Author Topic: The Politics Thread v2  (Read 181253 times)

Offline Raineh Daze

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10577
  • hi
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v2
« Reply #680 on: December 22, 2015, 09:53:45 PM »
AKA: never trust immediate polls. You'd think people would learn this, but it just doesn't stick.

Offline awaken_D_M_golem

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7639
  • classique style , invisible tail
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v2
« Reply #681 on: December 23, 2015, 03:50:44 PM »
Love 538, the best of the best.

While they are right more than anyone else,
the historical data is straightforward :
" leading this much, as of this time "
... has yielded the nominee, during this the polling era.

Mind you, this is a History argument
opposing a more precise argument.
idk the outcome.
I would be pleasantly surprised (very)
if Trump is not the Repub candidate.

It's gonna be a wild ride, regardless.


edit --- Trump is almost as big as Bernie !!
 :D  ;)
Your codpiece is a mimic.

Offline dman11235

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2571
  • Disclaimer: not at full capacity yet
    • View Profile
My Sig's Handy Haversack  Need help?  Want to see what I've done?  Want to see what others have done well?  Check it out.

Avatar d20

Offline SolEiji

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3045
  • I am 120% Eiji.
    • View Profile
    • D&D Wiki.org, not .com
Re: The Politics Thread v2
« Reply #683 on: December 31, 2015, 01:15:15 AM »
If you live in CO you have until Monday 1/4/16 to register as a Democrat and vote for Sanders.  Be aware, and pass it on.
Mudada.

Offline SolEiji

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3045
  • I am 120% Eiji.
    • View Profile
    • D&D Wiki.org, not .com
Re: The Politics Thread v2
« Reply #684 on: January 04, 2016, 12:54:14 AM »
Mudada.

Offline Raineh Daze

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10577
  • hi
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v2
« Reply #685 on: January 05, 2016, 11:34:12 PM »
It's... not even any sort of devastating change or restriction and ALREADY the pro-gun side seems to have gone crazy. The reaction seems a little out of proportion.

Offline MrWolfe

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 376
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v2
« Reply #686 on: January 06, 2016, 01:40:03 AM »
It's... not even any sort of devastating change or restriction and ALREADY the pro-gun side seems to have gone crazy. The reaction seems a little out of proportion.

That seems like it's supposed to be in response to another post, did something get removed?

I really do have to side-eye Obama's announcement about the gun control thing though. All these incidents of unarmed people, children, and dogs being shot by the police and you don't hear a peep--but some hicks in Oregon stage a weekend camp out--I mean "anti-government protest" and on Tuesday the president's up there with tears in his eyes saying what we really need are more background checks for civilian gun owners.

Riiiiiight.

Last I heard, you have to get a background check to become a cop too. Doesn't seem to stop them from going on killing sprees.
A little madness goes a long way...

Offline Raineh Daze

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10577
  • hi
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v2
« Reply #687 on: January 06, 2016, 09:06:13 AM »
Nah, just a comment in general. So... basically, a loophole's closed so you can't get away with not having checks because the sale's happening through slightly different means... and the outcry seems more appropriate for repealing the second amendment.

Or at least, the NRA's statement and some of the comments I've seen on it... well, and how prepared the Republican candidates were to oppose this at all costs. The hell?
« Last Edit: January 06, 2016, 09:18:29 AM by Raineh Daze »

Offline RobbyPants

  • Female rat ninja
  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8326
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v2
« Reply #688 on: January 06, 2016, 01:05:24 PM »
Nah, just a comment in general. So... basically, a loophole's closed so you can't get away with not having checks because the sale's happening through slightly different means... and the outcry seems more appropriate for repealing the second amendment.
From the people I've talked to on an individual basis, the bulk of their opposition comes from Obama doing it via Executive Order as opposed to it being done by Congress. This tends to lump into a trend they have to complain about Obama's "excessive" use of Executive Orders. Of course, Obama has given the fewest of these annually, out of every president for the last century.


Or at least, the NRA's statement and some of the comments I've seen on it... well, and how prepared the Republican candidates were to oppose this at all costs. The hell?
I don't know. I swear, at a party-level, it's just a reflexive action at this point. The overwhelming majority of US citizens want increased background checks, but it doesn't pan out that way in the legislature.
My creations

Please direct moderation-related PMs to Forum Staff.

Offline Raineh Daze

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10577
  • hi
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v2
« Reply #689 on: January 06, 2016, 01:49:36 PM »
Nah, just a comment in general. So... basically, a loophole's closed so you can't get away with not having checks because the sale's happening through slightly different means... and the outcry seems more appropriate for repealing the second amendment.
From the people I've talked to on an individual basis, the bulk of their opposition comes from Obama doing it via Executive Order as opposed to it being done by Congress. This tends to lump into a trend they have to complain about Obama's "excessive" use of Executive Orders. Of course, Obama has given the fewest of these annually, out of every president for the last century.

I don't even get why a minor adjustment for scope would need the entire legislature, either.

Offline dman11235

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2571
  • Disclaimer: not at full capacity yet
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v2
« Reply #690 on: January 06, 2016, 03:28:50 PM »
The thing is, he didn't even USE an executive order.  He basically said to the ATF "start doing your job and do this stuff" and called for action.  He didn't change laws at all.  And the NRA opposes any reduction in arms availability as "literally taking away your guns and then sodomizing you with them".  As do any legislator with an 'A' rating from them.  This includes an attempt to add terror suspects to a list of reasons why you can't buy a gun.  They freaked out about THAT.
My Sig's Handy Haversack  Need help?  Want to see what I've done?  Want to see what others have done well?  Check it out.

Avatar d20

Offline MrWolfe

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 376
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v2
« Reply #691 on: January 06, 2016, 03:53:58 PM »
Nah, just a comment in general. So... basically, a loophole's closed so you can't get away with not having checks because the sale's happening through slightly different means... and the outcry seems more appropriate for repealing the second amendment.
From the people I've talked to on an individual basis, the bulk of their opposition comes from Obama doing it via Executive Order as opposed to it being done by Congress. This tends to lump into a trend they have to complain about Obama's "excessive" use of Executive Orders. Of course, Obama has given the fewest of these annually, out of every president for the last century.


Or at least, the NRA's statement and some of the comments I've seen on it... well, and how prepared the Republican candidates were to oppose this at all costs. The hell?
I don't know. I swear, at a party-level, it's just a reflexive action at this point. The overwhelming majority of US citizens want increased background checks, but it doesn't pan out that way in the legislature.

The only thing that really bothers me about it is the increased burden it places on the seller. There are already so many barriers to running a business or transferring property between individuals--technically even yard sales are illegal without a business license--this is just one more circumstance where the government interferes and then demands a fee for telling you what you can do with your own damn stuff.

Add to that the fact that all this does is make it harder for legitimate gun owners. If someone's contemplating using a gun to break the law, they aren't going to balk at breaking the law to get the gun in the first place.

I don't even get why a minor adjustment for scope would need the entire legislature, either.

Because most people have no clue how the government works, and mistakenly believe that the legislature represents them--and that a room full of people deciding to force their will on everybody else is somehow less tyrannical than a single individual doing it.

The thing is, he didn't even USE an executive order.  He basically said to the ATF "start doing your job and do this stuff" and called for action.  He didn't change laws at all.  And the NRA opposes any reduction in arms availability as "literally taking away your guns and then sodomizing you with them".  As do any legislator with an 'A' rating from them.  This includes an attempt to add terror suspects to a list of reasons why you can't buy a gun.  They freaked out about THAT.

Really? The article I read explicitly said he issued an executive order, one that he had apparently been crafting for some time with his legal team to make sure it was *ahem* bulletproof.

As for the other thing, I don't think suspicion is sufficient grounds to restrict someone's rights. Otherwise all you've got is a half-assed witchunt with no proof, and it's way too easy to just use that as an excuse to target anyone you don't like. Hell, I get "suspected" of half a dozen things the moment I walk out my front door because of how I look, and we've got an frigging epidemic of innocent people being harassed and targeted.
A little madness goes a long way...

Offline Raineh Daze

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10577
  • hi
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v2
« Reply #692 on: January 06, 2016, 04:22:54 PM »
If suspicion wasn't enough to restrict someone at ALL, then nobody would ever get arrested. Innocent until proven guilty, after all.

Offline dman11235

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2571
  • Disclaimer: not at full capacity yet
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v2
« Reply #693 on: January 06, 2016, 10:08:58 PM »
The argument of "they'll break the law to get the gun anyways!" is just stupid and asinine.  I mean, yeah, they will.  This will make it harder for them to do that, and create a paper trail that makes it harder for people to hide the fact that they broke the law like this AND provide an out for people who are innocent yet their gun is used in a crime.  This sort of thing benefits legitimate gun owners.  A background check isn't some hyper-intensive thing that takes years.  It takes at most days.  If you need a gun in less than a week, you have bigger problems than a gun will solve, and probably need to go to the police for help.

As for the EO, the article I read said there weren't any actual executive orders in it.  It was executive actions, but not orders, which change laws not just how they're applied.

Now, I'm more in favor of a gun registration thing than simply background checks (although if there were background checks on ever purchase, it is a fact that fewer 'bad guys' would have access to guns).  And before you say "that tramples on my rights" or whatever, I mean, what does it do, really?  It just lets people know who has what gun.  It doesn't do ANYthing to your ability to have a gun.
My Sig's Handy Haversack  Need help?  Want to see what I've done?  Want to see what others have done well?  Check it out.

Avatar d20

Offline MrWolfe

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 376
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v2
« Reply #694 on: January 07, 2016, 02:56:28 AM »
The argument of "they'll break the law to get the gun anyways!" is just stupid and asinine.  I mean, yeah, they will.  This will make it harder for them to do that, and create a paper trail that makes it harder for people to hide the fact that they broke the law like this AND provide an out for people who are innocent yet their gun is used in a crime.  This sort of thing benefits legitimate gun owners.  A background check isn't some hyper-intensive thing that takes years.  It takes at most days.  If you need a gun in less than a week, you have bigger problems than a gun will solve, and probably need to go to the police for help.

How, exactly, will requiring background checks on legitimate gun sales make it any harder for people who don't acquire their weapons through legitimate means in the first place?

How will a paper trail help an innocent gun owner whose firearm is used in a crime, as opposed to implicating them?

This doesn't benefit legitimate gun owners at all. It inconveniences them a tiny bit and does jack all to anybody else. That's what bothers me: It's a glorified publicity stunt that makes a politician look good and makes things a little bit harder for regular people, while doing absolutely nothing to actually fix the problem.

As for the EO, the article I read said there weren't any actual executive orders in it.  It was executive actions, but not orders, which change laws not just how they're applied.

Now, I'm more in favor of a gun registration thing than simply background checks (although if there were background checks on ever purchase, it is a fact that fewer 'bad guys' would have access to guns).  And before you say "that tramples on my rights" or whatever, I mean, what does it do, really?  It just lets people know who has what gun.  It doesn't do ANYthing to your ability to have a gun.

I'm really not that concerned about the 2nd amendment here. I don't own a gun, nor have I ever really been interested in owning one. Honestly I'd be happier if nobody had guns, but that isn't going to happen and I don't believe I have the right to force that opinion on others even if I did have the means to do so.

What does concern me is forcing people to buy a license from the government in order to sell their own property. That's the right being trampled. If this actually had a chance of reducing gun violence, I might be willing to accept the trade off--but it doesn't. It's just more bullshit designed to make people feel safe without actually doing anything besides increasing the government's ability to interfere with our lives.
A little madness goes a long way...

Offline dman11235

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2571
  • Disclaimer: not at full capacity yet
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v2
« Reply #695 on: January 07, 2016, 05:25:32 AM »
It's pretty simple how it will help actually.  If you fail a background check, you won't be able to legally buy a gun.  It's harder to illegally buy anything than legally buy it.  Currently, however, it is not harder to illegally buy a gun because you can bypass the background check requirement.  So by having the requirement on every purchase, you make it actually harder to buy a gun if you are otherwise not allowed to buy one.  The inconvenience to legal gun owners is tiny borderline non-existent.  It's a small time sink of at most a couple days.  That's it.  You have to go through more to buy a car, get insurance, buy a home, a lot of things.

As for how it helps gun owners?  Well, it protects you from liability if you accidentally try to sell to someone trying to buy a gun illegally.  It provides an incentive to report when guns are stolen.  This helps innocents from being implicated in crimes falsely.  Does it do anything if everyone's perfect?  No, but people aren't perfect.  It won't help everyone all the time, but it will help some people some of the time.  And the paper trail?  It shows that you aren't the owner of the gun anymore.  Assuming you sold it legally, it means you're absolved from the crime (assuming you aren't selling it to the person knowing they're going to commit the crime, and whatnot).  Without that paper trail, it's harder to show that you aren't involved in the crime.

The thing about registration isn't that it directly reduces gun crimes.  However, it does indirectly reduce it.  There's a small number that would be prevented if the person knew that the gun could be traced to them easily.  Then there's the second effect of the guns adding you to the list of fails for background checks.  There's even more, but it's 5:30 and I'm tired.
My Sig's Handy Haversack  Need help?  Want to see what I've done?  Want to see what others have done well?  Check it out.

Avatar d20

Offline Raineh Daze

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10577
  • hi
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v2
« Reply #696 on: January 07, 2016, 08:41:30 AM »
Or the short way of putting it: people illegally buying guns anyway will still illegally buy them.

This just closes off a technically-legal way to get them for those SHOULDN'T. And makes it less likely you're going to be incriminated for something that happens with your ex-property.

Also: fuck the 'right' to untraceably and indiscriminately sell deadly weapons. It's not introducing any restrictions that aren't floating around already, so...
« Last Edit: January 07, 2016, 08:54:50 AM by Raineh Daze »

Offline MrWolfe

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 376
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v2
« Reply #697 on: January 07, 2016, 02:58:48 PM »
It's pretty simple how it will help actually.  If you fail a background check, you won't be able to legally buy a gun.  It's harder to illegally buy anything than legally buy it.  Currently, however, it is not harder to illegally buy a gun because you can bypass the background check requirement.  So by having the requirement on every purchase, you make it actually harder to buy a gun if you are otherwise not allowed to buy one.  The inconvenience to legal gun owners is tiny borderline non-existent.  It's a small time sink of at most a couple days.  That's it.  You have to go through more to buy a car, get insurance, buy a home, a lot of things.

Well, I have to call B.S. on that first point. It's way easier to acquire a gun illegally--partly because there aren't all those pesky government regulations. As I mentioned before, I neither own not have any interest in owning a gun. However, I have had a casual acquaintance (guy who worked at the magazine store I used to pre-order comics from) offer to sell me an unregistered handgun. I'm sure someone who is less of a hermit and/or is more clued in to the criminal underworld (I barely even play GTA) would find it much easier.

And that's not even getting into all the people who get their guns by stealing them. In fact, in a number of those mass shootings everybody's so riled about the perpetrators didn't actually own the guns they used--they took them from a relative without their knowledge. So tell me again how background checks are going to help.

Also, protip: Buying a car/home/etc. is a pain in the ass, and doesn't make a good argument for having more types of transactions locked away behind licensing requirements and bureaucratic gate-keeping. Just because the government is already screwing us doesn't mean we should offer up another orifice for plundering.

As for how it helps gun owners?  Well, it protects you from liability if you accidentally try to sell to someone trying to buy a gun illegally.  It provides an incentive to report when guns are stolen.  This helps innocents from being implicated in crimes falsely.  Does it do anything if everyone's perfect?  No, but people aren't perfect.  It won't help everyone all the time, but it will help some people some of the time.  And the paper trail?  It shows that you aren't the owner of the gun anymore.  Assuming you sold it legally, it means you're absolved from the crime (assuming you aren't selling it to the person knowing they're going to commit the crime, and whatnot).  Without that paper trail, it's harder to show that you aren't involved in the crime.

The thing about registration isn't that it directly reduces gun crimes.  However, it does indirectly reduce it.  There's a small number that would be prevented if the person knew that the gun could be traced to them easily.  Then there's the second effect of the guns adding you to the list of fails for background checks.  There's even more, but it's 5:30 and I'm tired.

I'm seeing a lot of declarative statements here and not a lot of support. If your gun is stolen, that's incentive enough to report the theft--you don't need to add "I might get implicated in a major crime" to the list. As for the paper trail, that doesn't help you if A) the weapon is taken and used in a crime without your knowledge, or B) someone decides to hold you responsible for giving it to a person who committed a crime--because blaming you and calling it a criminal conspiracy or negligence looks better than admitting their background check system failed.

So that's one situation in which it might help, and two in which it would work against you. In the case of mass shootings--which is what's being used to sell this--both of those situations are likely to come up. If your kid/nephew/crazy uncle/etc. decides to break into your gun safe and shoot up a school that morning, you're not likely to find out about the theft until after the shooting hits the news--at which point a lot of emotional people are going to be looking for someone to blame, and the perpetrator is likely to be dead, leaving you as the next likely target.

This has already happened with at least one of the school shootings, where the kids stole the guns they used from a relative and there was a big push to hold that relative responsible--despite their only crime being "not having a good enough lock, apparently" and being a victim of burglary.

Or the short way of putting it: people illegally buying guns anyway will still illegally buy them.

This just closes off a technically-legal way to get them for those SHOULDN'T. And makes it less likely you're going to be incriminated for something that happens with your ex-property.

The thing is, I seriously doubt many criminals are getting their guns at gun shows. The implied claim here is: "This is going to prevent mass shootings because gun shows are where mass shooters get their guns." and I don't see a lot of evidence to support that.

What this looks like is a case of: "The problem is A but we're going to crack down on B because it's easier and then soak up the publicity for 'solving' the problem." Which is the typical M.O. of politicians.

Also: fuck the 'right' to untraceably and indiscriminately sell deadly weapons. It's not introducing any restrictions that aren't floating around already, so...

Who said anything about all that? :twitch

If the government wants background checks on every gun sale, they can pay for it themselves with the money they've already taken from the people. There's no excuse to demand even more in the form of "licensing fees." If the legislature can't figure out how to do their jobs with the budget they have, maybe they should take a chunk out of their ridiculous, $100,000+ yearly paychecks for being incompetent leeches, instead of saddling us with more fees and restrictions.

That we're already acclimated to this kind of behavior is a problem, not an argument for expanding it.

Sorry if I threw you off by bringing an actual argument instead of the "from my cold dead hands" rhetoric you were apparently expecting. :eh
A little madness goes a long way...

Offline Raineh Daze

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10577
  • hi
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v2
« Reply #698 on: January 07, 2016, 03:24:06 PM »
Or the short way of putting it: people illegally buying guns anyway will still illegally buy them.

This just closes off a technically-legal way to get them for those SHOULDN'T. And makes it less likely you're going to be incriminated for something that happens with your ex-property.

The thing is, I seriously doubt many criminals are getting their guns at gun shows. The implied claim here is: "This is going to prevent mass shootings because gun shows are where mass shooters get their guns." and I don't see a lot of evidence to support that.

What this looks like is a case of: "The problem is A but we're going to crack down on B because it's easier and then soak up the publicity for 'solving' the problem." Which is the typical M.O. of politicians.

B is also a problem. Even if that problem is inconsistency. B can also be argued to lead to A, and given how too many people refuse to accept anything that would directly address A, it's better than nothing.

Quote
Also: fuck the 'right' to untraceably and indiscriminately sell deadly weapons. It's not introducing any restrictions that aren't floating around already, so...

Who said anything about all that? :twitch

If the government wants background checks on every gun sale, they can pay for it themselves with the money they've already taken from the people. There's no excuse to demand even more in the form of "licensing fees." If the legislature can't figure out how to do their jobs with the budget they have, maybe they should take a chunk out of their ridiculous, $100,000+ yearly paychecks for being incompetent leeches, instead of saddling us with more fees and restrictions.

That we're already acclimated to this kind of behavior is a problem, not an argument for expanding it.

Sorry if I threw you off by bringing an actual argument instead of the "from my cold dead hands" rhetoric you were apparently expecting. :eh

If you want to sell a gun yourself, you can operate on the same conditions that a commercial business would. The money's either coming from you directly, or people more generally, depending on where it's actually being paid*... and for once I'm in favour of the less socially distributed approach. People in general paying to save you some money on a private transaction? Eh, no.

Unless there's a perfect argument to never have background checks ever, then they should apply in all cases.

*Or absolutely nowhere if it's deficit spending, but eh. It'll be theoretically paid at some point by people in general.

Offline bhu

  • Uncle Kittie
  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 16306
  • Fnord bitches
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v2
« Reply #699 on: January 07, 2016, 06:53:22 PM »

Well, I have to call B.S. on that first point. It's way easier to acquire a gun illegally--partly because there aren't all those pesky government regulations. As I mentioned before, I neither own not have any interest in owning a gun. However, I have had a casual acquaintance (guy who worked at the magazine store I used to pre-order comics from) offer to sell me an unregistered handgun. I'm sure someone who is less of a hermit and/or is more clued in to the criminal underworld (I barely even play GTA) would find it much easier.

Speaking as someone who has friends on both sides of the law, I can assure you it isn't as easy as you think.  Criminals do sell guns to other criminals, yes.  But the caveat there is they sell to people they know personally and have judged to be not stupid.  In other words, joe bad guy will sell you an illegal gun if you need one to defend yourself in the act of committing burglaries, and aren't likely to squeal about it if you get caught.  On the other hand if you're unknown to the criminal community, look mentally unstable, or say you need a gun to "fuck somebody up", you're more likely to be on the receiving end of that gun than have it sold to you. 

They may be an illegal business, but they are a business after all.  They don't need to sell to people who could bring them heat.  And more likely than not the best they can sell you is a handgun, because bigger and better stuff is reserved for higher level guys in organized crime who are well known.  Criminals are far more paranoid on average than regular citizens, even about other criminals (cause technically they are rivals after all).  Then there's other issues.  On average an illegal gun will cost you quite a bit more than a legal one, and if it doesn't you have a pretty good chance it's a piece of shit (or you're damn close friends with someone).  And if it doesn't fire or malfunctions and injures you?  Well fuck you then, we don't offer refunds.  Sorry about your luck.  Want an unregistered or untraceable one with no serial number?  Well the price is bigger.  If it's not, that guns been used to do something and they need to be rid of it, but are hoping to still make a little money in the process.


Quote
The thing is, I seriously doubt many criminals are getting their guns at gun shows. The implied claim here is: "This is going to prevent mass shootings because gun shows are where mass shooters get their guns." and I don't see a lot of evidence to support that.
  You'd be surprised.  Gun shows are easier to do than stores or getting them illegally.  You can find advice sites sprinkled throughout the net for various criminals, terrorists, and would be separatists on how to exploit gun shows (assuming you have TOR anyway).

I should have prefaced this by saying I do own guns, and want to keep the right to own them, and I don't necessarily disagree with everything you say.  That being said I did feel compelled to relay that illegal guns aren't so easy as people believe.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2016, 06:55:41 PM by bhu »