Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dunamisdeos]

VA joins the National Popular Vote Compact as of earlier this week. Lotta right-leaning folks around here are most displeased.

Seems useless, in terms of practicality. The compact is made up entirely of states that have been blue for like, 5+ elections. This whole compact thing would only ever mean something if it contained historically red/blue states together.

Here's a thought: Do you think Trump could actually win the popular vote if he ran against, say, Biden? Or Bloomberg? Is this another stupid dem trick that's going to bite us all in the ass?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Because of the urban/rural percentage spit, it's extremely unlikely for any Democrat to lose the popular vote while winning the electoral vote. There's a reason this has happened twice for Republicans just recently. I think Nate Platinum's model usually puts it at around 4% for Republicans and less than 1% for Democrats.

But Trump would hardly need the NPVC to win against Bloomberg, he'd have a landslide anyway.

[Iduno]

No, that wont actually solve anything because the afore mentioned extremists will not budge, even if you had literal manbearpig frothing at the mouth and raping underage kids pedobear style in the woods.

While a silly thought can be fun to think about, I am afraid that the level of stupid on display here exceeds all forms of reasonable comprehension.

I believe the suggestion was that once the guns stop having an effect, there will be significantly fewer people around to argue.

[PTTG??]

A victory for Donald Trump, while a catastrophe for Americans, would be less bad than a victory for Bloomberg.

[Lord Shonus]

Pathological complacency is kinda endemic to the american culture.  Ignore the barcode, it means nothing. (It probably took all that guy has just to get outside with the sign!)


No, to me the real issue is the "my way or the highway" demands of both sides of the gun control argument.  Asserting that YES, people far away from emergency services with real potential for being harmed in mere seconds by a bear or other large carnivore with little to no chance of getting emergency services kinda really DO have a legitimate need to carry a "man killing" (ahem) grade weapon-- just cannot be fathomed by the extreme "NO GUNS! NO-- THERE IS ***NEVER*** A NEED FOR ONE! EVER!" crowd. Likewise the argument of "No, you literally have police patroling your streets at all hours, and are within easy reach of emergency services, you DO NOT need a firearm." does not sink in with the "BUT MUH RIIIIGHTS!! I WANTS MUH 50 cal submachine guhns!!!" crowd.

Because we have idiots on both sides polarizing the discussion to extremes that are just astoundingly stupid, there will never be such a sensible bit of legislation passed or enforced.

Let us ignore the idea that there are reasons to own a gun besides "I can expect to be attacked at any time!!" - hunting, sport shooting, recreation, etc. Let us also ignore the fact that a lot of people aren't comforted by the "police are patrolling the streets" because they view police as one of the very threats that they want to protect themselves from. We'll focus on an exact situation. The last time I -living in the middle of a city- had a guy trying to break down my door with the loudly-expressed intention of beating me to death it took the police nearly 20 minutes to arrive, and my door was barely hanging on. Had the guy not stopped attacking the door a few times to walk around the house ranting and screaming, or if he'd been smart enough to realize that windows are easier to break, he would have made it into my house long before the police were there to stop him. Had that happened, I - an asthmatic with a bad leg- would have had to evade or defeat six feet of drunk and angry white trash. I keep a gun in the house against the unlikely event that this happens again with a slightly smarter violent idiot.

An issue with the whole 2nd amendment thing is that a lot of people seem to, at least to me, value the 2nd amendment over the other ones. I really don't ever see discussion on this. Like, are any amendments more important than others? IMO yes (1st amendment gang rise up!), but what is the consensus amongst people, and how does that change between demographics?

One of the best things about the US constitution is that it is meant to be flexible, and change over time. We have even gone back on some stuff, i.e. Prohibition. It's not like it would be impossible to go back on some stuff if it turns out that, hey, we were wrong... Albeit some things might be more difficult to go back on.

The 1st Amendment is largely secure, although there are a worrisome amount of people who are advocating "it shouldn't apply to anything I disagree with". The 3rd, though important, hasn't come up in well over a century and is thus not particularly debated. The 4th is a major battlefield right now, and most 2A supporters are also fighting to preserve it. 5th is only attacked by TV shows that treat "lawyering up" as proof of guilt. 7-10 are non-controversial. Only the 2nd has large groups insisting that "We can interpret it this way and make it vanish entirely without pushing for an amendment we can't get!" or "well, we're just going to ignore it, count on the district courts to back us without question, and hope the Supremes don't step in."

I hate to ask this and expose my naïveté, but was the incel guy I was railing against just a 'mock protester' that was just following orders and parading around with a sign of someone else's design? That is just for politically strategic reasons and not for genuine advocacy?

No. The primary organizing for that protest was "Remember! Lobby day is the 20th this year, so make sure you get out to make your opinion heard!" messages from the major organizations. (I'm in loose contact with several people from Virginia who were involved in the protest). Anyone claiming that these were "paid" or "mock" protestors instead of genuine grassroots action is either sorely misinformed or actively pushing the "all gun-rights people are fascists!" angle.

[Pancakes]

A victory for Donald Trump, while a catastrophe for Americans, would be less bad than a victory for Bloomberg.

I agree to an extent, but I'll say this:

If Bloomberg doesn't win, then the country would still be locked in a Left vs. Right, Democrat vs. Republican situation. This is what we're currently shaping up to see. But do you think that if we get another billionaire president, i.e. Bloomberg, that we would see citizens in the US finally realizing that the upper class is a great source of the issues in their everyday lives, and that they, in fact, do not represent the people? Or do you think we're too angrily looking left/right to think to look up?

I hate Bloomberg, but what if he's the stone that breaks the glass house? Then again, I thought that that's what would happen if Trump was elected, so...

[Doomblade187]

My main pick against the 2nd amendment activism is actually the extreme "We really really need these assault rifles" crowd. And very unfortunately, the largest voice is the fucking NRA, who oppose every single control because of 'mah slippery slope'. Like, for self defense even, most people don't need semi-automatic weapons.

[TamerVirus]

most people don't need semi-automatic weapons.

They'll need em for when the zombies come

[Trolldefender99]

I'm semi-pro weapon. Considering some of my family comes from rather tyrannical ruled governments, so I can understand that side of things when that side argues that point of view.

On other hand. I definitely do not agree with people being allowed military grade weapons, or even police grade weapons at that. A hunting rifle, maybe some types of pistols (I would want to protect my family if someone tried attacking us in our home)...MAYBE shotguns in rural areas to defend against dangerous animals (not to hunt with though). But assault rifles? Grenades? sniper rifles? All that stuff should never be allowed. No one should have weapons as good or better than what police and military have. That should just never be a thing.

There is no reason random Joe next door should have weapons that even some police don't have. Should just never happen.

Banning all weapons? I don't see the point in going that far either, thats just the other extreme on the opposite side of things. Plus anything can be a weapon, and vehicles can also be used to commit mass murder in large crowds. But allowing ALL weapons should definitely not a be a thing either, thats also pretty extreme allowing people having police/military grade weapons in their home.

I think both sides need to compromise in a way that is sensible, which some democrats do want to ban the higher end weapons while allowing others. They are more open to compromise on that part than republicans are. Though some democrats just want to ban every weapon. Still better than republicans who refuse to even think of banning a single weapon. Don't think there is a single republican who is willing to compromise like the more moderate democrats are willing to do.

[Lord Shonus]

Don't think there is a single republican who is willing to compromise like the more moderate democrats are willing to do.

Explain to me how "well, we want to ban every gun, you don't want us to ban any gun, so we'll just ban 99.99% of guns purely on our decree that you do not need it - be thankful you're being allowed to keep anything! No, we won't make any effort to actually learn anything, and we'll ridicule you for pointing out that we get the most basic facts wrong." is a compromise?

[Dunamisdeos]

Well you see, one extreme is ban ALL guns, and the other extreme is ban NO guns.

So when you move away from both of those extremes and put forth something like "ban SOME guns based on the needs of the local populace" or "ban SOME guns based on the level of danger they present by being in general circulation" we call that a compromise.

[Egan_BW]

And only filthy centrists compromise~

[Lord Shonus]

So if I order you to give me all the money in your bank account, and then agree to only take most of it - is that a compromise?


The issue isn't just that one side is "We have decided to solve our problems by issuing firearms bans, and will not accept any alternative that is suggested. As soon as we have a slight majority, Our Will Be Done." Nor is it that the people proposing the bans have no interest in negotiation whatsoever - they openly proclaim that they will ban as much as they can get away with, and your input is not desired.


It is that virtually none of the proposals are based on anything close to reality. For example, there's no difference between a scoped hunting rifle and a sniper rifle - yet we have people insisting that the latter is an Evil Gun That Must Be Banned. You regularly hear news reporters say, in an ominous voice "Police found hundreds of rounds of ammunition in a vehicle during a traffic stop" with a obvious "this guy was planning something!" angle. I know people who have over ten thousand rounds of ammunition in various calibers - because buying in bulk is cheaper and they can easily go through a few hundred with one range trip. This doesn't get into the large number of cases where the proposed ban is based on a colossal misunderstanding of what a given feature does - a flash hider hides the muzzle flash from the shooter at the expense of making it extremely visible to everyone else, while politicians insist it is for stealth.

[Doomblade187]

Don't think there is a single republican who is willing to compromise like the more moderate democrats are willing to do.

Explain to me how "well, we want to ban every gun, you don't want us to ban any gun, so we'll just ban 99.99% of guns purely on our decree that you do not need it - be thankful you're being allowed to keep anything! No, we won't make any effort to actually learn anything, and we'll ridicule you for pointing out that we get the most basic facts wrong." is a compromise?

Most of the moderate democtarts aren't on the ban all guns train, mate. Most of the moderate democrats only say "no assault rifles pls".

Part of the problem is that by nature of design, any Semiautomatic rifle can be considered an "assault rifle" by some people. But the main goal of banning military style weapons is harm reduction. (Interestingly, banning silencers increases harm - they're already very hard to get, and protect hearing for avid shooters)

Edit: as per harm reduction, most violence is committed by handguns. Therefore, reducing handguns and leaving only long guns could potentially reduce violence.

[Lord Shonus]

Most of the moderate democtarts aren't on the ban all guns train, mate. Most of the moderate democrats only say "no assault rifles pls".

Part of the problem is that by nature of design, any Semiautomatic rifle can be considered an "assault rifle" by some people. But the main goal of banning military style weapons is harm reduction. (Interestingly, banning silencers increases harm - they're already very hard to get, and protect hearing for avid shooters)

Edit: as per harm reduction, most violence is committed by handguns. Therefore, reducing handguns and leaving only long guns could potentially reduce violence.

See, this is what a reasoned argument looks like. You're actually trying to argue from evidence and making some reasonable conclusion. Your last point is quite correct - despite media saturation, killings with long arms (including so called "assault weapons") are extremely rare.

However, you might want to have a good look at what the House has been passing since 2018. They're pretty close to "only slightly less restrictive than Britain, the poster child for ludicrously tough laws". 



EDIT: On reflection, this is getting far more into the weeds than I intended it to be, and it certainly isn't going to change anybody's mind. No reason for it to take up the thread.