-
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
- Thread starter ClovingWestbrook
- Start date
- Status
Cutting people's income and giving them less money to spend will unleash the strongest economy in human history.
Thanks, Sarah Palin!
I don't think you get our news and citizens here.
empty vessel
Member
For my part, I do not. Keeping individuals safe is what a non-dysfunctional society is for. Reliance on firearms for individual self-defense is an anti-social solution to a problem of our own making.
The Librarian
Banned
I was speaking strictly in the terms of the average joe. If you're a farmer, it makes sense to keep one around for animal predators. Self-defense is a little iffy because that kinda devolves into being one of those circumstances where you have to tweak the situation just right in order for you having a gun to make a difference.
Fenderputty
Banned
- Target shooting
- Hunting
- Home protection
All three of those are done with my shotgun though. Not sure why someone needs an AR15 with a 30 round clip and a hanldle to reduce recoil.
Fenderputty
Banned
This would imply all break-ins are motivated by simple economic issues. Odds might go down that a break in is related to rape, or that the person breaking in is some psycho serial killer or kidnapper. Still, what you're implying is a little bit disingenuous.
I saw a video of him from 2008 during that Frontline documentary and it shocked me how dark his hair was compared to now. Dat stress.
I think certainly an over-reliance on weapons for individual defense demonstrates a deficiency in our society, but I don't think the existence itself indicates that. I think all societies will have a certain amount of disfunction. I don't see the problem with having some fallbacks in case society does fail here and there. That's just realism.
That said, I don't think we should emphasize the failsafe as the actual thing that keeps us safe. It's just a last resort. If we can come up with a better solution we definitely should, and we shouldn't let that last resort stop us from getting a better solution.
I still remember how his face changed even after his first debriefing. He had that "I know some deep shit now" look on it
Now I get why black people don't smile in pictures - it makes them look old.Also, Obama's official second term portrait has been released:
I wonder how many Presidents leave that first debriefing and think to themselves "Why on Earth did I take this job, again?"
PhoenixDark
Banned
Pigeon: if every mass shooter over the last couple years had used glocks instead of assault guns, do you think the White House would be trying to ban handguns right now? The answer is no. Assault weapons are largely a distraction bandaid that won't stop mass killings; the Sandy Hook killer had a couple glocks and could have killed as many people with them, if not more. Cracking down on illegal guns makes more sense, and I'm glad the bill will address that.
Suburban schools will keep getting shot up until they institute some basic security measures that inner city schools already have like metal detectors and auto lock doors. I support a ban on assault weapons but ultimately they aren't a major problem.
Suburban schools will keep getting shot up until they institute some basic security measures that inner city schools already have like metal detectors and auto lock doors. I support a ban on assault weapons but ultimately they aren't a major problem.
I'd almost be willing to bet money that the AWB is nothing more than a bargaining chip that will be removed (it's the biggest target of the right's whining) in order to ensure that the more important things like illegal gun crackdowns and universal background checks get passed. It makes the Republicans feel like they accomplished something with the bill and the Democrats get the most important things that they wanted.
Regarding Obama picture: He looks happier in the second one.
On the subject of gerrymandering, ThinkProgress actually had an article the other day about the GOP openly congratulating themselves and admitting to gerrymandering being what helped them win the House.
On the subject of guns, my own feelings are generally pretty anti-gun, but I live in Texas and have come to accept that I'd want some rather radical changes that will never be. However, there are some more realistic changes I think that can be made for the better.
On the subject of gerrymandering, ThinkProgress actually had an article the other day about the GOP openly congratulating themselves and admitting to gerrymandering being what helped them win the House.
On the subject of guns, my own feelings are generally pretty anti-gun, but I live in Texas and have come to accept that I'd want some rather radical changes that will never be. However, there are some more realistic changes I think that can be made for the better.
"Huh. So that's why nobody lives in Wyoming."
empty vessel
Member
I don't think it's disingenuous and I don't think all break-ins are economically motivated. Nevertheless, many societies--themselves not ideally functional--get along fine without individual members arming themselves against each other. This is not to say that I believe there is not a right to self-defense, just that I am not prepared to say that there should be a right to possess a firearm for self-defense. That to me represents the relinquishment of social responsibility.
If Obama REALLY cared about the deficit he would fire his makeup artist!!!!
Dude Abides
Banned
Prince Reibus openly advocating rigging the next presidential election.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statep...ut-its-states-decision-fp8bqc3-186720481.html
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statep...ut-its-states-decision-fp8bqc3-186720481.html
Shadow Hog
Member
It's because it doesn't exist, right?
what they tried in PA in 2011 was straight up voter fraud, the new plan, i have less of a problem with... but its just basically getting rid of the EC. You really can't do it on a state by state basis. It needs to be all or nothing.
There is nothing representative about congressional districts, and the plan would be thrown out so fast its not even worth trying to pass it in a state. The GOP should advocate for ridding themselves of the EC, or at least all states giving them proportionally
I think 2012 showed that they clearly have no shame in publicly talking about this stuff.
‘Firearms instructor’ hired as school guard leaves handgun in student bathroom
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/...eaves-unattended-handgun-in-student-bathroom/
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/...eaves-unattended-handgun-in-student-bathroom/
Knew it was the Garfield bit before I even clicked it, heh
Rocket Scientist
Member
Haha I watch more of your news than my own! I just think it's game over for he GOP from now on. They're not going to win any beauty contest anymore. They're going to cave time after time as their approval rating keeps dropping more and more because of their evil acts. The show is over.
I sometimes listen to the Politics of the United States channel on SiriusXM during the day for nonpartisan political talk, but some of the stuff they talk about on this station is so stupid. They've spent many minutes seriously talking about Michelle's bangs and how some restaurant the Obamas recently ate at is "lame" and "old Washington" and talking about how their restaurant choice should've been more hip as there are better restaurants in the city.
I don't know what's worse, this or Ed Schultz yelling at me for three hours.
edit: Screw this, I'm going back to NPR.
I don't know what's worse, this or Ed Schultz yelling at me for three hours.
edit: Screw this, I'm going back to NPR.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Hmm that makes sense, although you never know with this SC
The funniest thing is that it shows the GOP has no interest in changing their message, tone, or ideas: they want to do the same thing, but rig the results. So that month of soul searching clearly convinced them that they're fucked unless they do something drastic.
Fenderputty
Banned
If I have a right to defend myself, why does doing so with a gun represent relinquishment of social responsibility?
But you recognize that there are some situations where even the best functioning society can fail to protect you and in which a firearm is the best defense. I don't think it is irrational to want to be prepared for these admittedly low-probability events, when should they occur it could produce terrible consequences for you and your loved ones.
Hopefully someone will invent a non-lethal beam weapon or something that will put us on a level playing field with criminals carrying lethal firearms.
Like a....I don't know i'm just throwing a name out there....stun gun?
Limited range and cartridge size, plus they aren't very reliable. There is no true non-lethal substitute for guns as of now.
That's ragist.
But the problem is that the relevant choice isn't between having or not having a gun in a given societal context. That's the choice an individual gun owner makes, and in some cases it's probably rational. In many cases it is not, though, because there are risks that come with gun ownership.
When we're talking about policy, we're not talking about that. The difference is that policy that promotes an individual's ability to keep a gun for self-defense necessarily promotes an individual's ability to obtain a gun for crime. It is possible that curtailing individuals' ability to obtain guns makes virtually everyone safer; yes, you would have fewer options for self-defense, but likewise there would be less need for that level of defensive capability.
empty vessel
Member
Because a firearm so empowers an individual vis-a-vis another individual that possession of one becomes the solution to the problem. Society exists in important part to afford safety to individuals within it. Possession of a firearm for self-defense represents to me, first, a belief that society is highly dysfunctional (which is true in my opinion) and, second, an abandonment of a social commitment to fix it. Possession of a firearm for self-defense is necessarily an individual solution to a social problem. Now, I do not mean to say by this that every individual who possesses a firearm is an anti-social cretin who has no interest in fixing a dysfunctional society. I am talking about what it represents at a very abstract level and why I, at least, refuse to accept that individuals ought to have a right to armed self-defense.
You don't exactly need a sniper rifle to defend against a burglar. Most stun guns have enough of a range to cover a single room
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
###
So basically their plan is to pass the most batshit insane thing they can in the House and filibuster anything the Senate tries to do in the hope that it will make them seem reasonable.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
I actually am in favor of not paying them since they actually are working 33% of the time they are getting paid to work.
I don't see this stunt working. Their public image is absolutely horrible now. They will raise the debt ceiling regardless of any deficit reduction. Raising it for three months and creating this permanent state of doubt as to whether or not the economy will crater is the most harmful thing imaginable.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
Yep Uncle Joe. But PD said!!!
jamesinclair
Banned
More guns are always the solution
Papa Joe knows this Capitol like the back of his hand, son.
It sounds like this retreat saw a lot of them acknowledging that they need to start to work with the other side just a tad. These people ultimately want to win, and letting the economy go into complete free fall willingly will not help them do that.
Rocket Scientist
Member
LOL! And what exactly is stopping them from both passing their own version of a ''budget''?
Dafuq.
- Status