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
Or another theory: he wanted to run, but didn't want to become the candidate.
When he finally got the candidacy, he decided to go full out.
Or his son fully believes he didn't want to run. Parents can hide that from their kids.
Or he was just bullshitting on behalf of his father.
"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."I find it darkly amusing that the crux of gun rights is that it doesn't take regulation to not be idiots about guns, but the loudest proponents are hell-bent on demonstrating exactly why it does, but the crux of banning them is that the government isn't a hostile entity you might conceivably have to defend yourself against, when they also seem hell-bent on demonstrating that they very much are.
It's like everyone woke up one day and decided to start fulfilling each other's prophecies.
What are you talking about? The government is not being hostile by trying to make its citizens safe. It's not like we have people advocating the FBI or police busting down people's doors and forcibly taking their guns from them. That would be tyranny. What gun control people are suggesting is not tyranny so don't say that it is.
Stop and frisk, the NYPD is basically one man's personal thug squad, we have a city in Arkansas deciding Soviet Russia was a good model, the FBI shooting unarmed suspects on shaky intel, whistleblowers get jailed indefinitely for calling out trigger-happy soldiers, Occupy just showed us that meaningful protest will be violently locked down, almost complete refusal to investigate abuse of power in law enforcement. And that's just the wide-scale epidemic problems, not counting things like a lady in Florida getting stuffed in the cops' trunk then strip-searched on the roadside, officers raping a dude with a baton in the New York subway, etc.
edited 23rd Dec '12 1:15:50 PM by Pykrete
@ Medinoc: The 2nd Amendment protects those arms that are suitable for military use (regulated militia) for the individual soldier, as per the ruling in the US vs. Miller. This is why things like sawed-off shotguns are able to be regulated, because no one has ever decided to make them for the military. (This is also the biggest argument against an assault weapon ban)
That said, You can actually put whatever you want on a car. You can do just about almost anything you want on your own land, so long as it doesn't violate certain laws.
You can own a tank, with cannons, or a rocket launcher. You can own explosives, within a reasonable amount of course. You can put guns on a mount, etc. You just have to operate it on private land (excepting those public land where it is allowed). But since the road is regulated, you can't really bring most of that into the public because of the laws that say what kind of cars can be brought onto the road.
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID) was arrested for DWI in a Washington, D.C. suburb.
Considering the stuff that's happening in the Capitol, I don't blame him, but that still doesn't excuse him.
"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."What they have to do with it is that if people want to keep private guns because they're paranoid about the government and long arm of the law turning hideously corrupt, oppressive, and revolution-worthy, it's probably a really fucking stupid idea to prove their point.
edited 23rd Dec '12 8:07:39 PM by Pykrete
If the government was truly revolution worthy having guns would not change a damn thing. Guns do not stop a tank driving down the street and they certainly won't help if they decide to carpet bomb the offending area. I'm sorry but this is not the early twentieth century. A ground invasion would be an absolute last resort. Even if they did do that good luck combating their superior armor and training even if you have assault weapons.
edited 23rd Dec '12 8:08:39 PM by Kostya
What? I'm sorry but I'm not sure I understand the meaning of that sentence. Are you talking about rights? I'm sorry but I don't exactly think a person's right to have easy access to a gun is worth protecting. I don't think they should be outright banned but restrictions are far more sensible than not having any. It's worked for a lot of other countries.
Oh, I'm in favor of cracking down on unregistered sales, enforcing safety and background restrictions, etc. too. I mean, "well regulated militia" doesn't exactly sound like the kind of crazy shit you see in Texas. It means being on the ball and having your stuff in line.
What I'm saying is that if when you tell a group of paranoid rednecks with shitty hunting rifles that their fears are unfounded, they're gonna look at you real funny and be able to point to a huge laundry list right now of why that's categorically wrong.
edited 23rd Dec '12 8:19:52 PM by Pykrete
Frankly that's not my problem. I feel they're just paranoid idiots and even if they were right it's not like they'd be able to do much with their guns. If your argument for guns is that you need them to protect yourself from some oppressive regime then you need to get your head examined because you are not going to have any success at all. In fact I think their paranoia is part of the reason they shouldn't have guns in the first place. What if they really do snap and we have some homegrown terror cell because of this shit?
edited 23rd Dec '12 8:19:10 PM by Kostya

Tagg Romney: My dad had no desire to be president.
George H.W. Bush still hospitalized
Norquist: Democrats using Newtown for Political Purposes
7 possible scenarios on how the fiscal cliff debate would end
edited 23rd Dec '12 12:31:46 PM by tclittle
"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."