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
![]()
Use a combination lock, don't tell the kid the combo.
edited 7th Oct '15 10:29:10 PM by Protagonist506
Leviticus 19:34That's why you generally have the key in a safe location, as well. Sure as shit my dad always kept his guns locked up and didn't tell us where the key was. Not even my brother, who was the one he took out hunting every year.
Sad to say that probably prevented some problems when my brother was around this other kid's age. Sad in the sense my brother had problems, not in the sense they were prevented.
Though, the thing is, this appears to be a premeditated murder (as far as I can tell-I haven't done much research), so I would say that it's plausible that denying them access to firearms wouldn't have necessarily prevented the crime from happening.
I mean, to compare it to say, poisons: if your child accidentally drinks drain-o and dies, the issue of the day seems to be 'keep your drain-o away from kids, dummy'. But if your kid poisons someone deliberately with drain-o, then the issue of the day is 'don't poison people, asshole'.
edited 7th Oct '15 10:38:40 PM by Protagonist506
Leviticus 19:34I'm watching the French TV show called Le Petit Journal - it's heavily inspired by Jon Stewart, if you want to get the tone - and since the US campaign, thanks to Mr Trump, kickstarted much earlier than they expected, they are already showing a "Best of" of the campaign clips of the Republican candidates (because that's where the fight is the biggest).
It so happened that both Ted Cruz and Rand Paul were shown firing assault weapons in their clips. The former to cook bacon (!), the latter to destroy the tax code.
So apparently, you need to show that you know how to fire a weapon if you want to be a serious republican candidate. Which would automatically disqualify you for the run in pretty much every other country in the world, except maybe North Korea. And I'm not surprised that some people consider it okay for a kid to have a weapon, when the prospective leaders of the nation are depicted this way.
edited 7th Oct '15 10:40:17 PM by Julep
Knowing how to fire an automatic weapon disqualifies you from running any nation except North Korea or America?
In seriousness: The idea is to look badass, and to show that you know a thing or two about firearms (and aren't afraid of them)...which many politicians who talk about gun control do not (for example, some gun control-advocating politicians try to ban safety features on weapons, such as the barrel shroud).
But also it's a symbolic show of strength, like a king with a sword. Think of that image of Churchill carrying a Tommy Gun. Looks like a total badass.
edited 7th Oct '15 10:48:35 PM by Protagonist506
Leviticus 19:34I don't know if this counts as pre-meditated rather than spur of the moment; the kid used the gun because the gun was there and was the weapon of opportunity. I mean, this appears to have happened right after the argument with the little girl. Note; I am not sure what the specifics of crime classification are, but the boy didn't spend a whole lot of time planning this. If he hadn't been able to get to the gun, he might not have done this at all.
Granted, the most chilling thing about this is that a kid thought it was okay to grievously harm another kid to begin with, but the point about gun safety is as salient as always.
It was probably pre-meditated because he went to find the gun (knowing what he was looking for) before he fired the shot. There was at least some planning involved.
In other news, Donald Trump has gone to British Supreme Court over a wind farm
, fighting against the devolved Scottish Government, and he thinks that ‘eminent domain is wonderful’
.
@Julep; those ads aired in the middle of a flare up of the gun debate either shortly before or after the first Republican debate. And those aren't really the most ridiculous ads either. You'll see more. Yes, we're already tired of it and we know how ridiculous it is. The machine gun bacon thing was thoroughly mocked when it got around.
Eminent domain can be one of those necessary evils, but Trump is obviously painting it in too bright a light.
In fact, eminent domain may be coming up in Texas soon; a private company is doing research for the possible construction of a high speed rail between Dallas and Houston. Something that would be useful to thousands, but would require going through a lot of what is currently rural farmland.
Also, seems kind of like sour grapes that he's complaining about what a foreign government wants to build on land that's not his. Pfff, I hope he loses this one. The wind turbines will do more for the locals than his golf course.
edited 7th Oct '15 11:40:32 PM by AceofSpades
I still don't get why, at the very least, we don't treat guns like cars and require people to take tests on gun usage, safety, and storage to get a license to own or use one. And every so often they must demonstrate basic proficiency with it at a gun range and have gun lockers inspected like getting a smog.
If caught not being up to code or a unlicensed gun they should face fines and confiscation like a car.
I mean it is sensible so it's an automatic no to the average gun retards but yeah.
edited 7th Oct '15 11:53:16 PM by Memers
Bernie Sanders goes double-or-nothing, submitting a labor bill that would eliminate "Right to Work" laws
, though without a doubt the current batch of Republicans will stomp it to death with extreme prejudice.
In March 2015, Scott Walker “proudly” made Wisconsin the 25th right-to-work state, dealing a devastating blow to workers in the state. Right-to-work laws are the right-wing’s favorite way to eliminate the power of unions in their states. They sell it to their constituents as a “protection” for employees against unions, but what the laws really do is leave them vulnerable to the corporations they work for. In Florida, for instance, a worker can be arbitrarily fired and negotiating higher wages is almost unheard of. Sanders’ bill would no longer allow state preemption of federal labor laws and, most importantly, it would make right-to-work laws a thing of the past.
If passed, the Workplace Democracy Act, sponsored by Sanders and Democratic Rep. Mark Pocan, would rectify current laws that deny American laborers their fundamental right to elect people to represent their best interests and negotiate the “terms and conditions of their employment or other mutual aid or protection” on their behalf.
To increase the union jobs in the country, Sanders wants to make it easier to form a union. According to Al Jazeera America, union leaders blame the recent strikes — especially those in the fast food industry — and union membership declines, on workers’ inability to form unions because of the difficult administration processes.
“The fact that in the last three years workers have been striking and not holding elections shows that workers know labor law as it is doesn’t work,” said Joseph Geevarghese, deputy director of the labor coalition Change to Win. “The current regime doesn’t work; we need alternatives to the NLRB election system.”
The main provisions of the bill are:
- Eliminate the two-stage balloting process for union election
- Guarantees the right to first contract
- Strengthens and expands the enforcement authority of the National Labor Relations Board
- Repeals the prohibitions against strikes, boycotts and hot cargo agreements
- Prohibits state preemption of federal labor laws
- Secures equal treatment for all employees
- Ensures equal protection under the law for state and local public sector employees
- Provides workers the right to act as guarantors of their financial future
- Extends NLRA coverage to workers for U.S. owned companies that operate in Free Trade Agreement countries
The elimination of the two-ballot system would be a huge step towards making unionizing easier. Under current law, workers have to complete a difficult, two-ballot process in order to form a union. First, thirty percent of the employees have to sign union authorization cards in order to trigger a ballot. If they succeed, a ballot then goes out and the majority of the workers must vote in favor of organizing in order for a union to be certified. Sanders’ bill will eliminate the second step and a union would be certified if the majority signs the authorization cards.
Finally, one of the most important provisions of the Workplace Democracy Act is the one that protects international employees of American companies. Right now, many multinational companies outsource to countries like China, where labor laws are almost nonexistent, because it is much cheaper to operate in those countries. Sanders’ bill would allow employees of U.S. companies in other countries to file labor complaints against the company if the workers are treated unfairly. This would make it much harder to exploit vulnerable people in other countries.
If passed, this bill would be a groundbreaking achievement and would protect our workers not just in the U.S. but across the world from predatory corporations who only care about how many zeros are at the end of their bank statements. Unfortunately, this is exactly why the Republican-controlled Houses will never allow it to become a law. They care about workers’ rights about as much as they care about women’s rights. This is just another example of why it is so important that we show up in force next November and vote for Democratic candidates who will protect our rights, not the “rights” of the one percent. If we ever want to see this bill, or any bill like it, be signed into law and see the income gap close, we have to vote the GOP out.
All the while shilling Eminent Domain in the States.
edited 8th Oct '15 1:55:31 AM by Medinoc
"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."Also, since the 2nd Amendment is a roadblock (a woefully poorly written battered roadblock that I personally think was written for a whole other time and place, but I digress.) to probably treating guns like a car or so such with testing and licensing, I think what we should be looking into is preventing the radicalization of these mass shooters.
A lot of the 'illness' here is religious, social and politically extreme views for quite a number of them combined with narcassism. The question is what factors are enabling the radicalization and deviation from being otherwise normal citizens. I think tackling the systematic elements that enable that might be the smart move, since I'm not sure normal mental health treatments would be entirely useful in this case.
And, you know, fund the ATF and let the CDC research Gun Violence, but Congress will never do those.
![]()
You can have abstract arguments about the economic merits of Keystone and TPP, but they would not benefit the everyday American at all.
edited 8th Oct '15 4:56:52 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

There wasn't an accident because a responsible adult was there the prevent one.
"War without fire is like sausages without mustard." - Jean Juvénal des Ursins