If you want to start the People For Toddlers With Assault Rifles advocacy group, that would give me much joy.
-
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 2015 |OT| Keep Calm and Diablos On
- Thread starter Aaron Strife
- Start date
- Status
If you want to start the People For Toddlers With Assault Rifles advocacy group, that would give me much joy.
Retromelon
Member
The NRA is one of the most lobbying groups in history. You sound one of those guys who think it's "too arrogant" to believe mankind can change the climate. What you're claiming is self-evidently false.
Of course it's not a singular movement. No group in history ever was. But still, last I checked, nothing has changed on the Federal level when it comes to gun control. Something that is only possible when gun owners are complicit with the NRA's position. That makes ordinary gun owners part of the problem.
From the phone in bed:
1. No, that would be disproportionate punishment. I would say an appropriate punishment would be a fine if no harm was done and in the case of the negligence leading to avoidable death, a charge of criminal negligence similar to that which would incurred by a parent leaving their child in a hot car is reasonable for this case.
2. I think that still proves my point to an extent: the federal government has not banned alcohol (they undid their ban), but private companies and states are allowed to ban it if that is what the company owner or majority of citizens of the state set forth. I personally disagree with states banning alcohol for pragmatic reasons similar to why an outright gun ban is not an effective solution, but it's late and that's another tangent.
3. http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/health_effects/
There are of course studies showing contrary results, but admittedly I don't have the time right now to analyze their methodology and if there is a vested interest on the part of the group organizing those contrary studies to portray the results in a manner that makes second-hand smoke seem healthier than unskewed data or methodology demonstrates. This is not to say that possible vested interest means that the studies are definitely doctored, but it does mean we have to carefully judge the evidence. Again, my apologies for the time constraint on my part.
4. Indeed, which is why I'm not for an outright ban.
I need sleep, I'll check for a response when I can though.
benjipwns
Banned
So what?
Compared to when? There are thousands of federal gun restrictions on the books. Even more at the state and local levels.
1988-1994 was a massive wave of federal legislation restricting personal protection rights. And what more could they constitutionally pass after Heller and McDonald?
Nobody was harmed, so someone should be punished.
They never did. They banned the importation and sale, something they still place heavy controls on. The federal government just no longer has all the powers it had under the 18th to completely restrict the importation and sale of alcohol.
The drinking age of 21 being a perfect example of federal meddling in alcohol law still. (And banning it for anyone under 21.)
And we won't even get started on the other things they prohibit without a Constitutional Amendment. And even better make it illegal to research or advocate for the decriminalization of substances.
Fenderputty
Banned
Complete bullshit. Most people aren't members and aren't complicit in NRA positions. The word complicit implies direct involvement. Politicians ... That's another story.
Your assertion that not protesting the NRA means non member gun owners are part of the problem is bullshit too. The individual who didn't protest chick fil a wasn't part of the homophobia problem. I'm not even gonna condemn the individual who didn't boycott chick fil a. Something 95% of gun owners do with the NRA.
That makes them the guys in charge. Since few gun owners stand up against them, that makes the majority of gun owners part of the problem.
And yet we still have a mass shooting every day on average. The number of laws is irrelevant when the teeth of enforcement is not there.
Most of the laws were either repealed or watered down to the point of being useless. Furthermore, calling them "personal protection rights" is a massive part of the NRA propaganda. Defense guns uses are largely a myth, and actually less common than accidentally shootings. Seriously you're stuck in 2010 when these arguments are actually considered valid.
The Heller and McDonald was a hugely partisan 5-4 decision. It should not be seen as something that will hold up in future decisions. Still, I've advocated the repeal of the second amendment as an alternative solution. It's a right that simply should not exist.
benjipwns
Banned
Why won't the government enforce murder laws? Seems like a failed state.
oh nooooooooo not that
Until citizens start protesting authoritarians who want to eliminate certain rights, I'm holding them culpable for all our rights violations.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Now I wonder how he feels about Obergefell.
Or any 5-4 decision.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Eh. They're not all partisan splits.
There's been a huge increase in the support of gun rights relative to the past. As well as the belief that guns are useful in self-defense (they're not FYI). I'd say complicit is the correct word to describe it.
Chick-fil-a saw a huge amount of protests from its existing customer base, even if its not everyone. I'm not saying everyone has to protest in a public manner, just enough to make it clear that there's real disagreement on an issue. Something I've yet to see gun owners do. Also, Chick-fil-a not a particular influential organization on the issue of gay marriage in the same way the NRA is on gun control. A better analogy would be homophobic pastors and churches. Churchgoers that were didn't do anything in response to that kind of rhetoric really were part of the problem.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
No need to resort to irrelevant complaints when you have legitimate criticisms about a case. Wickard was unprincipled nonsense.
Maybe. I think "partisan" can split along different ideological lines, but whatever, I guess that's not what he meant. It's still kind of a silly point.
The US is not a failed state.
It was made on partisan lines regardless, and narrowly. These tend not to last the test of time. That's true regardless of whether they were liberal or conservative ones.
That's some strawman position there bud.
benjipwns
Banned
You say this like it's a bad thing. There's been a huge increase in the support of gay rights relative to the past! *crowd gasps* *a woman in the back faints*
Sometimes liberal progress is actually made despite our best efforts otherwise.
But it's not enforcing its murder laws enough to stop murders from happening every day.
You're the one who said they wanted to strip people of their human rights.
And it's true,
They're all culpable!
Fenderputty
Banned
Politics. A black president was taking their guns. You would have a better time arguing complicit behavior by by condemning republicans.
I don't own a gun for self protection.
My point was largely about the protesting angle. It's ridiculous to assume that if one doesn't protest they're part of the problem. We don't even assume that for people who refuse to boycott.
I vote straight dem down the line and have been doing so for quite some time now. I don't give NRA any money either. I'm also for reasonable gun control measures and have argued for such here and elsewhere.
Stop painting with such a broad brush.
That was not a partisan decision though. Still, at a 5-4 decision it's going to be one more conservative justice from flipping anyways.
Also, we can discuss whether something should be or not be allowed outside of the Supreme Court decision. It was pointing out the fallacy of deferring purely to court decisions on these matters.
There's a fundamental different between gay rights and gun rights. It is straightforward to argue that gay rights is a form of improving equality among everyone, whereas gun rights is more of a reactionary movement that harms society. Case in point, you pretty much ignored the part where I said defense gun use is a myth. This shows that one of the major fallacies behind gun rights as being a real right.
We can greatly reduce murders by reducing or eliminating guns from society. That's largely is the point of this discussion.
You're using the language of rights to defend something that positively isn't one. It's similar to the tactic of calling for "State's rights" to defend slavery in the past. In reality, it is defending something that actually exists to take someone else's rights away.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Kennedy's pretty much a wildcard at this point. Regardless, it is now established constitutional law that individuals have a right to keep and bear arms. That means a lot to most Americans, and probably helps explain why opposition to gun control laws (at least in general) continues trending upward.
benjipwns
Banned
As required for basic rights theory still it seems:
Alone on an island can I be gay? Yes, if I choose to be.
Alone on an island can I build and use a gun? Yes, if I'm born that way.
Is anyone harmed in either case except myself from vigorous masturbation in both cases? No.
Both are blatantly human rights.
And_Gignac
Member
More graphs!
Bernie at Obama levels now:
#feelthebern
https://www.intuitics.com/app/#app/1052/run/public
Kind of meaningless when Clinton is 2x bigger now than she was back then. Cute graphic for rethoric purposes, though.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
My inner feminist always knew it wouldn't be long before someone brought up her weight.
benjipwns
Banned
http://www.reviewjournal.com/business/millions-the-red-nevada-obamacare-insurer-has-failed
If only federal subsidies weren't able to be used in federally-operated exchanges!
I do that too. And a lot of gun owners as well. Actually, there's a huge amount of overlap between the two groups.
Good. We can at least agree on that (that guns are nearly useless for self-protection).
If you genuinely advocate for real reforms in gun laws and don't vote for pro-gun candidates, then I don't consider you part of the problem. Like I said, even online protests is enough in my eyes to be considered a protest against them. It's about letting the NRA and other groups at least know that there's real disagreement here, which something that hasn't really happened. Anyway that happens, protests, boycotts, etc., is all I want. Seriously, it's about create the notion that the NRA doesn't speak for them. Sadly, that's a pretty tiny minority so far.
You don't live on an island though. In the real world, gay rights do zero harm, gun rights kills tens of thousands.
Emphasis on the word "now." Of course, no gun control advocates huge changes anytime soon. But the thing is, look at the state of gun rights globally; it is clearly not a right at all. And that includes many Westernized nations that we considered more advanced socially that America. And the US experiences far more gun violence than those nations. Indeed, they look at us with shock and disdain when it comes to this subject.
That leads me to believe the chances that gun rights will stand test of time is precisely zero percent. It's akin to how the US banned slavery decades after all the countries in Europe did it. It just means the US is lagging the rest of the world on realizing an obvious truth.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
As Florida governor, Jeb! disliked gay marriage, but also literally couldn't spell the word "marriage"
This is a cheap one, but meh, lol.
This is a cheap one, but meh, lol.
benjipwns
Banned
This is gibberish. Gun rights literally can't harm anyone. Actions are required for harm. Actions that violate the rights of others.
When you add another person to that island, their rights are not being violated by you being gay or having a gun. Not even the combination violates their rights.
Look at the state of free speech globally, it is clearly not a right at all.
Look at the state of gay marriage globally, it is clearly not a right at all.
Look at the state of voting globally, it is clearly not a right at all.
Aha! Gotcha on the last one, it's not!
The US experiences far more violence. Period.
It's the culture, not the totems some think have mystical powers.
And_Gignac
Member
I don't think the vast majority of Americans know that and you're overestimating the mindfulness the public plays the court. Even surface-level supporters of an expansive reading of the 2nd Amendment are probably not aware to what Heller meant.
Heller has not entered our lexicon the same way Roe or Citizens United has (and the latter is more of a liberal awareness the same way "KOCH BROTHERS!" is than one that is more widely known by the general population).
I don't think Heller has anything to do with people's beliefs on gun policy.
Do you think it's okay for every person to have their own personal nuclear warhead?
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
benjipwns
Banned
If they can afford it.
They can't because the insurance required in the event of use would be impossible to afford.
And Bill Gates already has thousands of them because they run on Windows CE.
I would never call the poor shopkeep a tyrant. Store policy is his own to set.
You truly are the 1%. I was warned about you.
Fenderputty
Banned
I'm awful at spelling. Spell check is my lifesaver.
How much does a nuke cost these days?
How much does a nuke cost these days?
Your defense of gun rights is very similar to the defense of Jim Crow laws. Just because there needs to be a human involved action for there to be an actual violation of rights, doesn't mean that the concept itself is designed to massively increases the chances that a rights violation. Adding a gun to group of people will dramatic increase the likelihood of violence in that community as numerous studies have shown.
I don't know what you're talking about here. Free speech and voting rights are part of the UN universal declaration of human rights and is enshrined in the constitution or its equivalence in nearly all developed nations. Gay marriages is slightly different, but its also a very recent phenomenon. Gun rights are radically different and is not enshrined in anything other than the US constitution.
It should not be. We are one of the most developed nations on Earth with one of the highest standards of living on Earth. This should not be the case, and guns are clearly a very large reason for this. It's not the only reason, obviously, but it is probably the biggest.
Are you going to blame "black culture" for the high levels of violence in the black community next? This is a very disingenuous argument to make.
benjipwns
Banned
Priceless.
So you're countering your own argument by pointing to one document protecting those rights?
It's not, and I'm not. They're the same reason. And the biggest reason.
State violence.
Okay, you all know I had to phrase it that way first.
But essentially, the drug war and its extended arms. Dispute resolution in black markets cannot be taken to regular courts and is doled out by people who are drawn to...criminal acts. As thus, violence proliferates within the system rather than non-violence, as non-violent dispute resolution is not an option as the primary force within the market is only a violent actor (the state) and to maintain share the violence trickles down. As members of the underclasses are shuffled in and out of prison, and blocked from their rights and privileges by the state, they and their kin are pushed out of the now entirely separate "legal" class culture into one that exacerbates the problem but is also contained off and away enough so as to only boogeyman the higher class from time to time.
This same process works abroad.
Laws only "stop" those who obey them. If the risk of crossing the state is too low, people will ignore them. If the risk of crossing the state is less than the risk of crossing non-state actors, people will ignore them.
The United States and Mexico are two of the largest spending corporations on the drug wars and they're also two of the largest areas in terms of drug and violence proliferation. Clearly more laws and more law enforcement and more punishment are needed.
Russia is a unique and interesting case where they experimented with turning over all enterprises to politically connected violent warlords who were allowed to skirt the law and seeing if it made them non-violent and law abiding.
I like Chris Rock's $5,000 per bullet plan. You gotta be really angry to kill someone with a gun if it's going to set you back five large.
Probably won't work so well since people have been hoarding bullets since Obama got elected, though.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Most people are working under the assumption that at some point the republican establishment will somehow take control of their base and get them to vote for the person they want to win, and the person they want to win is the person that has the best chance in the general. It was basically how the 2008 and 2012 primaries went, so I guess they expect 2016 to go the same way.
Rubio and Kasich are both good guesses if you're going with that theory, since Walker and Bush have proven to be terrible candidates who will likely be destroyed by Clinton, and those are the logical next two choices.
I'm just not at all convinced that the establishment has that level of control anymore. People joke about how Cain lead for a while in 2012 as proof that the establishment always wins in the end, but doesn't that just show how extremely weak the establishment's position was for most of the election? In my view Cruz and Trump are both far stronger than all of the anti-establishment challengers of 2008 and 2012, and in some respects the establishment picks are actually weaker than Romney was.
Are defending your position or conceding it?
It's ratified by numerous countries, which also affirms them in their own constitution. It's not just one document in that sense.
Sounds like another one of those excuses again (mental health! gang violence! drugs!). Not saying it can't true, but studies show pretty clearly it's probably the guns: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409?journalCode=ajph
That isn't what the science shows either: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302703
benjipwns
Banned
Plus it's not all that expensive or complicated to manufacture your own bullets.
Or guns themselves really.
Neither, just amused by the insane comparison.
But still, if you look globally, in the real world, rather than just on paper...
Believing that magical totems cause all our problems sounds like an excuse to avoid addressing violence.
That study doesn't show shit:
It correlates three variables, and poorly. If you use homicides in general or even non-gun homicides you get the same correlation within acceptable bounds. It also works so that if you increase suicides it increases homicides.
Violence, especially as doled out by the state through the drug war or not, is a much simpler and much more addressable cause (theoretically, in a democracy, theoretically) than the belief that a massive violent seizure of weapons and ammunition will decrease violence.
You know where's great examples of less violent states? All those less violent states everyone always points to. I think the U.S. should copy them in pulling back on the large scale state violence before they copy them on violating citizens rights.
EDIT:
Connecticut didn't seize the existing weapons and ammunition of owners.
benjipwns
Banned
The real question is...is there still a GOP Establishment as we knew it?
The Democrats last one was vaporized in 1968. The "establishment" flopped between Congressional powers, the "progressives" and the DLC wing for the next forty years. The winner was none of them, it was the Clintons.
The old GOP hands are gone, dead, shunted off to undisclosed locations or getting knocked around by Tea Party types. Even the modern "old hands" are from the 1994 Revolution or later. Rick fucking Santorum is an "old hand" Establishment GOPer compared to the field.
We're making an assumption that the strongest power in the GOP Coalition, and thus The Establishment, is the old more moderate, business first focused wing that traces back to Nixon. It may not be the case.
Maybe the Michael Savage borders, language, culture wing is The Establishment, with Trump as their embodiment within a business figure being the tie to the old ways.
Or maybe these are just things we come up with to lie to ourselves about the legitimacy of the state.
You say all this as if the state were legitimate in the first place.
benjipwns
Banned
You didn't wait for the spoiler did you.
Retromelon
Member
Gonna sleep now
Spoiler tags are as illegitimate as the state.
benjipwns
Banned
Put it in D&D alignments.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked