Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 09-14-2019, 12:57 AM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,625
Looks like Biden's comments during the debate is sparking some anger:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/biden-spa...135346526.html
  #102  
Old 09-14-2019, 01:44 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
That’s quite the morass for Democratic politicians. Spending more money on social workers to help black families is clearly not a conservative priority, but it still makes some black people defensive and angry as this story illustrates.
  #103  
Old 09-14-2019, 06:28 AM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 249
On one hand lots of the top rated comments under that article agree with him. On the other Yahoo News political comments are quite right wing. That won't help him win a democratic primary.

I understand the jist of what he said but other candidates explain it better. His answer was a formulated mess.
  #104  
Old 09-14-2019, 06:38 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Looks like Biden's comments during the debate is sparking some anger:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/biden-spa...135346526.html
The way he jumps from one unfinished sentence to another might be more frightening than the content! Not as bad as Trump's speaking, of course; and Trump just jumps from one narcissistic non sequitur to another, while Biden may have real insights into issues, but his mouth can't keep up with his brain.

Other than the obvious two — Trump and Sarah Palin — are there other public speakers with speech as confused as Biden's here? I don't think the poor speech patterns necessary reflect badly on Biden as an intellect or policy-maker, but they certainly make me wonder about his ability to campaign effectively.
  #105  
Old 09-14-2019, 06:45 AM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
The way he jumps from one unfinished sentence to another might be more frightening than the content! Not as bad as Trump's speaking, of course; and Trump just jumps from one narcissistic non sequitur to another, while Biden may have real insights into issues, but his mouth can't keep up with his brain.

Other than the obvious two — Trump and Sarah Palin — are there other public speakers with speech as confused as Biden's here? I don't think the poor speech patterns necessary reflect badly on Biden as an intellect or policy-maker, but they certainly make me wonder about his ability to campaign effectively.
The 43rd President of the United States

https://youtu.be/JhmdEq3JhoY
  #106  
Old 09-14-2019, 08:14 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,977
Whatever his faults, I think GWB had an almost-endearing folksy style.

I myself have a severe aphasia when I type quickly — my posts would be utter gibberish if I didn't proofread them — so I don't treat verbal gaffes as a sign of flawed intelligence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boycott View Post
The 43rd President of the United States

https://youtu.be/JhmdEq3JhoY
"And you're working hard to put food on your family."
This was by far the worst gaffe in the 75 seconds I watched. These Bushisms have a very different character than the gibberish that comes out of Trump or Palin's mouth.

If I were to completely ignore their policies and just listen to speech patterns, I think I would vote for Bush-43 over Biden.
  #107  
Old 09-14-2019, 09:33 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boycott View Post
On one hand lots of the top rated comments under that article agree with him. On the other Yahoo News political comments are quite right wing. ...
and on the extra hand is that comments made to a news feed don’t reflect shit of reality in any way.
__________________
Oy.
  #108  
Old 09-14-2019, 12:21 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,432
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
I strongly disagree with you guys. Most Americans favor stricter gun control. We need to nominate a candidate who'll actually tackle this issue. Beto's response earned him a lot of respect in my book.
Yes, they do, but what they favor is quite mild, such as better background checks. Radical gun control is quite strongly opposed.
  #109  
Old 09-14-2019, 01:04 PM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 2,900
For a long time now the dominant gun control narrative has been "don't worry, nobody's coming to take your guns away, we just want [background checks/waiting periods/increased ownership requirements/some form of liability insurance]" - i.e., measures that, while the most hardcore 2nd Amendment absolutists will inevitably oppose anyway, still have a shot at earning some support for moderates.

Now to have O'Rourke coming out and saying "hell yes we are coming to take your guns away", undermines the whole concept of "common sense gun reform". There is nothing common sense about a compulsory buyback of the estimated 5 to 10 million AR-15 type rifles currently in private possession in this country. Maybe something like that can work in Australia. I don't think it could work in America, but even totally leaving aside the question of its actual feasibility - having the Democratic presidential nominee propose it will generate a firestorm of fundraising, activism, lobbying, and propaganda by the NRA the likes of which have never been seen.

And so this brings us back to the original topic, which is not gun control, but the Democratic primary and the optics of the various candidates. O'Rourke may indeed take the issue of gun violence very personally because of what happened in El Paso, but what he said during that debate proves to me that he does not have a shot at beating Trump.
  #110  
Old 09-14-2019, 01:11 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,432
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
....
Now to have O'Rourke coming out and saying "hell yes we are coming to take your guns away", undermines the whole concept of "common sense gun reform". There is nothing common sense about a compulsory buyback of the estimated 5 to 10 million AR-15 type rifles currently in private possession in this country. Maybe something like that can work in Australia....
And it's debated on whether or not it worked in Australia.

But yes, this is damn silly and that one liner may cause trump to win.

70 million gun owners. More than voted for trump or Hillary.
  #111  
Old 09-14-2019, 01:26 PM
snowmaster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: New Hampshire, USA
Posts: 364
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
For a long time now the dominant gun control narrative has been "don't worry, nobody's coming to take your guns away, we just want [background checks/waiting periods/increased ownership requirements/some form of liability insurance]" - i.e., measures that, while the most hardcore 2nd Amendment absolutists will inevitably oppose anyway, still have a shot at earning some support...
Sarah Brady has, at unguarded moments, also been pretty explicit about her and her organization's desire to confiscate handguns... all of them. This is why gun owners have been so resistant to registration, licensure, background checks to have their children inhieret their firearms: we're one election away from people being in charge who will find that information very useful with their confiscation plan. It's always gonna be a slippery slope, especially with the increasing tempo of criminals committing awful crimes. I'm all for honesty, but letting the cat out of the bag seems like political suicide... Even today.

I see the mass appeal of a candidate who says they can solve a problem, obstacles be damned, but I personally respect a candidate who's honest about what can and cannot be done constitutionally. A candidate for President shouldn't be making proposals so clearly repugnant to a bill of right amendment.

Anyway, I think anybody who watched is going to start having serious doubts about how well put together Biden and Sanders are. They're just not getting their ideas across. Maybe Warren is now the one to beat and we'll see a couple of the second tier candidates gaining in popularity as the alternative.

Last edited by snowmaster; 09-14-2019 at 01:28 PM.
  #112  
Old 09-14-2019, 01:37 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,760
And most will at most roll their eyes at grandstanding but stupid gun control. Doing "something" is sometimes a bad choice if it distracts from getting something more effective actually accomplished.

Gun violence is a real public health problem. As such the headline tragedies are attention grabbing and make people feel less safe, but are in fact not where the big risks are. "Regardless of the definition being used, fatalities in mass shooting incidents in the U.S. account for a small fraction of all gun murders that occur nationwide each year." Gun availability increases the chance that suicidal ideation is acted upon and if acted upon is successful. The majority of deaths from guns in America are suicide deaths.People aren't mostly using semiautomatics to kill themselves.

(Source for figures and quote above - Pew)

I don't argue for military weapon availability but having their elimination be THE flag to wave is a mostly ineffective feel good signifier.

Here's another way to parse it:
Quote:
... Seldom do those fatalities happen on school campuses at all, in fact. While comprehensive data are limited, a 2017 study found that the majority—85 percent—of children 12 or younger who were shot to death from 2003 to 2013 were killed in a home. Roughly four in 10 kids aged 13 to 17 who were killed with a gun also died in a home; another four in 10 were killed in the streets. Meanwhile, nearly two in three of the country’s gun deaths (of all ages) are the result of suicide, according to a FiveThirtyEight analysis of federal data. The remaining third are homicides, the analysis notes, and public mass shootings make up less than 1 percent of firearm fatalities, according to separate reporting by The New York Times.

Research published late last February by James Alan Fox, a Northeastern University professor who has studied mass murders since the 1980s, underscores the rarity of Parkland-like incidents of gun violence. In his analysis, co-written by the doctoral student Emma Fridel, Fox rejects the characterization of mass school shootings as a national “epidemic.” Focusing on data spanning roughly the past two decades, the researchers found that of the 20 to 30 mass murders that occur on average each year, about one of them takes place at a school. (A mass shooting is defined as one with four or more fatalities.) The shooting incidents involving students, they show, have grown less frequent than they were in the 1990s, when the number of children killed in schools was four times what it is today.

Taken collectively, the data indicate that children who are the victims of gun violence are far more likely to experience it in incidents smaller in scope and greater in frequency than public mass shootings—incidents like those that took the lives of Courtlin and Lashonda and Izzy, from drive-by shootings to murder-suicides to preventable accidents. ...
Framing the conversation as confiscation is dumb even if it is met with applause by some of the activist class. It's the action that would do the least good and that galvanizes opposition the most. Requiring background checks, having a national red flag law, requiring licensing before purchase of a gun, OTOH all have fairly bipartisan support, including among most gun owners. Having a high-capacity magazine ammunition ban even gets almost half of owners on board.

If you want nothing to be done frame it how Beto did.
  #113  
Old 09-14-2019, 01:38 PM
Babale is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,920
He didn't say he wants to take away your guns - all of them. He said he wants to take away military grade weapons and ammunition, the types designed to shred you on the inside so that you bleed to death without being able to shoot back at the American troops who shot you. Except that now, the shooter is a nerdy white kid, and the target is a bunch of elementary school children.
  #114  
Old 09-14-2019, 02:34 PM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 2,900
You're missing the point. If effecting such a ban is your goal, openly declaring it with an enthusiastic "hell yes" is not the way to accomplish it. All it does is put the NRA on the offensive, pumping a million free gallons into the fuel tank of their 12-cylinder propaganda engine. That indicates that O'Rourke is a shitty politician because he telegraphs his plans, showing all his cards like that. THAT indicates that he does not have the savvy to run a winning political campaign against Trump.
  #115  
Old 09-14-2019, 02:46 PM
carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 59,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
He didn't say he wants to take away your guns - all of them. He said he wants to take away military grade weapons and ammunition, the types designed to shred you on the inside so that you bleed to death without being able to shoot back at the American troops who shot you. Except that now, the shooter is a nerdy white kid, and the target is a bunch of elementary school children.
The AR-15 is used for hunting, from prairie dogs to deer. I didn't realize the cartridge was large enough to kill a deer, but it is and is used for that.

His line very well may have given the election to Trump as pointed out above.
  #116  
Old 09-14-2019, 02:49 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boycott View Post
On one hand lots of the top rated comments under that article agree with him. On the other Yahoo News political comments are quite right wing. That won't help him win a democratic primary.

I understand the jist of what he said but other candidates explain it better. His answer was a formulated mess.
He can only get away with this for so long.

"Put the record player on" lol.

Fuck that was hard to listen to.
  #117  
Old 09-14-2019, 02:54 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,018
Quick comment to add that I saw only clips of the debate but was impressed by some of Klobuchar's responses. Not only was she witty, but she delivered a combination of epistemic and emotional substance. It's too bad she probably won't be around much longer, but I'd like to see her get more airtime.

I think the only one who really lost the debate was Castro. And it's probably good for Biden that Castro failed so miserably in his take-down attempt because we'd otherwise be spending a lot more time talking about some of Uncle Joe's speaking gaffes.
  #118  
Old 09-14-2019, 02:54 PM
Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 29,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
You're missing the point. If effecting such a ban is your goal, openly declaring it with an enthusiastic "hell yes" is not the way to accomplish it. All it does is put the NRA on the offensive, pumping a million free gallons into the fuel tank of their 12-cylinder propaganda engine. That indicates that O'Rourke is a shitty politician because he telegraphs his plans, showing all his cards like that. THAT indicates that he does not have the savvy to run a winning political campaign against Trump.
I'm not sure it matters. The NRA is going to have all of its efforts behind defeating whoever is the Democratic nominee, even if the nominee has an A rating from them.
  #119  
Old 09-14-2019, 03:01 PM
carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 59,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Finn View Post
I'm not sure it matters. The NRA is going to have all of its efforts behind defeating whoever is the Democratic nominee, even if the nominee has an A rating from them.
I imagine it changed the vote of some who voted for Trump, but are unhappy with him. And, the Chinese are buying soybeans again.
  #120  
Old 09-14-2019, 03:25 PM
Babale is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,920
If our country would doom itself to 4 more years of Trump to protect AR15s, we deserve Trump and all the damage he's inflicting on us.

Last edited by Babale; 09-14-2019 at 03:25 PM.
  #121  
Old 09-14-2019, 03:30 PM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 2,900
That is the wrong way of looking at it, and if you can't understand why, I'm not going to be able to convince you. Think whatever you want.
  #122  
Old 09-14-2019, 03:43 PM
carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 59,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
If our country would doom itself to 4 more years of Trump to protect AR15s, we deserve Trump and all the damage he's inflicting on us.
Some voters don't see that. They don't wanted to be forced to do something, and do not understand or do not care about the damage Trump policies and actions cause.
  #123  
Old 09-14-2019, 06:18 PM
JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 16,010
I love Uncle Joe but can't help but feel his moment passed. And Sanders' candidacy this second time aroung still seems to me more about making a point than about governing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
All it does is put the NRA on the offensive, pumping a million free gallons into the fuel tank of their 12-cylinder propaganda engine.
Just at the time when that particular organization seemed to be on their back foot. They and the Gun Retailers Association should send Beto a fruit basket.
  #124  
Old 09-14-2019, 06:56 PM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Quick comment to add that I saw only clips of the debate but was impressed by some of Klobuchar's responses. Not only was she witty, but she delivered a combination of epistemic and emotional substance. It's too bad she probably won't be around much longer, but I'd like to see her get more airtime.

I think the only one who really lost the debate was Castro. And it's probably good for Biden that Castro failed so miserably in his take-down attempt because we'd otherwise be spending a lot more time talking about some of Uncle Joe's speaking gaffes.
I totally agree. I'd also add as a moderate (or rank and file democrat as I call it) I came away thinking Klobuchar and Buttigieg reached out in their answers better than Biden did. On gun control Biden did a very good job but then again he was an architect of the Assault Weapons Ban in 94 so of course he should have done well on that.

Last edited by Boycott; 09-14-2019 at 06:56 PM.
  #125  
Old 09-14-2019, 07:34 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
You guys are losing your minds over Beto’s proposal, but let’s keep a bit of perspective here. When John Kerry was accepting the Democratic nomination in the summer of 2004, assault weapons were still illegal to sell, just as they had been throughout most of the Clinton administration. Talking about banning them again, but also buying back those that are already out there, is not nearly as radical as you are making it out to be. And the politics of gun control have changed since 2004.

If Beto were proposing to do the same thing for handguns, shotguns, or hunting rifles, I would be with you. But I honestly think the group of people who love the AR-15 and would conceivably have the chance to vote for any Democrat next year is very small.
  #126  
Old 09-14-2019, 07:51 PM
sps49sd is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 588
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
I strongly disagree with you guys. Most Americans favor stricter gun control. We need to nominate a candidate who'll actually tackle this issue. Beto's response earned him a lot of respect in my book.
You might think that, but when people find out that there already is a lot of "common sense gun control", and that UBC makes selling or transferring a firearm like being required to sell your car through a car dealer, many change their mind.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
He didn't say he wants to take away your guns - all of them. He said he wants to take away military grade weapons and ammunition, the types designed to shred you on the inside so that you bleed to death without being able to shoot back at the American troops who shot you. Except that now, the shooter is a nerdy white kid, and the target is a bunch of elementary school children.
Like most grabbers, Beto doen't know what he's talking about.

'Military grade' weapons have full-auto capability ('machine gun'), and that is the only functional difference. "Military grade" rifle and pistol ammunition is FMJ, full metal jacket. It is designed exactly to put a hole through someone and take them out of the fight, preferably taking two more out while they get their comrade to medical care.

And firearms that are a match for military weapons for the citizenry is a feature, not a bug, although I am sure many disagree.
  #127  
Old 09-14-2019, 07:54 PM
sps49sd is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 588
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
...If Beto were proposing to do the same thing for handguns, shotguns, or hunting rifles, I would be with you. But I honestly think the group of people who love the AR-15 and would conceivably have the chance to vote for any Democrat next year is very small.
I think Beto very likely wants to do the same thing for handguns, shotguns, and hunting rifles. I think he isn't alone, either.
  #128  
Old 09-14-2019, 08:09 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,432
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
....
Gun violence is a real public health problem. ....

(Source for figures and quote above - Pew)

I don't argue for military weapon availability but having their elimination be THE flag to wave is a mostly ineffective feel good signifier.

Here's another way to parse it:Framing the conversation as confiscation is dumb even if it is met with applause by some of the activist class. It's the action that would do the least good and that galvanizes opposition the most. Requiring background checks, having a national red flag law, requiring licensing before purchase of a gun, OTOH all have fairly bipartisan support, including among most gun owners. Having a high-capacity magazine ammunition ban even gets almost half of owners on board.

....
10000 murders a year? Compared to 500000 Americans dead from tobacco? Small potatoes.

Banning the sale of the mags is one thing, banning the possession is stupid.

Sociologists have shown it's not guns, it's the media for the amount of mass and school shootings- the media glorifying the killers. That's the main cause.

Last edited by DrDeth; 09-14-2019 at 08:12 PM.
  #129  
Old 09-14-2019, 08:10 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,432
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
He didn't say he wants to take away your guns - all of them. He said he wants to take away military grade weapons and ammunition, the types designed to shred you on the inside so that you bleed to death without being able to shoot back at the American troops who shot you. Except that now, the shooter is a nerdy white kid, and the target is a bunch of elementary school children.
Oddly they dont sell any "military grade weapons " in the USA.
  #130  
Old 09-14-2019, 08:14 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,432
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Finn View Post
I'm not sure it matters. The NRA is going to have all of its efforts behind defeating whoever is the Democratic nominee, even if the nominee has an A rating from them.
I dont fucking care about the NRA and it's 5 million members. I care about the 70Million NON-NRA gun owners, the ones that would kinda support mild gun control, but now Beto has them running scared due to "they are coming to take our gun away!" . Because now they actually admit they are doing so.
  #131  
Old 09-14-2019, 08:18 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,432
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
If our country would doom itself to 4 more years of Trump to protect AR15s, we deserve Trump and all the damage he's inflicting on us.
No, and in fact the voters are in favor of a ban on importing and selling "assault weapons".

But door to door confiscation? And if they start with AR15s, what's next? That's what the 70Million moderate gun owners will think.

Let say they decided to ban the manufacture of cars and trucks that get less than 15MPG- sure that would work.

vs They will come out to your house and tow your truck away and junk it.
  #132  
Old 09-14-2019, 08:22 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,601
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
I dont fucking care about the NRA and it's 5 million members. I care about the 70Million NON-NRA gun owners, the ones that would kinda support mild gun control, but now Beto has them running scared due to "they are coming to take our gun away!" . Because now they actually admit they are doing so.
Oh, it doesn't matter. Beto is not getting the nomination and nobody is going to care that the other candidates didn't immediately admonish him. This blip will not outlive Primary season.

But it could be trouble for him if he does pivot to a Senate run in Texas.
  #133  
Old 09-14-2019, 08:24 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,432
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
... Talking about banning them again, but also buying back those that are already out there, is not nearly as radical as you are making it out to be. ...
Not "buying back" forced confiscation. Nothing voluntary. That's what makes it so wrong. And did beto mention "buying"? Well, sorta, but not in his famous quote:

"Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47. We’re not going to allow it to be used against our fellow Americans anymore.”

To be fair Harris and Booker also want to confiscate guns:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/beto-...b00d6905997973
But O’Rourke’s remarks worry Democrats like Warren Varley, who lost a race for a state legislative seat in Iowa last year.

“The lines like, ‘We’re gonna come and take your AR-15,’ just play into the fears that the NRA has been stoking, and a proposal like that is just going to make rural Iowa and I think probably rural areas elsewhere more red,” Varley said. “I think that’s just a bridge too far for most rural folks, and it conjures up images of the government coming in and invading your home and images of big government trampling over the rights of individuals.”
  #134  
Old 09-14-2019, 08:25 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,432
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Oh, it doesn't matter. Beto is not getting the nomination and nobody is going to care that the other candidates didn't immediately admonish him. This blip will not outlive Primary season.

But it could be trouble for him if he does pivot to a Senate run in Texas.
I bet the NRA will be running the clip during 2020, no matter who is the candidate. And Booker and Harris agree.
  #135  
Old 09-14-2019, 08:31 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,253
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
You guys are losing your minds over Beto’s proposal, but let’s keep a bit of perspective here. When John Kerry was accepting the Democratic nomination in the summer of 2004, assault weapons were still illegal to sell, just as they had been throughout most of the Clinton administration. Talking about banning them again, but also buying back those that are already out there, is not nearly as radical as you are making it out to be.
This is absolutely true and isn't receiving enough emphasis. Our memories are infamously short, but, yes: these weapons have been illegal to sell in the very recent past----and the republic failed to fall.

Everyone was basically fine when these weapons were not available. We could be fine again!



Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
If Beto were proposing to do the same thing for handguns, shotguns, or hunting rifles, I would be with you. But I honestly think the group of people who love the AR-15 and would conceivably have the chance to vote for any Democrat next year is very small.
Yes. And the "slippery slope" argument is highly fallacious. For one thing, as just mentioned, we very recently lived through a period in which one class of weapons was illegal to sell, while many other classes of weapons remained quite freely available. No slope and no slip.

If you can't buy---or even own---an AR-15, there is ZERO precedent for that being equivalent to 'no guns may be owned by private citizens.' None. Zip. Bupkis.

How would that even work, slippery-slope fans?


ETA: in re consequences for Beto: the fundraising will tell the tale.

Last edited by Sherrerd; 09-14-2019 at 08:33 PM.
  #136  
Old 09-14-2019, 08:52 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,972
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
He didn't say he wants to take away your guns - all of them. He said he wants to take away military grade weapons and ammunition, the types designed to shred you on the inside so that you bleed to death without being able to shoot back at the American troops who shot you. Except that now, the shooter is a nerdy white kid, and the target is a bunch of elementary school children.
Can you define "military grade"?

It's pretty silly actually, but it does serve the purpose of putting to rest the idea that Democrats don't want to ban guns*, confiscate guns, or any of the other denials that have been popular over the years. Of course that's what they want to do.




*guns, multiple, not guns, all.
  #137  
Old 09-14-2019, 09:08 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Can you define "military grade"?

It's pretty silly actually, but it does serve the purpose of putting to rest the idea that Democrats don't want to ban guns*, confiscate guns, or any of the other denials that have been popular over the years. Of course that's what they want to do.

*guns, multiple, not guns, all.
God our politics is so sad. This issue is so damn important to you that you would literally prefer an admitted sexual assaulter (not to mention all his other faults!) stay in office than some relatively honest and decent official who thinks some types of guns should be illegal. That's incredibly nuts to me, and makes me pessimistic about the future of this country. And even more pessimistic about the future of how women and girls are going to be treated.

How does that get bridged? Are there any circumstances you could imagine in which you'd prefer a relatively honest and decent Democrat who is party line on guns over a sexual abuser Republican who is on your side on guns? Or is this just how it is, that guns really are more important than refraining from elevating abusers of women?
  #138  
Old 09-14-2019, 09:15 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
10000 murders a year? Compared to 500000 Americans dead from tobacco? Small potatoes.

Banning the sale of the mags is one thing, banning the possession is stupid.

Sociologists have shown it's not guns, it's the media for the amount of mass and school shootings- the media glorifying the killers. That's the main cause.
First let’s get figures right. About 40,000 gun related deaths in the US each year. Fewer murders than suicides. Roughly the same number of people as die of breast cancer. Is breast cancer also small potatoes because something else kills more?

No idea wtf you are talking about with “sociologists have shown ...” but my point remains that mass shootings are horrible, school shootings tragic, but they are not the driver of those 40,000. Kids are in fact safer in their schools than in their and their friends’ homes. Yes some weapons amplify the harms in those rare events but the public health approach would be more interested in lowering the bigger sources of those death numbers.
  #139  
Old 09-14-2019, 09:19 PM
Mr. Duality is offline
Luminary
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: The High Plains
Posts: 1,579
Quote:
Originally Posted by nearwildheaven View Post
BTW, I agree with you about that. I hope he'll soon be out of the race for this very reason.
Well, if Senators can be bought and paid for, why can't voters be bought? We do have unrestricted money in politics, after all.

One thing I love about Yang is his idea to put lobbyists out of business by giving every voter an allowance to be used for political contribution(s). The influence of lobbyists would diminish and politicians would be encouraged to actually serve the people.

This is straight up genius.

Beto did serious damage to the cause of gun gun control.
__________________
America- Fuck yeah!

Last edited by Mr. Duality; 09-14-2019 at 09:21 PM.
  #140  
Old 09-14-2019, 09:25 PM
galen ubal is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Central VIC Australia
Posts: 2,752
N/m - wrong topic for thread, really

Last edited by galen ubal; 09-14-2019 at 09:28 PM.
  #141  
Old 09-14-2019, 09:46 PM
sps49sd is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 588
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
God our politics is so sad. This issue is so damn important to you that you would literally prefer an admitted sexual assaulter (not to mention all his other faults!) stay in office than some relatively honest and decent official who thinks some types of guns should be illegal. That's incredibly nuts to me, and makes me pessimistic about the future of this country. And even more pessimistic about the future of how women and girls are going to be treated.

How does that get bridged? Are there any circumstances you could imagine in which you'd prefer a relatively honest and decent Democrat who is party line on guns over a sexual abuser Republican who is on your side on guns? Or is this just how it is, that guns really are more important than refraining from elevating abusers of women?
You did not respond or refer to your quotation of Bone at all; I'm confused.

If one wants to replace Trump, is it necessary to threaten the Constitution? I prefer buffoon Trump over someone threatening lasting damage to the nation. Trump will pass, in one term or two, and nothing he has done can't be undone.

Last edited by sps49sd; 09-14-2019 at 09:48 PM.
  #142  
Old 09-14-2019, 09:54 PM
sps49sd is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 588
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
...For one thing, as just mentioned, we very recently lived through a period in which one class of weapons was illegal to sell, while many other classes of weapons remained quite freely available. No slope and no slip.
And nothing really changed when the AWB expired. Look at all of last century's Federal gun control. Which gun control bill made crime drop? None? Maybe we don't need to restrict the rights of normal people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
If you can't buy---or even own---an AR-15, there is ZERO precedent for that being equivalent to 'no guns may be owned by private citizens.' None. Zip. Bupkis.

How would that even work, slippery-slope fans?
Seriously? If the AWB had been permanent, it would have been followed by more and more. Not equivalent, but Step One (or Step 7).
  #143  
Old 09-14-2019, 10:06 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
... is it necessary to threaten the Constitution? I prefer buffoon Trump over someone threatening lasting damage to the nation ...
How would any of these things threaten the Constitution?

If they passed Congress (they wouldn’t) the courts would rule them unconstitutional and void them. No harm to the Constitution done.

Proposing a law that the court has already made clear is something they would rule against is no threat; it is posturing.
__________________
Oy.
  #144  
Old 09-14-2019, 10:09 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,972
eh, nm.

Last edited by Bone; 09-14-2019 at 10:11 PM.
  #145  
Old 09-14-2019, 10:14 PM
sps49sd is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 588
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
How would any of these things threaten the Constitution?

If they passed Congress (they wouldn’t) the courts would rule them unconstitutional and void them. No harm to the Constitution done.

Proposing a law that the court has already made clear is something they would rule against is no threat; it is posturing.
This is getting off track from the debate itself, but the Second Amendment is the most apparent Constitutional issue, with Harris' desire to skip the legislative branch's power to make laws and issue edicts in second place.
  #146  
Old 09-14-2019, 10:19 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,760
Proposing something that is unconstitutional is a sign of stupidity but not a threat unless you think the court will view it as constitutional. Desire to do something does not equal the capacity to do it.
  #147  
Old 09-14-2019, 10:41 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 26,984
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Yes, exactly 20 years before this election. And no, Catholics are not WASPs. And yes, Episcopalians are.
I'll see your nitpicking and raise you with pedantry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Episcopal Church
The Episcopal Church, having its roots in the Church of England, is also an Anglican Church. Like all Anglican churches, the Episcopal Church is distinguished by the following characteristics:

Protestant, Yet Catholic
Anglicanism stands squarely in the Reformed tradition, yet considers itself just as directly descended from the Early Church as the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches. Episcopalians celebrate the "Mass" in ways similar to the Roman Catholic tradition, yet do not recognize a single authority, such as the Pope of Rome.
More to the point, John Kerry was even more whitebread than Al Gore. And however you want to define WASP, in its entire history the Democratic Party has nominated only two candidates who weren't white men for a total of three elections, and they were successful in two out of those three elections.

Last edited by Kent Clark; 09-14-2019 at 10:42 PM.
  #148  
Old 09-14-2019, 10:48 PM
sps49sd is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 588
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Proposing something that is unconstitutional is a sign of stupidity but not a threat unless you think the court will view it as constitutional. Desire to do something does not equal the capacity to do it.
I don't want to vote for someone that stupid. I hope for a better choice.
  #149  
Old 09-14-2019, 10:52 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,432
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
This is absolutely true and isn't receiving enough emphasis. Our memories are infamously short, but, yes: these weapons have been illegal to sell in the very recent past----and the republic failed to fall.

Everyone was basically fine when these weapons were not available. We could be fine again!

.....
Sure, but as has been said, there is a vast difference between the AR15 being unable to be sold, and the ATF breaking down your door and confiscating it.

Pretty much every Dem is fine with banning the sale of AR15s. Few are ok with mass confiscation.
  #150  
Old 09-14-2019, 11:02 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,432
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
First let’s get figures right. About 40,000 gun related deaths in the US each year. Fewer murders than suicides. Roughly the same number of people as die of breast cancer. Is breast cancer also small potatoes because something else kills more?

No idea wtf you are talking about with “sociologists have shown ...” but my point remains that mass shootings are horrible, school shootings tragic, but they are not the driver of those 40,000. Kids are in fact safer in their schools than in their and their friends’ homes. Yes some weapons amplify the harms in those rare events but the public health approach would be more interested in lowering the bigger sources of those death numbers.
33000 and 21000 of those are suicides. And Japan has NO guns and a higher suicide rate, so you dont need guns to kill yourself.


https://theundefeated.com/features/f...-s-gun-deaths/

"On Wednesday, FiveThirtyEight released an interactive map that outlines and analyzes the more than 33,000 annual gun deaths that occur in this country.....nearly two-thirds of annual gun deaths in the United States are suicides, with more than 85 percent committed by males. Homicides, which trend toward 12,000 every year, make up the other third.

I have several times here posted peer reviewed journals from sociologists.



Here's a cite from NPR:

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-...research-shows

and another cite:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...rJRTObuojybVyc


School shootings are a contagion. And the media are consistent accomplices in most every one of them.

https://www.elon.edu/u/academics/com...HzwQqHI2r9fjYM

http://www.center4research.org/copy-...M3lsW1yXPMrEQ8
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:21 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017