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
![]()
![]()
![]()
&
We've been told and understand that. That is why some of the people who were going "ban AR because they serve no purpose other than shooting a lot of things quickly" have gone to "strict background checks and better mental heath assistance."
Can I propose that we ban the gun control debate unless something new comes up (or someone new comes into the thread without knowing about the ban)? It seems like everyone here is ready for a compromise—with very little difference in what each person wants. Any talk about it ends up being "We agree, but [vent feelings about specific/personal situations]." As someone who likes compromise and understanding the other side, it is getting quite frustrating to see people continually agree and yet continue arguing. [/vent frustration
]
edited 22nd May '13 8:25:46 AM by Belian
Yu hav nat sein bod speeling unntil know. (cacke four undersandig tis)the cake is a lie!Eric Garcetti Wins L.A. Mayor's Race
Senator Ted Cruz: 'I don’t trust Republicans'
Governor Rick Perry Signs Legislation Banning Animal Shelter Gas Chambers
Governor Scott Walker Heading To Iowa, Stoking 2016 Talk
edited 22nd May '13 12:52:23 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016It's way too early to be talking about the goddamn primaries. I mean it's freaking 2013! I think they started doing this shit in the middle of Obama 's last term! I hate it . It distracts evryone from real politics, like bills and congress. No one gives this much attention to Congressional elections
Who gets to define what does or doesn't count as campaigning?
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
First amendment rights, right? It's like saying that you're for gun bans, but you own or want to buy an assault weapon
.
No, noone buys the "research" defense. It's a pretty idiotic thing to do - the comparison is a pedo looking for child porn for the sake of "research" - if it's something you think is wrong, you don't do it!
You know damn well it's stupid and hypocritical for you to say it, but then you go and do or say something completely contrary to what you just said.
Don't forget the NRA also made their own video game to showcase firearms after saying Video Games also caused violence
.
edited 22nd May '13 3:54:47 PM by DevilTakeMe
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!So it seems Bush has been convicted of war crimes.
Anyone think this is going to be relevent?
It isn't by any authority that we recognize, so nothing is going to come of it. Saying "The US and the Pentagon is monitoring this trial closely" is giving themselves way too much credit. I'm pretty sure they got an eye roll and a dismissive wave up in DC when they heard about this.
I mean really? Kuala Lumpur? The only outside authority we would even close to ever recognize the weight of when making such a judgement would be the UN itself, and we're a Security Council member. So essentially, the US couldn't give two shits what anyone else has to say about it.
edited 22nd May '13 7:23:50 PM by Barkey
I wonder if how the U.S. will respond when that is no longer the case. I'm not sure our national psyche will take it well when there's someone bigger on the block we're not allowed to blow off.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.I don't see that happening any time in the near-future. Even if China tried Bush in absentia and said he was guilty of war crimes, regardless of the fact that our economic partnership means that would never happen, we wouldn't care because it could only be recognized through the UN. And as a security council member, we would just shitcan that plan from the get-go with our veto power.
From a diplomatic perspective, our position in the UN essentially means we can just tell everyone to screw themselves. And I can't think of any Security Council member who would react differently. If we tried to pass judgement on leaders of any of the other members, they would use their veto power as well and just tell the US to go screw itself.
Odds are Bush will be dead by the time a threat like that looms, but if another nation ever tried to abscond with a former President, that'd mean war in a heartbeat.
edited 22nd May '13 7:27:59 PM by Barkey
Joe Biden Picks On Obama For Teleprompter Use
FEMA's 'Waffle House Index' Rates Moore, Oklahoma, At Disaster Level Yellow
EDIT: Kissinger has been a war criminal for 30+ years. If I was Dubya I wouldn't be very worried.
edited 22nd May '13 7:53:21 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016The House passed a bill on Keystone... but doesn't Obama get a chance to veto it? So what exactly do they hope to prove?
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Here in California they are actually harder to obtain legally, and handguns are still the majority of firearms related homicide.
But that's the only point I wanted to make here guys. I'm not against gun control. Background checks and some sort of competency license are on the table with me, but this stupid bullshit involving obsessing with pistol grips and "assault weapons" is pure fantasy, it isn't going to have any appreciable effect. The conspiracy theorist in me thinks it's just part of a plan by anti-gun lobbies. Sporting rifles are "scary" with all their "military" features, so it's easy to get an emotional response out of people to get them banned. Once those are banned, gun crime statistics will barely be dented, and then they'll just go for handguns or shotguns next, it won't stop there.
I want my fucking sporting rifles. Get rid of handguns if you want(well, I have a CCW so I assume I'd be allowed to keep it and my handguns I own) but leave the god damn rifles alone. It statistically doesn't make sense, just let me put my goddamn macmillan stock with a pistol grip on my M 1 A, and let me have 20 round box magazines. The statistics show that this won't end the world or make California fall into the fucking ocean.
I'm absolutely against stupid gun control. Gun control is supposed to accomplish an objective: Reducing firearms related homicide. Banning rifles does virtually nothing to even dent the firearms homicide rate, ergo it's ineffective and shouldn't be done.
This obsession with "assault weapons" must end before anyone can expect rational and mature negotiations from the pro-gun side of the fence. It's idiotic and ineffective.
edited 22nd May '13 8:16:25 AM by Barkey