Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
blotsfan

Trump Regime thread.

Recommended Posts

Because they've purchased enough of our representatives to ensure that American policies on the topic do not follow public opinion. When the voters go to vote on those representatives that are ignoring public opinion, the NRA and Co (AFP, Heritage, etc) run ads unrelated to the issue in an attempt to keep the rep in office. If they aren't successful, they just buy the next guy.

 

This is not the case with Planned Parenthood, where public opinion is indeed on PP's side.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really. 52 percent support access to guns over restrictions to them according to the pre research center as of 3 or 4 years ago. And 55 percent support PP according to the same people so we can infer that there are similar methodologies used and Gathering their data. So in reality the NRA is not anymore, or less, popular than planned parenthood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rand Paul is full of shit. He says a lot of things that I love and that I feel need to be said but whenever it comes down to vote time the guy falls right in line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rand Paul is full of shit. He says a lot of things that I love and that I feel need to be said but whenever it comes down to vote time the guy falls right in line.

He is like the republican version of Hillary...will say anything to get votes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think youre describing a large majority of every politician ever. Politicians actually fighting for the things they run on isnt the norm.

 

There was an article I read quite a while ago, bt it goes into that issue. In a campaign the promises and rhetoric starts really broad to appeal to the largest amount of people. As their opponents drop out, as they gain supporters... the voters they are trying to reach becomes smaller and more defined politicians will then make their stances more specific and pointed to try to reach this smaller target group of voters.

 

There were actually a bunch of examples of politicians in that transition period flipping almost 180 degrees on some positions within the same campaign run and within only a month or so of their previous stance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because they've purchased enough of our representatives to ensure that American policies on the topic do not follow public opinion. When the voters go to vote on those representatives that are ignoring public opinion, the NRA and Co (AFP, Heritage, etc) run ads unrelated to the issue in an attempt to keep the rep in office. If they aren't successful, they just buy the next guy.

 

This is not the case with Planned Parenthood, where public opinion is indeed on PP's side.

Can you honestly say that you think our policies should follow public opinion when you look around and listen to all these idiots in the media and regular old citizens on social media blathering on and on about issues they don't really understand?

 

If we can somehow get through this period of utter mindlessness without severe consequences in terms of rights, we'll be very, very lucky.

Edited by BwareDWare94

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think youre describing a large majority of every politician ever. Politicians actually fighting for the things they run on isnt the norm.

 

There was an article I read quite a while ago, bt it goes into that issue. In a campaign the promises and rhetoric starts really broad to appeal to the largest amount of people. As their opponents drop out, as they gain supporters... the voters they are trying to reach becomes smaller and more defined politicians will then make their stances more specific and pointed to try to reach this smaller target group of voters.

 

There were actually a bunch of examples of politicians in that transition period flipping almost 180 degrees on some positions within the same campaign run and within only a month or so of their previous stance.

Him being different from a large majority of politicians is what makes him appealing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:rofl:

 

Mueller's gonna be like, "Yeah, I don't need that interview anymore, I got everything I need out of twitter."

 

Also thanks for making me laugh, guys. Defending the NRA as promoters of safety and conservation, haha. Maybe twenty years ago, not today. They need to go, and anything that helps that along is welcome news. The sooner the NRA goes away, the better off this country will be.

 

Not sure where Ngata's getting his numbers, the polls I'm seeing show upwards of 60% that thinks more guns = less safe country, 65% that think the gun control laws should be stricter, and a net unfavorable rating of the NRA itself at 56-40 against. From the Pew Research Center. Even NRA members themselves thinks the upper leadership is wrong on several measure of gun control- 70-80% of the them think we should have stricter background checks. That's 70-80% of registered NRA members, not the general populace at large.

 

Bware's argument is particularly amazing. So the NRA buying off our politicians is a GOOD thing, because we shouldn't follow what the majority of the people want, instead we should follow what the people in charge of the NRA who use their money to buy off politicians want.

Edited by Thanatos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really. 52 percent support access to guns over restrictions to them according to the pre research center as of 3 or 4 years ago. And 55 percent support PP according to the same people so we can infer that there are similar methodologies used and Gathering their data. So in reality the NRA is not anymore, or less, popular than planned parenthood.

 

Polling consistently shows that the public overwhelmingly supports tightening regulations on background checks for firearm sales (always over 80% and often over 90), yet congress continues to sit on its hands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, I mean making them harder to get and making it harder for shitty people to get them is something we can all agree on.

 

That said an outright ban on most guns or restricting people from them based on arbitrary criteria by people with no knowledge of what they are talking is something most people resist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good thing trying to outright ban guns is nothing but a strawman argument brought up by the NRA to scare people into supporting them, then.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fun fact: the NRA isn't a gun-rights organization, they're a gun manufacturer lobby. Their goal is to get regulation that leads to more guns being sold, nothing else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, I mean making them harder to get and making it harder for shitty people to get them is something we can all agree on.

 

That said an outright ban on most guns or restricting people from them based on arbitrary criteria by people with no knowledge of what they are talking is something most people resist.

 

Unfortunately, our representatives in Congress are some of the few that cannot agree on it. Nothing has been passed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh and also the NRA was never close to going broke. That was just something they argued in their court case against New York State that would happen if they lost.

 

But congrats ngata for donating money to them. They love suckers like you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh and also the NRA was never close to going broke. That was just something they argued in their court case against New York State that would happen if they lost.

But congrats ngata for donating money to them. They love suckers like you.

I have been donating to them for years. I believe I actually said in my post, that they weren't going anywhere anytime soon.

 

I'm aware that they are nowhere near bankruptcy, I just support them as a group in general. I don't necessarily like who they have at the front of the organization right now, but I believe in what they stand for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, our representatives in Congress are some of the few that cannot agree on it. Nothing has been passed.

Honestly, I think it comes down to terms. I have said this before but I think it Bears repeating, when the Brady Bill went through in the 90s, it literally was all cosmetic except for the high capacity magazine.

 

when Congress has something like assault weapons, I don't know why but it always goes back to the looks of the gun. For instance pistol grips and Bayonet lugs have no practical purpose as far as the efficiency of killing. I mean yes if you have a bayonet on there it can kill somebody but that generally means you have no bullets, or somebody is close to you and either event that isn't how these mass shootings shake out. So in effect they're banning something that actually has nothing to do with how lethally efficient a weapon is.

 

I know it's debatable, but I could make a strong case that an M14 is every bit as deadly, if not more so then an AR-15. Yet you never hear of people wanting to ban in for teens because they look like your standard hunting rifle. Yet they have a higher caliber round, they are more accurate, and they are fairly quick to reload as well. Some of the things that reduce the lethal effectiveness of an AR-15 is that yes they are accurate but not as accurate is the M14, they are prone to jams, the high-capacity magazines they use have feeding issues sometimes, and they have a small round which reduces the amount of kinetic energy transferred to the Target, so you have to be more accurate to get a kill shot.

 

none of these are things that are currently being discussed, which I think is where the actual debate should begin. What exactly constitutes the lethal efficacy of a weapon?

 

Also speaking of an assault weapon ban Columbine happened during the assault weapon ban, as a number of other school shootings did before the Brady Bill expired. Generally speakingcomma in this country when you ban something, you create a black market which thereby props up the value of those weapons. I mean you may make them harder to get, but then again you might actually flood the market with illegal weapons, and no way to trace them for the government or your local police station. This is why closing the Gun Show loophole has been such a hotly contested topic as of late, because it is extremely hard to track guns that are bought outside of a state's borders, and when they are brought into the state there's no reasonable method to be able to find that, unless you do door-to-door searches. I am all for closing the gun-show loophole, I think that could do some good.

 

again getting back to the terms, when you say things like assault rifle ban, 1.) you immediately create resistance, 2.) you're really dealing with a lot of terms that have no actual augmentation to the efficacy of that weapon.

 

my entire issue with the gun debate, is that you end up with a bunch of people who really don't know much about weapons, just saying that gun looks dangerous. Instead of sitting down and actually making a concerted effort to figure out which weapons are Far and Away the most dangerous, ways that you can prevent school shootings, and stop focusing solely on the guns. You're never going to take them away, that is in a reasonable solution, and it is in a feasible solution. Not in this country anyway, it has never been done, and it will never be done to a point where it's effective.

 

With that being the case we should start focusing on police departments to see if they can have better response times, updating the standard operating procedures for entries into buildings with active Shooters and unarmed civilians, maybe think about installing those bulletproof vestibules (pods) inside all of classrooms that we can, and have metal detectors and armed guards in schools. I think these are all relatively easy fixes, granted some would be expensive, specifically the bulletproof festivals inside classrooms, but it really comes down to how much our lives worth? I think doing a lot of these we could mitigate many of the casualties. The truth of the matter is that school shootings have been happening for the last 60 years, and we haven't found a good way to stop people from getting guns, so maybe we should shift our Avenue of approach to mitigating casualties and stopping the threat.

Edited by Omerta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it's debatable, but I could make a strong case that an M14 is every bit as deadly, if not more so then an AR-15. Yet you never hear of people wanting to ban in for teens because they look like your standard hunting rifle. Yet they have a higher caliber round, they are more accurate, and they are fairly quick to reload as well. Some of the things that reduce the lethal effectiveness of an AR-15 is that yes they are accurate but not as accurate is the M14, they are prone to jams, the high-capacity magazines they use have feeding issues sometimes, and they have a small round which reduces the amount of kinetic energy transferred to the Target, so you have to be more accurate to get a kill shot.

Ban the M14

 

Also speaking of an assault weapon ban Columbine happened during the assault weapon ban, as a number of other school shootings did before the Brady Bill expired. Generally speakingcomma in this country when you ban something, you create a black market which thereby props up the value of those weapons. I mean you may make them harder to get, but then again you might actually flood the market with illegal weapons, and no way to trace them for the government or your local police station. This is why closing the Gun Show loophole has been such a hotly contested topic as of late, because it is extremely hard to track guns that are bought outside of a state's borders, and when they are brought into the state there's no reasonable method to be able to find that, unless you do door-to-door searches. I am all for closing the gun-show loophole, I think that could do some good.

 

again getting back to the terms, when you say things like assault rifle ban, 1.) you immediately create resistance, 2.) you're really dealing with a lot of terms that have no actual augmentation to the efficacy of that weapon.

 

my entire issue with the gun debate, is that you end up with a bunch of people who really don't know much about weapons, just saying that gun looks dangerous. Instead of sitting down and actually making a concerted effort to figure out which weapons are Far and Away the most dangerous, ways that you can prevent school shootings, and stop focusing solely on the guns. You're never going to take them away, that is in a reasonable solution, and it is in a feasible solution. Not in this country anyway, it has never been done, and it will never be done to a point where it's effective.

 

With that being the case we should start focusing on police departments to see if they can have better response times, updating the standard operating procedures for entries into buildings with active Shooters and unarmed civilians, maybe think about installing those bulletproof vest stipules inside all of classrooms that we can, and have metal detectors and armed guards in schools. I think these are all relatively easy fixes, granted some would be expensive, specifically the bulletproof festivals inside classrooms, but it really comes down to how much our lives worth? I think doing a lot of these we could mitigate many of the casualties. The truth of the matter is that school shootings have been happening for the last 60 years, and we haven't found a good way to stop people from getting guns, so maybe we should shift our Avenue of approach to mitigating casualties and stopping the threat.

136e8fd6b17d9fed1cd9ea2e40032dec.png

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So ban any gun that can kill people ? I guess what I am getting at is how do you measure that in regards to should it be banned? Can it kill 5 people per minute or is that too little or too much.

 

I thought I gave a few solutions in there, or things we should try. We could either have this debate on a civil way or you can keep being a douche about it. I thought me and windy were doing well respecting each other and such, I am all for continuing in that manner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thing is people don't want gun control but they also don't want to do anything about poverty or making any sort of commitment to seriously revamping our mental health care apparatus because it would cost too much money. The problem I'm is not access to guns. What do you want? Can we have a serious conversation because if you can say that we need to invest in ending poverty and giving people health care as a right (including mental health), then I'm with the gun people. Let them have their guns idc.

 

Who's more likely to rob you and kill you at gun point? Likely somebody in a desperate situation. Who is most likely to shoot up a school? Somebody with some serious mental and social disorders. How do we solve those problems? By putting our money where our mouth is. Period. There is no room for any other discussion because it's just invalid honestly.

Edited by seanbrock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So ban any gun that can kill people ? I guess what I am getting at is how do you measure that in regards to should it be banned? Can it kill 5 people per minute or is that too little or too much.

 

I thought I gave a few solutions in there, or things we should try. We could either have this debate on a civil way or you can keep being a douche about it. I thought me and windy were doing well respecting each other and such, I am all for continuing in that manner.

You're seriously suggesting giving all kids bulletproof vests because the idea of giving up your guns is that horrific to you. The fact that you come to that conclusion shows that your mind will never be changed. This is a problem in exactly one western country. The answer is obvious. The right wing of the country doesn't want to admit it. Which makes sense: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." -Upton Sinclair

 

And Sean, we definitely do need all those things. It's just that no matter what, people will fall through the cracks. It is impossible to be 100% successful. I'd rather when they slip, it's incredibly hard for them to get a gun.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was supposed to say vestibules. No we should not give kids bulletproof vests.

 

But at least now I have my answer as to whether or not you can have this conversation while being civil. Enjoy it sir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who is against gun control AND against ending the root issues of gun violence doesn't give a fuck about gun violence so long as they get to have their guns. That's kind of my point. If you don't want one or both of those things then meaningful dialogue is impossible because the other person doesn't believe there is a problem. That's the only logical conclusion in my eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

These things. Great idea.


Anyone who is against gun control AND against ending the root issues of gun violence doesn't give a fuck about gun violence so long as they get to have their guns. That's kind of my point. If you don't want one or both of those things then meaningful dialogue is impossible because the other person doesn't believe there is a problem. That's the only logical conclusion in my eyes.

 

 

I get your mental health aspect, I think that's certainly a point of discussion that should be had. Although I am more Curious to hear how you think poverty fits into this. Most Mass Shooters are adolescent white males. they generally don't come from poverty either, so I'm extremely interested to see what you think the root cause as it pertains to poverty is.

Edited by Omerta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think gun violence is perpetrated by 3 kinds of people mentally I'll/socially inept people (mass shootings/domestic terrorism), poor people (most gun violence) and people acting in self defense (the smallest portion).

 

People who are poor Rob people to eat or get high. Gangs don't exist in areas where people have money lol so there's that too. What neighborhoods do you lock your doors and roll up your windows in? The poor ones. It's a very basic principle that has existed as a law since people have come together to form civilizations throughout every single society without exception in human history. Poverty=violence. There is no debate on that fact.

Edited by seanbrock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Chatbox

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×