2016 American Presidential Campaign
- Thread starter Bardeaux
- Start date
- Status
Escher's Waterfall
Bluelight Crew
Ah thanks.
I'll try a rebuttal: Considering how mundane the weapons are in most mass shootings, why do you believe banning certain types of semi-automatic weapons will have any effect?
I suspect you'd have to ban all handguns for a significant effect on gun violence rates.
I'll try a rebuttal: Considering how mundane the weapons are in most mass shootings, why do you believe banning certain types of semi-automatic weapons will have any effect?
I suspect you'd have to ban all handguns for a significant effect on gun violence rates.
Bardeaux
Bluelight Crew
^If it were a slippery slope the 1994 ban would have kept expanding rather than expiring, no?
I don't, really
I'm in favor on non-biased gun control, rather than outright bans or mandatory carry. I own a handgun myself and open carry is perfectly legal in my state without a license or permit , I choose not to carry it openly (or anywhere on my person). I think there need to be stronger restrictions on purchasing firearms, rather than banning them. I also have a somewhat controversial position about certain non-violent felons being allowed to own them, being caught with a gram of blow doesn't make you a violent criminal.
When I bought mine, I literally walk up to the counter, said "that one", signed a few papers and walked out with a .40cal handgun all within a half hour. It shouldn't be that easy. Certain restrictions need to be stronger and certain ones are unnecessary, I think.
I don't, really
I'm in favor on non-biased gun control, rather than outright bans or mandatory carry. I own a handgun myself and open carry is perfectly legal in my state without a license or permit , I choose not to carry it openly (or anywhere on my person). I think there need to be stronger restrictions on purchasing firearms, rather than banning them. I also have a somewhat controversial position about certain non-violent felons being allowed to own them, being caught with a gram of blow doesn't make you a violent criminal.
When I bought mine, I literally walk up to the counter, said "that one", signed a few papers and walked out with a .40cal handgun all within a half hour. It shouldn't be that easy. Certain restrictions need to be stronger and certain ones are unnecessary, I think.
socko
Bluelighter
I think of it as "trying to get the foot in the door" legislation. The government often works that way. Look at drunk driving laws for example. They kept expanding. They have gone from one extreme to the other very gradually by making increasingly strict rules. At one time it was legal to drive while drinking and with an open drink and there were no breathalyzer tests. Being somewhat drunk was tolerated. Now, having even one drink can result in prison when caught for the first time.
Bardeaux
Bluelight Crew
^Right, but those laws didn't expire 10 years after implementation. The 1994 law expired 11 years ago and no such bill has made it to the executive branch again. That's what I'm getting at, they had their foot in the door, then quietly removed their foot and shut the door.
Escher's Waterfall
Bluelight Crew
I think it was posturing myself. One side wanted to do "something" about gun violence, and the other side opposed it. In the end, we got a bill that did nothing but both sides could point to it to further their political goals.
superelephant
Bluelighter
In some situations, it probably should be.
http://rightwingnews.com/democrats/new-jerseys-anti-gun-laws-killed-woman-murdered-by-a-stalker/
^ that is sad, for sure. but the only person responsible for killing her is the guy who killed her.
alasdair
alasdair
superelephant
Bluelighter
I don't necessarily agree with the statement at the end, just didn't find any other links to the story this time around.
I think that if a mandatory wait time is implemented nationally it needs to have and emergency clause that waives the wait time if you have a recently enacted restraining order or any valid reason where a gun is needed to protect oneself from an imminent threat.
Bardeaux
Bluelight Crew
It's a sad story indeed, but the title is entirely out of line political opportunism. It's like when people go on TV and say loose gun laws killed their kid. Wouldn't the cliche'd response here be "NJ gun laws don't kill people, people kill people?"
What ever happened to the five day waiting period? It's ridiculous that it took this woman over a month to buy a handgun, and it's ridiculous that I was able to walk in and buy one in the time that it would take to buy a pizza. We've really got to get over towing the party line if anything is ever going to be done about this.
It's not a terrible idea.
Another would be for police to stop looking for weed dealers and prostitutes in order to provide emergency surveillance detail in times like the story above.
Last edited:
i agree with bardeaux - you can't have your cake and eat it.
i tend to agree with you. gun policy has to find a way to stop lunatics getting guns while enabling responsible citizens to exercise their second amendment rights without an undue bureaucratic burden.
unfortunately. any attempt to even discuss this issue is framed by the pro-gun lobby as "they want to take away our guns" so you can't even discuss it rationally.
alasdair
some here characterise the discussion as "liberals want to ban all guns". i identify as a liberal and that's not my position but that doesn't stop them from trolling by constantly parroting this misinformation.
i tend to agree with you. gun policy has to find a way to stop lunatics getting guns while enabling responsible citizens to exercise their second amendment rights without an undue bureaucratic burden.
unfortunately. any attempt to even discuss this issue is framed by the pro-gun lobby as "they want to take away our guns" so you can't even discuss it rationally.
alasdair
Regarding Trump and people outside the GOP generally considering him a bit of a joke candidate, would a Trump presidency really be that awful?
Reagan was hardly a clued up intellectual and was a former actor/union rep to boot, yet he managed to garner considerable respect during his time in office as a (relatively) steady pair of hands and ultimately something of a pragmatic compromiser, critical of deeply partisan politics.
Trump, although obviously likely to side with big business, is nevertheless going to be less in thrall to them since the usual leverage device (money) isn't something he particularly needs. I would speculate he would be more eager to compromise on many issues (despite his current persona of being divisive) in order to be seen to be succeeding by the public in passing legislation and making things happen....?
Reagan was hardly a clued up intellectual and was a former actor/union rep to boot, yet he managed to garner considerable respect during his time in office as a (relatively) steady pair of hands and ultimately something of a pragmatic compromiser, critical of deeply partisan politics.
Trump, although obviously likely to side with big business, is nevertheless going to be less in thrall to them since the usual leverage device (money) isn't something he particularly needs. I would speculate he would be more eager to compromise on many issues (despite his current persona of being divisive) in order to be seen to be succeeding by the public in passing legislation and making things happen....?
Bardeaux
Bluelight Crew
^True, but he's an extremely (sometimes vulgarly) holder of many stubborn opinions. How well would you predict his success in working with congress (particularly Dems)?
If politics is the art of compromise, I don't exactly see Trump excelling in this field. His forte is brute force, not consensus. He calls his opponents idiots and morons, this doesn't exactly set the stage for a president who can bring together both sides and actually accomplish anything of substance.
Just my $.02
If politics is the art of compromise, I don't exactly see Trump excelling in this field. His forte is brute force, not consensus. He calls his opponents idiots and morons, this doesn't exactly set the stage for a president who can bring together both sides and actually accomplish anything of substance.
Just my $.02
You're probably right, I was just trying out a thought. I reckon that as he's never held a public office, he may well fail to understand the art of political compromise. I've read that he thinks running a country is like running a company, which is absurd. You might be able to have your way if you're the owner of a firm, even a large firm, but as president of an entire country, he'd have to negotiate and accept compromises from people he'd despise. In comparison with my example above, Reagan spent most of his adult life learning how to handle difficult people and negotiate... perhaps ultimately Trump's background and lack of experience makes him unsuited, or at the least too untested to risk...
Bardeaux
Bluelight Crew
So anybody catch the first Dem debate? It was clear to me (although I'm biased) that Sanders smoked everyone on stage. I was nervous about how he would perform in that sort of environment, but the dude delivered the goods.
As of now, TIME has him as the winner by 74%.
As of now, TIME has him as the winner by 74%.
Cool - glad to hear you say that. I think i'll have to watch the debate online when i get a chance.
I do hope to see this campaign evolve from the GOP freak show into an exchange of ideas and policy platforms beyond the shallow buzzwords and celebrity fixation that trump is running on.
Sanders getting an edge on Clinton makes the whole field so much more interesting to observe.
I do hope to see this campaign evolve from the GOP freak show into an exchange of ideas and policy platforms beyond the shallow buzzwords and celebrity fixation that trump is running on.
Sanders getting an edge on Clinton makes the whole field so much more interesting to observe.
jammin83
Bluelighter
Didn't see the whole thing. Just caught the highlights. Going to watch it soon.
CNN was acting like hillary won the thing. I liked that sanders blasted her on her foreign policy. The whole bit about people being sick of the emails was pretty good. Didn't like the maniacal acid-laugh that Hillary did after that. I really don't see how anybody can trust her. Her foreign policy is a bit on the conservative side.
Pretty impressed with sanders overall. I would definitely like to see a Sanders/Warren ticket. Don't know if that's possible, but something I would feel good about voting for. Hillary seems like she is playing for herself and playing the woman card is getting kind of overly lame. I'd love to see a woman win someday but not her. Sanders seems like he genuinely has people's best interest at heart that aren't the elite. Doesn't seem overly scripted either, which is a nice change.
Fucking Donald and his tweets. Attention whore. I typed in Democratic debate last night on google and his fucking tweets were at the top of the list. He knows what he is doing and he honestly scares the shit out of me.
CNN was acting like hillary won the thing. I liked that sanders blasted her on her foreign policy. The whole bit about people being sick of the emails was pretty good. Didn't like the maniacal acid-laugh that Hillary did after that. I really don't see how anybody can trust her. Her foreign policy is a bit on the conservative side.
Pretty impressed with sanders overall. I would definitely like to see a Sanders/Warren ticket. Don't know if that's possible, but something I would feel good about voting for. Hillary seems like she is playing for herself and playing the woman card is getting kind of overly lame. I'd love to see a woman win someday but not her. Sanders seems like he genuinely has people's best interest at heart that aren't the elite. Doesn't seem overly scripted either, which is a nice change.
Fucking Donald and his tweets. Attention whore. I typed in Democratic debate last night on google and his fucking tweets were at the top of the list. He knows what he is doing and he honestly scares the shit out of me.
Bardeaux
Bluelight Crew
Yeah, there's a bit of controversy about this.
NSFW:
Their own viewers differ by an almost comical degree.
cashfl0w_d0nkey
Bluelight Crew
^ I think this has to do with the type of supporters Bernie has (i.e. vocal ones). I too was initially skeptical but think that the analysts did get it right now that more scientific polls are coming out.
I think the Corporate Media have a pretty transparent desire to see Hillary get the nomination over Bernie.
I was surprised (but then again, not) to see most press agencies chalking it up as a win to Clinton.
While she had that slick air of a polished politician down-pat, he said some really refreshing - and inspiring - things. No bullshit, far less tired cliches.
Vocal support is good! Grassroots is where it's at. People being enthusiastic about a candidate is absolutely where the Dems should be throwing their support in my opinion.
Everyone is jaded and disheartened at politics nowadays. Look no further than Trump to see the horrible reality of that...
Sanders is perceived as a threat to the status quo; Clinton is the status quo.
I can't imagine Clinton 2.0 doing very well in the white house, if she made it there at all. But that's just me.
TV = style > content.
I was surprised (but then again, not) to see most press agencies chalking it up as a win to Clinton.
While she had that slick air of a polished politician down-pat, he said some really refreshing - and inspiring - things. No bullshit, far less tired cliches.
Vocal support is good! Grassroots is where it's at. People being enthusiastic about a candidate is absolutely where the Dems should be throwing their support in my opinion.
Everyone is jaded and disheartened at politics nowadays. Look no further than Trump to see the horrible reality of that...
Sanders is perceived as a threat to the status quo; Clinton is the status quo.
I can't imagine Clinton 2.0 doing very well in the white house, if she made it there at all. But that's just me.
TV = style > content.
- Status