Posted on 04/01/2018 10:30:26 AM PDT by Simon Green
Sen. Doug Jones (D-Ala.) said on Sunday that he does not support an assault weapons ban and does not believe a gun ban can pass Congress right now.
Asked by “This Week” host George Stephanopoulos whether he would support an assault weapons ban like his colleague Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), Jones said it’s not feasible and they should instead focus on policy goals that can be accomplished.
“We've got to get done what I think can be done right now. Let's reach across and within our own party to do those things that we can do, and that to me is where I want to focus,” Jones said. “I really don't believe that a gun ban is feasible right now.”
Jones, who was elected to the Senate in a special election in December in a heavily Republican state, said that politicians on both sides of the aisle should find common ground on gun policies.
He said that stronger background checks and an age limit for pistols and all semi-automatic weapons could be achievable and are supported by a majority of Americans.
Jones noted that he supports the student survivors from a school shooting in Parkland, Fla., who are working to advocate increased gun restrictions. But he said that Democrats should not demonize the NRA and pro-gun groups.
Of course not...hes running for reelection. We need to tell David Hogg to campaign for him.
If that southern fried Marxist really opposed a ban he say so in *very* clear terms.The fact that he even mentions “feasibility” means that he supports one but knows that admitting that would cost him his seat at the next election.
Taking a dump on the Constitution will NEVER be feasible !
Not now, or not next year once elections are out the way!
“Right now”. I hope people continue to buy AR-15’s by the millions so there will never be a “right now”.
Agreed. You can see him through the curtains and he knows it’s too hot right now to go any further than the useless magazine bans, etc.
Not now. Not EVER!!
Seems more feasible than Doug Jones winning in 2020.
Enjoy the half term.
Yes, exactly what you said.
Any liberal who condescendingly says, “ Silly conservatives....Nobody wants to take away your guns” is either willfully ignorant of the progressive agenda or a goddamn liar.
What is this “assault weapons” crap? This is another term invented by the treasonists to misinform. ANYTHING can be an “assault weapon”. A pillow can be an “assault weapon”, a pencil can be an “assault weapon”. Seeing Hillary naked can be an “assault weapon”. Well that would be more in line with a WMD
“Not right now” were his key words. he didn’t say he wouldn’t support it later. Remember, he IS a demodummie.
A “gun ban” would ignite CWII.
Trust me.
5.56mm
Yeh not feasible as in unconstitutional and certain commencement of CW2.
“Right now”
Alabama, those two words tell the tale. He’d grab your guns tomorrow if he could.
Yes and the operative words being “if he could”. That ain’t happening.
“..admitting that would cost him his seat at the next election....”
Going to cost a lot more than just elections if they try it.
That’s the DAY the guns are for - the day they try it.
Let’s make sure we’re all clear on that.
David Hogg is going to be the only thing standing in the way of the GOP's efforts to sabotage their congressional leadership. Let this kid keep flapping his gums and Republicans might just wind up hanging on to the House after all.
Right now, he means try again later.
So, Sen Jones... let's start with a bit of modern history... given that those who opposed the horrors of the biggest monsters of the last 100 years (Hitler, Stalin, and Mao) lamented afterwards that, had only people fought and killed just one "enforcer" each time they were rounding up people or guns, they might have actually stood a chance of preventing the horrors... and given the fact that the more devout 5-10% of the 100+ million American gun owners already know this truth in their hearts, and are prepared to do the only possible thing they can do when the Enforcers come yet again (and clearly, your statement demonstrates the very clear intent to bring them out once again)... and even if those brave souls are only able to take out just one Enforcer each before they are destroyed (some may be more skilled than that)...
Given these facts, sir, please inform us, Sen Jones... when exactly WILL it be "feasible" to have your Enforcers murder 5+ million Americans while you are losing 5 million of your Enforcers? We would like an answer this this question at your earliest convenience.
(And then please explain the math of how losing an initial 10 million lives in one brutal year is better than losing your supposed 2000 lives per year that would maybe be magically saved if guns were non-existent... by my calculations, your way leads to more dead in one year than the status quo would compile in 5000 years. You can make that your follow-up answer, please and thank you.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.