The Political Discussion Thread

[Ian-S]

Not to defend Annoyed...but the Parkland shooter in Florida was on local and FBI watch lists for his "nut job" comments. He'd even stated on social media that he wanted to be a school shooter. So, yeah...he was a nut job before he came into the public eye and was branded as such.

Goes back to what I said, maybe if the FBI had done their job properly, the shooting wouldn't have happened, right?

[LtColCarter]

Goes back to what I said, maybe if the FBI had done their job properly, the shooting wouldn't have happened, right?

Possibly...and if the ARMED school officer had done something...anything...this might have not happened.

[Annoyed]

Let me put it in a "conservative" viewpoint.
Every teacher who takes up gun training will be entitled to their teacher salary, PLUS police salary, and you, the taxpayer with no kids will be on the hook for it.
You will -also- be on the hook for setting up the support infrastructure for such a program.

Except, in every country where it does.

Really?
Can you go get me a quarter of pot?
A few EX tabs?
A baggie of coke?
I'm sure you will have no problems.............

Actually, were that a serious question, I could do so with little difficulty. In fact, I could procure such items easier than I could obtain a licensed handgun. A quick "shopping trip" to one of the larger cities near me is all that would be needed.
Shipping is your problem, though.

[Annoyed]

Not to defend Annoyed...

Heaven forbid!

[Annoyed]

Possibly...and if the ARMED school officer had done something...anything...this might have not happened.

Yeah, really, when I read about the armed officer on-scene who did nothing I was astounded. Glad he lost his job over it.

[LtColCarter]

Really?
Can you go get me a quarter of pot?
A few EX tabs?
A baggie of coke?
I'm sure you will have no problems.............

No, I couldn't tell you where to obtain those items. Sorry...I don't do any sort of drugs, unless I get an Rx from my doctor. Even then, I don't like taking medicine. However, it really didn't take that long for me train and obtain my concealed weapon permit and to purchase said weapon.

Actually, were that a serious question, I could do so with little difficulty. In fact, I could procure such items easier than I could obtain a licensed handgun. A quick "shopping trip" to one of the larger cities near me is all that would be needed.
Shipping is your problem, though.

Not the ultra-right response I expected.

[Annoyed]

Using the "drugs are illegal but still available" argument to prevent tighter gun ownership laws (people are not asking for an outright ban, just to heavily restrict certain firearms, higher age limits and more detailed background checks) is like comparing apples to oranges, drugs are smaller, lighter and easier to conceal and manufacturer, an AR15 isn't something you can hide in your back pocket to sell on a street corner is it?

I understand the reluctance, it's invading privacy and encroaching on your freedoms, I can relate, we have stop and search and stop and account here and although I've never been subject to it, I've done my research over what to say so that I'm not taken advantage of, I've also refused to give my name to law enforcement before simply through knowing my rights, but this is a completely different kettle of fish to buying guns, Jesus man it's easier to buy a gun in your country than it is fly a toy drone, surely you've got to at least acknowledge how crazy that sounds to the rest of the world, right?

You are ignoring a very good reason to oppose any restrictions on guns.
Incrementalism.

This has played out on several issues just within the past 60 years or so. In the 1960's, the banning of a legal product's use (tobacco) would have been unthinkable. At the time, the dangers were known, too.
Then people got the idea that maybe they should be banned from schools. As time went on, the bans spread and were accepted in more and more places. Today, smoking is banned everywhere, even outdoor facilities such as stadiums and such. There has been talk of banning it from private residences as well. In 60 years, we've gone from the unthinkable to talk of the product being banned in one's own home.

DWI enforcement is another example. Decades ago, the idea of random checkpoints to check for DWI were unthinkable violations of people's rights. Nowdays, such checkpoints are common. I'm sure you can think of examples as well. I'm not defending smoking, nor am I defending driving while intoxicated.

I'm attacking the slow erosion of rights over a long time scale. You can't cook a frog by throwing him into a boiling pot, he'll jump out. But you can do it putting him ambient temperature water and then slowly raising the temperature of the water.

[Ian-S]

You are ignoring a very good reason to oppose any restrictions on guns.
Incrementalism.

This has played out on several issues just within the past 60 years or so. In the 1960's, the banning of a legal product's use (tobacco) would have been unthinkable. At the time, the dangers were known, too.
Then people got the idea that maybe they should be banned from schools. As time went on, the bans spread and were accepted in more and more places. Today, smoking is banned everywhere, even outdoor facilities such as stadiums and such. There has been talk of banning it from private residences as well. In 60 years, we've gone from the unthinkable to talk of the product being banned in one's own home.

DWI enforcement is another example. Decades ago, the idea of random checkpoints to check for DWI were unthinkable violations of people's rights. Nowdays, such checkpoints are common. I'm sure you can think of examples as well. I'm not defending smoking, nor am I defending driving while intoxicated.

I'm attacking the slow erosion of rights over a long time scale. You can't cook a frog by throwing him into a boiling pot, he'll jump out. But you can do it putting him ambient temperature water and then slowly raising the temperature of the water.

Given the fine examples shown in those examples, hasn't humanity proven they cannot be trusted to do the right thing? Sometime you have to stop people from doing things, especially those too stupid to see it for themselves.

You could start with the Florida House, who today first declared that there wasn't enough of a problem with guns to ban assault riffles, whilst an hour later declaring pornography a major mental and physical health hazard.

Nucking Futs.

[thekillman]

so you think that the right to defend oneself both from criminals and and an authoritarian police state is outdated...

to be perfectly clear, the 2nd amendment was written in a time of muskets and cannons. Not highly accurate automatic weapons.

[SoulReaver]

You've got that ass-backwards. They wouldn't have carried out the mass shootings if they weren't nut jobs to begin with, but they weren't criminals until they carried out their shootings.

you toogot that ass backward : if your (jack)ass president hadn't made it possible for nutjobs to carry out shootings...they wouldn't have carried out shootings
simple isn't it

Keep your guns -- but assault rifles have no place in a civilized society.

not even in the hands of those who shot Daniel Shaver?

And remember, when the 2nd amendment was written, this is was the assault weapon of choice...



...and not this...

dangerous logic

remember, when the 1st amendment was written, this was the means of expression of choice:



...and not this...

[Annoyed]

you toogot that ass backward : if your (jack)ass president hadn't made it possible for nutjobs to carry out shootings...they wouldn't have carried out shootings
simple isn't it

Nut jobs have been killing people for a lot longer than Trump has been in office. Don't even try to sell that one. Hell, one of my all time favorite SyFy shows, "Haven" had its 3rd? season disrupted by the Connecticut shooting; the episode involved school violence. So it's been going on since long before Trump.

And as to the rest of your post, do you mean to imply that since the weapons of today are far more powerful than primitive firearms and should therefore be banned, and that by the same logic, speech on the internet ought to be stifled as well, for the same reason?

That's scary, dude.

[SoulReaver]

Nut jobs have been killing people for a lot longer than Trump has been in office. Don't even try to sell that one. Hell, one of my all time favorite SyFy shows, "Haven" had its 3rd? season disrupted by the Connecticut shooting; the episode involved school violence. So it's been going on since long before Trump.

And as to the rest of your post, do you mean to imply that since the weapons of today are far more powerful than primitive firearms and should therefore be banned, and that by the same logic, speech on the internet ought to be stifled as well, for the same reason?

That's scary, dude.

if it's broken break it some more: excellent logic
you seriously see nothing wrong with making it easier for wackos to have firearms? (any weapons as a matter of fact (or even a car etc.))
or do you think nutjobs are just like any citizen*?


*though a case can be made that the US itself is a giant asylum :/

[Gatefan1976]

Nut jobs have been killing people for a lot longer than Trump has been in office. Don't even try to sell that one. Hell, one of my all time favorite SyFy shows, "Haven" had its 3rd? season disrupted by the Connecticut shooting; the episode involved school violence. So it's been going on since long before Trump.

Dude.
The law SR is talking about by Obama was created as a direct result of the sandy hook shooting.

[Coco Pops]

Hey........... Hey.........

This apparently is more important then shootings.

https://us.cnn.com/2018/02/23/us/flo...rnd/index.html

Seriously this is that important.... What happened to separation of church and state?

[Annoyed]

if it's broken break it some more: excellent logic
you seriously see nothing wrong with making it easier for wackos to have firearms? (any weapons as a matter of fact (or even a car etc.))
or do you think nutjobs are just like any citizen*?


*though a case can be made that the US itself is a giant asylum :/

No. But the problem is identifying them before they go postal without violating their legitimate rights.
Do you mandate extended psychological testing for every person? How about 24.7 monitoring?

How about me? FH apparently considers me a nut job because I'm too far to the right for her taste. Am I gonna blow? (hint: answer no, if I was, I would have done so a long time ago, possibly before you were born.)

How do you tell in advance who's going to blow?