• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

The worst part of the election season so far is now knowing that we are going to lose out on at least 4 years of Larry David doing Bernie as president. That's the shame of all this.
 
Suburb Repairman said:
I really don't blame folks for not liking Clinton. Hell, I don't really like her.

My real hope over the last couple of months was for a brokered Democratic Convention in which Joe Biden stepped in as a consensus candidate, given that I didn't see a route to victory for Sanders and am less than excited about Clinton. Biden could easily beat Trump.

The nice thing about economic policy is that the President has little to do with it. I've told many people that with reservations similar to yours--to look at what could realistically change. When you do that, Bernie's platform becomes very appealing to a broad spectrum of voters.

There's a part of me that is quite sad that I won't get to see Trump & Sanders head-to-head in a debate, because you know that would be fun to watch.
Click to expand...

Do you think Joe Bieden will actually run?
 
Anyone read Matt Bai's column about the Black Hole in Trump yesterday? What a hoot. But he's right you know...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/black-hole-within-donald-trump-000000238.html
When you’re deciding whether to plunge into a marriage, don’t ever make the mistake of thinking you’re marrying the person your partner is going to become, once he or she finally grows up or finds that perfect job or stops making meth in the basement. The only person you’re marrying is the one sitting right in front of you, and while some people do improve over time, only a fool would count on it.
Click to expand...
 
Bartlett for 2016!
Josiah_Bartlett_with_chair.jpg
 
I read this yesterday and thought, well now there's an approach:



What’s needed now in American politics is consternation, confusion, dissension, disorder, chaos — and crisis, with possible resolution — and a Trump presidency is the best chance for this true progress. This is a politics of arson. I’d rather see the empire burn to the ground under Trump, opening up at least the possibility of radical change, than cruise on autopilot under Clinton.
 
michaelskis said:
Do you think Joe Bieden will actually run?
Click to expand...

At this point, no. But I think he absolutely would if something happened between now and the convention--the guy has a sense of duty to him that I think he would go all-in if called upon.

The only reason he didn't was the death of his son, and not a soul can blame him for not stepping into the race at that time. He has had time to grieve though and I think would step-in if needed. I have a lot of respect for people that have experienced the kind of loss he has in his life--they have a perspective & level of empathy that have great value to me as traits of good leaders. And I also think the "right personality" for President should have a certain reluctance & humility. I tend to view people with skepticism that passionately seek power without regard.
 
michaelskis said:
Do you think Joe Bieden will actually run?
Click to expand...

Sadly, no. I think when Beau passed away, a lot of the fire that Joe Biden had went with him. I think he's content in his current role and once his VP position ends, he'll stay out of the spotlight. I've always liked Joe Biden. He's a bit creepy with the ladies to be sure, but he seems like he has a solid head on his shoulders and he seems to be a moderate guy who could do well with both sides.
 
A friend of mine wrote a long FB post about the political system we have... And that it is our fault. The following are his words and I agree.
In light of the recent news that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have become our two Presidential nominees, there is something that I'd like to say. While you may not agree with all of it, I'm sure there is at least one piece of the following that will strike a chord with you.

This is what happens when...
We keep up with Kardashians,
We are more offended by a lion and a gorilla dying than we are about people dying,
We care more about the next iPhone than the people in our contacts list,
We are offended by everything,
We make millionaires out of idiots,
We take advantage of others,
We don't put education first,
We boycott anyone that has a different opinion,
We expect things for free,
We take from people who work to give to those that don't,
We expect schools to sell products to make ends meet,
We expect teachers to buy supplies with their own money,
We riot and burn down neighborhoods to protest people being treated wrongly,
We never look up from our phones,
We use selfie sticks,
We don't appreciate what we have,
We let someone else worry about it,
We believe everything we read on the Internet,
We reward people for bad decisions,
We make excuses instead of taking responsibility,
We always look for the short cut,
We expect things that aren't earned,
We feel entitled,
We treat the police like they are the enemy,
We take the easy way out,
We feel the rules don't apply to us,
We don't learn from our mistakes,
We don't learn from history's mistakes,
We allow the voice of cooporations to hold more weight than our own,
We throw things away instead of trying to fix them,
We don't punish our children,
We raise our children to believe they are better than others,
We succumb to greed,
We have systems in place where you can win a popular vote but lose an election,
We worry more about starving people in other countries than homeless veterans in our own,
We can't see past the color of a person's skin,
We don't pay attention in school,
We look to drugs as a way to fix the economy,
We don't treat others as we'd like to be treated ourselves,
We give up,
We are selfish,
We spend more time chasing the almighty dollar than we do chasing our kids,
We blame our failures on others,
We reward the destination without recognizing the journey,
We allow it to be more profitable to treat a disease than it is to cure it,
We give out trophies just for showing up,
We take people in from their shitty ass countries and allow them to expect us to make the United States just like the country they were dying to leave.

We are in a bad way but we can only blame ourselves. WE did this to US. I don't know how to fix this but I don't think these nominees do either. They're the epitome of what this country has become. In one corner you have one of the most manipulative, dishonest and dirty politicians I've ever seen. She has no respect for the truth or the fine military people that keep this country safe. The whole Benghazi/email scandal thing is a joke. In the other corner you have one of the worst examples of the human race imaginable. The way he talks about women and people of other races is disgusting.

The sad truth is, that in a few short months, one of these two "human beings" will be voted to the highest office in the land. They will become the ambassador and representative for the greatest country in the world (or what used to be the greatest). If there was ever a time for an independent candidate to step up and win an election, it's now. It won't happen though and maybe it shouldn't. Maybe these next four years should be our "time out" for the way that we've become as a society. Maybe we should sit in our rooms and think about how we've let ourselves become such greedy, oversensitive, narcissistic assholes.

There was a time in this country that when the going got tough people rolled up their sleeves and got to work to fix it. Now we sit and hide behind social media accounts that incite rage and whine and cry and become ultra offended by the smallest things. We need to get our thick skin and backbone back. It's the only way to fix this. We need another Washington, Lincoln, FDR or JFK to make this country great again. My only hope is that over these next four years a person of this stature comes forward and takes a stand for the America that used to be.

Thanks for taking the time to read this. If you like it, share it.

Eric Froberg
Click to expand...
 
I have no words for the attack in Orlando. I am really sad to have to deal with the politicization from both sides of the tragedy.

I wish we had an answer for all this hate. Facebook memes probably won't be enough.
 
Hink said:
I have no words for the attack in Orlando. I am really sad to have to deal with the politicization from both sides of the tragedy.

I wish we had an answer for all this hate. Facebook memes probably won't be enough.
Click to expand...

I can't even look at FB or the news right now without getting angry. People are going overboard with the "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before" Rahm Emanuel way of thinking. It is both sides of several different issues that getting stupid about this because they realize they can capitalize on the emotion of everyone.

Additionally, I think that someone on the Trump campain needs to find a way to filter his twitter message before they become public.
 
Suburb Repairman said:
My real hope over the last couple of months was for a brokered Democratic Convention in which Joe Biden stepped in as a consensus candidate, given that I didn't see a route to victory for Sanders and am less than excited about Clinton. Biden could easily beat Trump.
Click to expand...

Can you imagine a convention where both Biden and Romney stepped in to save America? Oh, what a dream. Alternatively, a much more realistic nightmare I have is that Bernie, with all of his support, will choose to run as a third party and give the Donald a clear path to the White House *shudders*
 
michaelskis said:
I can't even look at FB or the news right now without getting angry. People are going overboard with the "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before" Rahm Emanuel way of thinking. It is both sides of several different issues that getting stupid about this because they realize they can capitalize on the emotion of everyone.

Additionally, I think that someone on the Trump campain needs to find a way to filter his twitter message before they become public.
Click to expand...

The armchair pundits are the one's that really get me. FB is flooded with "we need to do THIS". Whether that solution is right or wrong, why does someone else have to do it? If you are truly passionate about the issue, get involved beyond being a social media warrior.

I really feel like there are no good solutions out there. Increased regulation of weapons doesn't seem to work because it's already easier to get weapons illegally than legally. The argument for/against assault weapons really doesn't make any sense either. I understand that the average person does not need an assault rifle, but it takes 50 bucks and a half hour watching a YouTube video to change a semi-automatic to an automatic weapon. People won't stop doing things simply because they are illegal.

I find it so strange that you can buy a video game today that features you killing indiscriminate strangers on the street with all sorts of weaponry, but God forbid if the game (or commercial, or tv show) features even the slightest glimpse of nudity.
 
Last edited:
AG74683 said:
The armchair pundits are the one's that really get me. FB is flooded with "we need to do THIS". Whether that solution is right or wrong, why does someone else have to do it? If you are truly passionate about the issue, get involved beyond being a social media warrior.

I really feel like there are no good solutions out there. Increased regulation of weapons doesn't seem to work because it's already easier to get weapons illegally than legally. The argument for/against assault weapons really doesn't make any sense either. I understand that the average person does not need an assault rifle, but it takes 50 bucks and a half hour watching a YouTube video to change a semi-automatic to an automatic weapon. People won't stop doing things simply because they are illegal.

I find it so strange that you can buy a video game today that features you killing indiscriminate strangers on the street with all sorts of weaponry, but God forbid if the game (or commercial, or tv show) features even the slightest glimpse of nudity.
Click to expand...

Not only is there no good answer, there is so much mixed information regarding what happened, that I don't think ANYONE has enough true information and knowledge to suggest a real tangible solution at this point in time.

The little bits of information that I do know based on several sources:
He bought the guns legally from a shooting center.
He had a concealed carry permit valid in FL.
The nightclub was a gun free zone.
There was more than one gun, one may or may not have been an automatic weapon.
He has been investigated at least twice by the FBI.
He had a history of violence and his ex-wife claims she was beaten on a regular basis.
His father released a video against the LGBT community after the attack.
He lead people to believe that he was a former Marine based on the decals on his car.
He was a security guard and wanted to be a cop.
He had a history of derogatory and racist comments at work.
He pledged is allegiance to ISIS.
He was us born to parents who moved here from Afghanistan
He was muslim
 
michaelskis said:
Not only is there no good answer, there is so much mixed information regarding what happened, that I don't think ANYONE has enough true information and knowledge to suggest a real tangible solution at this point in time.

The little bits of information that I do know based on several sources:
He bought the guns legally from a shooting center.
He had a concealed carry permit valid in FL.
The nightclub was a gun free zone.
There was more than one gun, one may or may not have been an automatic weapon.
He has been investigated at least twice by the FBI.
He had a history of violence and his ex-wife claims she was beaten on a regular basis.
His father released a video against the LGBT community after the attack.
He lead people to believe that he was a former Marine based on the decals on his car.
He was a security guard and wanted to be a cop.
He had a history of derogatory and racist comments at work.
He pledged is allegiance to ISIS.
He was us born to parents who moved here from Afghanistan
He was muslim
Click to expand...


And now it's coming out that he frequented the club and had gay dating apps on his phone...
as of this morning no clear links to ISIS until his self claimed allegiance

People just need to shut up until all of the evidence is processed.
 
giff57 said:
And now it's coming out that he frequented the club and had gay dating apps on his phone...
as of this morning no clear links to ISIS until his self claimed allegiance

People just need to shut up until all of the evidence is processed.
Click to expand...

But it is easy to paint this as "radical Islam". The idea that maybe he wasn't is impossible to contemplate because he has a Muslim name, and goes to mosque. This is the political discourse we have now. Instead of waiting to understand why, we rush to judgement, and use it for political expediency for our policies. It looks as though what is clear is that he was mentally unstable. That is all we know for sure.

To blame Obama, or to blame anyone at this point, is really just sickening. It is painfully clear that Trump doesn't know how to handle these types of situations. I mean Bush wasn't eloquent, but he did well on 9/11. Trump tweets that he was right. I don't think that I can sigh loud enough...
 
giff57 said:
And now it's coming out that he frequented the club and had gay dating apps on his phone...
as of this morning no clear links to ISIS until his self claimed allegiance

People just need to shut up until all of the evidence is processed.
Click to expand...

This is a fear of mine. How many people perpetrate these crimes and then claim that it was done in the name of ISIS when that's really just a convenient excuse for unbridled hate? From what I understand, ISIS has already heralded the actions of Mateen. I'll be curious to see what they do now that it's out that he was possibly gay himself.
 
giff57 said:
And now it's coming out that he frequented the club and had gay dating apps on his phone...
as of this morning no clear links to ISIS until his self claimed allegiance

People just need to shut up until all of the evidence is processed.
Click to expand...

I hate it for the families that this event or any similar incident gets politicized before the families involved get a chance to morn. I blame the politicians but the reality it's their constituents expectations that they react immediately with no regard to victims and their families. One side start throwing blame and the other-side starts getting defensive before all the information is gathered and processed. It's my hope that out of tragedy such as this, that information gathered can be used to help prevent other similar incidents and the more we know the better off we'll be. It's too bad that often times facts get put to the curb when policies are adopted. If we use facts to shape policy as opposed to knee-jerk reactions, maybe new policies would be more palatable; but who am I kidding, that's not how this country operates.
 
giff57 said:
And now it's coming out that he frequented the club and had gay dating apps on his phone...
as of this morning no clear links to ISIS until his self claimed allegiance

People just need to shut up until all of the evidence is processed.
Click to expand...

Hink said:
But it is easy to paint this as "radical Islam". The idea that maybe he wasn't is impossible to contemplate because he has a Muslim name, and goes to mosque. This is the political discourse we have now. Instead of waiting to understand why, we rush to judgement, and use it for political expediency for our policies. It looks as though what is clear is that he was mentally unstable. That is all we know for sure.

To blame Obama, or to blame anyone at this point, is really just sickening. It is painfully clear that Trump doesn't know how to handle these types of situations. I mean Bush wasn't eloquent, but he did well on 9/11. Trump tweets that he was right. I don't think that I can sigh loud enough...
Click to expand...

Big Owl said:
I hate it for the families that this event or any similar incident gets politicized before the families involved get a chance to morn. I blame the politicians but the reality it's their constituents expectations that they react immediately with no regard to victims and their families. One side start throwing blame and the other-side starts getting defensive before all the information is gathered and processed. It's my hope that out of tragedy such as this, that information gathered can be used to help prevent other similar incidents and the more we know the better off we'll be. It's too bad that often times facts get put to the curb when policies are adopted. If we use facts to shape policy as opposed to knee-jerk reactions, maybe new policies would be more palatable; but who am I kidding, that's not how this country operates.
Click to expand...

Yesterday at 3:00 PM, FL Democratic Senator Bill Nelson, confirmed that ISIS had accepted responsibility for the shooting through the Amaw Agency. Regardless to previous involvement, I don't know. But the FACT is he pledged his allegiance to ISIS and they have indicated that they are taking credit.

As for blaming someone. I will blame someone. THE SHOOTER. There may be further blame later on but right now, I blame the shooter. Trump is an idiot and I think more and more people are seeing him for who he really is with the recent tweets.

I do think that this story will become more and more weird as we learn additional information about the shooter, why did this, and how he did this.
 
michaelskis said:
There may be further blame later on but right now, I blame the shooter. Trump is an idiot and I think more and more people are seeing him for who he really is with the recent tweets.
Click to expand...

I really don't understand how GOP folks are still endorsing and/or maintaining their endorsements of Trump at this point. He is a terrible human, although I must admit I'm getting a kick out of seeing Chris Christie relegated to essentially a "man-servant" for Trump.

Our Police Chief is anxiously awaiting the debrief reports. He is a national instructor/trainer on active shooter/mass casualty and has said just from the bits of reports so far that the incident appears to have been horribly mismanaged and looks almost like a Pre-Columbine approach to active shooter incidents. That's the only way you end up with 49 dead & 50+ injured/wounded.
 
Suburb Repairman said:
I really don't understand how GOP folks are still endorsing and/or maintaining their endorsements of Trump at this point. He is a terrible human, although I must admit I'm getting a kick out of seeing Chris Christie relegated to essentially a "man-servant" for Trump.

Our Police Chief is anxiously awaiting the debrief reports. He is a national instructor/trainer on active shooter/mass casualty and has said just from the bits of reports so far that the incident appears to have been horribly mismanaged and looks almost like a Pre-Columbine approach to active shooter incidents. That's the only way you end up with 49 dead & 50+ injured/wounded.
Click to expand...

I was reading a report this morning on why there was a casualty/injury count so high and a lot of it has to do with the location. According to some of the survivors, he opened fire on a densely packed crowd as the dance music was very loud, and many thought the shots were firecrackers or part of the song. He was able to get off between 20 and 50 rounds before people started to figure out what was going on in which case it resulted in a panic situation and people were running in all directions, running into each other resulting in further delays to evacuate the building. Apparently he also left the building at one point, causing people to stay, and then reentered the building resulting in a hostage situation.

Parts of this are similar to the November 2015 attack in Paris. Once again it was a loud indoor music venue with a dense packed crowd. However in that case, it was fully automatic AK-47's and multiple shooters.
 
The NRA and their sycophants in the House and Senate have made it clear that when it comes to enacting sensible gun control measures to stanch the flow of innocent blood caused by mass shootings that the "cold, dead hands" metaphor they use describing their objections to gun control aren't their cold, dead hands. Those cold dead hands they willingly sacrifice are yours and mine. And our children's and grandchildren's (Columbine and Sandy Hook). And the cold, dead hands of those poor unfortunate people who decided to go to Latin Dance Night at a nightclub last weekend.

There will be more and likely more horrific mass shootings to come. You just know there is someone out there right now who is psyched about being the one to beat that record of 49 innocent lives taken.

When the next mass shooting occurs, perhaps we should take photographs of the victims' hands. And then everyone who is as pissed off about this as I am should send those pictures to every f**king member of Congress. Thousands, even millions, of emails of the hands of the dead sent to our feckless, easily bribed Congressmen and Congresswomen. Bombard their servers. Deliver boxes upon boxes of photos of the hands of the victims to their offices. Plaster them on the windows and walls of Congressional offices back home. Shut Congress down with our outrage.

Maybe eventually those sycophants will stop bending over for the NRA and stand up for Americans.
 
Last edited:
Bubba said:
Which are...?
Click to expand...

Oh, gee. Let's just go for the low-hanging fruit. Ban on assault weapons. Ban on large capacity clips. How about preventing people on the "no-fly" list from buying firearms? Maybe people who beat the shit out of their wives should have a little trouble getting fucking firearms.
 
otterpop said:
Oh, gee. Let's just go for the low-hanging fruit. Ban on assault weapons. Ban on large capacity clips. How about preventing people on the "no-fly" list from buying firearms? Maybe people who beat the shit out of their wives should have a little trouble getting fucking firearms.
Click to expand...

Eh, just curious about what you consider "sensible gun control measures" to be (you had a lot of other words in your previous post without touching on specifics) - I've seen a lot of back and forth on a couple of other boards on the topic today (as usually happens after a mass shooting). Personally, I like to occasionally target shoot, but I don't own a gun, so I don't much care about (or generally oppose, I suppose) most of what you mention here (although transferring the no-fly list might present some due process issues when applied to a constitutional right) - I just like seeing specific opinions...
 
otterpop said:
Oh, gee. Let's just go for the low-hanging fruit. Ban on assault weapons. Ban on large capacity clips. How about preventing people on the "no-fly" list from buying firearms? Maybe people who beat the shit out of their wives should have a little trouble getting fucking firearms.
Click to expand...

Oh here we go again. :wall:

Please define "Assault Weapon" and "Large Capacity Clips". Also, would you say that a person who is being, or has been, investigated by the FBI should not buy a gun or run for president? In terms of beating his wife. Did she ever file charges or even a report, or some other indicator that it would have shown up in a background check? Because he passed the background check required in FL. Where is the threshold?

And before you say "why is it necessary", really think about the things you have in your life that are necessary. Is Alcohol necessary? According to MADD, there was 9,967 drunk driver related fatalities in the US in 2014. During that same year, there were 280 people killed in what would be classified as mass shootings. Should we ban alcohol consumption. It has no real purpose. Total, there was 12,593, but how many of these were assault weapon related? I cannot fund the data on that, because they are classified as 'rifles' in most cases. But according to this link more people are killed with knives than any type of rifle. Should we ban those too?

So tell me again how an assault rifle ban will help.
 
Bubba said:
Which are...?
Click to expand...

Sensible gun control measures depends on who you ask. I am a gun owner and I am okay with a ban on the sale of assault riffles, limiting magazine sizes, more intense background checks, waiting periods, and heck I am okay with banning semi-automatic weapons. I have planned all my gun purchases way ahead of time and my guns are used for hunting only. I personally find that shooting a single-shot, double-shot, bolt action, pump action or other non-semi-automatic makes me a better shot and as a bird hunter, I think that it would help conserve the species. That's sensible to me but for others that would either be totally unacceptable or not enough.

otterpop said:
Oh, gee. Let's just go for the low-hanging fruit. Ban on assault weapons. Ban on large capacity clips. How about preventing people on the "no-fly" list from buying firearms? Maybe people who beat the shit out of their wives should have a little trouble getting fucking firearms.
Click to expand...

Too bad that almost half of the victims of domestic violence don't report it for a variety of reasons. If the ex-wife would have pressed charges and he was convicted it would have made it impossible to legally obtain the weapons used. Would it have prevented the incident? Maybe or maybe not. You can what if an incident to death and it still doesn't change anything.
 
To me, passing some gun control legislation is an important statement as much as anything else. It says NO - the Second Amendment does not give the right to what we current consider guns in the same way they existed in 1789. And NO - we should not glorify guns but be prudent in their use, use them at the range or for hunting or public safety or self defense (or for a well-regulated militia.) The unwillingness to discuss any controls at all at the federal level sends a message.

As an aside, you haven't heard much about Bernie since the Orlando tragedy.
 
Masswich said:
To me, passing some gun control legislation is an important statement as much as anything else. It says NO - the Second Amendment does not give the right to what we current consider guns in the same way they existed in 1789. And NO - we should not glorify guns but be prudent in their use, use them at the range or for hunting or public safety or self defense (or for a well-regulated militia.) The unwillingness to discuss any controls at all at the federal level sends a message.

As an aside, you haven't heard much about Bernie since the Orlando tragedy.
Click to expand...

Bernie hasn't said or done anything stupid... unlike the other two.

I also heard that a Chick-Fil-A in Orlando called it's employees in on Sunday (yes the day they are closed) made a bunch of sandwiches, waffle fries, and tea, and gave them to people who were standing in line to donate blood, hospital staff, and first responders who were still working. I find it ironic being that everyone says that the corporation is anti-gay. :r:

As I have said before, and I will continue to stand by my position, I support background checks to purchase weapons. It works great in Michigan and a ton of other states IF the information is accurate and up to date.
 
Any regulations on guns is not considered sensible. The government would just be TAKING ALL THE GUNS!

It is clear that reducing the amount of bullets or the types of weapons would reduce on the ability of a psychopathy to inflict damage. We can't stop someone from their lunacy, but we can severely limit it. We all live in a world where shit happens. Why we can't agree to try and find ways to limit the amount of shit is beyond me.

Needs and wants can be looked at the other way Mski's. Alcohol is a want. Guns are a want. We tried to ban alcohol. We have never tried to ban guns. We limit alcohol severely. You must be 21 and follow rules about where you can drink it, what you can and can't drink, etc. We let a grandma with glaucoma own a gun and have no regulations on the type, style, or size of guns.

You make my point. We need regulations. We need them badly. But that won't happen, because for some unfounded reason, people think that the government regulating guns is like taking them. Even though that is very much not the truth.
 
I think Chick-Fil-A got past their anti-gay reputation by changing some of the policies that led to that image. Regardless, good for them for doing that.
 
I have a sure fire way to get some movement on gun control legislation, although it might be quite cynical: Get a couple of those big tour buses and fill them with the loudest Black Lives Matter activists you can find and get a couple more buses and fill them with young Middle Eastern men (the more "traditional" or "conservative" looking their clothing, the better) and drive them around hitting up every gun show and gun shop you can find and let them go in, en masse, and buy up as much ammo and as many semi automatic weapon they legally can thanks to loose regulations and loopholes.

After making a few stops in Kansas, Texas, Alabama, Florida, etc. I bet attitudes over allowing people such easy access would change real quick.
 
WSU has a point.

I am a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment, especially concealed carry, but at the same time I also do support SOME reasonable regulation around firearms. I don't think that one really needs an assault rifle and that letting the Assault Weapons Ban sunset maybe wasn't such a bright idea. But I will staunchly defend the right to own a hand gun and carry it legally. At the same time, I also abhor the gun culture that groups like NAGR and the NRA promote, and I feel like it is essentially an "unlimited gun rights for White people" type of mentality.

Now that I'm in Montreal, many of my friends even radical ones are saying nothing but "America needs to fix their gun laws by banning all guns" and I think that doesn't make sense.

Related: I showed some Quebecois lefty friends a picture of me and a bud on a trip to the Catskill Mountains posing with (legally acquired and registered) Hunting Rifles and they freaked out and got all like "Why would you ever need a gun!!". My response to this is always "do you really want only the forces of Law and Order, whom you detest so much, to be the only ones with access to firearms?".
 
Hink said:
Any regulations on guns is not considered sensible. The government would just be TAKING ALL THE GUNS!

It is clear that reducing the amount of bullets or the types of weapons would reduce on the ability of a psychopathy to inflict damage. We can't stop someone from their lunacy, but we can severely limit it. We all live in a world where shit happens. Why we can't agree to try and find ways to limit the amount of shit is beyond me.

Needs and wants can be looked at the other way Mski's. Alcohol is a want. Guns are a want. We tried to ban alcohol. We have never tried to ban guns. We limit alcohol severely. You must be 21 and follow rules about where you can drink it, what you can and can't drink, etc. We let a grandma with glaucoma own a gun and have no regulations on the type, style, or size of guns.

You make my point. We need regulations. We need them badly. But that won't happen, because for some unfounded reason, people think that the government regulating guns is like taking them. Even though that is very much not the truth.
Click to expand...

8-!

Ahhhh, I am not sure the character of the municipality that you work for, but tell me what the regulations are to open a restaurant that serves alcohol or a gun shop that has a range. Where in your municipality can you legally discharge a firearm? Where in your municipality can you legally consume an alcoholic drink? What is the licensing requirements to sell alcohol in your state? What about to sell firearms? Can people who get drunk and go beat their spouses, children, or others go up to the bar and order a few shots? Can he go into a grocery store, (or beer store if your are in PA) and buy a 24 pack of bud? If he has grey hair, they are not likely to even card him. What about those that have killed someone while intoxicated, be it with a car or something else? How many places in your community sell guns? How many places sell alcohol?

The firearm industry is extremely regulated at various levels of government already. Do I think there needs to be background checks for semiautomatic weapons, (I already said yes, but you must not have heard me the first time.) I also think that people should be at least 18 to purchase a firearm. It is the minimum age to join the military and use weapons even more powerful that what a civilian can use.

Finally, show me where in the constitution it is says that a person has the right to possess alcohol? And before you say that there were only primitive weapons when the 2nd amendment was around, yes... and both good people and bad people had them. A ban on modern semiautomatic weapons would mean only bad people would have them. The intent of the 2nd amendment was to balance the playing field and allow for people to protect themselves against bad people, both foreign and domestic. If you limit the weapon one side has, you by default give the advantage to the other side.

Masswich said:
I think Chick-Fil-A got past their anti-gay reputation by changing some of the policies that led to that image. Regardless, good for them for doing that.
Click to expand...

Oh really, what changes in polices were those?

The Terminator said:
WSU has a point.

I am a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment, especially concealed carry, but at the same time I also do support SOME reasonable regulation around firearms. I don't think that one really needs an assault rifle and that letting the Assault Weapons Ban sunset maybe wasn't such a bright idea. But I will staunchly defend the right to own a hand gun and carry it legally. At the same time, I also abhor the gun culture that groups like NAGR and the NRA promote, and I feel like it is essentially an "unlimited gun rights for White people" type of mentality.
".
Click to expand...

As I pointed out before, assault weapons are a very small part of the total number of gun related deaths in the US. Can you show me data that indicates that the ban was effective in saving the lives of people?
 
michaelskis said:
8-!

Ahhhh, I am not sure the character of the municipality that you work for, but tell me what the regulations are to open a restaurant that serves alcohol or a gun shop that has a range. Where in your municipality can you legally discharge a firearm? Where in your municipality can you legally consume an alcoholic drink? What is the licensing requirements to sell alcohol in your state? What about to sell firearms? Can people who get drunk and go beat their spouses, children, or others go up to the bar and order a few shots? Can he go into a grocery store, (or beer store if your are in PA) and buy a 24 pack of bud? If he has grey hair, they are not likely to even card him. What about those that have killed someone while intoxicated, be it with a car or something else? How many places in your community sell guns? How many places sell alcohol?
Click to expand...

Quantity doesn't equate to equality. We have more regulations on alcohol. We also are allowed to study how alcohol negatively affects people the level of impairment, etc. We are not allowed to study guns, or gun violence. Because, America? Or something.

michaelskis said:
The firearm industry is extremely regulated at various levels of government already. Do I think there needs to be background checks for semiautomatic weapons, (I already said yes, but you must not have heard me the first time.) I also think that people should be at least 18 to purchase a firearm. It is the minimum age to use one in the military.
Click to expand...

Regulated yes, extremely regulated, nope. Very loosely regulated honestly. If anyone looked at the vast complexity of the gun industry they would agree that although there are a few regulations, most are weak, and most do not really regulate anything. Just take one of the many loopholes and you don't have to be regulated!

michaelskis said:
Finally, show me where in the constitution it is says that a person has the right to possess alcohol? And before you say that there were only primitive weapons when the 2nd amendment was around, yes... and both good people and bad people had them. A ban on modern semiautomatic weapons would mean only bad people would have them. The intent of the 2nd amendment was to balance the playing field and allow for people to protect themselves against bad people, both foreign and domestic. If you limit the weapon one side has, you by default give the advantage to the other side.
Click to expand...

I know that you know that the constitution doesn't say that we have the right to possess a lot of things. Yet we do. The Constitution no where says you have a right to a semi-automatic weapon. Or tracer rounds. Or nuclear bombs. Yet, we regulate your access to nuclear bombs. Is that because the Constitution doesn't say explicitly that we can't have nuclear bombs? Or because the framer's in their infinite wisdom, didn't see the technology that was coming down the pike? No, the framer's and founder's and blah blah blah, saw EVERYTHING. Which is why they put the Supreme Court and lawyers in place to make sure the Constitution was a living document. So we could have a republic that was part of the century in which it was currently in. So we didn't live under a document that had no idea what computers are, or semi-automatic weapons, or snuggies.

The protections that you seem to think the Constitution grants us, are not unlimited. They are able to be limited, and they have been MANY times over the years. What I think is counter productive, and unfortunately this is where we are at with this discussion as well, is when people use the Constitution as a reason for why we can't regulate guns. We can. And after yet another tragedy, we should. If we go too far (prohibition as an example), then we move backwards. I am much more happy with the concept of less guns in restaurants than more. The good guy with a gun concept is the most hyped up, not in any way studied because it can't be, opinion that has no basis in fact.

That people are so scared of the boogyman government that they are unwilling to accept more accountability for all users of guns, is scary. With the advent of social media and the internet, we are going to see more and more unstable people do acts that are awful for whatever reason they think of. We are going to see more and more opportunities for people to be killed.

Good regulation doesn't take guns away from people. It regulates guns so that we can try and reduce the amazing amount of gun violence that we have in this country. It is worth trying. It is worth giving it a go. What is the worst that could happen? Some gentleman in Iowa would have to have is gun tracked? He would have to register to be an owner of a gun? He would have to wait 2 months to get the gun? Is that the worst thing? That isn't worth 49 lives? Inconvenience isn't TAKING ALL THE GUNS!
 
michaelskis said:
Oh really, what changes in polices were those?
Click to expand...

Not exactly a clean slate but there has been a softening of their tone about gay issues:

"New filings with the IRS show Chick-fil-A has dramatically decreased its non-profit funding for anti-LGBT groups and causes, more than a year after a Charlotte-based LGBT advocate ended his organization’s boycott against the group."

http://goqnotes.com/27860/new-chick-fil-a-filings-show-decrease-in-anti-lgbt-funding/

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/28/it-s-time-for-gays-to-forgive-chick-fil-a.html
 
Hink said:
Quantity doesn't equate to equality. We have more regulations on alcohol. We also are allowed to study how alcohol negatively affects people the level of impairment, etc. We are not allowed to study guns, or gun violence. Because, America? Or something.
Click to expand...

I think it would be a great idea to study gun violence, especially in context where they are being used, how they are being used, who is using them, and establish a complete profile on it. However, I don't foresee it resulting in the changes that people want.

Hink said:
Regulated yes, extremely regulated, nope. Very loosely regulated honestly. If anyone looked at the vast complexity of the gun industry they would agree that although there are a few regulations, most are weak, and most do not really regulate anything. Just take one of the many loopholes and you don't have to be regulated!
Click to expand...

The last 5 municipalities that I have worked in or lived in have prohibited the discharge of firearms within city limits unless it was within a fully contained gun range. The current zoning ordinances for those required separation from 500 feet to 2500 feet from a large list of uses including schools, residential homes, and other gun ranges.

Hink said:
I know that you know that the constitution doesn't say that we have the right to possess a lot of things. Yet we do. The Constitution no where says you have a right to a semi-automatic weapon. Or tracer rounds. Or nuclear bombs. Yet, we regulate your access to nuclear bombs. Is that because the Constitution doesn't say explicitly that we can't have nuclear bombs? Or because the framer's in their infinite wisdom, didn't see the technology that was coming down the pike? No, the framer's and founder's and blah blah blah, saw EVERYTHING. Which is why they put the Supreme Court and lawyers in place to make sure the Constitution was a living document. So we could have a republic that was part of the century in which it was currently in. So we didn't live under a document that had no idea what computers are, or semi-automatic weapons, or snuggies.

The protections that you seem to think the Constitution grants us, are not unlimited. They are able to be limited, and they have been MANY times over the years. What I think is counter productive, and unfortunately this is where we are at with this discussion as well, is when people use the Constitution as a reason for why we can't regulate guns. We can. And after yet another tragedy, we should. If we go too far (prohibition as an example), then we move backwards. I am much more happy with the concept of less guns in restaurants than more. The good guy with a gun concept is the most hyped up, not in any way studied because it can't be, opinion that has no basis in fact.

That people are so scared of the boogyman government that they are unwilling to accept more accountability for all users of guns, is scary. With the advent of social media and the internet, we are going to see more and more unstable people do acts that are awful for whatever reason they think of. We are going to see more and more opportunities for people to be killed.

Good regulation doesn't take guns away from people. It regulates guns so that we can try and reduce the amazing amount of gun violence that we have in this country. It is worth trying. It is worth giving it a go. What is the worst that could happen? Some gentleman in Iowa would have to have is gun tracked? He would have to register to be an owner of a gun? He would have to wait 2 months to get the gun? Is that the worst thing? That isn't worth 49 lives? Inconvenience isn't TAKING ALL THE GUNS!
Click to expand...

You are 100% correct, the constitution does not say that, and once again you seem to miss the point where I say that we should have background checks and age regulations, which are both regulations. In terms of waiting times, why and how do we determine that time period. As pointed out in another post, it is just as easy to get an illegal gun as it is a legal gun. It might cost more but I don't think that the Orlando shooter was worried about saving a few bucks. Furthermore, some sources said that he had been thinking and mapping stuff out for a while at various locations in FL. In terms of tracking, how would that have stopped the Orlando shooter? Be bought them new.

Currently it is illegal for most people to own a fully automatic weapon. I personally have a semiautomatic deer rifle. It is a .308 winchester with a woodstock and a scope. I like it because there was one occasion where the deer moved and I was able to get a second shot off and dropped him before he took off. Is that an assault rifle? You can get the exact same rifle that looks identical to a .223 AR-15, but uses a .308 round. Is that an assault rifle. If so why is one but not the other? A buddy has a 10/22. It is a semi automatic .22 rifle. I shot my first .22 when I was 7 years old. It was a break action single shot. I received a bolt action when I was 10. Now are any of those assault rifles. I also own a 30-30 lever action that is a great medium to large game hunting rifle. What about double action revolvers. They effectively do the same thing as a semiautomatic glock. Heck even the old colt peacemakers were capable of being fired faster than a round per second.

In every situation, unless it is a fully automatic weapon, squeeze the trigger once, a single round comes out. Sometimes it requires a new round to be manually chambered, other times it does not. However the result is the same. Squeeze = Single Round. No different if it is a break action 410 shotgun or a 30-06 deer rifle or an AR-15. One squeeze, one round.

Fully automatic weapons are a different animal. You squeeze the trigger, and more than one round will come out in succession. For most in the US, those are not legal without a special permit to own them and I think that for most gun owners, that is more than OK because there is inherent dangers with those that are not found with other guns based on a progressive recoil and learning trigger control. Someone storms into your house or business in the middle of the night, the assailant is not going to have a nuke or an uzi.

As pointed out before, rifles (which contains the subset that people classify as assault rifles), kill less people than knives, and in 2013 accounted for 3.4% of all gun deaths.
 
Sandy Hook
San Bernardino
Aurora
Orlando
_________
_________
_________

You're right, there's no correlation with AR15s / semi-automatic / mass shootings...
 
Planit said:
Sandy Hook
San Bernardino
Aurora
Orlando
_________
_________
_________

You're right, there's no correlation with AR15s / semi-automatic / mass shootings...
Click to expand...

Well, if we are going with just that, maybe it is proof that gun free zones result in mass shootings too. After all all three of those locations were gun free zones where the victims were not able to legally have firearms to protect themselves. Only two mass shootings in more than 50 years have been in a location that wasn't a gun free zone.

Here is my data to backup my claim that AR-15 don't kill more people than knives. Fact... Knives have killed more people than the AR-15 in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013. Are you saying we should ban those too?
 
michaelskis said:
I think it would be a great idea to study gun violence, especially in context where they are being used, how they are being used, who is using them, and establish a complete profile on it...

the point where I say that we should have background checks and age regulations, which are both regulations. In terms of waiting times, why and how do we determine that time period. As pointed out in another post, it is just as easy to get an illegal gun as it is a legal gun. It might cost more but I don't think that the Orlando shooter was worried about saving a few bucks...

automatic vs. semi-automatic...
Click to expand...

This country has a gun fetish.

NRA does not represent gun owners--it represents gun manufacturers.

NRA has elected officials so wrapped up that they won't even authorize a non-binding study.

NRA has elected officials so wrapped up that they won't even go after the clear, low-hanging fruit that you referenced (background checks, age restrictions). Even waiting periods are fairly easy, though I would be fine with just age/background simply to actually make meaningful progress on broadly supported efforts. It would be easy to implement even at gun shows--I'm picturing a phone app that would allow real-time background checks. You could even tie it to something like Square so the dealer could just swipe your drivers license. This is something where technology really makes something like this a non-burden.

We already require arbitrary waiting periods for abortions as a "cooling off period." I think maybe only require the waiting period on anything semi-automatic & above.

Elected folks most recently cited the challenges of mental health treatment & resources related to violence/active shooter incidents, even using it as justification for why gun regulation should not be addressed. They haven't even done anything to address that incredibly low-hanging fruit THAT DOESN'T EVEN INVOLVE GUN REGULATION.

Part of the goal is to make it harder for jackasses to get guns. You can't prevent it, but you can make it more difficult without significantly impairing law-abiding citizens. When you make it more difficult, it becomes more likely the person will do something wrong in trying to acquire a weapon that alerts authorities. Again, you can't prevent, but you can create an environment in which there are a few more trip hazards that create opportunities for authorities to prevent incidents.

I'm not just thinking about mass casualty/active shooter incidents; I'm also thinking about things that might help with gun-assisted suicides and perhaps gun-related accidents in the home, both of which claim significantly more lives in the U.S. annually than any terrorist could hope to accomplish.

Semi-auto vs. auto is also not an especially easy issue. It is really, really easy to modify a semi-auto (well, fairly easy on a rifle & a bit more difficult on smaller guns). The term "assault rifle" has always been a bit annoying to me because definition varies. I could see restrictions on the types of rounds sold, caliber, etc., but I don't think that has a snowball's chance of passing.
 
Suburb Repairman said:
This country has a gun fetish.

NRA does not represent gun owners--it represents gun manufacturers.

NRA has elected officials so wrapped up that they won't even authorize a non-binding study.

NRA has elected officials so wrapped up that they won't even go after the clear, low-hanging fruit that you referenced (background checks, age restrictions). Even waiting periods are fairly easy, though I would be fine with just age/background simply to actually make meaningful progress on broadly supported efforts. It would be easy to implement even at gun shows--I'm picturing a phone app that would allow real-time background checks. You could even tie it to something like Square so the dealer could just swipe your drivers license. This is something where technology really makes something like this a non-burden.

We already require arbitrary waiting periods for abortions as a "cooling off period." I think maybe only require the waiting period on anything semi-automatic & above.

Elected folks most recently cited the challenges of mental health treatment & resources related to violence/active shooter incidents, even using it as justification for why gun regulation should not be addressed. They haven't even done anything to address that incredibly low-hanging fruit THAT DOESN'T EVEN INVOLVE GUN REGULATION.

Part of the goal is to make it harder for jackasses to get guns. You can't prevent it, but you can make it more difficult without significantly impairing law-abiding citizens. When you make it more difficult, it becomes more likely the person will do something wrong in trying to acquire a weapon that alerts authorities. Again, you can't prevent, but you can create an environment in which there are a few more trip hazards that create opportunities for authorities to prevent incidents.

I'm not just thinking about mass casualty/active shooter incidents; I'm also thinking about things that might help with gun-assisted suicides and perhaps gun-related accidents in the home, both of which claim significantly more lives in the U.S. annually than any terrorist could hope to accomplish.

Semi-auto vs. auto is also not an especially easy issue. It is really, really easy to modify a semi-auto (well, fairly easy on a rifle & a bit more difficult on smaller guns). The term "assault rifle" has always been a bit annoying to me because definition varies. I could see restrictions on the types of rounds sold, caliber, etc., but I don't think that has a snowball's chance of passing.
Click to expand...


I think that there is quite a bit that we can agree on here, especially in terms of the NRA legislative policy group. They have cool programs for kids to teach them gun safety. I am still not sold on the waiting period because I also classy abortion as legalized murder.

I guess my point with all of this is we should not limit the freedoms and rights of good people, but we still need to find a way to keep the guns out of the hands of dangerous people.


JNA said:
American Medical Association Calls Gun Violence a Public Health Crisis
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-06-14/ama-calls-gun-violence-a-public-health-crisis
Click to expand...

This is a good article and I applaud them. They are not anti gun, but they are anti gun violence. I think a study is a good idea.
 
michaelskis said:
Well, if we are going with just that, maybe it is proof that gun free zones result in mass shootings too. After all all three of those locations were gun free zones where the victims were not able to legally have firearms to protect themselves. Only two mass shootings in more than 50 years have been in a location that wasn't a gun free zone.

Here is my data to backup my claim that AR-15 don't kill more people than knives. Fact... Knives have killed more people than the AR-15 in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013. Are you saying we should ban those too?
Click to expand...

I'll spin it.

Airplanes fall out of the sky and kill hundreds of people at one time. Guess we should ban those too. :D;)
 
Planit said:
I'll spin it.

Airplanes fall out of the sky and kill hundreds of people at one time. Guess we should ban those too. :D;)
Click to expand...

That is really sort of a good comparison. Guns that are not semi-automatic rifles killing folks one or two at a time get very little attention but total up to way more killing than all of these incidents killing 10+ at a time combined. 120 people were shot in Chicago in the first 10 days of this year http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/120-people-shot-chicago-10-days-2016-article-1.2493741 The politics of both sides of this are sickening. The media loves to make it all about the "assault rifle", but the relatively few incidents where these weapons were used, when compared to all of the rest of the shootings in this country is a pretty small number. Improving background checks for any gun purchase helps save many more lives than a knee jerk reaction on "assault "rifles".
 
michaelskis said:
I guess my point with all of this is we should not limit the freedoms and rights of good people, but we still need to find a way to keep the guns out of the hands of dangerous people.
Click to expand...

Yes we should. And by limit, I mean regulate more. And by regulate more I mean have it become harder and more burdensome to own a gun. If you are "good people" you will wait your allotted time frame, pay your high fee, and put your name on the registry. That gun then can be tracked forever. So when a shooter buys a gun at a gun show and no background check or otherwise was given, there is a trail to how a gun was given to someone who shouldn't have been able to get it. If you are a "good guy" then you shouldn't be worried about the government knowing exactly how many guns you own. Why should you worry, you are a "good guy"?

Accountability from the gun lobby would be nice too... but the NRA isn't out to help, they are out to sell guns. You can't do that as much if there is regulation.

My point is that there is no constitution argument for why we can't strongly regulate guns. Why we can't make the number of guns less, and much harder for even the "good guys" to get. If it means that less guns are readily available for the bad guys, then less guns is good.... right?
 
Hink said:
Yes we should. And by limit, I mean regulate more. And by regulate more I mean have it become harder and more burdensome to own a gun. If you are "good people" you will wait your allotted time frame, pay your high fee, and put your name on the registry. That gun then can be tracked forever. So when a shooter buys a gun at a gun show and no background check or otherwise was given, there is a trail to how a gun was given to someone who shouldn't have been able to get it. If you are a "good guy" then you shouldn't be worried about the government knowing exactly how many guns you own. Why should you worry, you are a "good guy"?

Accountability from the gun lobby would be nice too... but the NRA isn't out to help, they are out to sell guns. You can't do that as much if there is regulation.

My point is that there is no constitution argument for why we can't strongly regulate guns. Why we can't make the number of guns less, and much harder for even the "good guys" to get. If it means that less guns are readily available for the bad guys, then less guns is good.... right?
Click to expand...

You mean other than the "shall not be infringed" part of the second amendment.

If the President states that health care is a right and it is the governments responsibility to make it obtainable to all.

How long does it take police to get to a given location after a 911 call? How long does it take someone to cause harm? Problem is too many of these raise the prices and increase the waiting time people also make it difficult for good people to get weapons to protect themselves.

Personally, I don't think registration of weapons is a bad idea and would not mind it. But I do question how that would make things safer.

The places with the highest gun regulations also have some of the highest gun violence crimes. There is a a proven track record of these increased regulations failing. This weekend there were 7 people were killed and 35 were injured in Chicago.
 
michaelskis said:
You mean other than the "shall not be infringed" part of the second amendment.

If the President states that health care is a right and it is the governments responsibility to make it obtainable to all.

How long does it take police to get to a given location after a 911 call? How long does it take someone to cause harm? Problem is too many of these raise the prices and increase the waiting time people also make it difficult for good people to get weapons to protect themselves.

Personally, I don't think registration of weapons is a bad idea and would not mind it. But I do question how that would make things safer.

The places with the highest gun regulations also have some of the highest gun violence crimes. There is a a proven track record of these increased regulations failing. This weekend there were 7 people were killed and 35 were injured in Chicago.
Click to expand...

My final argument, we have tried it your way for the last 200 years. It hasn't worked. It is getting worse every year. Maybe we give another try a go, and hope that we see less gun violence. I'm not so proud that I can't think that trying something different might curb these horrific events. Even if it means that I might be inconvenienced when purchasing my unnecessary, but wanted semi-automatic weapon.
 
Back
Top