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
Yeah while the rules about supporting political violence aren’t equally enforced that’s because not all countries are equal when it comes to political violence being a legitimate and needed means of political expression.
The US is not yet Syria, Iran or Venezuela, so calls for/supporting violence are still a no go.
I’m sure that if Mc Connell loses in 2020 and then tries to take the senate by force via the KKK the mods will allow calls for (government administered) violence against him, but we’re not there yet.
Edited by Silasw on Aug 6th 2019 at 9:21:45 AM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran... You guys act like I'm asking you to support her call for violence.
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.That's my point, hypotheticals are where political violence could be acceptable. In the reality we live in, advocating for that kind of violence is counterproductive and idiotic.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Aug 6th 2019 at 2:28:43 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
& ![]()
![]()
: I was calling out the conceit that you can universally judge everyone that ever vocally expresses a desire for a politician's death as immoral when you almost certainly did not go through anything remotely close to the emotional and/or physical suffering that some of those who make such calls have gone through that drove them to give up on any other course of action.
Like, take the parents of those Latin American immigrants who have had their families torn apart, traumatized, tortured, and in some cases even killed by the deliberate and knowing actions of the Trump administration. By the logic you guys are using, any of them that wish for the death of anyone that was knowingly complict in their suffering is immoral.
I don't ask for you to change your opinions. I just ask that you don't pretend said opinions are objective and universal without providing a damn good reason to back such assertation.
Oh, also: "illegal" and "immoral" only partially overlap. I despise it when someone assumes that the former always implies the latter.
Edited by MarqFJA on Aug 6th 2019 at 12:39:15 PM
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.>>For someone who has guns as one of their main issues, what are their options? It's not like the Democrats are known for their gun friendly policy suggestions.
>What’s so unfriendly to responsible gun owners about background checks?
>Keeping hands out of emotionally unstable people =/= gun-unfriendly.
>Soban: Show me a Democratic candidate for President who wants to "take away everyone's guns".
...
You know, perhaps you should put those goalposts back where you found them.
I merely stated what I think is blindingly obvious. Democrats are not known for their gun friendly policies.
A good example of this is doing something like banning barrel shrouds. A barrel shroud is a covering attached to the barrel of a firearm that partially or completely encircles the barrel, which prevents operators from injuring themselves on a hot barrel. It's a safety feature that got banned in the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. This was widely ridiculed by pretty much everyone who owns a gun as being pretty dopey. However, it expired in 2004 and we've had a good fifteen additional years to learn from that mistake. Oh, wait, they didn't. And by them I mean such obscure politicians such as Dianne Feinstein, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren.
That's not even getting into more contentious issues. It's one of the stupidist bans that had been widely panned for being stupid, and even in 2019 they are including it in their proposal. Didn't anyone say "Hey, why don't we take out this one stupid feature that only shows how much we don't understand how guns work"?
It's not bad faith to simply point out what should be obvious to everyone.
Not knowing it’s ineffective and self-sabotaging doesn’t change the fact that it is. And I’ll point out that it’s incredibly obvious it is those things.
Unless you value momentary catharsis more than actual action, there’s no way that position holds up.
Edited by archonspeaks on Aug 6th 2019 at 2:59:47 AM
They should have sent a poet.
I'm not taking issue with pointing out that it's pointless or stupid. Please stop shoving words that I never said in my mouth.
You're not saying that it's morally questionable (ambiguous/gray, depends on circumstances). You're saying that it's immoral (absolute black vs. white), and act like that's an objective assessment.
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.I want to snark but I’m going to hold it, instead I’d like to say that I genuinely appreciate you responding. We can have a good productive discussion when you actually respond and provide examples of things and it’d be nice if we could have solid discussions be the norm and the not the exception.
Yep it is, you’re in fact completely right that anyone supporting a 1 to 1 reintroduction of the AWB is showing gross ignorance on the subject of guns. The AWB is a stupid bit of overreach, it’s much saner and simpler to do something like make states have gun licences and that said licences meet certain basic standards.
I don’t think a full judgment was ever made on the person making the call for violence, just a judgment on the morality of that one action.
Also I’d strongly suggest not making assumptions about people in this thread, I’m pretty sure we’ve got people who are at risk (or have family at risk) from radicalised ICE agents grabbing anyone who looks brown or who are prime targets for mass murder’s that are expanding under Trump or are liable to be a prime target for the white supremacists being radicalised under Trump.
Edited by Silasw on Aug 6th 2019 at 10:27:39 AM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranPistols are way more dangerous then assault rifles, an "assault rifle" has never been used in a violent crime in the USnote , yet over 70% of them are committed with pistols.... 60% for mass shootings.
So you kinda have that backwards if you want to go for effectiveness and not fear mongering.
As for the often touted "AR-15" the reason it makes the news so often is just where number, it's the most popular rifle in the US for a large number of reasons ranging from user comfort (it is incredibly gentle to shoot, making it a good choice for new people to the sport), to customization.... you can get it in everything from shotgun, to scoped target rifle, to "it fits in my drawer" form.... it's a numbers problem with the statistics... like if you ever check out the rifle section of a store that sells them basicly everything in the 800$ to 3000$ range is going to be some flavor of ar-15
Edited by Imca on Aug 6th 2019 at 4:20:40 AM
It's a safety feature on fully automatic guns like Assault Rifles and SMGs... The 1994 FAWB only banned barrel shrouds on semi-automatic pistols and even then only if it was in combination with one or more of the other banned features.
The whole point of the FAWB as it ended up getting accepted (after all the really meaty stuff was amended out) was to make guns less cool, therefore less attractive to people who weren't serious about sport shooting or self defence.
And here's something: The FAWB didn't reduce regular gun crime by much (maybe 1% or something), but it resulted in a noticeable reduction in mass shootings. After it ended up not getting renewed, mass shootings rose again.
Edited by Robrecht on Aug 6th 2019 at 1:38:57 PM
Angry gets shit done.
And yet most mass shootings are done with plain old semi-automatic handguns that would have been perfectly legal under the 1994 AWB.
I’d rather have a robust federal licensing requirement that would be much more effective at preventing gun deaths across the board.
Edited by archonspeaks on Aug 6th 2019 at 4:43:58 AM
They should have sent a poet.Licensing is a good start, but as I have stated before I would personally go for ammo restrictions as well, implement some kind of policy where you have to return your spent brass to get get more cartridges.
It has the benefits of preventing hoarding, not interfering with reloading, and prerestriction rounds would naturally use themselfs up.
Additionaly, you could just have ammo be unlimited at firing ranges, with the condition that it doesn't leave the range to help alleviate concerns about how a days shooting could use up a lot of ammo.

Edited by MarqFJA on Aug 6th 2019 at 12:18:51 PM
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.