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
I think owning a gun should require passing a gun safety test much like driving a car requires passing a driving test. I don't think this will serve as much of a bar towards owning a gun, but I do think it will make gun owners more competent and less prone to accidents.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. DickI don't really see how one's stance on gun ownership makes one conservative in this country. I mean, you can have the most paranoid "I MUST HAVE GUNS" ever opinion, but still support other sane things such as early voting, equal pay and such. So yeah, I don't really rate conservatism by your stance on guns.
I will, however, rate how crazy moronic you are by how and why you defend those rights. And the NRA is clearly being opportunistic in regards to how they're reacting to Obama. I mean shit, they take no response about it to mean he's going to destroy them? (He's understandably focused on other issues he prioritizes as more important, because that's what you have to do as president.)
Seriously, when a lot of guns rights activists speak up they act like the people they have to defend themselves from is the GOVERNMENT. Which is ALWAYS going to outgun them and also has other methods than violence to get whatever it is they want from people. How exactly do they think owning an assault rifle or some shit is going to prevent them being on the losing side of any conflict? I just don't get that kind of illogical paranoia.
@death; Some states do do a psychological whatever as part of the background check. They're just usually poorly enforced or easy to get around.
edited 19th Oct '12 9:51:31 AM by AceofSpades
![]()
![]()
Not to be pessimistic, but if one wishes to shoot someone up pistols are better than pretty much anything, notably because they are small and easy to hide. You don't need an assualt rifle to commit an atrocity. It is worth noting the majority of the Aurora shooting was done with a pistol.
As lovely as it sounds to ban assault rifles, as far as actually reducing shootings and the like it is pretty much useless.
edited 19th Oct '12 9:49:54 AM by Aqueos
Bet you didn't see that comingThe "assault rifle" thing mainly came down to trying to ban guns that look big and scary rather than guns that are commonly used to commit crimes. It rightly earned the scorn of people who were genuine experts on the issue. Ill-thought out actions like that damage the credibility of the movement.
On the other hand, there is no valid reason for fully automatic, long-range, and/or highly penetrating firearms to be in the hands of civilians. Guns used for "self-defense" do not need to be able to shoot through three people and a brick wall or mow down a crowd with one pull of the trigger, nor do they need to be effective at 500 meters. Weapons designed to defeat body armor are almost literally "cop killers", since police and soldiers are the only ones likely to use it.
The rare crazy who decides to shoot up some place loaded down with armor and weapons is not something that an ordinary civilian should be expected or equipped to handle.
edited 19th Oct '12 9:56:31 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
![]()
It does when one has also been pushing for austerity, which is a conservative ideal, lower taxes, also conservative, focused on military spending and over sea wars, again conservative, made a corporatist healthcare law that was developed in a conservative think tank, and supports the death penalty, again conservative. If the only conservative thing Obama supported was a relaxation of gun control, then he wouldn't be anymore conservative than Al Gore is liberal because he is very liberal on environmental issues, however that is not the case. Being weak on gun control is one of many factors that make Obama a conservative.
![]()
Supporting a ban on anything larger than a hunting rifle and larger caliber guns that are smaller doesn't mean one wouldn't like to reduce the amount of people who get handguns as well. However, I don't think banning them is the right way to go about it.
edited 19th Oct '12 9:57:41 AM by deathpigeon
I don't think it's really unfair to ban assault rifles at all. I mean, what the fuck would you need with it other than to make a huge boom? You can use fireworks for that shit. Also grenades. And really anything above professional hunter grade is something a civilian shouldn't have access to.
When it comes to intentionally lethal weapons I really don't care if people get pissed off. This is about protecting other people's right to life and creating a sane and safe environment. Civilians don't need military grade equipment.
I think 95% of gun crimes are committed with handguns, then it's something like 4% for shotguns, then 1% for everything else.
Also 9/10, a hunting rifle is better at killing people than an "assault rifle"
"Never let the truth get in the way of a good story." TwitterIt's worse than you think, Fighteer. Liberals can't even get nominated. Remember Howard Dean?
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.In recent years the Democratic Party's strategy has been to be very centrist so they can pick up lots of swing voters, while the Republican Party's strategy has been to go very far to the right so they can get a large turnout from their base of supporters. As such, while Republicans are for conservative ideals and Democrats for liberal ideals, their different approaches to political maneuvering mean those ideals aren't expressed in the same way.
![]()
That was his own doing,..Unfortunate Implications perhaps,one scream really can change perceptions
Ralph Nader or Dennis Kucinich fit the description much better of Liberals who can't win,since they never had a chance,...Dean totally had a chance.
edited 19th Oct '12 10:45:43 AM by terlwyth
![]()
... like the National Guard, yes.
The state militias were not under the direct control of the federal government initially; this was part of the whole separation of powers/states' rights thing that was argued over at the time. Part of the idea behind the Second Amendment was that the individual states could repel the federal government's attempts to take over. There was never any serious consideration that a few angry landowners with guns could mount an effective resistance against a standing army.
Local militias were also essential for rapid response to threats, as transportation was very slow compared to modern times. The idea that you could transport an entire field army from one side of the country to the other in a matter of days was unheard of. The advantage of a local militia is that you can equip and deploy them very quickly, and they can hopefully hold the line until the regular army can get there.
It was much later that the National Guard officially became a part of the federal military. It's under the nominal direction of the governors but that's a polite fiction as they are subject to NCA and can be made part of the regular armed forces at any time.
edited 19th Oct '12 11:12:00 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"because deriving enjoyment from shooting flying orange discs totally means I should be forced to fight wars I don't believe in.
edited 19th Oct '12 11:14:28 AM by ch00beh
"Never let the truth get in the way of a good story." Twitter![]()
Huh? That's a complete non-sequitur. If you're a part of a standing army or a reserve militia, you deploy when told to and you shoot at what they tell you to shoot at. If you are a civilian and not part of a militia, there is some debate as to whether the Second Amendment was even meant to apply to you in the first place.
I mean, if you want a rifle or shotgun to hunt, then fine, get a license and buy your guns. Kill all the animals you want (or have a permit to). That has never been a serious point of contention. But you don't need automatic weapons to hunt animals any more than you need them to protect yourself against burglars.
edited 19th Oct '12 11:24:29 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Yeah, animal population control is a thing. I liked Bowling for Columbine and I'm all for letting municipalities set their own gun restrictions up to and including total bans, but I think a bit too much of the gun control movement lacks the perspective of having to keep wild creatures out of the crops and barns. After coyotes/groundhogs/deer/whatever wreck your shit for the ninetieth time, you'll want to pack heat too.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.![]()
... I admit that I am somewhat baffled that "keeping wild animals out of the barn" is even still an issue in this century. We're supposed to be past the "log cabin on the Frontier" era.
He will preserve OUR FREEEEEEEEDOOOOMMMMM. To be enslaved to corporations.
edited 19th Oct '12 11:28:34 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"the idea is that I would like to own a gun because skeet shooting is an enjoyable hobby, not because I want to kill people. Why do I need to be part of a standing army to enjoy a fairly harmless hobby?
also you've never had to deal with deer in your garden, have you
edited 19th Oct '12 11:29:07 AM by ch00beh
"Never let the truth get in the way of a good story." TwitterYou don't have to own the gun. You can attend a club where you rent it, and it's kept locked up securely when not in use.
edited 19th Oct '12 11:29:12 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"you don't have to own music—you can just use spotify to rent it—but people insist on pirating anyway.
"Never let the truth get in the way of a good story." Twitter

Re:Guns: I'm not in favor of a blanket weapons ban. I am in favor of strict regulation of guns, though. I feel like there should be some form of psychological evaluation required to own guns so that only those of a stable mind could have them. I feel like guns larger than a hunting rifle should be banned. I feel like guns of that are clearly meant to hurt and/or kill people should be restricted, as should guns of a higher caliber.