Sign In

Mrebo

User Group
Trusted Members
Join date
20-Mar-2011
Last activity
20-Feb-2018
Posts
3049

Post History

Post
#1172962
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

https://twitter.com/JohnCornyn/status/954739322388930562

Not enough facepalms in the world. I don’t know what’s worse: that after a US Senator was informed he was personally helping spread Russian propaganda, the Senator’s first instinct was to pretend he wasn’t just personally implicated and yell “Fake News!” at the media, or that, for his followers, that’s probably a good enough reaction.

Favorite Twitter response to his suggestion that “the Press” in particular needs to work to avoid spreading so much Russian propaganda on Twitter:

Funny. Most people only use one “s” when abbreviating “president.”

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich-noyes/2018/02/19/flashback-cnn-and-msnbcs-enthusiastic-coverage-russian-sponsored-anti

😮

Right, NewsBusters: “Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias”. Let’s see how that works, shall we? So Russia sets up TWO opposing rallies, one in support of Trump, and one against him, in an attempt to cause tensions or violence or some such thing. So far, so good, that much is in the Mueller indictments. News organizations cover both events as “large political rallies in the middle of New York around a major US election” are newsworthy items, and nobody yet knows the Russians helped set them up. So NewsBusters comes in for the scoop–by showing that the media reported on the anti-Trump rally, and completely glossing over their coverage of the pro-Trump rally. Yep, typical NewsBusters. Manufacturing a liberal bias so they can posture against it.

Muahaha. Firstly, I don’t know if both events were covered the same way - in terms of time and tone - and that is important to the bias question. Secondly, NewsBusters is one-sided and the indecorousness of posting the link gave me a cheap thrill. (And I would have gotten away with it too, if it hadn’t been for you meddling kids). Thirdly, how important was it that the media was unwittingly giving the Russians a megaphone for their propaganda?

Post
#1172956
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

darth_ender said:

Mrebo said:

After reviewing the last few pages, I gather facts about guns don’t matter, effectiveness of policies are either beyond our comprehension or don’t matter, and Frink’s mom is one happening lady.

Also, I like Collipso’s new avatar.

darth_ender said:

Since banning guns entirely will never be likely, I’m interested in more feasible solutions. For instance, the rubber bullets idea is actually a fairly reasonable solution: it may not be 100% effective, but I guarantee 17 people wouldn’t have died on Valentine’s Day if the perpetrator only had access to rubber bullets. The same enjoyable aspects of guns would remain, while the lethal aspect would be drastically reduced.

Like I said earlier, all guns should be registered with something like a title following every transaction. Definitely in order to own, but even better would be limiting the ability to shoot without training and a license renewed every three or five years. No training without a permit certified by a particular licensing agency. No gun purchases to anyone under 21. No training for anyone under 16. I mean, guns and cars are both potentially quite lethal–the two are quite comparable, only fewer people shoot than drive. A police officer should be allowed to see a man with a gun and ask him to produce his license to own.

You are an exception! I think states should have greater leeway to implement gun control laws, because a “well regulated Militia” is “necessary to the security of a free State.” States should be able to implement rules to that end. This should be especially true under a state’s general police powers. Because of the dastardly 14th Amendment, the Court said the 2nd Amendment limits the states as it does the federal government, but I think there is room for states to do more than the federal government might be able to.

I could get into a fight with you about the “dastardly 14th Amendment”, but I won’t.

A fight over the 14th Amendment would probably be fisticuffs.

It would also be rehashing old debates.

That also 😉

edit: although, relating to my exchange with CatBus, the fact that the Amendment originally only restricted the federal government helps to inform interpretation of it.

This post has been edited.

Post
#1172955
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

CatBus said:

https://twitter.com/JohnCornyn/status/954739322388930562

Not enough facepalms in the world. I don’t know what’s worse: that after a US Senator was informed he was personally helping spread Russian propaganda, the Senator’s first instinct was to pretend he wasn’t just personally implicated and yell “Fake News!” at the media, or that, for his followers, that’s probably a good enough reaction.

Favorite Twitter response to his suggestion that “the Press” in particular needs to work to avoid spreading so much Russian propaganda on Twitter:

Funny. Most people only use one “s” when abbreviating “president.”

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich-noyes/2018/02/19/flashback-cnn-and-msnbcs-enthusiastic-coverage-russian-sponsored-anti

😮

Post
#1172947
Topic
it all
Time

i t all y our bananas?

Post
#1172942
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

darth_ender said:

Mrebo said:

After reviewing the last few pages, I gather facts about guns don’t matter, effectiveness of policies are either beyond our comprehension or don’t matter, and Frink’s mom is one happening lady.

Also, I like Collipso’s new avatar.

darth_ender said:

Since banning guns entirely will never be likely, I’m interested in more feasible solutions. For instance, the rubber bullets idea is actually a fairly reasonable solution: it may not be 100% effective, but I guarantee 17 people wouldn’t have died on Valentine’s Day if the perpetrator only had access to rubber bullets. The same enjoyable aspects of guns would remain, while the lethal aspect would be drastically reduced.

Like I said earlier, all guns should be registered with something like a title following every transaction. Definitely in order to own, but even better would be limiting the ability to shoot without training and a license renewed every three or five years. No training without a permit certified by a particular licensing agency. No gun purchases to anyone under 21. No training for anyone under 16. I mean, guns and cars are both potentially quite lethal–the two are quite comparable, only fewer people shoot than drive. A police officer should be allowed to see a man with a gun and ask him to produce his license to own.

You are an exception! I think states should have greater leeway to implement gun control laws, because a “well regulated Militia” is “necessary to the security of a free State.” States should be able to implement rules to that end. This should be especially true under a state’s general police powers. Because of the dastardly 14th Amendment, the Court said the 2nd Amendment limits the states as it does the federal government, but I think there is room for states to do more than the federal government might be able to.

I could get into a fight with you about the “dastardly 14th Amendment”, but I won’t.

A fight over the 14th Amendment would probably be fisticuffs.

Post
#1172893
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

darth_ender said:

Mrebo said:

After reviewing the last few pages, I gather facts about guns don’t matter, effectiveness of policies are either beyond our comprehension or don’t matter, and Frink’s mom is one happening lady.

Also, I like Collipso’s new avatar.

darth_ender said:

Since banning guns entirely will never be likely, I’m interested in more feasible solutions. For instance, the rubber bullets idea is actually a fairly reasonable solution: it may not be 100% effective, but I guarantee 17 people wouldn’t have died on Valentine’s Day if the perpetrator only had access to rubber bullets. The same enjoyable aspects of guns would remain, while the lethal aspect would be drastically reduced.

Like I said earlier, all guns should be registered with something like a title following every transaction. Definitely in order to own, but even better would be limiting the ability to shoot without training and a license renewed every three or five years. No training without a permit certified by a particular licensing agency. No gun purchases to anyone under 21. No training for anyone under 16. I mean, guns and cars are both potentially quite lethal–the two are quite comparable, only fewer people shoot than drive. A police officer should be allowed to see a man with a gun and ask him to produce his license to own.

You are an exception! I think states should have greater leeway to implement gun control laws, because a “well regulated Militia” is “necessary to the security of a free State.” States should be able to implement rules to that end. This should be especially true under a state’s general police powers. Because of the dastardly 14th Amendment, the Court said the 2nd Amendment limits the states as it does the federal government, but I think there is room for states to do more than the federal government might be able to.

Post
#1171828
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

DominicCobb said:

Dek Rollins said:

DominicCobb said:

Dek Rollins said:

ChainsawAsh said:

Dek Rollins said:

ChainsawAsh said:

Dek Rollins said:

Collipso said:

The “they’ll get the guns anyway even if illegally” argument is nonsense. By that logic, why bother having laws in the first place?

In many states, as well as federally, smoking pot is illegal. People still do it constantly because they have some sort of access to it illegally. The same applies to pretty much any other product. If there is demand for it, at least a few of those demanding it will get their hands on it somehow.

Any other illegal drug, alcoholic beverages during prohibition, alcoholic beverages to minors today, porn to minors, child porn, etc. is accessible in some way to those who seek it hard enough. The same applies to weapons, especially considering the whole 3D printing situation.

So we should stop regulating child porn, alcohol, etc. because people are going to get it anyway, right? That’s what I’m hearing and it’s fucking stupid.

I never said that. It should all be regulated, but regulation will not ultimately stop every possible instance. It will just keep it down to a minimum of occurrence.

Of course. That’s exactly what all of us who want stricter gun regulations wants and expects. So I don’t understand why anyone argues against it with the “They’ll still get guns illegally” defense and it infuriates me that that defense actually seems to be working, seeing as how there’s been essentially no meaningful legislation or really any steps taken toward the necessary regulation to reduce gun violence/mass shootings for years.

Also, a point - the pro-gun (or should I say anti-regulation) lobby seems to think that those of us who want tougher gun laws expect such laws to completely eliminate these incidents. We don’t, that’s pretty much impossible and we know that. But 50 people dead from a mass shooting or two in a year is a hell of a lot better than hundreds or thousands from dozens of mass shootings in a year.

The thing is, we are all being over protective of our stance, because of the extremes on both sides. Plenty of people actually want to ban personal ownership of guns. This angers people who want to keep their guns and they start thinking everyone thinks this way. Apply that to the other side of the arguement and you’ve got a bunch of people who can’t compromise.

I agree with you though.

Truth is, even though a lot of people would prefer if there were no guns at all, almost none of them are actually advocating for that right now. Most people just want some level of reform. So, essentially, the two sides of the debate are “please let’s do something/anything,” and the other side is “let’s do literally nothing at all.” Only one of those seem like an extreme to me.

But you’re just ignoring the different arguments now. Frink and Yackwicks both said they wouldn’t mind a total ban in this thread, and there are definitely those who actually advocate for it out there. And then there are just people who think the current laws ate the best they can be without stepping on rights. Regardless of whether you agree with them, that stance is not very extreme. Extreme are the people who don’t want any hoops to jump through.

I’m not ignoring that people say that, especially considering I’ve said something to that effect here before myself. What you’re saying though is that people can’t reach a compromise because their proposals are too disparate. That’s not really true - it would be if everyone who wanted to get rid of guns said “I will only accept a bill that makes all guns illegal,” but that’s simply not the case.

Almost anyone pro-gun control at this point would accept any additional regulation they could get, they’re not just being obstinate when it comes to any sort of compromise. It’s the people on the other side that are, saying that whenever a new gun control bill is proposed that they can’t pass it because it’s a slippery slope that will lead to taking away all the guns. Which is ridiculous. Even if many people hope that it is the first step to doing just that, that doesn’t mean that that step in and of itself is doing that. So stopping every piece of gun control legislation on principle just because it’s gun control legislation and who knows what the next bill might be is absolutely absurd and, yes, extreme.

Your argument veers away from discussing policy and turns into a debate about whether a position counts as “extreme” or not. You’re advocating for a slippery slope where any time someone resists adopting a gun control law you may call them “extreme.” So even if bump stocks are outlawed and universal background checks implemented, as soon as another mass shooting happens, you call the people who voted for those things extreme if they resist further regulation. That is a weird definition of “extreme.”

As I suggested, I think there are other things that can be done to try to prevent gun violence. I don’t think someone is extreme if they push for such changes and concludes that various proposed gun regulations are either too extreme or ineffective.

That’s not to say a case can’t or shouldn’t be made for a proposal, I just don’t buy your definition or strategy of labeling certain positions “extreme.”

Post
#1171765
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

Today the FBI admits it failed to investigate after someone close to Cruz called the FBI about Cruz’s guns and desire to kill people. This appears to be on top of the reporting by the youtuber of Cruz’s comment online about wanting to shoot at a school.

If we want to talk about obvious non-controversial steps we can take to prevent mass shootings, how about figuring out how law enforcement can be more effective/competent?

We can do this and make it harder to get guns that can kill 50 people in one minute.

That’s either hyperbole or a skilled shooter.

We can do both. But that is never a significant part of the debate. Accepting that even modest gun control laws are difficult to enact and simultaneously recognized as probably not very effective, how about pouring more energy into things that look more promising? This isn’t the first case where red flags were ignored.

Post
#1171728
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Today the FBI admits it failed to investigate after someone close to Cruz called the FBI about Cruz’s guns and desire to kill people. This appears to be on top of the reporting by the youtuber of Cruz’s comment online about wanting to shoot at a school.

If we want to talk about obvious non-controversial steps we can take to prevent mass shootings, how about figuring out how law enforcement can be more effective/competent?

Post
#1171723
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

TV’s Frink said:

None of it means anything in relation to the current topic.

Usually the focus on racial and gender identity in contemporary political debates annoys me. The prolonged discussion here was becoming such a parody it was almost amusing.

Post
#1171551
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

The “well-regulated” phrase was interpreted by the Court in the context of being part of a (merely) introductory clause.

Same effect as excising. It means they intend to ignore it. Strict constructionism, just bring scissors.

But the phrase still has operative effect. That is why the Court held dangerous and unusual weapons can be banned because they aren’t the kinds of weapons that belong to a “militia” as conceived when the Constitution was drafted.

Neither were breech-loaders, but see how they draw the line wherever they wanted it to be in the first place?

The line is drawn at weaponry in common use. Given the definition given to “militia” by the Court it does flow logically.

The ruling creates it own contemporary “common use”. Machine guns (Tommy guns) were once pretty common. Now they’re illegal, and they’re not anymore. Ban breech loaders and eventually they won’t be common anymore either.

Machine guns were once pretty common? That doesn’t sound right to me.

When the Court writes of weapons “in common use,” I think that obviously concerns something more than just the method of loading it. But for any gun law, the question isn’t only whether the weapon is in common use. Still, maybe one should take heart that the government may be able to ban certain emerging firearms technology, resulting in dividends down the line.

Post
#1171544
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

The “well-regulated” phrase was interpreted by the Court in the context of being part of a (merely) introductory clause.

Same effect as excising. It means they intend to ignore it. Strict constructionism, just bring scissors.

But the phrase still has operative effect. That is why the Court held dangerous and unusual weapons can be banned because they aren’t the kinds of weapons that belong to a “militia” as conceived when the Constitution was drafted.

Neither were breech-loaders, but see how they draw the line wherever they wanted it to be in the first place?

The line is drawn at weaponry in common use. Given the definition given to “militia” by the Court it does flow logically.

I’m not wholly convinced by the Court’s 2nd Amendment decisions but I do think there are many ways to implement gun control anyhow. Big question how effective proposed gun control laws will be, which is generally what I look at in these debates.

Yep, agreed. Mostly I’m distressed at how incredible ineffective most proposals would be, and they’re still not mild enough to pass. Moderately effective gun control is generations away at best I’m afraid.

Maybe the focus on ineffective broad proposals is the problem. Raising the age to own a firearm to 21 would be more focused and I think legally defensible.

I’d also like to figure out how to do something when there are big warning signs that people don’t seem to do anything about. I don’t think it’s just because there is some right to firearms.

Agreed, people go on knife rampages all the time in China. The fact that all the victims usually survive is certainly significant, as is the fact that there are fewer of them, but they are often maimed and scarred in many ways nevertheless. Still, you can’t help someone overcome trauma if they’re dead.

True!

Post
#1171539
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

The “well-regulated” phrase was interpreted by the Court in the context of being part of a (merely) introductory clause.

Same effect as excising. It means they intend to ignore it. Strict constructionism, just bring scissors.

But the phrase still has operative effect. That is why the Court held dangerous and unusual weapons can be banned because they aren’t the kinds of weapons that belong to a “militia” as conceived when the Constitution was drafted.

I’m not wholly convinced by the Court’s 2nd Amendment decisions but I do think there are many ways to implement gun control anyhow. Big question how effective proposed gun control laws will be, which is generally what I look at in these debates.

I’d also like to figure out how to do something when there are big warning signs that people don’t seem to do anything about. I don’t think it’s just because there is some right to firearms.

Post
#1171520
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Collipso said:

This might be my last post in this thread since I don’t think I contribute to it at all:

While I do understand why some people would want to have a handgun in their drawer just in case, I fail to see any logic whatsoever behind people arguing that we shouldn’t take automatic rifles or any sort of military-grade weapon out of the marked.

As far as I know, automatic and military-grade weapons have not been a problem and they aren’t in the general market.

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

I’d like to know how the hell someone the FBI thought was suspicious and whom had mental issues was allowed to legally buy guns.

This is how.

But it helps if you completely disregard the whole “well-regulated” clause which implies some sort of… well, regulation. With that part carefully excised, what you’ve got remaining is the current Supreme Court interpretation.

All we know is that the FBI interviewed (before and after the shooting) the guy who posted a youtube video to see if he knew anything about the person who posted the comment, who at least has the same name as the shooter. It doesn’t make sense what the FBI thought they would get from questioning him.

I also don’t understand the FBI’s handling of the Nassar case.

The government take away someone’s rights based on mere suspicion. There is a question whether something could have been done where many people recognized this kid was a danger.

The “well-regulated” phrase was interpreted by the Court in the context of being part of a (merely) introductory clause.

Post
#1171382
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

Most gun deaths are suicides. The US has a lower suicide rate than some of those countries.

Yeah ok but we’re talking about homicides.

On the topic of gun deaths, I wanted emphasize that fact since the discussion revolves around gun control. To be clear, the chart addresses gun homicides. And as stated in the link:

The Australian study found that buying back 3,500 guns per 100,000 people correlated with up to a 50 percent drop in firearm homicides, and a 74 percent drop in gun suicides. As Dylan Matthews noted for Vox, the drop in homicides wasn’t statistically significant. But the drop in suicides most definitely was — and the results are striking.

To the top