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

DevilTakeMe Coin Operator from Wild Wasteland Since: Jan, 2010
Coin Operator
#44776: Dec 21st 2012 at 7:06:14 PM

The only thing that Japan has reliably done with that is eliminate deaths with guns. And that's it. Again. It's dishonest to say that violence and murder will not occur without them.

Prior to such bans, there is not much to say that Japan was ever violent in the first place (at least in the modern age). Different socio-economic conditions.

Does Japan have a rampant drug problem, for instance? So it's dishonest to say that what works in Japan will ever really work in the United States except that fewer people die... with guns.

Glove and Boots is good for Blog!
AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#44777: Dec 21st 2012 at 7:21:22 PM

Devil, stop moving the damn goalposts. The point of gun control is specifically to reduce death due to guns. That's it. That's all a gun control law is designed to do. Bringing up that death by other causes is basically like blaming us for not curing cancer caused by tobacco smoke. And none of us ever claimed that death and violence would end with it, so don't dishonestly claim that we ever did.

The point is that the requirements work because they are enforced. Which is the point of having a law to begin with; a law that isn't enforced is basically not having a law at all. And this "different situation" stuff is a bullshit way to just brush off the proof that it can work. It's been proven to work, now let's see how we can make it work here.

DevilTakeMe Coin Operator from Wild Wasteland Since: Jan, 2010
Coin Operator
#44778: Dec 21st 2012 at 7:26:44 PM

I'm not moving the goalposts, you are.

You can't make any of this work without violating the principles of having guns in the first place. So unless your next answer is "Well, let's get rid of the Second amendment and all these other basic and natural rights," you should be thinking of how to make it work with the system already in place.

Glove and Boots is good for Blog!
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#44779: Dec 21st 2012 at 7:30:44 PM

Honestly I would be perfectly fine with the second amendment being struck down. The reason I haven't said that yet is because I'm trying to compromise and I understand that's an even larger non-starter politically than regulation. You want guns? Fine. Just prove you are responsible enough to own them and allow reasonable regulations (that have been proven to work) to be put in place.

majoraoftime (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#44780: Dec 21st 2012 at 7:31:54 PM

[up][up] Eh, I wouldn't call the right to own a gun "basic and natural".

Hydronix I'm an Irene! from TV Tropes Since: Apr, 2010
I'm an Irene!
#44781: Dec 21st 2012 at 7:32:01 PM

First, the amendment was about the military in general.

Second, no it really doesn't. A right, in this case, is a privilege. If you are unfit to carry a Firearm, you don't get it. It is not unconstitutional to take away a firearm from a crazy man. They lost their privilege when they abused it.

Requiring tests makes sure they are fit to carry a weapon. It's nowhere near a bad idea. And yes, the reason is to prevent deaths. There is no better reason than to regulate guns.

Especially when they are a major cause of tons of murders nowadays. Regulating them smartly to prevent this is nowhere unconstitutional. And if is? I don't care. I am not willing to give crazy people guns if it means we'll end up with more murders. Required testing is used to prevent the problem.

You do not have the right to a firearm if you cannot handle it responsibly. Newsflash: All rights can be taken away if abused. Always have, and always will be. You do not have the right to irresponsibly use a gun. Ever.

Quest 64 thread
AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#44782: Dec 21st 2012 at 7:32:35 PM

You're assuming the Second Amendment is a natural right, and that I want to get rid of a shit load of other things that have nothing to do with guns. Both of which are wrong, the second more so.

And what I've said has been very consistent: a gun owner needs to be registered, get a mental check, take a damn class so they know what they're doing, etc. etc. Nothing changed, I just got proof it could and can be done. You're the one insisting we don't need to do anything more than what we do. I personally have mentioned very little about other forms of weaponry, you're the one bringing up knives and rope and shit, all of which have other, everyday and practical uses.

YOU are refusing to even give the rest of us the time of the day, resorting to wordy forms of "you're wrong".

Now give me a better reason we can't do what Japan has done. What other countries have done to keep lethal gun crime to a minimum. Because for all that gun related death has gone down in this country we still far outstrip other first world countries by a disgusting margin.

Joesolo Indiana Solo Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
Indiana Solo
#44783: Dec 21st 2012 at 7:34:47 PM

@devil- several guys attacking you in the woods? did you piss off the mafia?

Seriously, you don't get roving bands of armed robbers in this country. it's not somalia.

I'm baaaaaaack
Zendervai Since: Oct, 2009
#44784: Dec 21st 2012 at 7:36:28 PM

If I'm right, all the second amendment says is the right to bear arms. It says nothing about how guns must be freely available to all without any checks or precautions in place. The spirit of the law was probably to give everyone the opportunity to try and get a gun to protect themselves.

edited 21st Dec '12 7:36:50 PM by Zendervai

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#44785: Dec 21st 2012 at 7:41:07 PM

[up]Here's what it says:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Two things jump out at me.

1. This stuff has to be well regulated. Gee, I wonder what the NRA is opposed to.

2. It is primarily because we need a militia to defend the country from invasion. Since we already have the police, army, and national guard I think it's fair to say the main purpose of having this amendment is pointless. At the very least all gun owners must be a part of some special defense unit. Otherwise we're not following the constitution.

edit: Another problem. The guns this amendment talks about are entirely different from the guns we have now. They were far less accurate, took more time to load, and didn't have automatic fire. We can't say it goes against the Founding Father's wishes since we have no clue what they'd say about these sorts of weapons and modern day America.

edited 21st Dec '12 7:43:31 PM by Kostya

DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#44786: Dec 21st 2012 at 7:42:30 PM

What rights are "basic and natural" is completely subjective.

@Kostya The Supreme Court rule that everyone is a militia.

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#44787: Dec 21st 2012 at 7:44:26 PM

[up]Rulings can be overturned. It also doesn't address that the guns the amendment talks about allowing are not the guns of today. Not realizing this and thinking we might need to make a distinction is stupid. Societies and technologies change and we need to adapt to it.

Trivialis Since: Oct, 2011
#44788: Dec 21st 2012 at 7:45:03 PM

I actually don't think that. It says "right of the people" without any adjectives attached to people, so it's more straightforward to interpret it as citizens, same meaning as "we the people". The militia could be interpreted as a separate, related right formed by those people of the state.

It's really to protect the arms in general rather than just guns, and since guns did exist in revolutionary times, they do count. Because it's focused on self-protection weapons in general, I don't think it was meant to exclude future inventions.

You could argue adding another amendment to regulate arms, though.

edited 21st Dec '12 7:46:56 PM by Trivialis

TheBatPencil from Glasgow, Scotland Since: May, 2011 Relationship Status: I'm just a hunk-a, hunk-a burnin' love
#44789: Dec 21st 2012 at 7:45:16 PM

If I'm right, all the second amendment says is the right to bear arms.

Not even that - it provides that a well-regulated militia can bare arms. That quite decidedly isn't "guns for all, and for all another gun" and it's only selective interpretation that says otherwise.

edited 21st Dec '12 7:46:12 PM by TheBatPencil

And let us pray that come it may (As come it will for a' that)
Achaemenid HGW XX/7 from Ruschestraße 103, Haus 1 Since: Dec, 2011 Relationship Status: Giving love a bad name
HGW XX/7
#44790: Dec 21st 2012 at 7:46:02 PM

[up]

But the Supreme Court can and has ignored its own precedent in the past. So that moronic decision may yet be overturned.

Schild und Schwert der Partei
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#44791: Dec 21st 2012 at 7:46:13 PM

[up][up][up]That still doesn't change the fact that their guns are not our guns and insisting our guns be allowed because there's were is stupid. Ours are a lot more deadly and a lot more accurate.

[up][up]Yes. Honesty I think a strict and literal reading of it would mean that only the military and police can have guns if it's meant to protect our national security.

[up]Indeed.

edited 21st Dec '12 7:47:32 PM by Kostya

DevilTakeMe Coin Operator from Wild Wasteland Since: Jan, 2010
Coin Operator
#44792: Dec 21st 2012 at 7:47:47 PM

[up] "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed" is where this contention arises. Where a criminal has lost his right, and where "crazy people" have lost their right is where they have shown to be unable to be seen fit.

The natural right to self-defense. It doesn't say guns or muskets or swords or lasers, it says 'arms'. Whatever you decide is the most effective means to that end.

It is a guarantee to both the collective and the individual, which is what strikes down some laws and reinforces the legitimacy of others.

As for people in the woods? What? People who live on large plots of land don't need guns when they're miles from civilization? It's not Somalia, it's a cabin in the woods or a small house in the middle of nowhere.

The spirit of the law? We have the Supreme Court of the United States who is appointed to interpret that, for what or ill that may become.

And what have they said in the past? "The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia."

So the idea of any law that restricts the possession of a so-called "assault weapon" of the military style (the type that they use in the military and in the police forces around the country) is pretty much what is simply "unconstitutional."

So again, you want to reduce gun deaths? Present an alternative that is better than guns. Until then, we have guns. Bottom line.

Glove and Boots is good for Blog!
Trivialis Since: Oct, 2011
#44793: Dec 21st 2012 at 7:48:56 PM

[up][up]That's a very originalist interpretation and I don't think it applies in this case. The "arms" meant simply the idea of weapons, not current innovations.

I mean, I agree with reasonable gun regulations, but in terms of interpreting the text, I'll have to say it does protect basic right to bear arms.

edited 21st Dec '12 7:49:52 PM by Trivialis

Morven Nemesis from Seattle, WA, USA Since: Jan, 2001
Nemesis
#44794: Dec 21st 2012 at 7:50:03 PM

You can't do what Japan has done because Japan never had widespread civilian ownership of firearms. Nor does Japan have that much of a hunting culture or the wide open spaces to do it.

A lot of gun owners would be quite happy to accept reasonable and sensible licensing standards if they were actually that, and not treated as a step along the road to a situation like Japan or England. Unfortunately, there's plenty of evidence that that's exactly what anti-gun people want to do.

A brighter future for a darker age.
DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#44795: Dec 21st 2012 at 7:52:04 PM

there's plenty of evidence that that's exactly what anti-gun people want to do.

I wouldn't have believed this if not for this thread.

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
#44796: Dec 21st 2012 at 7:53:13 PM

So, you want us to invent a new fucking weapon instead of adapt an old amendment into modern day law? That's fucking ridiculous, Devil. Utterly fucking ridiculous.

Now, I don't doubt that someone will invent a better killing machine. And the law will have to adapt to that. But right now, today, we need to discuss in good faith and change the laws regarding guns. You, Devil, are not debating with us in good faith with those ridiculous requirements instead of trying to deal with the problem we have currently.

http://current.com/shows/the-young-turks/videos/how-the-nra-changed-overnight-and-reshaped-american-views-on-the-right-to-more-and-more-guns Unrelated, once upon a time the NRA wasn't run by jackasses, apparently.

[up]The vast majority of us here want sensible licensing laws. And I refuse to think that sending a person to get a mental check by a professional isn't sensible.

edited 21st Dec '12 7:54:37 PM by AceofSpades

RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
scratching at .8, just hopin'
#44797: Dec 21st 2012 at 7:55:26 PM

Japan also has a different ecosystem and different animal management demands. I don't think Japanese farmers worry about coyotes or gophers.

I still don't see why civilians need anything with a clip greater than five rounds, a reload and fire speed faster than a lever action rifle, or a barrel shorter than 3 feet. Just about every legitimate use you could want out of a gun can be provided with those parameters.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#44798: Dec 21st 2012 at 8:02:24 PM

@Ace could you tone it down a tad?

Look its obvious what is happening here, we've reached the breaking point on a very polarizing issue.

Neither side has a very good chance of convincing the other there right, and given the disintegrating sense of civility of the last couple of pages of this thread, I think this discussion is just going to go downhill from here.

What I'm trying to say is we should drop the subject before one of us says something he or she might regret.

edited 21st Dec '12 8:17:47 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
DevilTakeMe Coin Operator from Wild Wasteland Since: Jan, 2010
Coin Operator
#44799: Dec 21st 2012 at 8:04:25 PM

@ Ace: Did I say a lethal weapon? Nope. I'm all for non-lethal means of self-defense. And if you can make a "phaser on stun" this wouldn't even be a discussion. The problem with stun guns and mace is that they aren't as effective or efficient.

Or can you post a policeman at my doorstep 24 hours a day? There just isn't enough and there's no budget for that. It's the same logic people the NRA is using for schools now, and I don't support that either. It's just unfeasible.

So, in between having the police at my beck and call looking out personally for me and my family, and my own personal phaser, the most effective and efficient means of personal protection will be a gun.

So, what do you want to do? A psychological check just to make sure that you aren't crazy? Again, it's not an exact science, and even those doctors might miss something or misdiagnose something and then you are forever barred from your right because of something you haven't done, and violates due process. Another one of those pesky rights we talked about.

And to someone saying a right is a privilege, it's not privilege, it's a right. A privilege is being licensed to drive and operate a car. Only then can you apply restrictions like insurance and others.

It only stops being YOUR right when you misuse it to affect the freedom and liberty and life of someone else (when you are infringing on someone else's rights).

edited 21st Dec '12 8:07:08 PM by DevilTakeMe

Glove and Boots is good for Blog!

Total posts: 417,856
Top