Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Honestly, the elephant in the room is that the 2nd Amendment is absolutely detrimental, and a problem that no amount of background checks will ever solve. When there's a constitutional right that every citizen be allowed to bear arms, that becomes the first principle against which all others are weighed. I mean, the majority of the guns being used in school shootings and domestic terrorism are legally obtained, so clearly just having guns in the society is the problem. But even if little kids are getting gunned down, even if our representatives are getting gunned down, nothing will happen so long as the government seeks to ensure that the legal purchase of firearms is unimpeded. Gun control isn't possible when gun ownership is considered a fundamental right.
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."Gun control legislation only became impossible because of the polarization of political rhetoric, I'm pretty sure. They could be passed in the Clinton era, say what you will about the quality of what passed then.
IMO though you're better going after the causes of violence in general. If Hodgkinson hadn't had a gun he might have gone for a vehicle like in Europe...and that might have gotten past the locked chain link fence.
The Heller decision was the cause célèbre of gun politics. The 2nd amendment had been relatively uncontroversial before. And I agree with you that the sources of violence are the best targets, but in the mean time, it's hard to miss that spree killings in Europe are less deadly than comparable events stateside because Europeans have less ready access to firearms.
Look with century eyes... With our backs to the arch And the wreck of our kind We will stare straight ahead For the rest of our livesStatements and releases by the President- June 16th, 2017
![]()
Doesn't the rationale for the existence of the Second Amendment make any other reading flatly impossible?
Though said rationale is now completely worthless as civilians aren't going to be able to oppose a tyrannical government or any sort of serious armed thread on their own.
edited 16th Jun '17 6:26:59 AM by RainehDaze
Some might say that the idea that they could, if they wanted, rise up against the Ebil Gubmint keeps those sorts of people relatively pacified. Take that perceived right away and we could well find armed insurgencies increasing as they become more desperate.
Note that I am not making a pro-Second Amendment argument, just noting that one cannot assume that it's a cause of our current woes rather than an enabler.
edited 16th Jun '17 6:28:15 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"IN GA, Another Kind of Rhetoric—Enter: The Other Stacey note
Georgia 2018: Stacey Evans launches a HOPE-themed campaign for governor
Evans said in an interview she is putting “hope” – the scholarship and the concept – at the heart of her bid to replace a term-limited Nathan Deal. She has been one of the most forceful critics of the 2011 law he signed that slashed funding to the popular program.
“It gutted the program that was responsible for everything that’s good in my life,” Evans said. “The Stacey Evans born today doesn’t have the same opportunity that the Stacey born in 1978 had.”
The 39-year-old’s background will play a central role in her campaign. A child of a struggling teenage mom, the Ringgold native was the first in her family to graduate from college. She used her share in a massive whistleblower settlement to create a $500,000 scholarship for first-generation graduates at the University of Georgia’s law school.
She said it was her feeling of hopelessness as a young girl that helped inspire her to run for public office. When she was 12, Evans called the police to report that her mother was being abused by a man she was dating. She said the authorities dismissed her complaint, saying the man “wouldn’t hurt a fly.”
“It was a very powerless moment,” she said. “Even with the eyes of a child, I could see what was going on. It taught me it matters who is in government. It matters who is in positions of power. And it matters whether they use it to protect people in power or they use it to protect the people in need.”
Her entry into the race sets up a potentially bruising fight that Democrats managed to avoid in 2014, when then-state Sen. Jason Carter ran for the party’s nomination unopposed. It also reflects a queasiness over Abrams, a fundraising dynamo with a national profile who some party leaders worry can’t win in a general election.
A parallel struggle is happening across the aisle as some Republicans uncomfortable with Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle – the GOP’s presumptive front-runner – are searching for other contenders. Secretary of State Brian Kemp and state Sen. Hunter Hill have joined the race, and several more are exploring a run.
Evans, for her part, said she’s not concerned a heated primary could weaken a Democrat’s chances.
“The party will be fine. Choices are a good thing,” she said. “My intention is to be positive and spread my message – a message that all Georgians want to hear. I’m not running against Stacey Abrams. I’m running for Georgia.”
Her supporters hope she’ll be better-suited to reach out to independents and Republicans disillusioned by Donald Trump and the GOP field in the general election. But her first daunting task is winning the party’s nomination.
Black voters make up by far the largest bloc of the Democratic electorate, and Abrams has already captured national attention – and even stray talk about a presidential run – in her bid to be the nation’s first black female governor. Evans, who was elected to the Legislature in 2010, said she’s confident her message can transcend racial and demographic lines.
“This is something everyone understands. Everyone has felt the power of hope – and everybody has felt what it feels like to feel hopeless,” she said. “I have faith in the electorate that they will be looking at our message, and decide who will wake up every day to fight for them. And that answer will be me.”
Throughout the interview, Evans darted back to the 2011 changes enacted by Deal and a coalition of lawmakers that aimed to prevent the lottery-funded HOPE program from going broke.
Designed by Zell Miller, the program once funded all public college tuition if students maintained a 3.0 GPA. Under the 2011 law, only the state’s most accomplished students, about 10 percent of recipients, get full tuition awards. For other students, the scholarship amount depends on lottery revenue.
It is an area where Evans hopes to draw a clear contrast with Abrams, who supported the 2011 changes as the only way to salvage the program and stood by Deal as he signed them into law.
Evans called that bill-signing the “most devastating day” of her legislative career.
“My story starts with the HOPE scholarship. It was the center of my success,” she said. “But it’s also about a much broader theme. It’s about having hope in your government. And it’s about having hope in yourself.”
DeKalb DA Sherry Boston gives early punch to Stacey Evans’ bid for governor
On her campaign Facebook page early this week, De Kalb County District Sherry Boston endorsed state Rep. Stacey Evans of Smyrna over Stacey Abrams of Atlanta – the House Democratic leader.
Boston elaborated in a statement released by the Evans campaign last night:
“Stacey Evans is my friend, and I am proud to support her to be our next governor. De Kalb is looking for a new day. We’re looking for someone that understands what keeps us up at night worrying. In my work as a judge, solicitor-general and now as De Kalb district attorney, I hear it day in and day out.”
Boston may be the most influential woman in the most Democratic county in Georgia, so this early endorsement matters. Boston seems to acknowledge the shock waves it’s likely to send, characterizing her choice – at least in part — as a personal one:
“My endorsement is not against any other Democrat. In fact, our party is stronger when we have competition. My endorsement is a statement of support for my friend, a distinguished legislator and candidate in whose vision I believe will benefit De Kalb County and all of Georgia."
Actually, the second Amendment doesn't say that everyone should have free access to weapons. It is a deliberate misinterpretation. If you read it thoroughly, it says that the government has the right to allow people to carry weapons and set the regulations for it. It is not a free for all. Regulating who is when allowed to carry a weapon is way within the constitution.
edited 16th Jun '17 7:14:00 AM by Swanpride
The non-contortionist reading of the second is something like the Swiss universal conscription and universal armament system. Everyone gets training, everyone gets a semi-auto rifle issued. That would be somewhat sensible -note that the swiss do not have much of a fire-arms violence problem. (Fire-arms suicide? In spades. People tend to use the guns for that rather than cutting or pills. )
The courts of the US have somehow contrived to read it as an absolute right to carry and own handguns (Military value: Approximately nil) while making it legal for the government to restrict the sale of anything that might be considered "Arms" - that is, military style rifles.
What it says is "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed". That's not a grant of authority to the government, that's a limit on it. The difference is important. (Most of the Bill of Rights is actually a list of "thou shalt not's" for the government.)
There may be wiggle room to impose licensing and restrictions on types but they cannot impose a general ban.
edited 16th Jun '17 7:33:13 AM by Elle
And the go-to retort on that one is "shall not be infringed!" I've seen that time and again every time I float the idea of mandatory firearm training for prospective gun owners. Oddly enough, the preceding portion states that the desire is for a "well-regulated militia", so yeah...
Also, I live in a rural community, and hunting is kind of a big thing - I wouldn't want to see that taken away, despite being too much of a softy to kill an animal myself, as it's a hobby that puts food on the table for most hunters while they enjoy nature. That said, everyone knows at least one "oh god dammit" type of hunter who sours things for everyone else, whether it's not checking targets before they shoot, or breaking the law by deer-baiting (e.g. setting up a pile of apples in the middle of the clearing your hunting platform has line of sight to).
edited 16th Jun '17 7:36:55 AM by ironballs16
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"There is also the fact that historically, gun-control efforts in the USA have been racist as all hell. The entire idea started as an effort to disarm black veterans of the slaveholders rebellion so that they could not do what came naturally when fools in white sheets showed up and fill those sheets with holes. I think the current status quo is idiotic and almost entirely the result of a pr campaign by the arms industry with the intent to separate wingnuts from their money - but there are good reasons to view gun control efforts in the US with a dubious eye.
edited 16th Jun '17 7:39:57 AM by Izeinsummer
![]()
That's the NRA and their wonks talking, mostly, and they're the extreme stance. I don't personally consider licensing to be an infringement. (And the NRA used to be reasonable about licensing and safety.)
Also, I left out the "well regulated militia" part because the relevant court case had allready been brought up but if we're talking about intent, militia in the 1700s America was very much a DIY affair. You volunteered, brought your own gun, etc. Formal organization came much later. The nature of our "militia" has drastically changed.
edited 16th Jun '17 7:50:23 AM by Elle
For the record, I did not vote for Trump in either the primaries or the general election, and was in fact rather dismayed when he won the Republican nomination. Admittedly I was happier with Trump winning the election than I would have been with Mrs. Clinton winning, but only just. It was one of those "least awful" things.
Is he my president? Of course he is - he was elected, after all. So was President Obama.
I don't like Trump. I find his personal character deplorable and his lack of self control embarrassing, but I think hatred of a person is wrong and unhelpful no matter who it is, and I see a lot of hatred against Trump out there that I can't help but think of as unhealthy.
Hatred of ideas or actions is a different matter than hatred of a person. I have no problem with people saying "I hate the idea of the Trump travel ban" or "I hate Obamacare."
I'm not actively trying to troll anyone. I simply don't have the time to go into greater depth or follow up on every single post on this thread closely. I debated whether I should post anything at all, actually, since I knew it probably would be seen by at least some as a "drive-by", but sometimes I can't help myself.
It's quite possible that I'm wrong on a few of my points or references, but I'm not trying to present false material or omit things on purpose. Please forgive me if I don't follow up on every counter-point.
For instance, I was well aware that the "mobilize the National Guard to expel immigrants" story had its basis in an early-draft memo that really existed, so it sort-of had a legitimate source. I still consider it "fake news", however, because it pretty clearly was one of those wild ideas that no one ever took very seriously. Plus, if it had been something the Obama administration had thought about in their early planning I feel it never would have been reported at all. It's the double standard of what is news when a Republican does it as opposed to what is news when a Democrat does roughly the same thing that I find most objectionable.
Like objecting to Trump giving a speech in front of the CIA Memorial Wall. Sure, the speech had dumb things in it, and the reporter obviously is no Trump fan, but where Trump gave it is not a valid point of criticism if you didn't object to the location when the last president who you liked better used the same location to say things you agreed with more.
Oh, and I am a "he", not a "they".
edited 16th Jun '17 7:50:31 AM by Bense
The way I see it, every adult American (and a lot of adolescents, as well) is a ticking time bomb just waiting for one bad day to snap and start shooting people up. When these mass shootings, or even singular gun murders, are happening with legally obtained weapons, and the government is constitutionally muzzled to ensure that the legal acquisition of firearms be unimpeded, there's a problem — we're feeding into the problem every time we start talking up respect for the 2nd amendment. The mentally unbalanced and the radicalized are made, not born, and even legal gun purchases carry the risk that one day they will snap.
edited 16th Jun '17 7:53:40 AM by CrimsonZephyr
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."@Bense: The "he was elected" part is increasingly doubtful, to be honest. He lost the popular vote and if the continuing investigation into Russian hackers targeting the voting organizations and systems finds that they succeeded somewhere that could have tipped the Electoral College...
And frankly, Trump deserves nothing except hate. Criticism the press when they screw up, fine, but Donald is a bullying egomaniac with the intelligence and attitudes of a spoiled child, a serial liar, a racist, misogynist and possible traitor or accomplice to treason who the longer he sits in the White House has an increasing chance of doing something stupid that will damage the country and/or the world.
![]()
That's frankly even a darker view of people than *I* have and I can be pretty cynical. Also one very rooted in fear.
edited 16th Jun '17 8:06:39 AM by Elle
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
People randomly snapping for no reason is a rare aberration. And actually, I would question the notion that they're made rather than born. No genotype can automatically make someone evil, but there's good evidence that sociopathy and personality disorders have some genetic components.
Also, keep in mind that it isn't like nothing good comes out of privately-owned firearms, either. This isn't to say the US has adequate gun control, but there's more to it than that.
edited 16th Jun '17 8:20:19 AM by Protagonist506
Leviticus 19:34When I see evidence that Russian hackers actually did change a vote tally somewhere then I'll start getting concerned. Right now we only have evidence that they embarrassed the DNC by releasing perfectly authentic e-mails.

Then there was his tweet in which he called everyone who voted for HRC his enemies.
Disgusted, but not surprised