r/AskDemocrats

As a Leftist Socialist (formerly Progressive Liberal), I’m in very much agreement with Dems on human rights like LGBTQ rights, funding social programs and welfare, and preserving democracy. Every politician I’ve ever voted for was a Democrat. I also do support stricter gun control, ie: universal background checks, waiting periods, safe storage requirements, and mandatory safety training. Guns should be harder to get; they’re dangerous weapons after all.

However, one thing that has never made sense to me is the near ubiquitous push among Dems to ban “assault weapons”. Under these bans “assault weapons” are always defined as firearms with features like:

-Collapsable stocks

-Pistol grips

-Muzzle attachments such as suppressors

-Barrel shrouds (so a floating handguard?)

-Vertical fore end grips

These features do not make guns any more lethal than guns which don’t have them. They are ergonomic and practicality features for the most part. How on Earth would banning away these features on guns reduce gun violence?

More importantly, gun violence is not a result of AR-15s being available to regular people. Gun violence is a result of material conditions in the US that foster a culture of desperation and violence. These are systemic and sociopolitical issues, such as:

-Poor economic opportunity

-Poor access to healthcare (especially mental healthcare)

-Toxic masculinity

-Toxic individualism

-Social alienation (largely due to car centric infrastructure)

-Far right ideology

-The racist failure of the Drug War (which created the industry monopoly of the Cartels and, more granularly, local street gangs)

Banning “assault weapons” does not address any of these things, therefore it cannot reduce gun violence.

Even moreover, these AWBs do not remove “assault weapons” from society. All these bills do is ban their sale and transfer after a specific date. Therefore all these types of firearms already owned are just grandfathered in, and even artificially boosted in sales in the lead up to becoming illegal to buy (VA guns sales are through the roof right now).

There’s no gun registry in the US; we don’t know who owns what gun. In a country with more guns than people, that means there’s no feasible way to actually take away these guns from the population and remove them from circulation. So the millions of “assault weapons” out there just get grandfathered in, and stay in our homes and on our streets.

So we haven’t reduced gun violence, and we haven’t removed these weapons from society. So what’s the point?

The only thing these bills seem to actually accomplish is ceding political ground to the Fascist Republicans by alienating lawful gun owners.

Why on Earth would we support this ineffective, impossible to enforce, and politically suicidal policy?

Our founders literally gave us the answers, it’s called federalism and republicanism.

Essentially, we have multiple issues that we don’t talk about enough, btw I’m a classical liberal, adjacent to Ancap but a nationalist can only be so libertarian.

On behalf of healthcare; we have Bernie wanting universal healthcare for all, while libertarians and Republicans want to basically have a nonexistent unregulated individualized healthcare (WWW). This is a fundamental issue because either or forces half the population into doing something they don’t want.

So instead of arguing at the federal level, why don’t we do it at the state level? Bernie in Vermont can implement whatever healthcare he wants, while Republicans of libertarian do their own thing, and eventually let people vote with their feet and you tend to get a right answer on what’s best.

On behalf of Social Security:

Due to the old age security hypothesis, Social Security is about to deplete starting in 2032, why are we going to expand a failing system, and why are we gonna force multiple people to do that? Especially with the fertility issues it causes? Instead let the states do their own thing?

Let’s turn every single welfare program other than some CDC stuff, into tax cuts and then let the states decide. Let’s stop forcing things down people’s throat, what’s the issue with this?

Thoughts, questions, comments, concerns?

For Dems who are willing to go to socialism, why not go all the way to communism to get rid of all three forms of divide, money, country loyalty, border, I get they’re both communist but why go halfway and keep forms of divide?

Wouldn't it be absolutely the best if Kamala Harris and Michelle Obama could run together?

So my friends consider me the guy who "follows politics" and they've all asked me who I'm going to vote for in the CA primary. Truth is, that I haven't decided yet. I've made a short summary of the leading candidates, but I'm wondering if I've missed anything before I share it with my friends. Any suggestions would be great!

First we have is Xavier Becerra:

Pros: He seems like a solid candidate. He's got a history with both the state and federal government. He went after human traffickers and is a big supporter of defending reproductive and LGBTQ rights

Cons: The only real criticisms that I've found for him have been largely partisan. Pretty much that he's a culture warrior due to his response to covid and defending abortion rights.

Next is Matt Mahan, the current mayor of San Jose.

Pros: He's made dealing homelessness a main issue and reforming law enforcement his main issues.

Cons: Sadly, there's not a lot to go on with him in terms of policy. He comes off as republican-lite. Very business oriented and seems to like criticizing government employees. He seems to think that instead of funding government programs, we should be letting for-profit organizations take the lead. Other than crime and homelessness, he's own website doesn't offer much on other issues.

Now we have Katie Porter, former CA representative 2019-2025:

Pros: Gives me Elizabeth Warren/Bernie Sanders vibes. Very much the defender of the consumer over big business. She's gone after banks, pharma, and credit card companies for shady business dealings. She wants universal health care. Socially progressive and wants to get dark money out of politics.

Cons: Like most progressive candidates, she is having trouble building a coalition/following. She has a habit of clashing with established leadership in the Democratic party. This tends to alienate her from a lot of moderates.

Last we have Tom Steyer, billionaire with no direct political experience.

Pros: Heavying into the environment; more focus on renewable energy and utility regulation. He wants to build more homes to lower costs. Favors higher taxes on the rich and closing corporate loopholes. Expanding education access and health care. He's actually been endorsed by Bernie Sanders' group.

Cons: His history is a big one. Hedge fund guy. While his recent words and actions has him firmly supporting reforming/dismantling ICE and environmental reform, he's made a lot of his money in private prisons and investing in coal and fossil fuels. He moved away from all of that in 2012. His lack of political experience. He's got good ideas, like breaking up monopolies to lower utility bills, but light on the specifics.

If you're still reading this, thanks! I really want to help my friends be informed on these candidates. Anyways, out of the 4, Katie Porter is the one who I would love to see in office. But the more pragmatic side of me thinks Tom Steyer would be the better candidate. Xavier Becerra would also be good. I'm rather torn on who to endorse at this point.