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
Okay, let's settle this shit once and for all. Instead of blaming Republicans, tell your do-no-wrong Democrats to stop dropping the ball on shit just to get votes; for instance, stop acting as if people are racist for wanting secure borders, stop calling people misogynists who just want to protect innocent life, and stop acting like custom sights is the cause of gun violence.
On our end, we'll get Republicans to stop licking the balls of rich white people.
Deal?
It was an honor
Maxima. Shut. Up.
We don't call people misogynist for "wanting to protect innocent life." we call them that because they resort to the sorts of fucking horrors that make people have nightmares. For forcing women to carry to term something they didn't choose and then taking away that which would give them the ability to actually fucking care for the child their being forced to give birth to. For not actually dealing with the reasons why women have abortions, just taking away their ability to have one. For shaming them and humiliating them in public, for endangering their lives by not giving one fucking shit about their situation, just that they have a child. For reducing them to their bodily functions.
You call fetuses "innocent life" that you want to "protect" and quite frankly, I can't give a shit about that "innocent life" because I am much more concerned with giving a shit about the "innocent life" already born who keep getting shafted in education, child care, and so much more.
We do NOT call Democrats "do no wrong," we call them "do one fucking shit lot less wrong than republicans and have a chance of being elected."
And Furthermore, "custom sights causes gun violence" is a complete fucking strawman, and furthermore, you know it.
In fact, there was nothing in your post which wasn't a massive goddamn strawman of our positions or couched in terms meant to make your position seem more palatable.
edited 9th Jun '13 1:07:43 AM by Enkufka
Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen FryPick whatever language you want to placate the Democrats' gaffes. The general idea still stands. Get your party to stop cosigning on some of the outrageous shit they cosign on, and we'll drop kick the Tea Party out of the picture.
Take it, or leave it, and we just continue the stalemate.
edited 9th Jun '13 1:11:41 AM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honorSo basically, you'll keep the people who have advocated the most extreme of right-wing positions (economic and social) because we won't stop calling anti-abortion implications misogynist, won't call some aspects of gun control proponents paranoid, and won't stop calling border tightening racist? that's what you are saying?
If you're referring to fucking stupid shit that Democrats have done in local NY government, then point it out and I'll probably back you up to some degree. I haven't paid attention because I'm not affected by NY or NYC politics but I hear shit and I can understand why you'd be pissed.
But Democrats are a fractious group compared to the Republicans. It's well documented. And to extrapolate that all democrats are like NYC democrats is a further misinformation.
edited 9th Jun '13 1:20:35 AM by Enkufka
Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen Fry(Sigh) I am not keeping anybody because my view is all of them are full-of-shit wheelers and dealers who don't care about you, me, or anyone else, and only want to continue to loyally serve their corporate overlords.
And as long as they keep you and I at each others' throats, they'll keep doing it. The key is let go of our Single Issue Wonks long enough to understand that we really want the same thing.
edited 9th Jun '13 1:35:54 AM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honorAnd just like that. Suddenly I'm the one in the wrong for following your lead.
This is why I don't bother to enter topics where you are, Maxima. You engage in histrionics and actively seem two-faced, not to mention how you seem to not listen to people.
I'm out for real this time.
Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen FryRe pages after pages of gun control debate: I wish the gun control side finally, finally got rid of those "cosmetic features" bans, so they stop being used against them every time the debate pops up. I'm starting to wonder whether these bans were planted by a pro-gun mole due to how counter-purpose they are.
Edit: What follows is a completely separate argument about the car analogy. Sorry if it was not clear back when you all answered.
...Also, can someone show me a car commercial that boasts how dangerous the car is, how is silent electric engine enhances sneaking up on prey and getaway, that its Mercedes crosshair now comes with night vision and how it can be used to run people over more efficiently than your old car?
edited 9th Jun '13 1:57:38 PM by Medinoc
"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."Personally I want our entire congress to just be wiped clean.
If a computer is so infested with malware and bugs and faults sometimes its just best to reformat the god damn thing and start over....
Neither pro or gun sides are lead by rational intelligent people. Which is why we are in this fucking mess.
edited 9th Jun '13 3:05:38 AM by Thorn14
I always thought the apt comparison was spoilers, rims, etc. Spoilers and rims don't make a car better in a significant way, just like most cosmetic rifle features don't either. Pistol grips don't make it easier to kill someone with a rifle(in my opinion, no pistol grip isn't a hinderance to me.) just like a spoiler wouldn't make me any more or less apt at being able to hit someone with a car or go faster.
When was the last time you saw a gun commercial about accessories though? So your comparison is rather off, or you're assuming the US has commercials by Smith & Wesson about how kick ass the M&P handgun is and such. I don't think I've ever seen a single commercial advertising for people to buy firearms or firearm accessories.. Ever.
But I do agree with you, I wish they would do away with all that silliness and actually base gun control on actual science and not just the whims and theories of politicians who don't educate themselves and the ignorant constituents that elect them.
edited 9th Jun '13 3:17:57 AM by Barkey
If we based our arguments on well thought out and researched issues instead of irrational shouting (Both sides, thank you) we wouldn't be discussing a lot of problems our nation has.
A stock wont increase "killing capacity" (I'd argue extended mags can however).
But a check on mental health or expanded gun registration wont lead to the government kicking down the door and stealing your guns either.
But, Barkey, one thing that kind of amuses me is how passionate you get over this when, from the looks of it, you won.
Nothing is going to get passed. Ever. Sure there are still loud advocates but they never do anything.
I still hear people argue about "video game violence" and shit (which was used by the NRA, funny) but I've stopped worrying about video games being banned by the government.
I'm more concerned about the industry itself turning it into shit
edited 9th Jun '13 3:25:13 AM by Thorn14
Maybe I've been reading the wrong posts but from what I could tell Barkey and Starship were talking about dropping the crazy shit so as to appeal to moderates, the thing we constantly moan about Republicans not doing. And yes, banning a cosmetic item for a gun is crazy, it's not as crazy as some of the stuff Republicans do, but I'd like to think we can tone down our own crazy while still fighting the other guy's crazy.
California certainly shouldn't be a model for same gun regulation, that shit be crazy, and I say that coming from "handguns are illegal" Britain. In the end Barkey (and Starship) are right, putting forwards sensical gun regulation could win lots of voters over, sure it's about as likely to pass as crazy gun regulation, but showing that you don't believe a gun is more dangerous because it's a particular colour is still a smart move.
He won at a national level, but on a state level I'm pretty sure he lost.
edited 9th Jun '13 5:23:03 AM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranAnyways, I'll back off of gun control as a topic for now. I do think that free gun initiatives are a bad idea; you're giving people guns to sell in other areas and that will open a can of worms.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.What Silas said. Gun owners as a whole won, but Californians lost years ago, and we're still losing. If I only cared about laws that affected me, I wouldn't give a shit what got passed at the federal level, because California will always be worse than the Federal gun control laws.
One of the problems that I've mentioned in this subject, however, is that it is a problem that the only way gun owners win is when anti-gun folks lose. Gun Owners never win anything back that we've already lost. It encourages gun owners to never come to the table to negotiate, because the options are "Fight tooth and nail and possibly lose, but not win anything." or "Negotiate and try to give something up in an effort to placate anti-gun folks, lose something and gain nothing." There is absolutely zero incentive to actually be reasonable when it comes to gun control. The best outcome for us is if nothing happens. If we were able to pick up enough steam in California to get rid of the whole "cosmetic military style features are evil" laws here, that would set a whole new precedent where the pro-gun side would all go "Whoa, we can actually get stuff back? That means the opposition is actually willing to negotiate!"
Negotiations and compromises mean both sides win somehow. It's not a compromise or a negotiation if the best "win" for my side is "Hey, if you make things easy for us we will only take X away from you, but not X and Y! See? Compromise!" That's what things feel like from my side of the table. There is absolutely no incentive to play ball with Democrats in this arena, we gain absolutely nothing from dialogue. We have the most to gain if we filibuster and impede the efforts of the opposition in every possible way.
Seriously guys, this is the main problem that is keeping a relatively civil gun control debate from going on at the national scale between most regular folks. To go back to the local level for me at least, if the anti-gun lobby in my state said "Hey, we'll repeal all the laws regarding "assault weapons" if you let us pass enhanced background check laws and if a small percentage of all gun sales in California go to mental health services." That would be compromise.
Or "Hey, we'll turn California into a "Shall Issue" state for conceal carry instead of being a "May Issue" state, if you agree not to oppose a bill that makes it so that you cannot conduct a private sale of long guns between private parties, and you have to go through a gun shop to sell a rifle instead of being able to just pay cash to a private citizen who gives you the gun, with no exchange of paperwork involved."(this would close what is known as the "gun show loophole")
That's what I want, to be honest. I want actual compromise, actual communication. What we have now isn't communication. Neither side is being reasonable or budging, and the only difference is that the pro-gun side has absolutely zero incentive to be reasonable, because the anti-gun side is absolutely unwilling to come to the table to bargain. Right now the anti-gun lobby wants something for nothing, and then says we are being unreasonable when we tell them to go pound sand.
edited 9th Jun '13 7:38:01 AM by Barkey
I can live with giving back the cosmetic features. I have a problem with extended clips and think you can leave clips larger than 10 rounds at the firing range, but I don't see why permits should be "may issue" if you pass the background and mental health checks. I kinda feel that people who let kids get their hands on guns and allow accidents to happen should be denied permits, though. You're responsible enough to lock yours up; the morons whose toddlers shoot each other have them sticking out of baskets at the door like they're fucking umbrellas.
But yeah, otherwise your position seems reasonable and one with which I could negotiate no problem.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.I never mentioned standard magazines as part of the negotiation, the value that would have as a bargaining chip would be pretty hard to get back here in Cali, as much as I would love it.
I wouldn't expect the anti-gun lobby in Cali to give those back to us short of us saying we would all uniformly vote democrat for the next 16 years or agree to keep our guns in a public armory, neither of which would ever happen.
I sure do miss 30 round mags though. I still have a bunch laying around in case I really need them, but obviously I can't take them to the range, and I wouldn't risk using them out in the mountains in case BLM rode up on me or something and I wasn't paying attention, so they just sit there loaded up and collecting dust.
Here's the problem with regulating storage of guns in the home though, how do you enforce that? Obviously if tragedy has already struck, of course that person should be denied a permit. But how do you enforce that? Do you have cops/atf folks visit your house to make sure you have a safe? Do you take a picture of your gun safe and show you have one? You can make people prove they own the devices necessary to secure firearms such as safes and cable locks, but you can't prove or make people prove that they are actually using them. Manpower wise, it isn't realistic. And from a legal standpoint, it wouldn't be ok to be forced to invite LEO's into your home on a whim so they can make sure your guns are stored correctly.
To be broader, here's my problem with "May Issue". The state of California abuses the shit out of May Issue status. If they did what Illinois did and just said "No CCW's for anyone who isn't a cop." then that would be unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has said so. The problem is that California has no specific standard for what qualifies you for one, it just has to get approval from the issuing authority(usually the Sheriff) in your county of residence. Now I understand making sure that people who apply for CCW's are sane and responsible. I'm totally ok with that. But here in my state it is practically impossible in most counties. However, it is legally possible, but there are nebulous and not-defined standards for what qualifies you. One thing that separates California apart is that in really liberal counties(most California counties) protection of yourself/family/others does not qualify as a reason. What this means is that in places like LA County, the only people the Sheriff grants CCW's to are celebrities, really rich motherfuckers, and politicians. You have to be some sort of important A-list person to get a CCW here, or you have to be a personal friend of the Sheriff and they pull cronyism on you.
Thankfully we got a new Sheriff a few years back, and he decided self-defense is a good enough reason, so I have one. He doesn't just hand them out, it's still difficult to get one here, but I wrote a big ass essay on why I am responsible, sane, and well trained enough to have one. Then I also, of my own accord, obtained several written letters of recommendation, one of which was from the chief of police of my town. Then I had to do a background check, and finally I had to have a face to face meeting with a Detective who got to ask me whatever he wanted and wrote a report on his recommendation. Then all that paperwork went to the Sheriff, and he stamped it accepted, and I got my CCW.
Lindsey Lohan had a California CCW from LA County, but I wouldn't stand a chance in hell of getting one and I'm in Law Enforcement(albeit not civilian, so they don't count me the same). How much faith in our system does that give you?
I would like to think these last few exchanges are what a gun control conversation is supposed to look like.
edited 9th Jun '13 8:09:35 AM by Barkey

They're not my side, genius. They wouldn't do shit for my community if we didn't keep hassling them.