In a very general sense, sure I believe we can do a lot to reduce violent crime, and I'm happy to talk to anyone to further that. That's why I went on your podcast a while back and had a pleasant discussion. But you guys have not once ever done anything to preserve Second Amendment rights, even when "freebie" easy issues were suggested, like the marijuana prohibition, the CA Handgun Roster, ridiculously expansive "sensitive places" laws, or high fees and long wait times for a CCW permit. And your one differentiator from the other gun control groups is you originally made a big deal out of not supporting things like "assault weapon" bans. Now that's gone, so I'm not sure why you aren't just Great Value Giffords.
Hi Kostas. Thanks for engaging. 97Percent does not advocate for assault weapons bans and never has. We focus on reasonable measures to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals. We won’t always agree on what those measures are, but we welcome and appreciate debate with anyone who wants to tackle the issues respectfully and in good faith. Thank you for joining that discussion.
OK - but you've recently published testimonials advocating for such bans. I realize that testimonials don't necessarily speak for your organization, but it's certainly odd to publish them if they are the opposite of what you believe. I'd love to see 97Percent at least come out against certain gun laws that I think everyone can agree are abusive (besides those who want total gun bans). Such as: 1. Prohibitions on gun ownership for those convicted of nonviolent crimes, particularly when those crimes were from long ago (see Range v. Garland); 2. The California Handgun Roster, which has effectively blocked the sale of modern semiauto handguns in California that were first released after 2013; 3. High permit fees and long wait times for a CCW permit, like what we challenge in CRPA vs. LASD. Given your organization's preference for permits, this one should be especially upsetting to you. People are trying to get permits like you want them to do, but face $1,000+ in expense, and years of wait times. We'd love to see amicus briefs from you on these sorts of cases.
@97Percentorg By the way, this is what I am referencing. x.com/97percentorg/s…
@MorosKostas @97Percentorg by the way...THIS is what he's referencing...since @97Percentorg conveniently deleted what they actually posted.
@MorosKostas @97Percentorg The “You can’t win anyway so just submit” argument.