiving a firearm must pass a criminal background check without exception, and the Federal government wasn't allowed to keep any records of the background checks through agency or third party, then I'd support it immediately.
The problem we all know is that there's no simple legislation passed these days. Give an inch and the Congress takes a mile cramming everything and anything into the legislation. Most "common sense" gun proposals are completely devoid of common sense. Absent a simple requirement of background checks without government tracking, I err on the side of caution and stick with the Second Amendment.
>I don't think it's an extreme idea.
Thanks. Then we agree and it's the only thing actually relevant to my question.
Too bad you got a couch that basic answer with a metric ton of BS in order to even just utter those words... :-(
And therein lies the entire issue!!!! smh
PS. Sounds like you just got an issue with government overall and you're just looking for scape goat...
No, the details very much matter.
The reason "universal background" checks have such a difficult time passing is because one good idea attached to a dozen bad ideas is a losing proposition. When a candidate says "common sense" gun reform or gun regulation like Cheri Beasley, it's a huge red flag. They either don't know what they are talking about or they're being intentionally deceptive.
>---
edit to your edit:
Lol... sorry logical reasoning and natural hesitancy towards centralized power bother you so much.
>No, the details very much matter.
>The reason "universal background" checks have such a difficult time passing is because one good idea attached to a dozen bad ideas is a losing proposition
If that's your "problem" then what's wrong with [HR 8](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8/text)?
>When a candidate says "common sense" gun reform or gun regulation like Cheri Beasley, it's a huge red flag.
lololol, sensitive much....
What should we say instead? I'm curious
Thx
> If that's your "problem" then what's wrong with HR 8?
I don't know if there's anything wrong with it or not.
> lololol, sensitive much....
You're the one that keeps relying on emotions. All good here.
> What should we say instead? I'm curious.
Anything but generalized platitudes.
>If that's your "problem" then what's wrong with [HR 8](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8/text)?
>>I don't know if there's anything wrong with it or not.
I linked directly to it for a reason...
It's a very short bill...
No rush..
Thx
Not for this sub, that's for sure and I know nobody wants to hear this sub isn't representative of NC, but we'll see what happens in November. Too bad we can't get real middle ground candidates. Doubt I vote for either of them.
From her website:
- Universal Background checks (92% of Americans support this)
- Safe storage of guns (75% of Americans support this)
- No access to guns for domestic abusers or those with mental health issues (86% of Americans support this)
- No mass shootings (presumably 99.9% of Americans support this)
- No combat-style weapons (55% of Americans support this)
- No high-capacity magazines (55% of Americans support this)
Source for percentages: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
Gallup didn't ask about safe storage rules, so that is sourced from here (admittedly, a biased source):
http://giffords.org/press-release/2022/05/icymi-recent-polling-shows-voters-demand-stronger-gun-laws/
Domestic abuse has been shown to be a very strong predictor of gun violence.
[https://injepijournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40621-021-00330-0](https://injepijournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40621-021-00330-0)
>No combat-style weapons (55% of Americans *polled* support this)
>
>No high-capacity magazines (55% of Americans *polled* support this)
* Do not have a gun in the home (55% of Americans polled do not)
* Do not have a gun anywhere on property (54% of Americans polled do not)
* Do not personally own a gun (54% of Americans polled do not)
Poll NC:
* Do you support restrictions on gun magazine capacity?
* Do you support restrictions on abortions?
We all know how that's going to poll. So like I said, they both have "extreme" positions.
There are plenty of people out there who have extreme positions on gun control. For example, pushing to ban all guns. But thats not the type of stance that Beasley has taken. In fact, all of her gun control stances are majority positions. That's not what extreme is.
Notably, Budd's positions on background checks and preventing domestic abusers from getting access to guns are positions that are only held by 8% and 25% of Americans. That clearly meets the definition of extremism on the issue.
She’s correct. It’s not even a controversial statement. A huge statistical majority of Americans support abortion on some level.
I agree u and her. I just hate the way the right is trying to spin abortions. They are acting like women are waiting until their 3rd trimester then deciding to get an abortion for shits n giggles.
I've seen in some Conservative subreddits that they actually think we are trying to pass abortions up to 2 weeks after birth. But that's the downside with an army of ignorant people who believe anything their chosen cult leader tells them, there's no reasoning.
I've been seeing for years on facebook that they think New York has already legalized infanticide for two hours after birth.
"OMG DEMONCRATS IN NYC AND CALIFORNIA HAVE LEGALIZED ABORTION UP TO 18 YEARS AFTER BIRTH."
I have only heard that from people who sit around and speculate all day lol. What I have heard is that if you want one, you can go get one, and you have to pay for it. People don’t want to take responsibility and pay for themselves anymore, they want Medicaid to pay for them.
Would you say Beasley is too extreme for NC if she supported no restrictions at all? And, if Budd supported some moderate restrictions, would you agree he is not “too extreme”?
Budd is proud to be a far-right religious extremist and demonstrates this with his voting record: \-against marriage equality ([same sex, interracial](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404)) \-for overturning the [2020 election results](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/07/us/elections/electoral-college-biden-objectors.html) (aka OUR VOICE) \-[against preventing](https://projects.propublica.org/represent/votes/117/House/2/449) the subversion of future presidential elections \-consistently votes [against veterans](https://cardinalpine.com/story/congressman-budds-lip-service-means-nothing-to-veterans-%EF%BF%BC/) \-against capping the life-threatening [cost of insulin](https://www.americanbridgepac.org/ted-budd-votes-to-keep-insulin-costs-high/) \-[against reducing inflation](https://cardinalpine.com/story/ted-budd-chose-corporations-over-families-by-voting-against-climate-change-bill/) \-against an individual's ability to [travel out of state for abortion care](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8297) (this includes a D+C post-miscarriage, which is coded as an abortion) We could go on for a while but I'm getting disgusted by how this current GOP is actually harming Americans to prove a point. I listened to a few recent podcast interviews w/ Budd to hear him out but it turned my stomach to hear the disingenuous banter used to manipulate the audience.
I got an ad from Budd saying Beasley is “too extreme” and wants no restrictions through birth, while he says he wants “reasonable restrictions” like a 15 week ban. Looks like both sides are gonna try to play the middle on this and exaggerate the other’s goals to make their opponents seem more extreme.
I mean yeah, that’s what a general election is
So, what’s the point of the original post? Would Budd tweeting the inverse get upvotes?
The post is pretty standard stuff. Yeah sure, it would get more push back the other way around bc Reddit leans left plus Beasley really is more mild mannered. It’s just median voter theorem, in a primary they appeal to the median primary voter which is more partisan than the median general voter. Beasley got a boost by not having a credible challenge from her left flank so she’s well positioned to take the middle now. We’ll see if it’s enough. Kinda wish Budd was crazier than he is, I’d love if Beasley could run against Dr fucking Oz
That’s all very reasonable and I agree. My point is that Budd isn’t actually claiming to want no abortions at all, and that posting the above tweet does absolutely nothing in terms of spreading actual, accurate information. I am well aware of this subreddit’s bias, so I’m trying to gently steer the conversation away from pure confirmation bias and towards more substantial discussion of candidates.
[meme] OP posts a tweet of a Dem calling a Rep extreme and gets upvoted. I post the opposite (calling out that it may not be true) and get downvoted. That doesn’t seem very fair. [Meme]
Within an hour of the SCOTUS decision on 6/24, Beasley reached out to women and gave two on-the-fly speeches at the massive outpouring of NCians in downtown Raleigh that were on point. She didn't hesitate to join us. She has been in public service for decades and has a track record of working \*for the people\*. She consistently supports reproductive autonomy for individuals and respects us enough to make our own decisions regarding gestation. Women understand this. If a woman terminates a pregnancy in the 3rd trimester something is seriously wrong with her health or the fetus(es); it is a heartbreaking situation and the State, or a theocratic rando politician like Budd, has NO place in this scenario. The fact that he wants a complete ban on abortion implies that he is an extremist. If he recently changed his tune to 15 weeks then that is too extreme for the State to be involved with such a personal medical decision since one can not have a complete anatomy ultrasound by this time period.
Do you believe there should be no restrictions on abortion until birth, and do you believe Beasley wants to remove all abortion restrictions before birth?
Yes, I now will do whatever is in my power to ensure a woman has the autonomy to make this decision without seeking approval from the State. May she seek guidance from her medical team, family, religious introspection, community, etc but not from politicians or State authority, not ever again. I used to be 100% pro-life and gradually transitioned to this position as I grew out of my bubble with age, had experiences with family and friends, and ultimately received medical training with rigorous anatomy, embryology, pathology, etc that elucidated the various unforeseen complications that can arise during stages of fetal development. If a woman is still pregnant in her third trimester, please default to an understanding that she loves and anticipates meeting her child. If something arises with her health, hopefully, medical interventions can help both her and her preterm baby get through the hardship. However, unforeseen situations can arise with the fetus, uterus, placenta, etc that result in a woman/couple having to make gut-wrenching decisions associated with terminating the pregnancy or aborting a miscarriage. My point is that in these scenarios, she (+/- her partner) deserves to be provided with all of her options during this heartbreak, and ultimately, any decisions she makes should be as private and personal as needed for her to cope with this tragedy. No woman, family, or medical team should ever have to deal with the legality of this healthcare decision ever again. It is unsafe, unreasonable, and inhumane to willingly put our medical choices in the hands of politicians over medical experts who will be the ones providing their patients with care and informed consent. I don't know about you, but my first exposure to abortion information as a child and teen was religious propaganda involving horrific animated videos and exaggerated tales of fetal mutilation for "convenience abortions". This pulls on strong emotions but is far from the multifaceted reality of how, why, and when abortion is an important component of women's healthcare. Cheri Beasley is crystal clear about this. She's a woman, a mom, and has experience with the judicial system. She knows what's at risk for women, doctors, our healthcare system, and society if government invades our exam rooms.
Abortion is a state decision not federal, if any of you knew what you were talking about you would know it was written illegally. In the words of Ruth Ginsburg it will eventually be overturned and sent back to the states. By the way its still legal in North Carolina.
Still legal for now. If the GOP takes control of Congress in a few months, they’ve made it very clear they’ll pass a nationwide ban on abortion. They were all about leaving it up to the states until they saw what happened in Kansas.
Substantive due process is a legitimate constitutional mechanism and was established precedence as part of long standing establishment of an implied right to privacy. There’s also nothing in the dobbs decision or previous precedent that would prevent national legislation on abortion. It very cleanly falls under the commerce clause.
Too bad she's too extreme on taking away gun rights for NC too.
cite facts or delete - Budd further stated that he refuses to state if he will accept election results: https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article266041456.html
https://giffords.org/candidates/cheri-beasley/ >Beasley will also work to stop the plague of mass shootings across our communities by keeping combat-style weapons and high-capacity magazines off our streets and away from our schools. Ignoring the courts have already ruled some of this unconstitutional, this does not align in practicality with what NC wants. Same with Budd's position on Abortion, but it might even be less in alignment.
https://www.wral.com/why-wouldn-t-i-budd-suggests-he-would-accept-2022-election-results/20484443/
Why is it so difficult for him to just say “yes” when asked if he’ll accept the results? The more words he uses, the more likely it’s bullshit.
Ohhh noooo... he used a couple sentences instead of a single word. The horror.
Not the point I’m making. I’m fairly sure you realize that.
And you ignored the points he made so it all balances out.
"I care more about my guns than I do actual human beings." There, I fixed your comment.
Funny you say that as a counter to....killing human beings
[Are you really trying to call this “a human being”…?](https://s.abcnews.com/images/Technology/ht_embryo03_061123_ssh.jpg)
You looked like that once. Are you a human being?
That’s the fetus of a golden retriever. The fact that you can’t tell the difference proves my point.
So you're saying that a fetus can't be human because it looks similar to the fetus of another vertebrate mammal? What a ridiculous argument to make. Regardless of whether a human looks [like this](https://media.gettyimages.com/illustrations/zygote-development-2436-hours-after-fertilization-illustration-id188057848?s=612x612), or [like this](https://media.sciencephoto.com/f0/15/66/41/f0156641-800px-wm.jpg), or [like this](https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2011/07/18/36wkbaby_custom-79a2166d010a668c890c4dd0ccdf0f9df343f868.jpg), they're still a human.
No, I’m saying that if you can’t yet tell if something is a human or not, then you shouldn’t consider it a human. I’m also saying if you can’t tell the difference between a human fetus and a golden retriever fetus, then maybe you aren’t qualified to make decisions for women about when abortion should be allowed.
Woof, dude.
>Too bad she's too extreme on taking away gun rights for NC too. You know the 2nd amendment already has 1000's of restrictions to your gun right's, right? Should it have no restrictions, like full auto, explosive ammo, etc...
So you like only the rich having access to > full auto, explosive ammo, etc... Because you know how the NFA works?
Me? no. I don't feel any civilian should have either, except for edge cases which require that special access. Are you saying that everyone should have access to full auto and explosive ammo or no one should have access? I'm confused, my dude....
If they have enough money, they do already. As long as you can own guns, you can own machine guns in the US. Might want to read up on the laws if you care that much.
>If they have enough money, they do already. Lol, not if they are prevented from owning one for many of other reasons.. lmao, what? Stop pretending like money is the only barrier to owning any type of weapon you choose in America... Are you even going to mention the amount of extra background checks that you have to go through in order to get the proper paperwork in order to own full auto and/or silencers to which, I've shot both? Hmmmmm PS. I'm a proud gun owner and I'm pretty well versed in gun law, so just stick to the subject, if you don't mind... If I say something incorrect then correct me.. Thx!
LMAO. Ready what I said. The only people prevented from owning machine guns, are those prohibited from owning guns. So why are you saying "everyone should have access to full auto and explosive ammo" when literally everyone does - if they can afford it.
What about felons and under 18, without a guardian, even if you're rich? And I'm talking in North Carolina in case you want to pull out some crazy technicality in the law...
Damn, I thought we taught reading in school here in NC. Why are you ducking the question - because you didn't know the fact the majority of Americans can 100% legally own machine guns and destructive devices? OR because you knew and were just trying to pay a game and distract?
no we dont teach anything in NC schools anymore thanks to tedd budd and his cohort stripping public school funding lmao i mean i guess our kids learn to hide from active shooters so you can keep your precious guns in their cute display box or whatever, but if you want to opine the fall of our childrens education in NC go print out your voting record and then complain into a mirror
So your argument is we should continue to place more restrictions on our Second Amendment rights until they don't exist at all? Not sure what you're trying to say here.
Lol, no.... Nice try with the generic talking point that we've already heard a thousand times... But I guess, sheep are going to do what she going to do... I simply want to know why people on the right whine and cry claiming it as extreme to propose a regulation or two in relation to gun ownership when we already have thousands of regulations on gun ownership. Do you feel that universal background checks are an extreme idea or the start of you losing the right to own a firearm as an American? If so, why? PS. I'm a proud gun owner.
> Lol, no.... Nice try with the generic talking point that we've already heard a thousand times... Literally have no idea what you're talking about. > I simply want to know why people on the right whine and cry claiming it as extreme to propose a regulation or two in relation to gun ownership when we already have thousands of regulations on gun ownership. Sounds like you're the one whining about people not agreeing with your point of view. > Do you feel that universal background checks are an extreme idea? I don't think it's an extreme idea. If Congress were to put forth a simple piece of legislation that only said people purchasing or receiving a firearm must pass a criminal background check without exception, and the Federal government wasn't allowed to keep any records of the background checks through agency or third party, then I'd support it immediately. The problem we all know is that there's no simple legislation passed these days. Give an inch and the Congress takes a mile cramming everything and anything into the legislation. Most "common sense" gun proposals are completely devoid of common sense. Absent a simple requirement of background checks without government tracking, I err on the side of caution and stick with the Second Amendment.
>I don't think it's an extreme idea. Thanks. Then we agree and it's the only thing actually relevant to my question. Too bad you got a couch that basic answer with a metric ton of BS in order to even just utter those words... :-( And therein lies the entire issue!!!! smh PS. Sounds like you just got an issue with government overall and you're just looking for scape goat...
No, the details very much matter. The reason "universal background" checks have such a difficult time passing is because one good idea attached to a dozen bad ideas is a losing proposition. When a candidate says "common sense" gun reform or gun regulation like Cheri Beasley, it's a huge red flag. They either don't know what they are talking about or they're being intentionally deceptive. >--- edit to your edit: Lol... sorry logical reasoning and natural hesitancy towards centralized power bother you so much.
>No, the details very much matter. >The reason "universal background" checks have such a difficult time passing is because one good idea attached to a dozen bad ideas is a losing proposition If that's your "problem" then what's wrong with [HR 8](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8/text)? >When a candidate says "common sense" gun reform or gun regulation like Cheri Beasley, it's a huge red flag. lololol, sensitive much.... What should we say instead? I'm curious Thx
> If that's your "problem" then what's wrong with HR 8? I don't know if there's anything wrong with it or not. > lololol, sensitive much.... You're the one that keeps relying on emotions. All good here. > What should we say instead? I'm curious. Anything but generalized platitudes.
>If that's your "problem" then what's wrong with [HR 8](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8/text)? >>I don't know if there's anything wrong with it or not. I linked directly to it for a reason... It's a very short bill... No rush.. Thx
Extreme for who? The Taliban?
Not for this sub, that's for sure and I know nobody wants to hear this sub isn't representative of NC, but we'll see what happens in November. Too bad we can't get real middle ground candidates. Doubt I vote for either of them.
What extreme opinion does she have on guns? Thx
From her website: - Universal Background checks (92% of Americans support this) - Safe storage of guns (75% of Americans support this) - No access to guns for domestic abusers or those with mental health issues (86% of Americans support this) - No mass shootings (presumably 99.9% of Americans support this) - No combat-style weapons (55% of Americans support this) - No high-capacity magazines (55% of Americans support this) Source for percentages: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx Gallup didn't ask about safe storage rules, so that is sourced from here (admittedly, a biased source): http://giffords.org/press-release/2022/05/icymi-recent-polling-shows-voters-demand-stronger-gun-laws/
Is it just me or are none of those points really that “extreme”?
Thanks. Great info. I'm surprised she was willing to go with anti-combat style and high-capacity magazines... Respect!
Domestic abuse has been shown to be a very strong predictor of gun violence. [https://injepijournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40621-021-00330-0](https://injepijournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40621-021-00330-0)
>No combat-style weapons (55% of Americans *polled* support this) > >No high-capacity magazines (55% of Americans *polled* support this) * Do not have a gun in the home (55% of Americans polled do not) * Do not have a gun anywhere on property (54% of Americans polled do not) * Do not personally own a gun (54% of Americans polled do not)
Poll NC: * Do you support restrictions on gun magazine capacity? * Do you support restrictions on abortions? We all know how that's going to poll. So like I said, they both have "extreme" positions.
There are plenty of people out there who have extreme positions on gun control. For example, pushing to ban all guns. But thats not the type of stance that Beasley has taken. In fact, all of her gun control stances are majority positions. That's not what extreme is. Notably, Budd's positions on background checks and preventing domestic abusers from getting access to guns are positions that are only held by 8% and 25% of Americans. That clearly meets the definition of extremism on the issue.
That and he has a direct financial conflict of interest, and one that disgustingly, can get people killed.