American Politics

[SharkBait]

No he doesn't, he is full of shit. and even if he does, McConnell will block him.

In regards to whom? To their bases, I'd say Biden would be more out of touch except to maybe centrists and old sharts who are okay with him being creep. Are centrists really that popular though? Maybe among moderates, but I don't see them being that popular. The right will go with whoever aligns with their values, and it'd take a fair right winger to think about voting center. The left (or at least I) may not think centrists are hard enough on bigoted/hateful stancse and/or stuff like misogyny and issues that plague us. I certainly think Biden would defer to republicans more than most democrats would. They'd prefer someone like Warren.

It doesn't, but the way Biden shrugs it off or refuses to learn from it and move on is what's hurting him. and on top of that, some of the things he says about millennials doesn't help his case either, like saying they should do something like his generation did (which is what we're doing).


This is incorrect, and the past few days have shown that white supremacists are bigger threats to national security with their domestic terrorism. I think we've had more right wing white supremacists kill Americans than Muslims since 9/11, including 9/11.

Okay at least for 2018 you're right.

 

[Pat]

As for the comment about guns and knives, yes, it is easier to kill with a gun than it is with a knife, but unless you have a somewhat arbitrary line you would like to draw between weapons, that fact is besides my point: mass killings won't be (relatively) slowed much by any level of gun control.

There's an interesting article on CNN website:

How US gun culture compares with the world | CNN

Mass shootings in Texas and Ohio have reignited the debate around gun rights in the US. Here's how America's gun culture compares to the rest of the world.

edition.cnn.com

I'll share some snippets from the link:

• "Americans own nearly half (46%) of the estimated 857m civilian-owned guns worldwide."
  
  
• "There are more public mass shootings in America than in any other country in the world."
  
  
• "In February 2017, US President Donald Trump signed a measure that scrapped an Obama-era regulation aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of some severely mentally ill people."
  
  
• "In other countries, restrictive gun laws have proven to make a difference in curbing massacres. In Australia, for example, four mass shootings occurred between 1987 and 1996. After those incidents, public opinion turned against gun ownership and Parliament passed stricter gun laws. Mass shootings have become rare in Australia since the introduction of tight gun control measures."
  
  
• "Gun homicide rates are 25.2 times higher in the US than in other high-income countries."

AFAIK Japan seems to have banned all kinds of guns and that kind of gun control has been really successful in reducing homicide rates. As an outside point of view, IMHO the gun industry is so big, so powerful in the US that even the loss of human lives can't lessen its influence. I don't criticize the US for this, they make billions from this business and they can't simply shut them down. Just like the tobacco companies had denied the harmful health effects of smoking for years, gun companies and politicians who serve their agenda conveniently ignore the relationship between guns and gun-related deaths, IMHO.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. ", that might hold true in 1791, can we say, in year 2019, that the militia can, in any capacity, replace, substitute or oppose the US Army? Can it still be used as a justification to let people possess enough weapons and ammunition to kill off even dozens of people at a time? That requires serious consideration by the US administration, IMHO.

 

[Arjuna]

Redirect Notice

--- Double Post Merged, Aug 12, 2019, Original Post Date: Aug 12, 2019 ---

There's an interesting article on CNN website:

How US gun culture compares with the world | CNN

Mass shootings in Texas and Ohio have reignited the debate around gun rights in the US. Here's how America's gun culture compares to the rest of the world.

edition.cnn.com

I'll share some snippets from the link:

• "Americans own nearly half (46%) of the estimated 857m civilian-owned guns worldwide."
  
  
• "There are more public mass shootings in America than in any other country in the world."
  
  
• "In February 2017, US President Donald Trump signed a measure that scrapped an Obama-era regulation aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of some severely mentally ill people."
  
  
• "In other countries, restrictive gun laws have proven to make a difference in curbing massacres. In Australia, for example, four mass shootings occurred between 1987 and 1996. After those incidents, public opinion turned against gun ownership and Parliament passed stricter gun laws. Mass shootings have become rare in Australia since the introduction of tight gun control measures."
  
  
• "Gun homicide rates are 25.2 times higher in the US than in other high-income countries."

AFAIK Japan seems to have banned all kinds of guns and that kind of gun control has been really successful in reducing homicide rates. As an outside point of view, IMHO the gun industry is so big, so powerful in the US that even the loss of human lives can't lessen its influence. I don't criticize the US for this, they make billions from this business and they can't simply shut them down. Just like the tobacco companies had denied the harmful health effects of smoking for years, gun companies and politicians who serve their agenda conveniently ignore the relationship between guns and gun-related deaths, IMHO.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. ", that might hold true in 1791, can we say, in year 2019, that the militia can, in any capacity, replace, substitute or oppose the US Army? Can it still be used as a justification to let people possess enough weapons and ammunition to kill off even dozens of people at a time? That requires serious consideration by the US administration, IMHO.

Didn't know my country has the second largest stockpile of Guns.

 

[Pat]

Redirect Notice

--- Double Post Merged, Aug 12, 2019, Original Post Date: Aug 12, 2019 ---

Didn't know my country has the second largest stockpile of Guns.

Yup, going by this list, India is 2nd and China is 3rd in total which makes sense since these countries are the most populated in the world, firearms per 100 people is a more reliable measure though to make an accurate comparison between countries IMHO. There are other factors such as what percent of population has guns (many people have several guns) or approximately what percent of population has unregistered guns, the latter is probably a main cause of crime especially in less-developed countries.

If we check high-income countries (on this list, the most recent IMF one) and the intentional homicide rates in these countries (on this list), the US has a particularly high homicide rate, 5.3 victims per 100,000 inhabitants. Excluding Puerto Rico which is a US territory, in comparison all the countries on the IMF list have less than 2 victims down to #38 Lithuania which has comparable stats to the US. That makes a very strong case that guns contribute greatly to the homicide rates which of course can also be derived with a logical deduction since gun is an instrument of, well, killing.

If the US government is serious about introducing more strict gun control measures and reducing gun-related crimes, that would be great news for the Americans. Of course there will be serious pressure from the gun lobby and I guess some of them directly or indirectly supported Trump in his presidential campaign, let's see whether the apparent efforts will be watered down to amount to a simple diversion until people calm down and forget.

 

[xi0]

The Right:
- Purpose is to make sure societal movement is actually for the better

I don't really agree with thisl. If you think about every social issue in modern times, the GOP is mostly always on the wrong side of history - Racial Equality, Interracial Marriage, Reproductive Rights, Don't Ask Don't Tell, Marriage Equality, etc.

The better way of putting it is that they're almost always for the status quo, especially if they think it conflicts with religious beliefs.

I wasn't asking you for Trump's stances and views: Neither one of us can say that with complete certainty or without some level of arrogance. I wanted to get details on your own personal view, that's it. However, if it is this big of a thing and that much of a burden, then nevermind.

Well, I did that by stating what he's done/said that I take exception with. Not claiming I know the answers and I'm not for open borders either (That's a GOP talking point for the most part anyways, but I digress). But yeah, didn't mean to be dismissive or shut down conversation. I don't think i had it in me to retread that topic at the time.

Just like the tobacco companies had denied the harmful health effects of smoking for years, gun companies and politicians who serve their agenda conveniently ignore the relationship between guns and gun-related deaths, IMHO.

Even though these crazy incidents occur here, guns still serve a utilitarian purpose. Can't really say the same thing for tobacco products. Big Tobacco not only lied about harmful effects, they straight up said the opposite and suggested there were health benefits. The NRA might appear delusional with some of the things they say, but you can't really deny the useful application guns have.

 

[Pat]

Even though these crazy incidents occur here, guns still serve a utilitarian purpose. Can't really say the same thing for tobacco products. Big Tobacco not only lied about harmful effects, they straight up said the opposite and suggested there were health benefits. The NRA might appear delusional with some of the things they say, but you can't really deny the useful application guns have.

I see a benefit for the armed forces of a state, the officers that protect a country against inside and outside threats, I'm not sure how civilians, ordinary citizens can make use of a gun that will have a positive effect on the society. Well, it has recreational uses like hunting or it may be necessary if you live in the wilderness of Alaska but under most circumstances, the danger, the risk they pose to other people far outweighs the "useful applications" IMHO.

My country suffers from a similar problem, although mass shootings are rare here, it's quite common for someone to get enraged during an argument and just shoots the other person in the heat of the moment. They usually feel remorse later but what was done can't be undone and tragedies occur. I can't help but wonder how many innocent lives wouldn't be lost if these people didn't have easy access to guns. Honestly, I don't like the possibility of getting shot just because I had a disagreement with my neighbor, perhaps I wouldn't care less if I was a bachelor but I have a family now and I'll have kids tomorrow, I'd feel much safer if I knew our security wasn't entrusted to the common sense of some random stranger.

Just my two cents.

[Edit] I wasn't taking a dig at you when I said "if I was a bachelor", sorry if it came out the wrong way.

 

[M3J]

Read your view on the left and right, but can you elaborate on why you think I'm incorrect?

As far as gun control is concerned, the stats on that are pretty clear. If you have a set of data you want to supply, then by all means.

Because the right have consistently opposed everything that could help America, from increasing minimum wage and trying to get stricter gun control laws to ignoring xenophobia/supporting it (the only exception I can remember is when majority of republican politicians condemned the white supremacist who ran over a girl) and opposing people who are homeless or in need of help/welfare, veteran or otherwise. They say this or that's a problem, sometimes suggest solutions, but do absolutely nothing to remedy anything unless it agrees with their pro-wealthy, pro-business bs. They also preach about religion and the Bible, but they're the very same group who tend to go against the Bible as well, talk about hypocrisy.

I can't be assed anymore unless it's to help me learn. Is there a point when it'll be ignored, be labeled fake news, or whatnot? I believe I've provided data here as well long time ago? Feel free to search for that.

Okay at least for 2018 you're right.

Not just in 2018, but for the past few years, including this year.

Yup, going by this list, India is 2nd and China is 3rd in total which makes sense since these countries are the most populated in the world, firearms per 100 people is a more reliable measure though to make an accurate comparison between countries IMHO. There are other factors such as what percent of population has guns (many people have several guns) or approximately what percent of population has unregistered guns, the latter is probably a main cause of crime especially in less-developed countries.

If we check high-income countries (on this list, the most recent IMF one) and the intentional homicide rates in these countries (on this list), the US has a particularly high homicide rate, 5.3 victims per 100,000 inhabitants. Excluding Puerto Rico which is a US territory, in comparison all the countries on the IMF list have less than 2 victims down to #38 Lithuania which has comparable stats to the US. That makes a very strong case that guns contribute greatly to the homicide rates which of course can also be derived with a logical deduction since gun is an instrument of, well, killing.

If the US government is serious about introducing more strict gun control measures and reducing gun-related crimes, that would be great news for the Americans. Of course there will be serious pressure from the gun lobby and I guess some of them directly or indirectly supported Trump in his presidential campaign, let's see whether the apparent efforts will be watered down to amount to a simple diversion until people calm down and forget.

I thought it was always obvious that guns contribute greatly to homicide. But yeah, guns are also used to defend people as well, like robbery or whatnot.

I see a benefit for the armed forces of a state, the officers that protect a country against inside and outside threats,

That's not necessarily a benefit here as cops are generally killing innocent people.

 

[Pat]

That's not necessarily a benefit here as cops are generally killing innocent people.

That's a pretty bold generalization you make. Well, cops may not be perfect but it's unfair to paint them as murderers IMHO.

I thought it was always obvious that guns contribute greatly to homicide. But yeah, guns are also used to defend people as well, like robbery or whatnot.

I guess this is related to your above comment that since the police is inadequate to provide public safety, citizens need to take matters into their own hands. Rather than engaging in a shootout with three robbers that may have fatal consequences, I'd let them rob me and cover my loss with insurance. Sounds like too much risk IMHO and it's almost always you who have more to lose.

 

[xi0]

That's not necessarily a benefit here as cops are generally killing innocent people.

Is this bait or something? You don't honestly believe that... lol

 

[M3J]

That's a pretty bold generalization you make. Well, cops may not be perfect but it's unfair to paint them as murderers IMHO.



I guess this is related to your above comment that since the police is inadequate to provide public safety, citizens need to take matters into their own hands. Rather than engaging in a shootout with three robbers that may have fatal consequences, I'd let them rob me and cover my loss with insurance. Sounds like too much risk IMHO and it's almost always you who have more to lose.

It's not when we have far too many cops behaving horribly because there's little to no accountability. It's not unfair when they're constantly in the news for killing someone because they were "scared" or used excessive force. These people are in position of authority, there's no excuse for them, and they should be held to a higher standard instead of having their actions justified. I mean, Chicago (I think?) cops were recently caught planting evidence to throw people in jail.


No it is not. It's me defending guns/looking at both sides. We need stricter gun laws, but at the same time guns can be useful in defending someone. And what if it's just one robber who may not even be expecting the gun? Obviously if there are more than one robber, then you shouldn't be fighting back, but that depends on the situation as well.

Is this bait or something? You don't honestly believe that... lol

I kinda do and I kinda don't. It's hard not to think something's up when the cops make the news for shooting unarmed Black people and even white people, or beating up an Indian elderly because he can't speak English, or planting evidence or whatnot.

And as I said, people who have authority the way the law enforcements do should be held to higher standards and be held accountable. One of the reasons why Black Lives Matter gained traction and started protesting is because cops have often been found not guilty and allowed to get away with murder or w/e crime, and they were able to keep their job or get a new job in law enforcement elsewhere.

 

[Pat]

It's not when we have far too many cops behaving horribly because there's little to no accountability. It's not unfair when they're constantly in the news for killing someone because they were "scared" or used excessive force. These people are in position of authority, there's no excuse for them, and they should be held to a higher standard instead of having their actions justified. I mean, Chicago (I think?) cops were recently caught planting evidence to throw people in jail.


No it is not. It's me defending guns/looking at both sides. We need stricter gun laws, but at the same time guns can be useful in defending someone. And what if it's just one robber who may not even be expecting the gun? Obviously if there are more than one robber, then you shouldn't be fighting back, but that depends on the situation as well.

I guess those who do their jobs properly aren't news material which results in selective perception. Their public image isn't as dire IMHO.

A gun is a tool of defense if and only if it deters people from committing crimes, fighting fire with fire isn't defense, it's mutual destruction IMHO. When everybody has guns, it's much more likely that some criminal you encounter will also have a gun and it's much more likely that he will expect you have a gun. These criminals are often under the influence of drugs or aren't thinking clearly either way, if you bet your chances on them being scared away, that will rarely work IMHO and more often than not, someone will get hurt because of the threat of gunfire. Also people usually rob houses when owners aren't at home and you can't carry your gun everywhere, so however I do the math, widespread use of guns doesn't make the society better IMHO.

That said, it's not as if some random guy's opinion will have any bearing on gun policy and if other people have guns, it's your constitutional right to get one for whatever reason. I don't criticize you or anybody just because you exert your right, I just state my overall view on guns and it's probably very optimistic for the current conjuncture. Strict gun laws are certainly for the better but it's difficult to stop guns from falling into the wrong hands, so they may not have the intended result IMHO.

 

[M3J]

I guess those who do their jobs properly aren't news material which results in selective perception. Their public image isn't as dire IMHO.

A gun is a tool of defense if and only if it deters people from committing crimes, fighting fire with fire isn't defense, it's mutual destruction IMHO. When everybody has guns, it's much more likely that some criminal you encounter will also have a gun and it's much more likely that he will expect you have a gun. These criminals are often under the influence of drugs or aren't thinking clearly either way, if you bet your chances on them being scared away, that will rarely work IMHO and more often than not, someone will get hurt because of the threat of gunfire. Also people usually rob houses when owners aren't at home and you can't carry your gun everywhere, so however I do the math, widespread use of guns doesn't make the society better IMHO.

That said, it's not as if some random guy's opinion will have any bearing on gun policy and if other people have guns, it's your constitutional right to get one for whatever reason. I don't criticize you or anybody just because you exert your right, I just state my overall view on guns and it's probably very optimistic for the current conjuncture. Strict gun laws are certainly for the better but it's difficult to stop guns from falling into the wrong hands, so they may not have the intended result IMHO.

Those who do their jobs properly do get some attention as well. A story of a cop who shot a Black man who lunged at him with a knife was spread around on Twitter or Facebook, but no one had an issue because it was nonlethal, and the man was actually the armed aggressor. You also have the news or people sharing cops doing good things like pulling over black people only to give them ice cream or whatnot. An example. Their public image is bad, at the very least, at least for the majority who are black and the whites who are aware.

It can be defense though, especially if the other side doesn't know about the gun and can't defend themselves or aren't going to attack because of the gun. A lot of these criminals aren't really under the influence of drugs though, where did you get that? Likely angry or normally volatile, but not necessarily under the influence. And for the record, I'm against arming people for defensive purposes for the reasons you stated, and a lot of defense for guns is stupid and illogical.

But it's also harder for the wrong hands to get guns if gun laws are stricter. Buying it illegally could increase their chances of getting caught by undercover cops or whatnot.

 

[xi0]

I kinda do and I kinda don't. It's hard not to think something's up when the cops make the news for shooting unarmed Black people and even white people, or beating up an Indian elderly because he can't speak English, or planting evidence or whatnot.

And as I said, people who have authority the way the law enforcements do should be held to higher standards and be held accountable. One of the reasons why Black Lives Matter gained traction and started protesting is because cops have often been found not guilty and allowed to get away with murder or w/e crime, and they were able to keep their job or get a new job in law enforcement elsewhere.

You really think that's what is going on the majority of the time?

Yeah and many of those cases were completely mishandled by the investigators or prosecutors. It's not simply a case where cops can go around killing whoever they want with impunity.

 

[M3J]

You really think that's what is going on the majority of the time?

Yeah and many of those cases were completely mishandled by the investigators or prosecutors. It's not simply a case where cops can go around killing whoever they want with impunity.

yeah and I've seen little reason to believe otherwise.

seems to be the case, for the most part. Hell, even Zimmerman got off for killing Trayvon despite all but admitting that Trayvon attacked in self-defense because Zimmerman was stalking him.

 

[EternalWinter]

The thing about being a single issue voter, life is very simple

 

[SharkBait]

although i get where she is coming from, i think certain guns dont need to be out there. there are recreational ones that hurt no one.

 

[Reebi]

although i get where she is coming from, i think certain guns dont need to be out there. there are recreational ones that hurt no one.

She is the most whinny co-hosts on The View .

Seriously America, you need to sort out your gun problem.

--- Double Post Merged, Sep 7, 2019, Original Post Date: Sep 7, 2019 ---

I thought this article explaining "individual rights theory" and "collective rights theory" to be was interesting. I think anyone who can analyze text or has even a minimum university level education can agree the intent was collect rights to owning guns not individual rights. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment

 

[kkck]

Oof, transcript is out... And this is the version that was made by trump's people and by extension suspect.. and it is still THIS damaging. As in, this is pretty much suicide for trump... Does he even realize that?

On the downside... I suppose it will be fun/tragic to watch democrats screw this up.

 

[Newkerzy]

Oof, transcript is out... And this is the version that was made by trump's people and by extension suspect.. and it is still THIS damaging. As in, this is pretty much suicide for trump... Does he even realize that?

On the downside... I suppose it will be fun/tragic to watch democrats screw this up.

That's why I'm not expecting much. If this is supposed to be a tactic for 2020, by all means. But the Dems should really be sure that they're not going to shoot themselves in the foot (which I expect them to).

 

[kkck]

That's why I'm not expecting much. If this is supposed to be a tactic for 2020, by all means. But the Dems should really be sure that they're not going to shoot themselves in the foot (which I expect them to).

I honestly don't know how democrats could bungle this that badly tbh. They might fail at actually removing trump from office because that much at least is not entirely up to them but this is an excellent opportunity to get the message out there with a super easy case of trump doing something comically illegal.