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
More than that. They were saying that popular vote systems are bad because they mean that the candidate people want to win wins.
◊
edited 13th May '17 4:37:22 AM by tclittle
"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."![]()
![]()
Well, after Devos got jeered at her speech, I'm sure no other university wants to make headlines like that. (And what HBCU thinks inviting someone from the Trump administration or allies thereof to make a speech is a good idea?)
US and China sign trade agreement
Under the deal, China will also lift its ban on US beef imports and accept US shipments of liquefied natural gas.
In return, Chinese cooked chicken will be allowed into the US market and Chinese banks can enter the US market.
US Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said the deal should reduce China's trade surplus with the US by the end of 2017.
Mr Ross told CNBC that the US had agreed to treat Chinese financial institutions in the same way as other foreign banks that wanted to open up activities in the US.
"Clearly China, whose banks are among the largest in the whole world, wants access to the US banking market," he said.
"As long as they can comply with the normal rules, they will get access."
Mr Trump had threatened to label China a "currency manipulator" and impose trade tariffs on its goods, but has since softened his position.
He had also attempted to link US-China trade talks to concerns over North Korea's nuclear ambitions, urging Beijing to exert more pressure on Pyongyang.
However, after the trade deal was announced, China's vice-minister of finance, Zhu Guangyao, said economic issues should not be politicised.
"On the connection between the North Korean nuclear issue and our economic '100 days' plan' negotiations, I can tell you frankly that our economy team focused all their efforts on economic issues," he told journalists.
No longer do you hear the words "currency manipulator" or "unfair trade partner" from Trump's lips. Instead, the US in a statement recognised the importance of China's One Belt and One Road initiatives, and even says it will send representatives to attend the summit - something previous administrations have thus far eschewed. China also gets to sell its cooked poultry products to the US - a market it has been keen to tap too.
edited 13th May '17 5:16:20 AM by CenturyEye
Look with century eyes... With our backs to the arch And the wreck of our kind We will stare straight ahead For the rest of our livesYeah, no. I live in a rural area, and I don't even know how many "Repeal the SAFE Act!" signs I've seen in people's yards. Hell, one thread of logic actually got me to dislike the 8-bullet restriction (which was universally applied, not just for handguns) that did eventually get struck down by the Supreme Court - namely, if you're out hunting, and a feral hog is bearing down on you, would you want just 8 chances to shoot it? Granted, this was before the feral hog problem was negated (due to active steps to head it off), but it was still one that made me pause and consider.
All that said, I'm rather staunchly against a ban, and unfortunately it's because of some of the attitudes in this thread that I get lumped in as a "gun-grabber" by some of the people I talk to about it - they assume the Slippery Slope Fallacy and that one form of regulation would lead to another, then another, until finally getting a ban in place.
For me, the one proposal I've got is one I really wish I could get my Congress Critters to listen to - if you want to own a firearm, you have to attend a gun safety course for licensing. I figure it'd be the easiest one to get the NRA on-board with, and if they didn't, they'd be revealing themselves as massive hypocrites given that they already encourage people to take such training courses. But either way, the bottom line is this - despite growing up in a rural area, I've never fired a gun - and yet, because I have a clean criminal record (not even so much as a speeding ticket), I could legally buy a firearm even here in NY, with as restrictive as our laws are, without ever once having learned how to hold it (trigger discipline), how to maintain it, how to store it, or even how to shoot it without risking a jam. That's a lot of knowledge I'm not privy to that allowing someone with my level of training own a firearm is arguably counter-productive.
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"I like the idea of fingerprint locked guns. It's a technology that already exists, and it seems to work. And if it doesn't work you just have to take it into a store to get it recalibrated.
Here's the problem though. Every gun manufacturer that even hints at wanting to use the technology gets a massive amount of blowback from the NRA because...I have no idea. It would make guns a way less attractive thing to steal because there would be no guarantee the gun would even fire, and it would make it so that a kid couldn't accidentally shoot the gun. But the NRA hates any restriction on gun ownership (to the point that they skeeve out local regulators whenever they try expanding into other countries) that they get mad about safety regulations.
I guess it might hurt the second-hand market, but all you'd need to do is set up a way to officially transfer ownership and get the fingerprint thing switched too. I guess that might leave paperwork of who exactly owns the gun, but what's the problem there?
edited 13th May '17 6:21:43 AM by Zendervai
If that is the only argument against abolishing the Second Amendment, then it is irrelevant. That precedence have already been created. The Prohibition started with the Eighteenth Amendment, and it ended when it was abolished, by the Twenty-first.
![]()
![]()
![]()
This "fingerprint locked guns" idea... would this be an all-or-nothing proposition? Do you mean that every gun in the US would be required to have this feature (not just new ones sold at retail stores)?
Well... good luck tracking down the millions of old guns out there and getting their owners to pay to have this gadget installed.
"I can think of no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for something he doesn't want, simply because you think it would be good for him." — Robert A Heinlein.
edited 13th May '17 6:38:30 AM by pwiegle
This Space Intentionally Left Blank.![]()
![]()
![]()
From what I've heard (though I haven't verified all of the claims), there's three issues with the Smart-Guns. 1) They're not so smart, and the errors can be a rather constant problem, which is a big issue in the case of a home defense weapon. 2) The security measure can be pretty easily worked around by would-be thieves, which means it'd do very little to stem the tide of illegal guns. 3) Probably the most petty one, but there's a New Jersey law stating that, once these Smart Guns hit the market, these would be the ONLY types of firearms sold after 3 years of its first sale
. Samantha Bee's new show even covered the topic with a segment called "You're Not Helping!" because this law is giving the gun rights groups a reason to protest what is a genuinely good idea.
edited 13th May '17 6:38:27 AM by ironballs16
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"I'd just start it out with all new guns, with the option for gun owners to come in to have their old guns refitted, while advertising the increased safety and decreased chances of theft. Don't frame it as a restriction, frame it as a security feature. Yeah, there will still be a black market, and shootings can still happen, but it would make them a bit more difficult, and it would get people used to the idea of restrictions like that on a gun. You'd then be able to tighten the restrictions slowly over a long period of time and tons of people wouldn't even notice.
Yeah, the technology is currently kind of flawed, but there would be an incentive to fix it if the technology came into wide use.
edited 13th May '17 6:40:27 AM by Zendervai
So you're in favor of the Slippery Slope, then? Thanks for clarifying your position.
edited 13th May '17 6:48:31 AM by pwiegle
This Space Intentionally Left Blank.I'm not sure if this was posted but apparently Trump held a meeting with Russian officials in the oval office and only allowed Journalists from Russia
.
Bear in mind, I'm Canadian. I find the sheer availability of guns in the US to be almost horrifying, especially since it becomes a self-purpetuating cycle. "I need a gun to protect me from all the other people with guns" and so on. I have a strong bias in this situation.
I do think that a government funded mandatory gun licensing system, similar to the driver's licensing system, would be be actual best solution right now. Bonus, make the gun license a valid photo-ID, solving that problem too. Because restricting access to the ID means restricting access to guns and we all know you can't have that!
edited 13th May '17 6:55:02 AM by Zendervai
edited 13th May '17 6:59:57 AM by Fourthspartan56
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
Oddly enough, the biometric one is probably the least reliable for one very good reason - your internal metrics are going to be very off-kilter when in a stressful situation (e.g. a burglar in the house) compared to when you're setting it. Well, unless you're very high-strung and/or frustrated with the tech.
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"The gun ban and restrictions on the scary black evil rifles is insanely counterproductive, specially since those civil grade A Rs and A Ks are for all purposes irrelevant when it comes to gun deaths statistics in the US. They only get attention when a spree killer goes on a rampage against one but still, handguns can do the same job.
The problem when gun owners see a democrat trying to legislate over weapons and ammo they show not only an ineptitude to tackle the issue of gun violence by trying to ban or impose restriction that will to a total of barely nothing but also repeatedly show to not understand firearms at all. Which are both things that make the gun owners of US extremely distrusting of Democrats when it comes to gun rights and increases the single issue wonks among the gun owner ranks.
Including trying to make blanked bans over ammunition being considered armor piercing cop killer bullets due to them being a popular military surplus caliber.
Restrictions like 8 or 10 rounds magazines, no muzzle flash and pistol grip have little to no effect on gun violence and serve mostly to piss off gun owners with arbitrary restrictions. Not to mention most of the legislation focuses on semi automatic long arms instead of handguns, which is the most used firearm and the one that is actually favored by criminals because it is concealable, unlike shotguns and rifles where it is pretty hard to walk around with one without dragging the attention to yourself.
Federally enforced background checks, safety training, waiting periods, gun registry and sales registry with having a federally recognized gun license where you need the former items to acquire alone would at least remove decent amount of gun deaths but not erase the issue outright because violence in the US goes beyond just the access to guns.
Inter arma enim silent leges

Well yeah, that is how that tends to work. The other possibility being that too many people voted against her. Heck, it could actually be both!