Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 361

darthrush said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

darth_ender said:

There are those who favor the abolition of all guns in the hands of the public (and I believe–correct me if I’m wrong–that Warbler is part of this crowd)

I’m sure I want a total ban or not. Perhaps a ban on auto and semi-auto rifles might be enough, or maybe a ban on all auto and semi-auto weapons. At the very least, I think a lot more training and psychological testing should be required before being allowed to own firearms. I also think maybe one shouldn’t allowed to own firearms if they live with someone with dangerous mental issues or if they live with someone who has a criminal record.

Screw semi-auto, I’m for a full-on handgun ban. Plus auto and semi-auto. Plus ammunition. Sure it’s unconstitutional, I’m for repeal.

If you want to ban semi-auto’s, then I always press the question of why not just ban handguns too since they kill more people in the U.S. every year than semi’s? I still have not figured out the gun issue and think that there are convincing things on both sides. For one thing, an actually successful eradication of guns from ALL citizens sounds like a utopia. But the point brought up by the pro-gun side of how criminals will still get the guns illegally has always made sense to me. I need to set aside a few days to mull over some research/data and come to a well reasoned conclusion cause I am still absolutely lost on what to think of this issue.

Other countries have much more stringent gun laws than the US. Take Sweden for example:
http://www.sweden.org.za/gun-laws-in-sweden.html
It is considered a privilege to own a gun in Sweden, and to get one you have to have the proper training and follow stringent safety procedures.

I think this is a far more sensible way to move forward on gun control in the US than just banning handguns. The Republican argument is that guns in the hands of responsible citizens are an essential right, and so enforcing training and safe storage standards is fully in line with this right. After all, the right to bear arms is only in the service of a ‘well regulated’ militia.

moviefreakedmind said:

Heirlooms are important; I don’t think anyone’s possessions that they’ve had for decades should be taken away, nor should collections be broken up. Heirloom also implies that it’s an antique, which is important to consider also.

Take for example someone I knew. This wasn’t exactly an heirloom, but it was “my dad just died and holy crap would you look at this?” There were many things he discovered in a little secret basement enclave, many of which were definitely illegal and probably a war crime to actually use. But I’m going to focus on the mortar right now. It was a nice mortar, great example of the period, and so on. The son (bless him) filled his father’s prized mortar with concrete. Now it still looks great on the outside, but is functionally a paperweight. Heirlooms can be similarly decommissioned, if they’re dangerous enough to warrant it.

You also overlook the genuine need for self-defense in rural areas in which the police can’t get to your property in any helpful time, as well as in cities with terrible police departments and high crime rates like Detroit.

That’s covered under fantasy scenarios.

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I can still see why people voted for him against Hillary due to the view that Hillary was corrupt and Trump was the lesser of the two evils, but there is no Christian justification for it.

The Christian justification, as I understand it, is that he would appoint a bunch of far right wing judges to the Supreme Court who would undo all the evil laws like Roe v Wade.

So on that count, they’re at least one judge closer, and they may only need one more.

I sure hope selling their souls was worth it!

As a Christian, I see nothing Christian in Trump.

Nor I.

moviefreakedmind said:

That’s a very favorable description of Hillary. She was a horrible candidate. There are plenty of people who hate Trump that hated Hillary. Trump can be horrible, but you can’t treat people that saw the 2016 election as a contest between two hideously intolerable candidates (in different ways and to different extents, I know) as though they’re simpletons that watched too many Alex Jones videos. Trump’s victory is almost entirely to blame on Hillary.

Yes, but that doesn’t explain his victory in the Republican primaries.

CatBus said:

You also overlook the genuine need for self-defense in rural areas in which the police can’t get to your property in any helpful time, as well as in cities with terrible police departments and high crime rates like Detroit.

That’s covered under fantasy scenarios.

That’s not a fantasy scenario. So people that live over an hour from the nearest police station or in a place like Detroit where the police response time is almost an hour are just fucked?

chyron8472 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

That’s a very favorable description of Hillary. She was a horrible candidate. There are plenty of people who hate Trump that hated Hillary. Trump can be horrible, but you can’t treat people that saw the 2016 election as a contest between two hideously intolerable candidates (in different ways and to different extents, I know) as though they’re simpletons that watched too many Alex Jones videos. Trump’s victory is almost entirely to blame on Hillary.

Yes, but that doesn’t explain his victory in the Republican primaries.

Most Republicans being full of shit and not caring about and knowing nothing about their religion explains that.

NeverarGreat said:

darthrush said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

darth_ender said:

There are those who favor the abolition of all guns in the hands of the public (and I believe–correct me if I’m wrong–that Warbler is part of this crowd)

I’m sure I want a total ban or not. Perhaps a ban on auto and semi-auto rifles might be enough, or maybe a ban on all auto and semi-auto weapons. At the very least, I think a lot more training and psychological testing should be required before being allowed to own firearms. I also think maybe one shouldn’t allowed to own firearms if they live with someone with dangerous mental issues or if they live with someone who has a criminal record.

Screw semi-auto, I’m for a full-on handgun ban. Plus auto and semi-auto. Plus ammunition. Sure it’s unconstitutional, I’m for repeal.

If you want to ban semi-auto’s, then I always press the question of why not just ban handguns too since they kill more people in the U.S. every year than semi’s? I still have not figured out the gun issue and think that there are convincing things on both sides. For one thing, an actually successful eradication of guns from ALL citizens sounds like a utopia. But the point brought up by the pro-gun side of how criminals will still get the guns illegally has always made sense to me. I need to set aside a few days to mull over some research/data and come to a well reasoned conclusion cause I am still absolutely lost on what to think of this issue.

Other countries have much more stringent gun laws than the US. Take Sweden for example:
http://www.sweden.org.za/gun-laws-in-sweden.html
It is considered a privilege to own a gun in Sweden, and to get one you have to have the proper training and follow stringent safety procedures.

I think this is a far more sensible way to move forward on gun control in the US than just banning handguns. The Republican argument is that guns in the hands of responsible citizens are an essential right, and so enforcing training and safe storage standards is fully in line with this right. After all, the right to bear arms is only in the service of a ‘well regulated’ militia.

That actually sounds very reasonable. If someone wants a gun, I don’t see why they could complain about getting a background check and taking a mandatory safety course. It can literally massacre people so I have no problem with the government enforcing such regulations.

moviefreakedmind said:

CatBus said:

You also overlook the genuine need for self-defense in rural areas in which the police can’t get to your property in any helpful time, as well as in cities with terrible police departments and high crime rates like Detroit.

That’s covered under fantasy scenarios.

That’s not a fantasy scenario. So people that live over an hour from the nearest police station or in a place like Detroit where the police response time is almost an hour are just fucked?

It is absolutely a fantasy scenario. They are slightly more fucked with a gun than without one, but they get one anyway because the scenario where they are the big hero defending their family gives them a happy, and the scenario where that gun is ultimately used against their family doesn’t even register (although it’s approximately forty times more likely–via suicide, domestic violence, accident, criminal). And that’s not even taking into consideration that criminals are more likely to burglarize a home if they know there are guns in it due to the high resale value/easy transportation of the guns (the sign may look like it says “Protected by Smith & Wesson”, but it really says “Easily-fenced valuables inside”). Now, both scenarios are “lightning strike” rarities–for the most part, guns purchased exclusively for self-defense serve as teddy bears to help people sleep better and don’t ever actually do anything at all. But if you buy a gun to protect your family, you either didn’t consider the odds very realistically, or you don’t like your family very much.

EDIT: To make the picture less bleak, you’re not without options. It’s just that buying a gun is a stupid option. You live in a democracy, you can lobby city hall, your county council and work to get better police protection for you and your neighbors. But it’s a lot less fun, and more work, to be Mr. Smith Goes to Washington than it is to be Dirty Harry.

NeverarGreat said:

After all, the right to bear arms is only in the service of a ‘well regulated’ militia.

Hasn’t this been disproven?

yhwx said:

NeverarGreat said:

After all, the right to bear arms is only in the service of a ‘well regulated’ militia.

Hasn’t this been disproven?

Nothing is ever proven. The “it’s all dependent on the well-regulated militia” legal theory lasted a while and is now no longer the standard used by the Supreme Court, which fairly recently recognized an individual right to keep & bear arms that’s not tied to the first clause of the second amendment at all. Legal theories come and go. It’s not science.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/10/media/jeffrey-lord-cnn-ties/index.html

CNN severed ties with Jeffrey Lord on Thursday, hours after he ignited controversy by tweeting the words “Sieg Heil!” at a prominent liberal activist.

“Nazi salutes are indefensible,” a CNN spokesperson said in a statement. “Jeffrey Lord is no longer with the network.”

Lord was not immediately reachable for comment. Earlier in the day, he defended his tweet by saying he was “mocking a fascist.”

Three months ago perhaps, this would have been a bombshell. Now, it’s meh. Because if you’ve gone a week without blatant public attempts to obstruct justice, you’re not living in Trump’s America.

darthrush said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

darth_ender said:

There are those who favor the abolition of all guns in the hands of the public (and I believe–correct me if I’m wrong–that Warbler is part of this crowd)

I’m sure I want a total ban or not. Perhaps a ban on auto and semi-auto rifles might be enough, or maybe a ban on all auto and semi-auto weapons. At the very least, I think a lot more training and psychological testing should be required before being allowed to own firearms. I also think maybe one shouldn’t allowed to own firearms if they live with someone with dangerous mental issues or if they live with someone who has a criminal record.

Screw semi-auto, I’m for a full-on handgun ban. Plus auto and semi-auto. Plus ammunition. Sure it’s unconstitutional, I’m for repeal.

If you want to ban semi-auto’s, then I always press the question of why not just ban handguns too since they kill more people in the U.S. every year than semi’s?

In my opinion, because the purpose of a handgun is local, personal combat or defense. Whereas, the purpose of auto and semi-autos is to kill lots of people. When is there EVER any need for the latter among the general populace? And the argument that people should have a right to them for entertainment is bogus, because entertainment has nothing to do with a militia.

On another note, in my opinion, the argument that if guns are illegal, then only the criminals would have guns ignores the fact that if guns were illegal, the demand would be much lower and therefore so would the manufacture. Today any two-bit criminal can get a gun partly because are so many of them. I would hazard a guess that this is one reason most other countries have less gun-related crime than we do; you can’t just walk down the street and get one because there simply aren’t enough of them to go around. Again, just my opinions.

Owning a gun also has nothing to do with entertainment. Wanting to shoot some kind of huge, awesome gun at targets at a range (a perfectly acceptable form of entertainment) is different from owning one.

darth_ender said:

I could never, ever be a Democrat, but why does the Republican Party have to suck so much?

Similarly, I could never, ever be a Republican, but why does the Democratic Party have to suck so much?

“I am not a member of any organized party — I am a Democrat.”
–Will Rogers

moviefreakedmind said:

Owning a gun also has nothing to do with entertainment. Wanting to shoot some kind of huge, awesome gun at targets at a range (a perfectly acceptable form of entertainment) is different from owning one.

That’s true. If you own a gun and never shoot it, you’re not getting entertainment value at all out of it. Non-shooting gun owners have them strictly for fantasy scenarios and heirlooms.

chyron8472 said:

darth_ender said:

I could never, ever be a Democrat, but why does the Republican Party have to suck so much?

Similarly, I could never, ever be a Republican, but why does the Democratic Party have to suck so much?

“I am not a member of any organized party — I am a Democrat.”
–Will Rogers

It’s weird how we all can see things so differently. My take on the parties is that we have one conservative pro-business political party that’s kind of horrible, and that’s it. It’s the Democratic Party, the nation’s only remaining political party. We also have a protest party filled with clowns, charlatans, and snake-oil salesmen, but they don’t have any interest in all in government, policy, or really anything other than self-advancement (there are exceptions, but they prove the rule). So until the arrival of a second credible political party, I vote Democratic.

darth_ender said:

How does a guy who is so far Left get to be so reasonable and willing to listen to other perspectives? 😉

When you’re on the political periphery, you take allies where you can get them, and that means listening.

Also, to be fair, if I didn’t agree (or at least disagree but understand their position) with a handful of Democratic policies, I’d say the charlatans label would work pretty well there too.