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
Newt Gingrich: Obama bullying House GOP
Supreme Court Rules That Houseboats Are Houses, Not Boats
Oil industry escalates attacks on biofuel mandate
When the Constitution was created, it wasn't a mistake, cause people relied on guns for their livelyhoods, but back then they didn't have automatic or semi-automatic guns, or if they did they were very primative, and automatic guns of any variety have really no place in our society.
"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."I'm guessing the law is there to try and make a huge stink if a federal assault weapons ban passes. Since it's a good law (specifically, it prevents a bad law from being enforced), I support it.
Fight smart, not fair.@Deboss: Are you talking about the "Firearm Protection Act"? If you are, no it's not a good law. State laws can't nullify federal laws like that, and it's been proposed for absolute bullshit reasons. It won't mean anything in the end, and is politically indefensible no matter how much the right howls about freedom.
It's not like they're out to ban hunting rifles, for God's sake. Hell, we can't even get to hear them in a sensible way until they stop pulling bullshit crap like this and sit down and talk like the fucking adults they're supposed to be.
But in fairness, there was a 16 year gap between the murders and the speech.
edited 15th Jan '13 6:32:45 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016Except that he was probably invited to speak. Presidents don't just randomly show up in any place to speak in place. Also, presumably state's rights was important to the people that attended the event, which would be reason enough to have such a meeting or event.
Horrible things happen everywhere, and people have speeches on various topics. Eventually, you're going to have a speech about a subject in a place where it seems inappropriate to some. Personally, I think you're overreaching in your assumptions in this particular matter.
Kind of hard to address the issue when one group is yelling "they're going to steal our guns!" and preparing bills to prevent federal laws from being enacted that one; haven't even been proposed or voted on yet, and two; are actually not going to prevent federal laws from being enforced because the states can't circumvent federal law like that.
edited 15th Jan '13 7:08:01 PM by AceofSpades
I mean that you have to grant that at heart, they're fighting for a basic principle, and I agree that the principle is something important. There are right and wrong approaches to respond to it. People pushing for gun regulations should explain the limits of their measures, and lay out the basis for those regulations that are at a comparable level as the principle of self-defense.
There is one question I want answered by the people who are "pro-gun" in this case:
What is the purpose of an assault weapon or expanded magazines?
Hunting rifles are good for hunting. Handguns and shotguns are good for personal defense.
As far as I know, assault weapons and expanded magazines are only good for efficiently killing groups of people. Why would we want to actively sell them?
Yu hav nat sein bod speeling unntil know. (cacke four undersandig tis)the cake is a lie!They are explaining themselves, Trivialis. They want to ban things that have no use but to kill large amounts of people, as well as limit the size of magazines because that also helps in killing large amounts of people. They also want things like better health checks, which the Republicans have also proposed, although that's instead of limits on the guns themselves. Democrats also want to do things like limit the private sale because that means anyone can get their hands on a gun without any sort of background check.
And then on the Republican side you have Toth, Alex Jones, and that guy from Tennessee who are putting in bills to arrest FEDERAL AGENTS, threatening to kill people if any limit whatsoever is put on guns, and yelling like maniacs about how we'll apparently have the American Revolution all over again if we put gun restrictions into law. You also get groups standing outside local efforts to buy back guns from the citizenry trying to attract interest away from the local government efforts and proving the point about how private sales without background checks are dangerous.
I see no purpose for assault weapons (besides fighting people who also have assault weapons, impressing chicks, and fending off zombie hoards).
But I don't see any reason to ban them either, so long as people are willing to go through the necessary checks, waiting periods, and paperwork.
Gee, I wonder why there yelling that.
edited 15th Jan '13 8:06:02 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016@Belian
Not so much of a pro-gun person, but this is what I would say in the perspective. If hunting rifles are "good", so-called assault rifles are "better". They're fundamentally the same thing, just with performance differences, much like comparing a Honda Civic to an F1 racecar.
What one can do, the other can do also, with different cost and performance. Therefore, one being good for hunting, and one being "only for killing lots of people", is an arbitrary distinction. So while you can argue that regulations should be roughly in proportion to the weapon quality, outright banning the better weapon doesn't make much sense in principle.
Now for what I personally think: I think that it's possible to have a threshold argument where we establish that a certain weapon performance is the safety limit (much like a speed limit). If we're going to ban assault rifles, we need to guarantee that on the flip side, hunting rifles and shotguns are indeed fully protected by law (2nd amendment), and recognized as part of the natural right of self-defense.
Right now the mindset is that guns are lumped in one group, and all weapons below it are on the other. The dividing line is whether or not it's a firearm, so often the debate gets flanderized as all-or-nothing referendum on guns. What I'm proposing is a shift in the dividing line to separate the dangerous weapons and put the "normal guns" on the other group, alongside miscellaneous weapons.
edited 15th Jan '13 8:06:45 PM by Trivialis
I did not mention banning them at all in my question. Just not actively selling them [to the general public]. I feel we need some sort of regulation and that banning them altogether would not be the best option. At least, not at this time.
Anyway, I saw something that said Obama will be ready with his take on what can be done about gun assault weapon control (might as well be specific) tomorrow. Want to put this on hold until we see just how strict this policy/these ideas are?
"Assault weapon" is still being used arbitrarily. There's still no big difference between one and another aside from ergonomic features.
People like trying to compare guns to cars, with the above F1 race car and a Honda Civic comparison. Well, the thing is, you an make a Honda Civic look like an F1 race car by changing the body style, putting a spoiler on and racing style seats, but you're still missing the key components that would make it perform like an actual racecar - the internal configuration like the engine and so forth.
The same is true for guns. The big thing is that guns like the AR-15 look like their military counterparts, but don't actually do what the military M-16 or M-4 does and fire in burst-fire or machine gun style.
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!

That's a pointless gesture that I'm sure his constituency will love to pieces.
"The marvel is not that the Bear posts well, but that the Bear posts at all."