Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 641

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.

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. What’s missing from this set of facts is some sort of controversy OTHER than Russians meddling with US political affairs.

So NewsBusters comes in retroactively for the scoop–by showing that the media reported on the Russian-backed 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. The takeaway? Big political rallies are considered newsworthy. Covering Charlottesville doesn’t make you a Nazi, covering a big Russia rally doesn’t make you a Russian, even if the Russian ambassador is right there up front claiming credit. News is still news. Certainly the media had a role in over-credulously spreading disinformation around the election, particularly on the subject of voter fraud, but this covering big rallies as they happen doesn’t seem like anything atypical.

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?

Mrebo said:

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?

Heh. Well I don’t have any Tivo’d recording or whatnot, but they were both covered for sure (I remember the whole week was duelling rallies, in multiple cities), and I’m certain a fair share of strident and loudmouthed folk on both sides were broadcast and/or quoted, whether there was quote-for-quote parity is not something I think is really all that worth getting into. Especially because then you’ll get into arguments like “if one rally was a quarter the size of the other, shouldn’t it get a quarter of the coverage by unbiased media?” and it’s all downhill from there, especially because I’m pretty certain the attendance discrepancy was more like 500:1 in most cities, simply due to voter demographics – you’d have to resort to bribery to get an equivalent-sized pro-Trump turnout in a major metropolitan area.

The media unwittingly spreads disinformation all the time, which is how everyone takes advantage of it (politicians, corporations, and hostile foreign powers). Just covering a rally really doesn’t do much for spreading a message, when it sounds like both events were the sort of disorganized flash-mob response you’d get for such things. People yell outrageous things, and so on, and sometimes it gets on camera or elicits a reaction from a reporter.

I think there are degrees of unwitting. Fully unwitting is completely forgivable. You literally have no idea. Fully witting is Pravda, you’re literally just a tool of propaganda. But there’s a lot in between. Stuff you know isn’t true but you report it because people are saying it and that in itself is news (voter fraud stories, etc). Stuff you’re pretty sure isn’t true but you have to report it because you want to provide “both sides of the story” (and now we hear from an expert saying not all Nazis are necessarily racist). Things you wish were true so hard that you forward the e-mail to all your friends in spite of the fact that any degree of examination would reveal it’s untrue (Pizzagate). Those things, the media has done all of, and needs to own up to, and not just with disinformation coming from Russia.

But the rallies? I’m not seeing it. The people attending the rallies maybe, but not the people behind the cameras.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-the-media-bungled-the-john-kelly-story/?ex_cid=538twitter

TV’s Frink said:

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-guns-20180220-story.html

The Supreme Court made clear again Tuesday that the government has broad power to restrict and regulate firearms, dismissing a 2nd Amendment challenge to California’s 10-day waiting period for new gun purchases.

While the court has ruled that the 2nd Amendment protects the right of law-abiding citizens to own guns, the justices have repeatedly refused to go further by blocking strict gun regulations, including state bans on the sale of semi-automatic weapons or limits on who can carry a weapon in public.

Dissenting alone, Justice Clarence Thomas said “the 2nd Amendment is a disfavored right in this court.”

In 2008 and 2010, the high court struck down ordinances in Washington, D.C., and Chicago that prohibited the private possession of handguns as violations of 2nd Amendment. Americans have a right to have guns at home for self-defense, the court said in 5-4 decisions.

But since then, the justices have turned down gun rights advocates who have sued to challenge gun regulations based on the 2nd Amendment.

The first sentence isn’t correct because the Court only declined to hear the case, and the Justices can have all kinds of reasons beyond the merits. I don’t think the 8 other Justices would vote to uphold the law if they decided to hear the case. But this is a good example of the leeway states have had (so far) in passing gun control laws.

Mrebo said:

TV’s Frink said:

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-guns-20180220-story.html

The Supreme Court made clear again Tuesday that the government has broad power to restrict and regulate firearms, dismissing a 2nd Amendment challenge to California’s 10-day waiting period for new gun purchases.

While the court has ruled that the 2nd Amendment protects the right of law-abiding citizens to own guns, the justices have repeatedly refused to go further by blocking strict gun regulations, including state bans on the sale of semi-automatic weapons or limits on who can carry a weapon in public.

Dissenting alone, Justice Clarence Thomas said “the 2nd Amendment is a disfavored right in this court.”

In 2008 and 2010, the high court struck down ordinances in Washington, D.C., and Chicago that prohibited the private possession of handguns as violations of 2nd Amendment. Americans have a right to have guns at home for self-defense, the court said in 5-4 decisions.

But since then, the justices have turned down gun rights advocates who have sued to challenge gun regulations based on the 2nd Amendment.

The first sentence isn’t correct because the Court only declined to hear the case, and the Justices can have all kinds of reasons beyond the merits. I don’t think the 8 other Justices would vote to uphold the law if they decided to hear the case. But this is a good example of the leeway states have had (so far) in passing gun control laws.

Agreed. Declining to hear the case may, and often does, have nothing to do with the merits of the case itself. Thomas trying to insert an opinion into a procedural matter isn’t really unusual either.

Warbler said:

I don’t know. But if they the eight judges that voted against hearing the case, thought the law in question was unconstitutional, I don’t know why they wouldn’t want to hear the case.

Neither does Thomas, but like CatBus says, Thomas isn’t so demure as other Justices. We can only speculate, but there could be procedural issues in this case that caused Justices to feel it improper to take on. Sometimes they wait for a case that they think presents better facts for a decision. Sometimes the Court waits for several Circuit Courts to weigh in on a matter before it takes up a case. My speculation is that the Justices want to give the legal issues more time to develop. We lasted 200+ years without the Court declaring there to be an individual right to bear arms, let alone enforceable against the states - so what’s a few more years to suss out the details? Thomas’s dissent suggests that this is at least part of the divide.

Justice Thomas said: We have not heard argument in a Second Amendment case for nearly eight years…And we have not clarified the standard for assessing Second Amendment claims for almost 10. Meanwhile, in this Term alone, we have granted review in at least five cases involving the First Amendment and four cases involving the Fourth Amendment — even though our jurisprudence is much more developed for those rights.

Thomas is eager to put the 2nd Amendment on equal footing with other rights that have been developed in law over a much longer time. Thomas also has a very different view of how the Court should decide cases impacting constitutional rights than most Justices, so that plays into this also.

The debate that was had on gun control in this thread a few days ago was a complete farce. Apologies in advance for my use of the passive voice and for writing a clumsy sentence.

yhwx said:

The debate that was had on gun control in this thread a few days ago was a complete farce. Apologies in advance for my use of the passive voice and for writing a clumsy sentence.

Could have been worse.

Mrebo said:

yhwx said:

The debate that was had on gun control in this thread a few days ago was a complete farce. Apologies in advance for my use of the passive voice and for writing a clumsy sentence.

Could have been worse.

Are you referring to my composition skills or the recently-held gun debate? I tend to agree in both cases, actually.

Newt Gingrich is a complete farce.

https://www.inquisitr.com/4794581/newt-gingrichs-solution-to-stop-school-shootings-arm-the-teachers/

Newt Gingrich has a simple solution to stop school shootings in America — by arming the teachers.

The former House Speaker made the remarks during his Tuesday morning appearance on Fox and Friends. Gingrich, who was one of the earliest Republican supporters of Donald Trump’s candidacy, was asked of the possible ways in which the American leadership could react to the latest school shooting in Parkland, Florida.

“Well, first of all, you’re not going to stop all of them which is why I think we have to have some kind of armed defenders who are also school teachers or administrators in every school in the country.

“I think the only long-term solution, depending on the size of the school, is a minimum of six to eight teachers and administrators who are trained in the use of firearms and have conceal carry permits and are prepared to defend the kids,”