TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The General US Politics Thread

Go To

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

DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#44576: Dec 19th 2012 at 11:56:45 PM

[up][up]

Couldn't they just buy guns from Canada and Mexico?

edited 19th Dec '12 11:57:25 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
Baff Since: Jul, 2011
#44577: Dec 19th 2012 at 11:58:04 PM

[up][up][up]

Not likely. Mexico doesnt allow for large scale manufacturing, neither Cananda. Those guns would simply dissapear.

Thus the world would be a safer nicer place. Less gun violence in the states... Less guns in the hands of Mexican and Latin American Cartels that smuggle them out of the US.

But it would be a big fight. After all guns are a lucrative bussiness. The US is the biggest Arm dealer in the world, I think selling 3/4 of the world´s production.

Besides, Guns, compare with, for example, drugs, are harder to manufacture in a clandestine manner (not to say that it cant be done).

edited 20th Dec '12 12:01:42 AM by Baff

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.
Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#44578: Dec 20th 2012 at 12:00:58 AM

Do you really think that the big gun stores won't simply buy their guns from abroad? If not Mexico and Canada then further afield. You'd destroy a sizable economy by forcefully outsourcing it all. Suddenly all your guns will come with a "Made in China" sticker and that will be it.

edited 20th Dec '12 12:02:22 AM by Silasw

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
RavenWilder Since: Apr, 2009
#44579: Dec 20th 2012 at 12:01:25 AM

Okay, ban manufacturing and importing, then.

True, there'd still be gun smuggling, but you wouldn't have to completely cut off the flow of new guns, just make them rare and expensive enough that your average criminal can't afford one.

Baff Since: Jul, 2011
#44580: Dec 20th 2012 at 12:03:19 AM

[up][up]

Its not like any one in Mexico can make guns. your missing the point. They need licenses to do so. Gun manufacturing in countries such as Mexico, and China, are aimed at domestic military use (I dont know what the Canadians do), and not for civlian use in the form of a mass produced consumer product (mainly because there is not a civilian consumer market in said countries).

edited 20th Dec '12 12:04:58 AM by Baff

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.
Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#44581: Dec 20th 2012 at 12:13:30 AM

[up] You're acting as if the response by gun manufacturers within the US won't be "O screw we'll have to move our factories abroad". The companies that makes gun now aren't going to just roll over and die, they will move abroad and just sell from there. While Mexico and Canada don't have a domestic market now they will have a massive market to their North/South if you ban US manufacture. Now if we want to go with [up][up]’s suggestion and ban imports as well then yeah it could work. But it's not going to be possible if for no other reason than the damage it would do to the economy (plus the US military would probably throw a fit at having to buy foreign).

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Baff Since: Jul, 2011
#44582: Dec 20th 2012 at 12:21:06 AM

[up] Yea the economy would take a hit, maybe 0.5% for couple of years. It would hurt a lot of billionaires, but in terms of the average men it wouldnt be that significant, I would advice that the goverment employ them all for state owned gun manufacturing for the military, and sell the surplus abroad. But yes, the expectations of the law is for said companies to roll over and die.

edited 20th Dec '12 12:23:11 AM by Baff

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.
Greenmantle V from Greater Wessex, Britannia Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Hiding
V
#44584: Dec 20th 2012 at 12:49:20 AM

A Note: SIG outsources gun production to the US anyhow — Swiss Law forbids arms exports over a certain number.

Keep Rolling On
TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#44585: Dec 20th 2012 at 12:58:51 AM

Radical Taoist: Motivation has some relevance as it usually informs action and predictability to a certain extent. In this case it also altered the body count. The motivation was to kill soldiers as such he left the majority of civilians alone and only killed one that attacked him. However regardless of action he attacked soldiers. His motivation informed his actions.

As for shooters you kind of missed the point that he was stopped by another armed person but hey no one is perfect. The first person got unlucky. She was hit in the knee and pelvis this kind of injury usually takes you out of the fight. The second shooter started at a disadvantage with Hasan not communicating and answering words with gun fire. The second officer won out by getting successive hits. Had even a quarter of the soldiers in the center be packing (in the military if you pack your trained) even a side arm the chances of Hasan even making it outside would have very likely been much slimmer.

Hasan was on about equal footing with the two officers because it was trained shooters vs trained shooters fighting one on one. If they had both been there and firing on Hasan the chances of him being stopped then and there would have gone up quite a bit. Hasan would have to choose a target to focus on while the two mp shooters are just focused on him. The odds shift drastically against Hasan.

Who watches the watchmen?
DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#44586: Dec 20th 2012 at 1:15:42 AM

Gary Hart: Legitimate Gun Owners Should Leave NRA

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#44587: Dec 20th 2012 at 1:28:41 AM

Trying to ban the manufacture of guns entirely, even through import, would simply cause the Right to bring up the now legitimate fact that that would cause unemployment for a hell of a lot of people. Not just the ones in the factories, but sellers, a hit to the profits of hotels and cities that host gun conventions (cities will rent out convention centers and the like) and possibly a host of other things I'm unaware of.

Guns need to be regulated, but suggesting the illegalization of making them is not something you should suggest lightly, or without considering the serious consequences.

DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#44588: Dec 20th 2012 at 1:47:19 AM

So apparently when Congress repealed Jackson–Vanik amendment and normalized trade with Russia, they included an act that blacklists Russians connected to the death of late Russian attorney Magnitsky, in police custody and to other gross human rights violations, prohibiting entrance to the United States and use of its banking system.

And Russia has taken this poorly

edited 20th Dec '12 1:48:10 AM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
TamH70 Since: Nov, 2011 Relationship Status: Faithful to 2D
#44589: Dec 20th 2012 at 2:15:49 AM

Russia will take anything poorly if they think they can get away with it. Especially when the west is engaged in a proxy war with one of their client states on the one hand and is far too close to Russia proper when it is in Afghanistan on the other.

drunkscriblerian Street Writing Man from Castle Geekhaven Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: In season
Street Writing Man
#44590: Dec 20th 2012 at 2:26:28 AM

@braeburn:

Noting that the Second Amendment calls for a well-regulated armed militia, Hart said the purpose laid out by the Founding Fathers already exists in the form of the National Guard.

Well, that is certainly a valid interpretation of the Second Amendment. At least as valid as the loony-tunes motherfuckers who say that the 2A gives them the right to own ballistic missiles.

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~
DevilTakeMe Coin Operator from Wild Wasteland Since: Jan, 2010
Coin Operator
#44591: Dec 20th 2012 at 2:56:28 AM

Mr. Hart's has to contend with a couple things, like that pesky SCOTUS:

In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In dicta, the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment.

In Mc Donald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.

Glove and Boots is good for Blog!
drunkscriblerian Street Writing Man from Castle Geekhaven Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: In season
Street Writing Man
#44592: Dec 20th 2012 at 3:41:35 AM

Hart said the purpose laid out by the Founding Fathers already exists in the form of the National Guard.

emphasis mine.

This is a valid interpretation of the original wording, considering that the gun-nut populace in America has no problem ignoring various rulings by SCOTUS that go against their wishes.

edited 20th Dec '12 3:42:57 AM by drunkscriblerian

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~
RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
scratching at .8, just hopin'
#44593: Dec 20th 2012 at 3:51:34 AM

@ Game Guru: There were armed people there. A few, roughly the proportion of students to teachers in a school. And yes, I acknowledge that as a soldier and a collaborator with terrorists, Hasan would be able to get guns regardless of gun laws. I raised the example of Hasan's attack merely to point out that the presence of armed individuals at a scene isn't effective deterrence or prevention for similar attacks. And Hasan's workplace was much like a school in that it's not feasible to have absolutely everyone packing (where are the patients/students going to keep their guns? Will school uniforms and hospital robes come with holsters now?).

@ Tuefel Hunden: Let's consider the alternative scenario, then. If both officers were in close proximity, Hasan would...simply not have started shooting until he was certain he could drop those two first. The smart thing would be to wait until they had their backs on him. The point is that he knew the terrain, and that "shoot the other armed people first" is a simple tactic to adopt. If you have the advantages of initiative, preparation, and familiarity, and you're armed with a gun or two, you will kill a lot and injure quite a few people before others can stop you. The presence of gun bearers among your targets will not prevent this unless there are enough guns to start tempting fate in other ways (through accidents, bad aim, and the unnecessary escalation of otherwise minor conflicts).

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
DevilTakeMe Coin Operator from Wild Wasteland Since: Jan, 2010
Coin Operator
#44594: Dec 20th 2012 at 4:01:52 AM

[up] Lots of variables to consider in any situation.

[up][up] I can't think of any SCOTUS rulings that conservatives are really arguing against, other than the supposed online rantings of people talking about missiles. Unless you can?

Texas vs. Miller would be the case that would be put up to the microscope should a gun ban that targets specific types of guns go into place, for instance.

Glove and Boots is good for Blog!
majoraoftime (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#44595: Dec 20th 2012 at 4:07:17 AM

Hasan had connections with radical Muslims in the Middle East, yes. Would that have affected his ability to get guns? As it stands now he walked into a gun shop, bought a gun and bullets and walked out.

DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#44596: Dec 20th 2012 at 4:17:16 AM

[up]

The US Army didn't know about his connections with Radical Muslims, you expect a gun shop to?

The man had a Global War on Terrorism Service Medal. Does that sound like something a terrorist would have?

edited 20th Dec '12 4:18:51 AM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
majoraoftime (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#44597: Dec 20th 2012 at 4:19:51 AM

Tuefel seemed to be suggesting that they would smuggle guns in for him to use, but if that's a misreading I apologize.

Achaemenid HGW XX/7 from Ruschestraße 103, Haus 1 Since: Dec, 2011 Relationship Status: Giving love a bad name
HGW XX/7
#44598: Dec 20th 2012 at 4:54:28 AM

If you mean arguing against in general, then Roe v Wade.

Schild und Schwert der Partei
RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
scratching at .8, just hopin'
#44599: Dec 20th 2012 at 5:12:22 AM

@ DTM: Quite so.

Anyways, Hasan is a poor example to use on the issue of gun access, as he was probably as well suited to get his hands on firearms as anyone in the world.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
Trivialis Since: Oct, 2011
#44600: Dec 20th 2012 at 10:08:10 AM

@2nd amendment: I certainly don't think it's just about the militia. The existence of a militia was already stipulated in Article I, before the Bill of Rights:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

So the natural interpretation would be "a right to bear arms" since otherwise the 2nd amendment is redundant.


Total posts: 417,856
Top