Archive 2017-2019 Political Thread

[Mike S]

51 minutes long audio clip with the transcript below, a discussion on Gun Violence. I haven't had a chance to read or listen yet, but thought I'd at least put it here in case I forget.

https://www.libertarianism.org/medi...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

[ghost]

The Repubs better call this guy on the carpet... this is just wack
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/19/politics/gop-candidate-assault-rifle-giveaway/index.html

 

[gangstonc]

We learned this week that Trump had an affair with a porn star and a playboy model at the same time. Nobody batted an eye. And people wonder what is wrong with his country...

 

[maroonedinhsv]

I own guns - I have since I was 11 years old, I believe. I use them for hunting, and I suppose, given the right situation, I would use them for defense. I don't use them for "target practice" (an oft-sited reason for owning a gun) because I don't believe that's a valid reason to own a device whose primary purpose it to kill. I don't use them to protect myself from the government, because I've worked defense for over 20 years and I don't believe the American population would stand a chance if the government truly brought forth its full might. I also have two daughters that mean infinitely more to me than my guns. I would turn my guns over to the government without hesitation if I thought it would guarantee the safety of my daughters. Unfortunately, it wouldn't guarantee their safety - nothing can. It also won't stop mass murders - nothing can. If I turn over my guns, my pressure cooker, my air compressor, my tool chest, my pocket knives, my silverware, my batteries, and anything else you can think of, evil will still exist and evil will still find a way. I don't keep my guns because I need them for any given reason - I keep my guns simply because it wouldn't really matter if I got rid of them.

 

[Mike S]

I own guns - I have since I was 11 years old, I believe. I use them for hunting, and I suppose, given the right situation, I would use them for defense. I don't use them for "target practice" (an oft-sited reason for owning a gun) because I don't believe that's a valid reason to own a device whose primary purpose it to kill. I don't use them to protect myself from the government, because I've worked defense for over 20 years and I don't believe the American population would stand a chance if the government truly brought forth its full might. I also have two daughters that mean infinitely more to me than my guns. I would turn my guns over to the government without hesitation if I thought it would guarantee the safety of my daughters. Unfortunately, it wouldn't guarantee their safety - nothing can. It also won't stop mass murders - nothing can. If I turn over my guns, my pressure cooker, my air compressor, my tool chest, my pocket knives, my silverware, my batteries, and anything else you can think of, evil will still exist and evil will still find a way. I don't keep my guns because I need them for any given reason - I keep my guns simply because it wouldn't really matter if I got rid of them.

EXACTLY what I am saying.

Republicans better get out in front of this or they will get mauled in November. I don't think the discussion is going away this time.

The Republicans can legislate effective change without banning any single weapon, but they may have to in compromise. Maybe.

I have yet to hear one good reason why anyone needs a weapon like an AR15 and quite frankly banning them shouldn't impact the 2nd amendment because our rights to keep and bear arms is not taken away by banning the AR15. I agree, it isn't going to solve the problem and it is governing based on emotion but people are tired of seeing large groups of people getting killed in an instant so what do you expect?

 

[Kory]

Because banning a gun based on arbitrary classifications is a slippery slope. It WILL effect the 2nd amendment. Exactly what specs do you ban that don’t effect other guns or that manufacturers can’t change in an instant and make them legal again? I’m waiting...

I have yet to hear a good reason for allowing Westboro Baptist Church to still exist an actively protest. I have yet to hear a good reason for permitting tobacco and alcohol industry to flourish. I have yet to hear a good reason why anybody needs a car that goes over a safe speed limit.

This kind of governing is dangerous.

 

[Mike S]

none of those were designed with killing large numbers of people in mind.

 

[Kory]

none of those were designed with killing large numbers of people in mind.

But isn’t that the point of all guns?

Your original point was that banning the AR platform wouldn’t impact other 2nd amendment rights. If the criteria is “killing large numbers of people” that seems like it could fit a wide range beyond the scope of just ARs.

 

[Mike S]

But isn’t that the point of all guns?

Your original point was that banning the AR platform wouldn’t impact other 2nd amendment rights. If the criteria is “killing large numbers of people” that seems like it could fit a wide range beyond the scope of just ARs.

My point is it can be used as a tool for compromise and it does not impact our 2nd amendment rights. These are the types of arguments Pelosi and friends are going to bring. Republicans need to lead on this, otherwise we'll all be in a world of hurt come November.

 

[Evan]

Everyone should stop and watch this video:



I feel terrible for the victims, survivors, their friends, and their families. But, that is not a debate or a discussion. This is very similar to the SJW and white/male privilege tactics that people are using to stifle free speech.

Ask yourself, would it be reasonable for a gun owner to say they support zero restrictions or gun laws? And say it isn't up for debate? You're either with us or against us? "There is no middle ground" and "you are signing our death warrants." I realize this student group are all friends from the theatre/drama club, but signing death warrants? Just a tad dramatic and clearly untrue. Shameful to take money from the NRA? Simply because you disagree with them politically? I've pointed out the many problems I have with the NRA, but acting as if they are some sinister group actively trying to kill people is extremely dangerous rhetoric. As is saying things about there being no middle ground, and either with us or against us.

But, the primary reason I posted this was to see if anyone else noticed the odd conclusion to the video. Early on she says we don't want to ban guns or take your guns. We just want to ban semi-automatic rifles. So, she's actually talking about most modern rifles, but that's OK most people pushing that kind of solution don't understand that. But, at the very end she says it wouldn't be possible to kill 17 people with a knife. She's betraying their true beliefs right there. How does banning AR15s equate to only having a knife to kill people with unless you want to ban all guns?

Dangerous rhetoric and ignorance aside, I do feel terrible for all the victims and survivors. But once you decide you are going to be a political advocate you have stepped into the political arena. Child or not, you don't have immunity to make policy or demand policy changes in this country with impunity because you had something horrible happen to you. It is disturbing to see the media and others latch on to this and use these children as a shield to promote their anti-gun views.

Considering these children are doing 40 media interviews a day, are using stats and arguments from Everytown, and have decided that there is no middle ground -- we either do what they say or we are against them, I have no issue saying I'm 100% against what they are doing. Using emotion and a traumatic event to push a political agenda is wrong whether you are Donald Trump or a 16 year old child. I've been very consistent in this belief. I opposed the travel ban and Trump's attempts to use acts of terror or immigrant crime to push his political agenda.

There's nothing wrong with victims having their say. But there's a difference between a victim expressing their opinion, and devoting yourself full time to political advocacy while denigrating those that disagree as being shameful, signing their death warrant, etc.

20-22 homicides a year on average occur in schools. It was actually higher from 93-2003 while the assault weapons ban was in place. But, more importantly, why was this not an issue of theirs before the shooting at their school? What about the 1500-1600 homicides a year of school age children outside of schools? Almost all due to handguns. It seems odd to embrace an AR15 ban as a way to combat those 1500-1600 deaths when only a few percent are the result of an AR15 being used. And, most homicides in schools are the result of handguns, and that's been the trend for decades outside of Newtown, the recent shooting, and a couple of others.

I don't understand the logic of saying we are only calling for a ban on semi-automatic rifles, yet ignoring the weapons that cause almost all of the deaths of their peers both in and out of school. Their stated goal is to make school shootings almost impossible. You could say they are 16-17 year old kids that don't know any better, but if they they are going to be political advocates that are going to change our laws, shouldn't someone in one of those 40 interviews a day ask them why their purported societal goal is in such stark conflict with their policy recommendation? From what I've seen on their social media accounts, they aren't interested in having any discussion that isn't based on when are you going to do what we want?

I truly do feel sympathetic for them because I don't think things are going to end the way they are hoping they will. And the scorched earth tactics being used are setting a very dangerous precedent for the future. Especially when the next terror attack occurs and people decide to use those same tactics (which was already done to a great extent after 9/11).

 

[Kory]

My point is it can be used as a tool for compromise and it does not impact our 2nd amendment rights. These are the types of arguments Pelosi and friends are going to bring. Republicans need to lead on this, otherwise we'll all be in a world of hurt come November.

That is exactly why I posted (#1619) something similar to the David French article Evan referenced regarding "gun restraining orders." I could get on board with that (after exploring and working out caveats) along with shoring up the NICS and perhaps expanding criteria in which you may pose a danger. I did reference potential downsides that may infringe upon other rights (due process in particular), but it is something I'd like to consider, but we have to explore all potential issues with laws. We can't just pass it to know what is in it in the famous words of Pelosi.

Evan has posted ample evidence of the inadequacies of arbitrary gun bans....and how studied and data show there is little impact. It is time to start targeting the people who SHOULDN'T have them.

 

[Mike S]

So what do we do? Inaction is not the answer. I'm on record saying taking the AR15 solves nothing but if it needs to be offered up for progress, so be it.

Raise the minimum age to own a gun(though we hand them out like candy to 18 year old soldiers and tell them to try not to die)
More extensive background checks and waiting periods?
Restraining orders?

And would have any of that prevented Parkland, Vegas or any other incident?

Obviously we all want it to stop, but I am mainly thinking of this politically. Many of us who despise Trump still don't want Democrats to control both houses.

 

[Mike S]

That is exactly why I posted (#1619) something similar to the David French article Evan referenced regarding "gun restraining orders." I could get on board with that (after exploring and working out caveats) along with shoring up the NICS and perhaps expanding criteria in which you may pose a danger. I did reference potential downsides that may infringe upon other rights (due process in particular), but it is something I'd like to consider, but we have to explore all potential issues with laws. We can't just pass it to know what is in it in the famous words of Pelosi.

Evan has posted ample evidence of the inadequacies of arbitrary gun bans....and how studied and data show there is little impact. It is time to start targeting the people who SHOULDN'T have them.

I just feel like we're going to need some sort of legislation that will gather votes from Democrats, even at the expense of some Republican votes.

Obviously, in November democratic voters are still going to vote D, but they're going to need to throw a bone to the swing voters.

 

[Kory]

So what do we do? Inaction is not the answer. I'm on record saying taking the AR15 solves nothing but if it needs to be offered up for progress, so be it.

Raise the minimum age to own a gun(though we hand them out like candy to 18 year old soldiers and tell them to try not to die)
More extensive background checks and waiting periods?
Restraining orders?

And would have any of that prevented Parkland, Vegas or any other incident?

Obviously we all want it to stop, but I am mainly thinking of this politically. Many of us who despise Trump still don't want Democrats to control both houses.

Not sure you could prevent every shooting, but I think what you mentioned is a start. Make it difficult for people who can't obtain guns legally, also have difficulty obtain ammo that would make any gun sort of useful. Don't make it difficult or unreasonably expensive for those law-abiding folk. Make background checks for ammo required too.

Some evidence has come to light that the Parkland shooter stole several weapons too. Legislation regarding stolen firearms is already in place. That's why I think making it difficult to get the ammo that actually makes the gun functioning is important as well. But then I suppose the perpetrator could steal ammo too.

That's why I feel it needs to be a holistic approach. Laws are good, but prevention through law enforcement is needed as well. We have to find a better way to counter these things maybe similar to how counter-terrorism is done? I don't have all the answers, but I don't think anyone does. But I do think a discussion like we're having in this thread is a good start for ALL of America to have.

 

[KoD]

Perhaps the best way to reduce gun violence doesn't involve gun legislation at all.
Perhaps a focus on educating our young and supporting our poor and disabled would do more for our collective safety and wellbeing.
Perhaps there would be no 2nd amendment fight if more lawmakers worked to make social assistance more efficient and tailored it to help make people become more productive citizens and reduce waste & abuse.

 

[gangstonc]

The latest indictment from today connects the trump campaign to Alfa bank.

 

[Mike S]

Perhaps the best way to reduce gun violence doesn't involve gun legislation at all.
Perhaps a focus on educating our young and supporting our poor and disabled would do more for our collective safety and wellbeing.
Perhaps there would be no 2nd amendment fight if more lawmakers worked to make social assistance more efficient and tailored it to help make people become more productive citizens and reduce waste & abuse.

Approaching from a political angle, though, legislation is needed. If the Republicans don't provide it, the Democrats will promise it all over the country leading up to November and voters will bite. Do we want Nancy Pelosi leading this issue?

 

[Evan]

I guess I care about this issue because it is supremely frustrating. If I couldn't own an AR15 tomorrow it wouldn't change my life one bit or create any negative repercussions. But I have two wonderful children. I care about them, and I TRULY and DEEPLY care about all the homicides and suicides caused by guns. It's for that reason that it bothers me that the solutions being proposed are both inadequate and misplaced.

I do feel there is a moral imperative to reduce these violent deaths. But, we also have a 2nd amendment I believe in in. Thus, if we are not going to have a total gun ban and confiscation, then let's look at real solutions not negligible ones like banning AR15s. And, if you are for a total gun ban and confiscation then be honest about it. I think a lot of the groups driving the discussion are for a total ban and confiscation, but they are strategically being dishonest about it.

 

[Evan]

EXACTLY what I am saying.

Republicans better get out in front of this or they will get mauled in November. I don't think the discussion is going away this time.

The Republicans can legislate effective change without banning any single weapon, but they may have to in compromise. Maybe.

I have yet to hear one good reason why anyone needs a weapon like an AR15 and quite frankly banning them shouldn't impact the 2nd amendment because our rights to keep and bear arms is not taken away by banning the AR15. I agree, it isn't going to solve the problem and it is governing based on emotion but people are tired of seeing large groups of people getting killed in an instant so what do you expect?

I think if we're to the point that emotion is going to rule the day and logic and facts no longer matter, then all the compromise in the world won't really amount to anything.

I agreed with you previously, and I still agree that Republicans need to lead (fat chance of that happening), but I don't believe for one second that agreeing to ban AR15s is what these kids or anti-gun groups actually want. It's a fig leaf for a comprehensive gun ban. There are a number of workable compromises and solutions that would actually have an impact on the overall firearm homicide/suicide death rate, and that's what Republicans should lead with.

And, they should do so by using experts, data, and research (will be quite scary for the GOP to actually listen to experts or research) while attempting to mitigate the emotional response by being compassionate and understanding, but also pointing out they were elected to represent all Americans and must balance rights/freedom/due process against the need to further reduce firearm violence. I think it would be smart to tie in legislation to combat the opioid epidemic at the same time to make this issue one of broader public safety goals than just guns.

But let's also be honest, the Republicans and Trump have very little credibility on a vast array of issues, and the hardcore anti-gun zealots aren't interested in compromise. When they say they are for sensible gun legislation it couldn't be further from the truth. So, there is little point trying to get those people on board. However, people like ghost, you, and others that don't seem to be fans of AR15s, but also care about the 2nd amendment are people that do actually care about sensible things, so that's where the engagement should occur. Just keep in mind that the anti-gun groups see this as their best opportunity since Sandy Hook, and an AR15 ban is not at all what they want.

 

[Evan]

As far as anyone needing an AR15, I don't think most people need guns in general. That's always kind of been the issue. Most people don't hunt. Most people don't live somewhere where they are under a constant threat of needing a gun until they actually encounter a threat. That said, AR15s aren't very different from a number of other rifles. They'd need to be banned, too, if the logic is the device is the issue. We'd also need to ban AR-style pistols because they wouldn't be covered by an AR-style semi-automatic rifle ban, and there are now signicant numbers of them. You'd also need to ban other pistols like AK pistols, and ones like the FN Fiveseven.

More to the point, what happens when we ban AR15s? Are they just suddenly illegal? Are they confiscated? Do we grandfather any in? It leaves a bad taste in my mouth that we've got to ban a gun that millions of people use legally. I just see the logic as similar to Donald Trump Jr.'s ridiculous Skittles analogy. If you've got a bowl full of Skittles (Muslim refugees), and you know one is poisoned (a terrorist), would you eat any at all (let any in)? But let's say we ignore the logic of it and just do it. When the next mass shooting occurs at a school, mall, church, or grocery store, perpetrated by someone using multiple hand guns, as was the trend for a long time, what do we do then?