U.S. Politics Thread

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Kyuu

So... there's a background check on the First Amendment, but not the Second? If it weren't for the Filibuster -- this measure passes easily. So, tossing this gun debate aside...

It is ridiculous overall for the Senate to need 60 votes (rather than say 51) to pass anything. There was actually a chance to reform the abuse of the filibuster; but no, Harry Reid decided to blow it earlier this year. So, y'know what? This mess is his fault.

It is really stupid when 90% of Americans supported this; and yet the Senate went against it. For shame, indeed. Shame!

I think it's a really weird situation.

I understand that many people perceive anything that even opens the possibility of denying someone the right to gun ownership as something that goes against the second amendment. This seems to be the line that the government officials took: it isn't that they didn't care about the wishes of the people, but rather that they defied the wishes of the people in order to protect the Constitution.

Yet this is pretty strange. We've developed a few laws that infringe on and limit the first amendment, yet the outrage was pretty small (and the government certainly had no qualms about putting those laws into place). Why is the second amendment so special? People like to talk a good game about how "the second amendment protects the first" but given what's been done to the first amendment I say that's a load of trash. Free speech has killed far fewer people than have firearms, and yet the population and government sit idly by when it comes to the first but not the second? What tripe.

[Urzu 7]

With the 2nd amendment and lax gun laws and a wide availability of guns, it is no wonder that there is so much gun violence in America.


I worked at a sub shop in the past. If someone wants to become even just a shift manager, where they will be responsible for counting money in cash register drawers and putting money in/pulling money out of the store safe, they need to pass a background check first. People need background checks just to become a shift manager at a sub shop (or a burger joint, or a pizza place).

And yet, people don't need background checks to get firearms. There is something wrong here.

[Anh_Minh]

Maybe you need some kind of free speech lobby, like the gun manufacturers have the NRA? (Of course, it'd also mean you'd need to pay someone to exert your right to free speech. Maybe Facebook will get on it someday?)

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by Urzu 7

With the 2nd amendment and lax gun laws and a wide availability of guns, it is no wonder that there is so much gun violence in America.

The biggest misunderstanding about the 2nd Amendment -- Rights CAN and IS subject to regulation. No Right is immune to that; not even Free Speech and Voting. The problem is: there is a large and powerful lobby, that outright refuses to subject itself to regulation. That's even if the population itself is willing to do so. The real sad part: this will not be enough to sway voting; and I expect Congress to remain the same after 2014.

[Urzu 7]

The NRA has an agenda, corporations have an agenda, the rich and elite follow an agenda, and yet you hear the right wingers raise their concerns about 'terrible' things like the "gay agenda". What is that supposed to mean? What do people think, they want the rest of the world to be gay like them? (No joke, I heard one anti-gay person say that, he said "those homos just want everyone else to be gay, too").

[Kyuu]

I happen to belong to a church, whose policy is anti-gay, anti-abortion, etc. Yet, I'm not going full lock-step with the "right wing". Given my interpretation of the 1st Amendment regarding separation of church and state, the church can retain those policies, even if the state is in favor of gay marriage, etc. With that said, the common right-winger shouldn't have to worry much about that, other than public display of homosexual relations.

Abortion. That's a whole different issue though; and this is where most people swing "one-way" or the "other", despite feelings on issues social and/or economic. Consider this issue to stick around even longer.

Back to the gay marriage thing. Despite religious affiliation, I can understand the reasoning regarding gay rights. Government has no right to deny rights and privileges based on demographic. This was clearly established based the Civil Rights movement and beyond.

Originally Posted by Urzu 7

The NRA has an agenda, corporations have an agenda, the rich and elite follow an agenda

As for the gun issue. It's a whole separate issue. But unfortunately, we're also dealing with the concept of "Brand-Name Politics", which in my opinion is stupid. It brings about the illusion, where if you support one issue, then it implies that you support another issue within the two-party "Brand-Name" (being Republican or Democratic).

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Urzu 7

The NRA has an agenda, corporations have an agenda, the rich and elite follow an agenda, and yet you hear the right wingers raise their concerns about 'terrible' things like the "gay agenda". What is that supposed to mean? What do people think, they want the rest of the world to be gay like them? (No joke, I heard one anti-gay person say that, he said "those homos just want everyone else to be gay, too").

Well, that makes sense. Those guys want to make everyone straight, right?

Speaking of, I've been caught wishing our (France's) representatives would care enough about their jobs to come to blows for it, as I've seen from other countries. Lo and behold, it happened. Not for taxes or jobs, though, but for (or rather, against) gay marriage. Oh, well.

[Urzu 7]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Well, that makes sense. Those guys want to make everyone straight, right?

Speaking of, I've been caught wishing our (France's) representatives would care enough about their jobs to come to blows for it, as I've seen from other countries. Lo and behold, it happened. Not for taxes or jobs, though, but for (or rather, against) gay marriage. Oh, well.

France used to allow it but reversed the decision, or has it just been that they allow civil unions?

[Anh_Minh]

We have civil unions. Right now the debate is about actual marriages.

[flying ^]

protip to Feinstein and Giffords et al:

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by flying ^

protip to Feinstein and Giffords et al:

Funny thing about the "bullying" comment. The Newtown families are getting bullied right now for being political symbols in favor of gun safety. Bullies forgo their right to cry being bullied. For shame!

If Giffords is a bully, then I am a rich person.

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by Urzu 7

And yet, people don't need background checks to get firearms. There is something wrong here.

If you buy a gun from an FFA (meaning any actual dealer), you have to get run through NICS.

The problem is the "gun show loophole" which I think needs to be closed. You can buy a gun at a gun show without a background check. But most people don't buy guns from gun shows. Most people buy them from sporting goods stores, gunsmith shops, Wal-Mart (yes, really) and pawn shops.

I don't think you should be able to sell a gun to someone without running them through NICS, either. That defeats the whole purpose of background checking folks.

I'm pretty disappointed this didn't go through and the gun show loophole still exists, but I blame the Democrats for failing to get it passed.

People don't like to be preached at.

[flying ^]

If you're a democrat strategist @ the national level planning ahead after the Manchin-Toomey vote... you should actually be sighing relief!





The most vulnerable Senate seats in 2014

Spoiler for For those who would like to exact electoral revenge...:

For those who would like to exact electoral revenge... the easiest targets would be the vulnerable Senate candidates up for re-election in 2014 who voted against gun control. There are three such candidates who voted against the background check amendment. They're all Democrats. That means... if billionaire Bloomberg and other supporters of gun control want to exact punishment, they are likely to help Minority Leader Mitch McConnell get halfway to his goal of becoming Senate Majority Leader

[GDB]

What's the matter, flying? No one paid any attention to you the first time you posted that garbage?

[Sackett]

Originally Posted by Kyuu

It is really stupid when 90% of Americans supported this; and yet the Senate went against it. For shame, indeed. Shame!

That's not correct.

90% of American's support expanded background checks. Only 52% supported this actual bill.

There are a lot of Americans that support the idea of background checks, but not at the cost of a de-facto national gun registry.

Current background check laws require destruction of background check records after an applicant passes the background check. This bill required the opposite, that background check records be preserved.

Americans are not as simplistic as the media makes them out to be, and they can have nuanced positions. Just because they support background checks does not mean they must support every bill that includes background checks.

The Coburn version would have removed the new records keeping requirement but preserved the backgrounds check expansion. It also probably would have gotten through the House.

I think the better question is why are the Democrat's so insistent on getting a national gun registry that they decided to vote down a background check expansion that didn't include the registry? Even if you think the registry is good policy, isn't half a loaf better then none?

[Vexx]

I was unhappy when they largely dredged up the stupid and poorly written '94 AWB text and copy/pasted it. I want a comprehensive background check. I'll even roll my eyes and say, sure if it makes you feel better on hi-cap mags (more than the standard clip designed for the weapon). But then they ladled on layers of irrational bullshit.

But much of the AWB basically read as "ooh, that gun is scary looking. Bad gun!" Seriously. it was idiotic crap unrelated to actually reducing gun violence. Go with rational solutions instead of irrational emotionalism and I'm on board. Otherwise, left or right I'm going to be pounding on irrationalism.

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by flying ^

If you're a democrat strategist @ the national level planning ahead after the Manchin-Toomey vote... you should actually be sighing relief!





The most vulnerable Senate seats in 2014

Spoiler for For those who would like to exact electoral revenge...:

For those who would like to exact electoral revenge... the easiest targets would be the vulnerable Senate candidates up for re-election in 2014 who voted against gun control. There are three such candidates who voted against the background check amendment. They're all Democrats. That means... if billionaire Bloomberg and other supporters of gun control want to exact punishment, they are likely to help Minority Leader Mitch McConnell get halfway to his goal of becoming Senate Majority Leader

Yeah, all those seats change hands, team A cedes to team B, an immemorial struggle with no real change or progress in sight. Both parties are broken, being a cheerleader for either one is a waste of time and only contributing to the problem. Support your individual opinions and beliefs, don't sputter on about wanting Democrats or Republicans to win. I'm honestly just so fed up with this system and people who are 'loyal' to one party as if it's a baseball game.

[flying ^]

Originally Posted by Kyuu

It is really stupid when 90% of Americans supported this; and yet the Senate went against it. For shame, indeed. Shame!

The meme claim the liberal East Coast media leet is parroting ad nauseum as proof is basically... a preference question answered with preference. The fact that ~90% favoring something is largely irrelevant. The masses probably favor chocolate over vanilla... but that doesn't mean they're intent on doing ANYTHING about it. It's important to weigh intensity vs preference. See, just 4% see guns as most pressing problem to be addressed. It just tells me that while the masses might prefer/favor/want background checks, but it's not an issue that will drive most of them to the polls. Meanwhile, the minority who want to defend 2A are likely much more passionate, dedicated & deeply committed. If you ever wanted a textbook example of intensity trumping a mere preference... April 17 is the day to remember (at the political capital expense of Obama/Bloomberg/Feinstein et al of course) because you could have 100% of those polled saying they wanted universal background checks and it would still be defeated. Simply put... you can't translate poll results (a 'preference' once at best) into public policy.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by flying ^

Simply put... you can't translate poll results (a 'preference' once at best) into public policy.

As it turns out, majority votes in the Senate don't create public policy either. The 60 vote threshold due to filibusters is killing most legislature regardless of the party majority. We can argue about the "will of the people" and hold up all the polls we want, but this was a majority vote that wasn't actually a majority vote because it required a super majority to pass.

Blame Obama, or the families, or the NRA, whatever, but the inability to get anything done doesn't help any of us.

Speaking as someone who leans left, I'm not interested in doing away with the right to own guns. But guns are the primary instrument used in a lot of violence in the country, murder or suicide, doesn't matter.

It makes sense to ensure that everyone who purchases a gun is of sound mind and free of red flags like a criminal record. It makes sense to ensure that every gun produced and sold is registered and traceable, with the exception of grandfathered stuff of course.

But what about criminals, you say. Why must we do these things when criminals will break the law anyway? Well why make any law then? Criminals still cheat, steal, murder, rape, but we still have laws against those things. What is the point of having a government if it can't produce laws? Do we just throw our hands up in the air, and say "oh well, no one will listen anyway, so why bother...."

Of course not. That's why enforcement exists, and regulations exist, and punishments exist. This stuff's not difficult. It's first grade common sense.

You want less blue collar crime? Address the blue collar crime creator: poverty and sickness. You want less white collar crime? Address the white collar crime creator: the wedding of government to business. You want less crazy people "going postal" and shooting down some kids or blowing up some marathon runners? Stop supporting "leaders" who are more focused on keeping their job than doing their job.

But for now, at least close the loopholes in existing law. It's the bare minimum, we should at least be able to do that, right? Nope. Because it somehow becomes this fear that the government is going to completely get rid of guns and your tin foil hats.

Meanwhile, New Zealand passed gay marriage, and broke out into song:

YouTube

https://youtu.be/DW4DXOAXF8U

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

Iceland lost 90% of its economy, let the banks fail, forgave most mortgage debt, upped government spending, and raised taxes. They're also recovering better than the US and the EU who have resorted to bank bailouts and austerity. Weird.

YouTube

https://youtu.be/DDexDNn6vSM

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

Oh and they jailed their bankers.

America is hardly progressive.

You're right flying, that most Americans are far more concerned about jobs and the economy right now. But both parties are failing to do even that. It's stupid to have this divide between left and right, this disturbing glee when one side or the other fails to achieve anything, when ultimately it hurts all of us because they can't, or won't, do anything except continue this destructive status quo.

[Badkarma 1]

I'll support a bill to ban pressure cookers!
2 Chechen "idealists" just held the entire state of Massachusetts in a state of fear, it's populace was told to stay indoors while Uncle took care of business.
Yet it was an ordinary citizen who noticed things weren't right with his boat, and found the 19 year old killer! He then called the proper authorities. I'm surprised that some haven't said he should have stayed inside like directed!
My point, an ordinary, every day Joe found the scumbag, not John Law or Uncle, they were dependent on citizen help. I wonder how many decent law abidin folks had their trusty scatter gun or rifle handy durin said rout?
And I noticed a helluva lot of those nasty AR15s in the hands of police and federal officers, do you think they need all those 30 round mags too? OH that's right their LE not civvies, but they'd are in reality civilian peace officers. So as long as they can have those "Evil Assault Rifles" some of which have the fun switch! Then the rest of us can have em too!
I ain't much worried about some sort of gov't confiscation or rebellion, hell my old 8mm German K98 is a helluva lot more lethal than any AR ever made, but it only holds 5 shells of .323 dia. bullets, not 30 .223 ones, so it's cool, right?
Personally when the gov't gets off the easy crap and back to fixin the economy I'll be happy!
And to those folks from Newtown, you have my Sincerest condolences! But your bein used as a frontman and a patsy! Go back home, grieve and get on with your lives. Let Zippy sell his own crap!