• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2013 |OT1| Never mind, Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

watershed

Banned
What does it say about conservatives when they accept the NRA's child-like logic without consideration for facts, history, or feasibility?
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Interesting point from that Politico article on tomorrow's gun push
Among the gun control community three camps have emerged: One seeks to seek political victories on all counts, including banning assault weapons, a second worries that attaching an assault weapons ban to legislation that could otherwise pass will weigh it down and cause the entire platform to fail, and a third that seeks to use the assault weapons ban as a bargaining chip with NRA-backed members of Congress.

The third camp would then argue to trade away an assault weapons ban in exchange for universal background checks and a prohibition on high-capacity magazines.

“They tried compromising at the beginning before and they get burned,” said one of those advocates. “Maybe if you started out at single payer for health care you wouldn’t have gotten to the Romney plan. I think they’ve kind of learned how to do this. You have an opposition that has a defined position and you don’t want to start where they are.”
Click to expand...
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/...rafficking-law-86260_Page2.html#ixzz2I7y2tAs6

Interesting, I hadn't thought of it like that until now. If getting rid of the AWB allows people like Manchin to sign on, it makes sense. However, that political cover may only work on moderate democrats. Given the fury from the NRA it's hard to see many republicans getting on board with even just the trafficking, background checks, and gunshow loophole closures.
 
W

wsoxfan1214

Banned
PhoenixDark said:
Interesting point from that Politico article on tomorrow's gun push

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/...rafficking-law-86260_Page2.html#ixzz2I7y2tAs6

Interesting, I hadn't thought of it like that until now. If getting rid of the AWB allows people like Manchin to sign on, it makes sense. However, that political cover may only work on moderate democrats. Given the fury from the NRA it's hard to see many republicans getting on board with even just the trafficking, background checks, and gunshow loophole closures.
Click to expand...
I honestly hope he goes all-out.
 
W

watershed

Banned
Arde5643 said:
'murica exceptional-ism.
Click to expand...

I think its also the American education system showing its full worth. Students go through k-12 without ever having to develop a single, independent, critical thought. Then as adults they blindly accept what their immediate society tells them is right without question.
 
J

Jooney

Member
grkazan12 said:
Just saw this on facebook from a girl who is the same age as me (21) and incredibly cute. I'm amazed that someone my age in 2013 can think like this, I mean come on.

541680_125777554256645_1808456745_n.jpg
Click to expand...

You know what's also bullshit? The President get his own private jet while I have to haul my ass on coach. What's up with that?
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
Avon Barksdale said:
I've never understood the link between unemployed and alleged drug use.
Click to expand...

MIAMI — Ushered in amid promises that it would save taxpayers money and deter drug users, a Florida law requiring drug tests for people who seek welfare benefits resulted in no direct savings, snared few drug users and had no effect on the number of applications, according to recently released state data.

“Many states are considering following Florida’s example, and the new data from the state shows they shouldn’t,” said Derek Newton, communications director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, which sued the state last year to stop the testing and recently obtained the documents. “Not only is it unconstitutional and an invasion of privacy, but it doesn’t save money, as was proposed.”

...

Because the Florida law requires that applicants who pass the test be reimbursed for the cost, an average of $30, the cost to the state was $118,140. This is more than would have been paid out in benefits to the people who failed the test, Mr. Newton said.

As a result, the testing cost the government an extra $45,780, he said.

And the testing did not have the effect some predicted. An internal document about Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, caseloads stated that the drug testing policy, at least from July through September, did not lead to fewer cases.

“We saw no dampening effect on the caseload,” the document said.
Click to expand...
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us/no-savings-found-in-florida-welfare-drug-tests.html

In other words, there is no fucking link and it's a stupid fucking policy that wastes time and resources. And even for the few druggies it stops, it still doesn't put in a policy to, you know, help them.

This is my favorite part:

But supporters of the law said four months of numbers did little to discredit an effort they said was based on common sense. Drug users, no matter their numbers, should not be allowed to use taxpayer money, they said.

“We had to stop allowing tax dollars for anybody to buy drugs with,” said State Representative Jimmie T. Smith, a Republican who sponsored the bill last year. Taxpayer savings also come in deterring those drug users who would otherwise apply for cash assistance but now think twice because of the law, some argued.

Chris Cinquemani, the vice president of the Foundation for Government Accountability, a Florida-based public policy group that advocates drug testing and recently made a presentation in Georgia, said more than saving money was at stake.

“The drug testing law was really meant to make sure that kids were protected,” he said, “that our money wasn’t going to addicts, that taxpayer generosity was being used on diapers and Wheaties and food and clothing.”
Click to expand...

Fuck it if the policy doesn't work, costs money, and is fucking worthless. IT FUCKING FEELS RIGHT SO LET'S KEEP DOING IT.

The modern GOP in a nutshell. It doesn't matter if it's right, it only matters if I think it's feels right. This explains their absurd ideas on global warming, rape, welfare, gay marriage, evolution, etc.
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
You know, I noticed something. This thread doesn't have ANY female posters whatsoever.

I expect this from Obama's cabinet, but Poligaf should have higher standards!
 
V

Vermillion

Banned
I learned some time ago that there are quite a few girls on GAF that simply don't announce it. Lots on Gaming Side. So some may just be lurking/posting infrequently.

That said, still odd.
 
J

Jooney

Member
Don't take this the wrong way Dax but I always thought that you were an enterprising young lad that just really liked Sophie Ellis Bexter.
 
G

gcubed

Member
PhoenixDark said:
Interesting point from that Politico article on tomorrow's gun push

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/...rafficking-law-86260_Page2.html#ixzz2I7y2tAs6

Interesting, I hadn't thought of it like that until now. If getting rid of the AWB allows people like Manchin to sign on, it makes sense. However, that political cover may only work on moderate democrats. Given the fury from the NRA it's hard to see many republicans getting on board with even just the trafficking, background checks, and gunshow loophole closures.
Click to expand...

You hadn't thought about it like that even after multiple posts telling you?
 
M

Mrs. Manky

Banned
Just a thought:

If Mitt Romney had been elected President, the Secret Service would have had to protect:

Romney and his wife
Their sons
Their sons' wives
Their sons' children.

And that's a lot of people.





No there would not be Secret Service guarding Rafalca.
 
F

FyreWulff

Member
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/15/rand-paul-gives-obama-the-royal-treatment/?hpt=hp_t2

"I'm against having a king," he said Tuesday in an interview in Jerusalem with the Christian Broadcasting Network.
Click to expand...

The irony is so big I just died of lead poisoning

""I think having a monarch is what we fought the American Revolution over and someone who wants to bypass the Constitution, bypass Congress - that's someone who wants to act like a king or a monarch.""
Click to expand...

Except all of the things he can do is due to powers the constitution gives him goddamnit my brain hurts
 
E

electricpirate

Member
FyreWulff said:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/15/rand-paul-gives-obama-the-royal-treatment/?hpt=hp_t2



The irony is so big I just died of lead poisoning



Except all of the things he can do is due to powers the constitution gives him goddamnit my brain hurts
Click to expand...

The great Irony? the executive orders being pursued are exactly what the gun lobby has been saying they've wanted.

Conservatives: "You should enforce the existing laws better!"
Obiden: "Here's a set of executive orders to better enforce existing gun laws"
Conservatives: "MONARCH, IMPEACH HIM."

I really shouldn't be surprised anymore, but they still manage to surprise me.
 
T

Tim-E

Member
Mrs. Manky said:
Just a thought:

If Mitt Romney had been elected President, the Secret Service would have had to protect:

Romney and his wife
Their sons
Their sons' wives
Their sons' children.

And that's a lot of people.





No there would not be Secret Service guarding Rafalca.
Click to expand...

I'm imagining a 24-esque scenario where Rafalca is kidnapped and all President Romney has to do to save him is hand over the launch codes.
 
H

Heisenberg

Member
I meant to post this last night but fell asleep - I apologize in advance if this has been discussed/answer in the previous few pages.

Is there any chance that the AWB in this proposal is just something that Obama expects Republicans to push back hard on and expects to "give" them in order to get the rest of the legislation passed?

I mean it's obvious the R's aren't going to agree to anything that the D's propose without getting the impression that they "won" something, so I wasn't sure if it was thought that the AWB was something that would eventually be given up.

I'm fairly liberal but I don't see the AWB accomplishing much except to further piss off conservatives. Virginia Tech was all pistols so I definitely wouldn't expect it to deter any mass shootings and I'd prefer not to have to hear from all my relatives/coworkers about how O is out to take away all of their guns.
 
T

Tim-E

Member
Heisenberg said:
I meant to post this last night but fell asleep - I apologize in advance if this has been discussed/answer in the previous few pages.

Is there any chance that the AWB in this proposal is just something that Obama expects Republicans to push back hard on and expects to "give" them in order to get the rest of the legislation passed?

I mean it's obvious the R's aren't going to agree to anything that the D's propose without getting the impression that they "won" something, so I wasn't sure if it was thought that the AWB was something that would eventually be given up.

I'm fairly liberal but I don't see the AWB accomplishing much except to further piss off conservatives. Virginia Tech was all pistols so I definitely wouldn't expect it to deter any mass shootings and I'd prefer not to have to hear from all my relatives/coworkers about how O is out to take away all of their guns.
Click to expand...

They are going to say he's going to take away their guns anyway because most people are hilariously misinformed. Ultimately, I'm hopeful that the high-capacity clip ban & universal background checks get passed through Congress, with Obama going ahead with many of those smaller provisions to curb handgun violence through executive orders. I'm not as hopeful on the assault weapons ban, but I think it should still be a part of the initial plan because it doesn't make sense for private citizens to own them regardless.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Tim-E said:
They are going to say he's going to take away their guns anyway because most people are hilariously misinformed. Ultimately, I'm hopeful that the high-capacity clip ban & universal background checks get passed through Congress, with Obama going ahead with many of those smaller provisions to curb handgun violence through executive orders. I'm not as hopeful on the assault weapons ban, but I think it should still be a part of the initial plan because it doesn't make sense for private citizens to own them regardless.
Click to expand...

Pretty much this. I think the AWB is just a bargaining chip in this debate. We know it stands no chance but it's probably in there so he can give up on it and make the GOP feel like they won.
 
H

Heisenberg

Member
B-Dubs said:
Pretty much this. I think the AWB is just a bargaining chip in this debate. We know it stands no chance but it's probably in there so he can give up on it and make the GOP feel like they won.
Click to expand...

That's what I figured so thanks for answering. It makes a lot of sense.

I'm still not sure about the AWB anyway, pretty much every gun owner I know that I respect has told me that the AWB is a joke because they're all just semi auto rifles that are usually used for hunting and that what constitutes an "Assault Weapon" is pretty broad.
 
T

Tim-E

Member
Heisenberg said:
That's what I figured so thanks for answering. It makes a lot of sense.

I'm still not sure about the AWB anyway, pretty much every gun owner I know that I respect has told me that the AWB is a joke because they're all just semi auto rifles that are usually used for hunting and that what constitutes an "Assault Weapon" is pretty broad.
Click to expand...

There is no point in using a semi-automatic weapon while hunting. If you fire one shot and miss you're basically done for the day. Realistically you don't need more than a few bullets to go hunting.

These kinds of people literally think that in the bill every gun will be considered an assault weapon and henceforth be banned, when in reality the bill in 1994 specifically named the weapons it was banning and didn't just blanket ban everything like these people think.
 
H

Heisenberg

Member
Tim-E said:
There is no point in using a semi-automatic weapon while hunting. If you fire one shot and miss you're basically done for the day. Realistically you don't need more than a few bullets to go hunting.

These kinds of people literally think that in the bill every gun will be considered an assault weapon and henceforth be banned, when in reality the bill in 1994 specifically named the weapons it was banning and didn't just blanket ban everything like these people think.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure when you're hunting certain types of game you don't want to have to reload if you miss. Boars, bears, etc.

I'm not into hunting at all but I could definitely see where semi's would be something you would want to have. Like I said, seeing what Cho did with a pair of handguns at VT made me realize you don't need a rifle to do a ridiculous amount of damage if you really want to.
 
T

Tim-E

Member
Heisenberg said:
Pretty sure when you're hunting certain types of game you don't want to have to reload if you miss. Boars, bears, etc.

I'm not into hunting at all but I could definitely see where semi's would be something you would want to have. Like I said, seeing what Cho did with a pair of handguns at VT made me realize you don't need a rifle to do a ridiculous amount of damage if you really want to.
Click to expand...

If making things a little less convenient for hunters means that private citizens no longer have access to assault rifles used in warfare, then I am okay with that.

No one is saying that banning assault weapons will end every gun murder, but is that a good enough reason to not ban something that people do not need to own?
 
H

Heisenberg

Member
Tim-E said:
If making things a little less convenient for hunters means that private citizens no longer have access to assault rifles used in warfare, then I am okay with that.

No one is saying that banning assault weapons will end every gun murder, but is that a good enough reason to not ban something that people do not need to own?
Click to expand...

Depends on your views, I guess.

I'm not saying you're wrong or even trying to argue. I've never even fired a gun so I really don't care all that much. I'm just usually not about punishing people (by taking away their possessions) that are law abiding citizens because of the act of a few lunatics. If there was any evidence that Aurora or Sandy Hook couldn't have been accomplished just by using pistols then I might be willing to understand the urgency in outright banning these weapons.

"Need to own" is kind of a slippery slope IMO as you could start making the case for a lot of things if that is your criteria.
 
T

Tim-E

Member
Heisenberg said:
Depends on your views, I guess.

I'm not saying you're wrong or even trying to argue. I've never even fired a gun so I really don't care all that much. I'm just usually not about punishing people (by taking away their possessions) that are law abiding citizens because of the act of a few lunatics. If there was any evidence that Aurora or Sandy Hook couldn't have been accomplished just by using pistols then I might be willing to understand the urgency in outright banning these weapons.

"Need to own" is kind of a slippery slope IMO as you could start making the case for a lot of things if that is your criteria.
Click to expand...

Obama has not proposed a mandatory buyback program for assault weapons at a national level, so no one would be taking away anyone's possessions. It's to prevent the further manufacture and distribution of assault weapons following passage. In no way shape or form is a renewal of the assault weapons ban of twenty years ago physically taking away anything from anyone.
 
H

Heisenberg

Member
Tim-E said:
Obama has not proposed a mandatory buyback program for assault weapons at a national level, so no one would be taking away anyone's possessions. It's to prevent the further manufacture and distribution of assault weapons following passage.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

I still think it will get taken out in order to get something passed but I'm 100% behind the rest of the proposal from what I've read.
 
A

Aylinato

Member
Dax01 said:
"PoliGAF's Binder Full of Women: We have at least one!"
Click to expand...

NeoGAF, knowing more women then Mitt Romney since 2002. As to when he received a binder full of women because in his entire career since 1977 he did not know one woman who could fulfill any job opening in his cabinet in 2002.

God looking that up made it even worse.
 
R

remist

Member
Tim-E said:
There is no point in using a semi-automatic weapon while hunting. If you fire one shot and miss you're basically done for the day. Realistically you don't need more than a few bullets to go hunting.

These kinds of people literally think that in the bill every gun will be considered an assault weapon and henceforth be banned, when in reality the bill in 1994 specifically named the weapons it was banning and didn't just blanket ban everything like these people think.
Click to expand...

The 1994 ban also didn't have any significant effect on gun violence and neither would this new law.
 
T

Tim-E

Member
Heisenberg said:
Fair enough.

I still think it will get taken out in order to get something passed but I'm 100% behind the rest of the proposal from what I've read.
Click to expand...

I do, too. If there's any part of it that I'll accept as a bargaining chip, it's that. The universal background checks will undoubtedly do the most good of anything else proposed.

I typically will stand by what I believe, but unlike a lot of liberals I don't get worked up when what passes isn't 100% what was proposed in the beginning.

remist said:
The 1994 ban also didn't have any significant effect on gun violence and neither would this new law.
Click to expand...

What Obama is proposing goes far beyond the assault weapons ban. Provide me some legitimate sources claiming that all of his proposals will do nothing to stop gun violence.
 
R

remist

Member
Tim-E said:
What Obama is proposing goes far beyond the assault weapons ban. Provide me some legitimate sources claiming that all of his proposals will do nothing to stop gun violence.
Click to expand...

I was referring specifically to the AWB, I agree with magazine restrictions and universal background checks.
 
T

Tim-E

Member
remist said:
I was referring specifically to the AWB, I agree with magazine restrictions and universal background checks.
Click to expand...

<3 Fair enough.

That's why I think the AWB is the best thing to use as a bargaining chip if it helps the rest of it pass. I personally believe it is good policy, but I feel much more strongly about the rest of the proposals.
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
codhand said:
It's not the size of the binder, it's the quality of its contents.
Click to expand...

*looks around in the thread*

Well, shit. Guess I'll have to be the one to ask.

Are you hawt, Dax?


J/K of course!

Seriously, though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

How is it that I own a bunch of Xbox 360 games I never bought digitally?
9
947
dragonyeuw replied
The Drunk GAF Containment Thread
Social Community 7 8 9 10 11
520
11K
ForAcademicPurposes replied
What are you thankful for this turkey day?
17
847
MaestroMike replied
Bad games with redeeming qualities
2 3
116
5K
Koenigssee replied
Next Generation is going to be really strange because of A.I
2
58
2K
midnightAI replied
Top Bottom