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

Greenmantle V from Greater Wessex, Britannia Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Hiding
V
#54851: May 20th 2013 at 11:59:21 AM

[up] Mostly in defining an "Assault Weapon" — what exactly is it?

Keep Rolling On
Barkey Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
#54852: May 20th 2013 at 12:00:16 PM

All I can say is I'm willing to vote with my presence and leave places like that. I'll probably be leaving California within the next few years as a result, and going to a state more friendly to my ideals in that department.

You guys can all live in Illinois and California and New York, and the rest of us can go do the things we want to do in the places we choose to settle, how is that for a compromise? Oh, and you can keep living in gun-free Chicago, where people keep getting shot. Good luck with that, and let me know how well gun control is working out for you there.

^

This, as well. I'm not taking anyone seriously who uses that word. Assault Weapon is not an actual term. It doesn't quantify or describe anything other than what the person using the word wants it to mean. Assault Weapon essentially means "Guns I don't like".

Until Assault Weapon is a term that has an actual definition as to what one is in the first place, it is a completely invalid term that isn't worth the breath used to utter it, because the people using that term will just keep on stretching it further and further. Next thing you know some one will shoot some people with a bolt action rifle when all the AR's are gone, and they'll call those assault weapons too.

Frankly, it's not really a discussion anymore. Not until that term is quantified and some sort of boundaries can be reached. Some sort of compromise beyond "Gimme your shit" needs to be reached. "You can't have these things anymore" isn't a compromise. "No 30 round magazines, but AR-15's with collapsible stocks and other "scary" features get to be federally protected from being banned" now THAT is a compromise, and one I'd gladly accept.

edited 20th May '13 12:05:21 PM by Barkey

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#54853: May 20th 2013 at 12:05:01 PM

I assume that "compromise" means here "give us something too"? Not being familiar with US gun law, what would that be, for example?

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Barkey Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
#54854: May 20th 2013 at 12:07:49 PM

I just edited my post and listed one.

Essentially, the reason pro-gun folks like me are so entrenched, is because the only time we win is when anti-gun folks lose. We don't get back the things we lose, we don't gain ground, we rarely gain legislation that protects our rights. All we do is continuously fight a losing battle where we're on the defensive.

I think people who are pro-gun would be willing to come to the table and actually negotiate instead of digging our heels in if there was some sort of carrot on a stick for us. Something federally protecting things we don't want to see banned, or protecting conceal carry rights.

A good way of explaining it would be to repost "The Cake Analogy" by Law Dog

"We cannot negotiate with those who say, 'What's mine is mine, and what's yours is negotiable.'"

— John F. Kennedy, Address to the American People, 25 JUL 1961

Most people tend to substitute the word 'compromise' for the first 'negotiate' in that quote, and it does tend to fit the current circumstances.

Once again the anti-gun people are starting to trot out the tired and hackneyed meme of "compromise" in the "national gun conversation".

One of the more highly linked of my posts is the one about the "Gun Rights Cake" analogy, which I will now re-post and expand a bit:

I hear a lot about "compromise" from the gun-control camp ... except, it's not compromise.

Allow me to illustrate:

Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

This leaves me with half of my cake and there I am, enjoying my cake when you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say — again: "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.

So, we compromise — let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 — and this time I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

This time you take several bites — we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders — and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.

Let me restate that: I started out with MY CAKE and you have already 'compromised' me out of ninety percent of MY CAKE ...

... and here you come again. Compromise! ... Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble). Compromise! ... The HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble). Compromise! ... The Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM). Compromise! ... The School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

After every one of these "compromises" — in which I lose rights and you lose NOTHING — I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise" as you try for the rest of my cake.

In 1933 I — or any other American — could buy a fully-automatic Thompson sub-machine gun, a 20mm anti-tank gun, or shorten the barrel of any gun I owned to any length I thought fit, silence any gun I owned, and a host of other things.

Come your "compromise" in 1934, and suddenly I can't buy a sub-machine gun, a silencer, or a Short-Barreled Firearm without .Gov permission and paying a hefty tax. What the hell did y'all lose in this "compromise"?

In 1967 I, or any other American, could buy or sell firearms anywhere we felt like it, in any State we felt like, with no restrictions. We "compromised" in 1968, and suddenly I've got to have a Federal Firearms License to have a business involving firearms, and there's whole bunch of rules limiting what, where and how I buy or sell guns.

In 1968, "sporting purpose" — a term found NOT ANY DAMNED WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION, TO SAY NOTHING OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT — suddenly became a legal reason to prevent the importation of guns that had been freely imported in 1967.

Tell me, do — exactly what the hell did you lose in this 1968 "compromise"?

The Lautenberg Act was a "compromise" which suddenly deprived Americans of a Constitutional Right for being accused or convicted of a misdemeanor — a bloody MISDEMEANOR! What did your side lose in this "compromise"?

I could go on and on, but the plain and simple truth of the matter is that a genuine "compromise" means that both sides give up something. My side of the discussion has been giving, giving, and giving yet more — and your side has been taking, taking, and now wants to take more.

For you, "compromise" means you'll take half of my cake now, and the other half of my cake next time. Always has been, always will be.

I've got news for you: That is not "compromise".

I'm done with being reasonable, and I'm done with "compromise". Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been "reasonable" nor a genuine "compromise", and I have flat had enough.

So essentially, it feels like anti-gun people are nibbling away at our cake, and we feel that those same people will never stop trying to nibble until there is no cake left, and not having cake left is absolutely unacceptable to us. We've fallen for the "Sure, we'll give up a slice!" thing for so long that at this point, we are absolutely uncompromising and impossible to negotiate with.

"Be Reasonable" just isn't an acceptable request anymore in this arena. Focus on why people do these things and how to prevent it, leave the guns alone and stop focusing on the tool and if people can have them. Focus on better background checks, give ATF more funding and an actual full-time director" so that they can enforce the current laws that are on'' the books, and have the manpower to audit gun stores regularly to make sure they are following current laws.

Instead of trying to actually enforce the laws we currently have to see if they'll actually accomplish what they are meant to, anti-gun folks would rather throw out the baby with the bathwater, and just flip the whole fucking table.

/rant

edited 20th May '13 12:13:47 PM by Barkey

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#54855: May 20th 2013 at 12:11:41 PM

Personally, I would be inclined to agree with your proposal. The Concealed Carry thing - there was an amendment to Reid's gun control bill that would have allowed different states with compatible regs to cross-apply such licenses, but it was defeated.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Belian In honor of my 50lb pup from 42 Since: Jan, 2001
In honor of my 50lb pup
#54856: May 20th 2013 at 12:11:52 PM

FYI: the general conclusion this thread has reached is that "background checks should be a thing" and that "more attention should be paid to helping people with 'problems' in the first place." Owning/purchasing a gun is not a problem so long as you are in reasonably "sound mind" (I'm using this as a general term—don't know if it has a specific meaning) and don't have a prior history that points to you being dangerous with one.

Requiring training (just like a car license) is another popular idea here.

edited 20th May '13 12:14:12 PM by Belian

Yu hav nat sein bod speeling unntil know. (cacke four undersandig tis)the cake is a lie!
Midgetsnowman Since: Jan, 2010
#54857: May 20th 2013 at 12:13:27 PM

@ Barkey: by the same token, for someone like me who doesnt give a flying fuck about guns but lives in Gun Country , I feel like pretty much every pro-gun law passed around here has less to do with ensuring gun owners rights and more to do with blasting in my face how awesomne guns are and I'm a total fucking pansy gay frenchman for not loving the shit out of beer and guns.

it doesnt endear me much to them.

Barkey Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
#54858: May 20th 2013 at 12:17:12 PM

^

You're the opposite side of the coin to me then, I live in "Commiefornia" and I'm one of the only CCW holders in my county who is not a civilian law enforcement officer of some kind, present or retired. And is not rich, a politician, or a celebrity.

That doesn't really protect me when it comes to what I can buy though. We've already got 10 round magazine limits, and all the "scary" features are banned unless you decide to buy an AR-15 and essentially neuter it with a fixed magazine or a bullet button. I'm not willing to have a neutered AR. I have an M 1 A already thankfully, which is a semi-auto box-fed version of the M14, but the thing is, I want an accurized synthetic stock for it. The problem is, most of them have pistol grips, and thus are illegal here. Aside from that, I really want a pistol grip.

So you get to be annoyed, where as I get to not have things that I want. tongue

In general, I have a really libertarian mindset to things like this. The side that gives the most people the freedom to do something trumps the side which gets to be annoyed by it. It's why I'm pro-choice. Christians can choose not to have abortions, just like you can choose not to have a gun. But the other sides of that coin mean nobody gets abortions, and nobody gets guns. Ergo I am pro-choice and pro-gun.

edited 20th May '13 12:18:58 PM by Barkey

Midgetsnowman Since: Jan, 2010
#54859: May 20th 2013 at 12:18:31 PM

[up]

id's say its a bit more than annoyance when state lawmakers pass laws making sure you cant be fired for owning a gun , while at the same time pretending that nobody's ever been fired in Missouri for being gay.

at that point its downright willful ignorance in the name of appeasing stupid rednecks who live in town and think cowboy boots and trucks makes them country boys.

edited 20th May '13 12:19:13 PM by Midgetsnowman

Barkey Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
#54860: May 20th 2013 at 12:19:43 PM

Once again pulling the California card, somehow despite all of our foolishness, gay marriage is still not legal here.

I mean seriously, we're like the worst and most oppressive ideas from both Democrats and Republicans, all rolled into one state. We have huge state government, but we mismanage all our money. Gay marriage is illegal, guns owners are oppressed more than all but two other states, and the cost of living here is higher than the majority of the country.

This state is like bizzaro america. I hate it.

edited 20th May '13 12:20:50 PM by Barkey

Barkey Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
#54861: May 20th 2013 at 12:31:21 PM

Just to kind of make my position clear on the issue...

I am absolutely for all of these things:

FYI: the general conclusion this thread has reached is that "background checks should be a thing" and that "more attention should be paid to helping people with 'problems' in the first place." Owning/purchasing a gun is not a problem so long as you are in reasonably "sound mind" (I'm using this as a general term—don't know if it has a specific meaning) and don't have a prior history that points to you being dangerous with one.

Requiring training (just like a car license) is another popular idea here.

I think those are all reasonable, and in my state, most of them are currently in place and work fine. I support the above measures, they have my utter stamp of approval.

I am utterly and vehemently against this:

So banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines as a message would be OK too? Or is there some difference?

This has the Barkey Stamp of Disapproval.

I want the background checks, I want the mental health support, I'm ok with a license that proves that I am competent. I am a normal and sane american citizen, and above that I'm supremely qualified. I've been military police for well over half a decade now, I handle an AR 15 like I came out of the womb with one as a result. I want the above things, and I don't want to have them because I need them, I want to have them just because I want them. I want the freedom to have those things as a safe and sane individual to be protected and secure. That is my objective. I'm willing to jump through reasonable hoops such as background checks and a competence license to have them, and I properly secure my guns in a safe in my home. I have never lost or had any of my firearms stolen. When it comes to a conceal carry permit, I have one. I want to keep it because I want it, not because I need one or fear for my life. I have shown that I am a responsible individual who can be trusted to have one, which is why I do. I am not in any specific or immediate danger to my life that necessitates having one. I want things to stay that way.

That is pretty much my complete and utter stance on gun control. Throw in some specifics about giving more funding to the ATF so they can actually enforce current laws more thoroughly and you've got the whole shebang, since right now they don't have a director, and they are underfunded and undermanned.

edited 20th May '13 12:33:10 PM by Barkey

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#54862: May 20th 2013 at 12:41:25 PM

Is it worth noting that few of the gun bills I see in the THOMAS bill search engine are about the things you are for?

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Medinoc from France (Before Recorded History)
#54864: May 20th 2013 at 12:44:17 PM

"sporting purpose" — a term found NOT ANY DAMNED WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION, TO SAY NOTHING OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT —
Now I find this a little hypocritical.With so many people trying to overturn Roe v. Wade in the name of "stopping murders", why is no one trying to overturn Heller?

I just got a genius idea: Let's define "assault weapon" as any gun that can kill more than 12*

people per minute!

Edit: Whoops sorry, the re-rail ninja'd me.

edited 20th May '13 12:44:40 PM by Medinoc

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."
terlwyth Since: Oct, 2010
#54865: May 20th 2013 at 12:55:43 PM

Completely agreed with Barkey,except on the guns,...because maybe you Not-,...I mean So. Cals have it okay,but without what things look like now on guns,well that's the only reason Oakland doesn't look like 90's New York.

So I moved to rural Virginia,that's when I realized holy crap Midget was right.

edited 20th May '13 12:58:35 PM by terlwyth

Barkey Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
#54866: May 20th 2013 at 1:02:41 PM

^

I'm from Norcal, Oakland would look the way it does regardless. There's a reason the saying is that "San Francisco is only as clean as it is because it exports its trash across the bridge."

And I don't mean the bottles and cans type.

Oakland looks the way it does because of poverty, a lack of pistol grips, barrel shrouds, and collapsible stocks wouldn't have made a difference in any way.

@Septimus

It is worth noting, because most of the people on the opposite side of the aisle from me on this issue would rather screech "BAN THEM ALL!" at the top of their lungs rather than actually examining the issue in any real detail. They run purely on emotional kneejerk response, with no sort of discriminating studious approach.

Though my side does make things more difficult based on the fact that for the people living in states that aren't like mine, the idea of having to keep a living register of who owns guns is ludicrous. I personally don't like it either, and California only does it on handguns(which makes way more sense anyway, long guns don't need to be tracked like that).

As a national guardsman, I never want to be put into a position where the government can go "Hey, we just activated martial law. Here's a list of everyone on this block with a registered firearm. Go collect them." I'd rather they didn't have a list like that.

The idea(in Cali) is that you go through background when you're buying the gun, have a waiting period while background finishes, and once it's finished there's no record connecting a long gun to you, because it's already been proven that you're ok to have a gun, so they don't need to have you on some roster somewhere. I really don't see the point in us doing it with handguns to be honest, it's excessively rare that a registered handgun is used by its registered user in the commission of a crime. Even in states where they don't register them, it's very rare for some one to use their own gun in a crime, most people who buy guns aren't criminals.

edited 20th May '13 1:09:19 PM by Barkey

Midgetsnowman Since: Jan, 2010
#54867: May 20th 2013 at 1:16:14 PM

[up]

Its a thing I notice depending on where you live.

Theres sane gun owners no matter where you live. But the debate is so polarized that in deep blue parts of the counbtry, antigun hysteria is common in laws, and in deep red territory, gun regulation sounds to half the voters like "gubmint steals all my guns and shoots me for not voting for obama"

It tends to lead to further polarization because the laws they write inflame the fight even more. And groups like the NRA do everything they can to keep it that way because it translates to their pocketbooks.

edited 20th May '13 1:16:53 PM by Midgetsnowman

Barkey Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
#54868: May 20th 2013 at 1:50:20 PM

Don't forget the Brady Campaign, they make money out of it too, as the counterpoint to the NRA. Just as radical, just as retarded.

Anyhow, yeah, it is polarizing. Especially when we start moving out of state over this crap. California has done a million things to make all sorts of people move away. They raises taxes to unreasonable levels, the rich start either moving, or buying property in other states to claim residence there. California loses money. Just a generalization, but most gun owners are taxpayers, so when we leave, that's even more people who pay their taxes moving out of state. Then there is a large population of illegals who don't pay payroll tax and get their money under the table. Our cigarette sin taxes are so high that people like me are joining special clubs where you can "borrow" a machine roller and roll your own cigarettes instead without paying any taxes, I get mine for like 2.30 a pack as a result.

I swear, by the time I'm fed up enough to leave, there won't be anybody left except government employees as far as people who pay their taxes, and they'll just be trying to put a dent into paying their own salary. This state is on its way to financial implosion, and could give a fuck what people who fund our state government think.

TheHandle United Earth from Stockholm Since: Jan, 2012 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
United Earth
#54869: May 20th 2013 at 1:53:49 PM

I don't see the hightech companies of the San Francisco Bay Area or the movie industry of LA going anywhere.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Greenmantle V from Greater Wessex, Britannia Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Hiding
V
#54870: May 20th 2013 at 2:03:30 PM

[up] Maybe because they use Tax Avoidance measures, perhaps?

Keep Rolling On
terlwyth Since: Oct, 2010
#54871: May 20th 2013 at 2:07:58 PM

[up][up] Yeah,I consider myself mostly apathetic on the whole gun thing to be honest,vaguely anti-gun at best. But I have other issues that matter more

And ya' know what California is pretty much a Don't Shoot the Message state,it has all the right ideas in the hands of Dems that don't wanna govern vs the finally weakening obstructive GOP that just wanna up prisons and cut education,...and then the bullshit that is Prop. 13.

In that sense California is pretty much the America to America,while Massachusetts serves as the Sweden.

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
#54872: May 20th 2013 at 2:41:39 PM

@Barkey, I obviously didn't make it clear that my question was aimed at you. As the budget is done by Congress, how is the military budget problem's Obama's fault?

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#54873: May 20th 2013 at 3:13:58 PM

I'd just like to say that I find the "cake analogy" wildly misleading because it suggests that gun control advocates are somehow taking something that belongs to gun rights advocates for themselves. Gun control advocates aren't "stealing your cake" because they want more cake for themselves, they're — to stretch the analogy — saying that cake is dangerous and should be more strictly regulated. It's not "I should have that instead of you", it's "I don't think anyone should have that".

For the record, I'm pretty much middle of the road when it comes to gun control vs gun rights. I think people who are against basic regulation like background checks just as unreasonable as people who want to ban all handguns, period. The problem is that my view of things is essentially the opposite of Barkey's — where he sees gun control advocates slowly and steadily eroding gun rights, I see gun rights advocates consistently and determinedly stonewalling any and all attempts at any sort of gun control measure. This is probably due to geography — I live in Florida, a very gun-friendly state — but I'm mostly talking about the federal level.

On the national stage, the gun rights lobby has managed to ban things like studying the effects that guns have on crime. They're stopping the government from gathering any numbers, and then when gun control legislation hits Congress, they can say "Where are the numbers that even show that a problem exists?". Whichever stance you take on the issue, anyone who tries to destroy the ability to make an informed decision on the topic is an asshole.

I don't mean to pick on you, Barkey, but given that you're the only serious pro gun rights person posting in the thread at the moment, let me ask you a question. You've said that you're completely against any sort of "assault weapons" ban (which I agree with, at least until someone can come up with a reasonable definition of assault weapon), but where do you draw the line for what's acceptable in civilian hands? I know you have experience in both the military and law enforcement, so you're more knowledgeable about what people can do with what hardware than most. There's obviously an upper limit somewhere (the classic reductio ad absurdum being "why not just let people but their own nukes?), so I'm curious — where would you put it? What are you comfortable letting civilians have, and what do you think should be solely the purview of the military? Is there a middle ground of things that are okay for, say, law enforcement to have, but not random citizens?

My personal take on it, just so you know where I'm coming from, is that civilians don't need anything where you can't pick out a single target — which essentially boils down to "no explosives and nothing fully automatic". I realize that neither of those things are used especially often in the commission of crimes, but I'm not suggesting that banning them will fix the problems with gun violence, I'm just saying that's my baseline "I don't think any private citizen ever has a legitimate reason to own hand grenades or machine guns", and other gun control measures (like the aforementioned background checks and licensing) would take effect from there.

[down] "Your Search Has Timed Out. Search results in THOMAS are temporary and are deleted 30 minutes after creation."

edited 20th May '13 3:16:55 PM by NativeJovian

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#54874: May 20th 2013 at 3:16:04 PM

The most recent definition (because it's apparently a legal term) of "assault weapon" is here, for the curious. You'll have to search under amendment —> Amdt 711, since that site does create some pages only temporarily.

edited 20th May '13 3:25:39 PM by SeptimusHeap

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Xopher001 Since: Jul, 2012

Total posts: 417,856
Top