|
gobbagool posted:scary black rifle with shoulder thing that goes up is way more powerful than grandpa's .308 hunting rifle, right? don't answer, I'm just going to assume, and base my entire gun control platform around that fact which I'm quite sure is true Oh yeah, this too, everything that looks tacticlol and appears in action movies is obviously super dangerous. Now watch me jump on a jet and take it out with my bare hands in a Bruce Willis style act of terrorism.
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 22:43
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 21:55 |
|
|
gobbagool posted:scary black rifle with shoulder thing that goes up is way more powerful than grandpa's .308 hunting rifle, right? don't answer, I'm just going to assume, and base my entire gun control platform around that fact which I'm quite sure is true Just remember, if it's wood, then it's good, if it's black, take it back. Brown = Hunting Rifle Black = Powerful Assault Weapon Hope this helps brother.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
Don't forget bullpups (which are un-American  ) and guns with curved scifi shapes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Lots of spineless coward "Democrats" ITT Recognizing constitutionally protected rights is now being spineless? You're an odd guy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:34-66 seems comparable to 3 to 8. Yeah, that was my point. If gerrymandering could be solved by reducing district size, then we'd expect our state legislature to be split 47-53 or something. Instead, it's 34-66, only marginally better than the Congressional representation[1]. And they're a ninth the size of Congressional districts, so it's not like we can suggest making them smaller as a policy solution - selling the idea of a 1000 seat House of Representatives is pretty tough, there's no way in hell we're going bigger than 4000 or something. [1] - now to be fair, House of Delegates elections fall in odd years, and that does hurt us. But I don't think it hurts us to the tune of 15-20 seats.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Wait, how do curbs make things better for the cars? ...Pushing the corners of the road farther away from the wheel paths, maybe? But the curbs are probably going to be jointed separately and Same argument made for all infrastructure projects really. An uncurbed/half assed city street will deteriorate at a significantly higher rate than a curbed street. Spend the little extra to keep the roads from deteriorating so you aren't patching streets at a higher rate later. Load doesn't always take into account other environmental factors. God wants to wipe us off the face of the earth he just does it on a longer time scale than quarterly returns. An ounce of prevention argument.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Oh look, Boosted_C5 thinks getting elected is more important than saving lives. We save more lives by getting people who aren't in the defense industry's pocket and whose attitude toward everything from crime to immigration to foreign relations isn't "shoot first and let God sort 'em out" in office at every level of government than we do by banning civilian weapons. Leftists are sick of Democrats making ideological compromises for the sake of winning elections, and while I understand that frustration, the reality is that sometimes it's worth it. Especially when the alternative is repeatedly losing elections to people who've successfully painted you as an elitist authoritarian among the very demographic the party wants to and should be able to win (the poor). Xand_Man posted:While I am not thrilled by the idea, some gains might be made by using the Right's rhetoric against them. "The real problem is poor mental healthcare in this country!" "Yeah, you know what, you are right. Let's pass comprehensive mental healthcare reform. " Why aren't you thrilled by this idea? It's a good one. We desperately need comprehensive mental healthcare reform (along with every other kind of healthcare reform) in the US, and I think it would be rhetorically effective and force the right to either admit there's more to our mass shootings than that or come off as insensitive hypocrites. Maybe stress veterans in there somewhere. Is combating a nebulous and questionable form of ableism really more important than that?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
KING BONG posted:Good point, but there is a strong force within the democratic party that has a "capacity for imagination" and wants to pull the party back to the left and away from the neoliberals. I can guarantee you that even if Sanders wins, you are going to start seeing his political arguments begin to lean more towards the center. Also, I love that one lady in those profiles who is pretty much telling her daughter that she doesn't know crap about how race works in this country. I mean telling your half-black daughter that "all lives matter" is pretty hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
Jackson Taus posted:
Maybe the dems could put together a plank that gets people out to vote more than once every 4 years? I mean the DNC sure has figured out how to get Republicans to turn out in off years.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
Jackson Taus posted:Yeah, that was my point. If gerrymandering could be solved by reducing district size, then we'd expect our state legislature to be split 47-53 or something. Instead, it's 34-66, only marginally better than the Congressional representation[1]. And they're a ninth the size of Congressional districts, so it's not like we can suggest making them smaller as a policy solution - selling the idea of a 1000 seat House of Representatives is pretty tough, there's no way in hell we're going bigger than 4000 or something. But according to the numbers it sounds like people didn't vote half for Democrats and half for Republicans? Or they did and despite that Republicans still swept?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
It's a pipe dream to expect Progressives to fully abandon the gun control fight in exchange for public firearm safety training and comprehensive mental healthcare funded by a firearms industry tax increase. What left leaning person would ever get behind something like that? Yuck
gohmak fucked around with this message at 00:59 on Feb 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
tsa posted:Recognizing constitutionally protected rights is now being spineless? You're an odd guy. This is about controlling guns, not banning guns. Wow, I feel like I've accidentally stepped into an elevator with a bunch of Freepers.....
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 01:14
|
|
|
im gonna assume the middle pages of this thread are about gun control and give this as exhibit A why the democratic party is going to continue to get slaughtered in the House
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:This is about controlling guns, not banning guns. In reality, virtually every piece of gun control legislation proposed or implemented has explicitly been more about culture war and sticking it in the eye of gun owners while doing absolutely nothing about gun crimes. Look no further than the NYS SAFE act for a perfect example. It's bad enough that you want to ban guns, but to continue to lie about it is just salt in the wound.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
spoon0042 posted:Well yeah, I meant drawing US style single member districts. There are a bunch of algorithms that can be used to create districts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering#Objective_rules_to_create_districts
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
go3 posted:im gonna assume the middle pages of this thread are about gun control and give this as exhibit A why the democratic party is going to continue to get slaughtered in the House Yes, lots more talking down to the unwashed masses about how we really want to gun control, all evidence to the contrary be damned. Who are you stupid gunhavers going to believe, me or your lying eyes?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
Boosted_C5 posted:Just remember, if it's wood, then it's good, if it's black, take it back. People without bizarre psychological fixations on guns are pretty down on the idea of a Second Amendment loving patriot blowing away a bunch of first graders with an AR15 that had a wood stock. It's just that the gun nuts fixate so powerfully on those big, black guns for some reason. You realize this, I'm sure. Take a look around the next gun show/survivalist convention/militia meeting you go to, lots of white guys who just love to wrap both their hands around some huge black weapon. go3 posted:im gonna assume the middle pages of this thread are about gun control and give this as exhibit A why the democratic party is going to continue to get slaughtered in the House We don't have ADTRW posters flooding into these sort of threads and confidently declaring the key to the Democratic Party's future is lowering the age of consent, why do gun nuts feel the need to project their obsessions onto an American electorate which in every poll display strong support for the sort of commonsense gun safety measures the mere mention of which is enough to cause an ammosexuals' balls to un-descend.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
The way gun chat took over this thread is really indicative of why the Democrats are in trouble, but not for the reason most people think. Contrary to what some would have you believe gun control isn't an overwhelmingly unpopular stance:  The real problem is guns are very divisive. When guns come up it tends to suck up al the oxygen in the room. Any other kind of discussion gets sidelined. People bicker back and forth and nobody ends up looking particularly good. A lot of people get turned off by politics like that and the people who stick around join up along tribal lines and don't really entertain much rational debate. Republicans tend to do better in that kind of environment than Democrats. But you know that's all hypothetical anyway because even if the Democrats could focus squarely on economic issues they'd still be stuck with the fact that their record is mediocre at best and the party is internally divided.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 01:58
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:People without bizarre psychological fixations on guns are pretty down on the idea of a Second Amendment loving patriot blowing away a bunch of first graders with an AR15 that had a wood stock. It's just that the gun nuts fixate so powerfully on those big, black guns for some reason. You realize this, I'm sure. Take a look around the next gun show/survivalist convention/militia meeting you go to, lots of white guys who just love to wrap both their hands around some huge black weapon. Every poll except, you know, when people go to actually vote. Edit: I love the use of the term "common sense" to describe things like outlawing pistol grips and barrel shrouds, like either of those things contribute AT ALL to gun violence. So either you don't understand what the term "common sense" means, or you and your ilk are willfully distorting terminology to suit your ideological agenda. I think most voters intuitively understand which it is. gobbagool fucked around with this message at 02:17 on Feb 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 02:00
|
|
|
Helsing posted:The way gun chat took over this thread is really indicative of why the Democrats are in trouble, but not for the reason most people think. Guns really aren't the issue. There is no 'issue' Democrats can drop that would be a political gain. It would simply move people to vote the other side or not vote at all. Gun control is a policy tent that naturally aligns with Democrats because they have compassion. Democrats receive more money and support for supporting the issue than if they were to abandon it. I think there is a much larger portion of potential voters who are turned off at a youngish age by how corporate both parties are. Democrats are seen as weak - because they capitulate on their values to 'win' elections - most recently on people running away from Obamacare. The Democratic party is extremely elitist when it needs to be grass rooted funded and ran - particularly at the local level. Many small time mayors, city people, etc. think way too much of themselves. Worse, they seek funds from people (the wealthy) who by in large don't agree with their base. Focusing back on the base is definitely the path of least resistance, but it will have to come from top down because people don't trust the Democratic party.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 02:12
|
|
|
The way the democrat party has so many explicit measures to prevent grassroot engagement is astonishing. The whole 'super-delegates' things is so hosed up, that honestly I feel that if they use it to get rid of people like Sanders, you'll get something close to a riot. What the democrats really seem to lack, more than anything else, is an ideology. It's just a kind of loose collection of special interests. Things is, the GOP is kind of the same thing too, so it's not just them?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
Difference being that it's a lot easier for the GOP to turn out the vote when the opposing platform can honestly be portrayed as an attempt to curtail constitutional rights. I've never understood why the Democrats haven't pushed that angle on things like the Patriot Act... oh, wait, it's because they voted for it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:People without bizarre psychological fixations on guns are pretty down on the idea of a Second Amendment loving patriot blowing away a bunch of first graders with an AR15 that had a wood stock. It's just that the gun nuts fixate so powerfully on those big, black guns for some reason. You realize this, I'm sure. Take a look around the next gun show/survivalist convention/militia meeting you go to, lots of white guys who just love to wrap both their hands around some huge black weapon. you have bizarre sexual issues that you should probably figure out before handing out any sort of advice
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
go3 posted:you have bizarre sexual issues that you should probably figure out before handing out any sort of advice Speaking of bizarre sexual issues, the Democratic party should probably keep Bill Clinton at least 500 yards distant from any mention of the word "feminism" because I honestly feel like he might get struck by lightning every time he starts talking about women.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 02:57
|
|
|
Define common sense
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 02:59
|
|
|
It doesn't matter if 50-60% of the country are in favor of something as vague as "stricter gun laws" without accounting for all the people who drop out when you propose a stricter law that isn't what they might specifically have in mind or do it in a way they see as inefficient and counterproductive. The percentage split has pretty much always been that way going back decades and even if 50-60% could be counted on being OK with any gun control increase, it doesn't matter because they're waaaaay less motivated that pro-gunners.Pope Guilty posted:It doesn't matter what the democrats actually do about guns. They could renounce gun control and the NRA would just start telling people that it was a trick so you better buy more guns. If Republican congress critters suddenly said, "Hey guys you know what we're cool about abortion. Let's move on," would you immediately take them at their word tomorrow or would you look at their home states over a few years to see if they're leaving their restrictive laws as-is, increasing restrictions, or reducing restrictions in deep red areas they have supermajorities in and in no way have to compromise with the other side? The NRA absolutely will change their mind about Dems waging a culture war when the day comes that NY, NJ, and CA pass bills to reinstate private ownership of larger magazines and machine guns which are all statistical background noise in terms of crime.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 03:19
|
|
|
gohmak posted:Define common sense Ban all the guns obviously.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 04:02
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:It doesn't matter if 50-60% of the country are in favor of something as vague as "stricter gun laws" without accounting for all the people who drop out when you propose a stricter law that isn't what they might specifically have in mind or do it in a way they see as inefficient and counterproductive. The percentage split has pretty much always been that way going back decades and even if 50-60% could be counted on being OK with any gun control increase, it doesn't matter because they're waaaaay less motivated that pro-gunners. Yeah most gun owners arn't libertarians poo poo stains though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 04:29
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:But according to the numbers it sounds like people didn't vote half for Democrats and half for Republicans? Or they did and despite that Republicans still swept? Well it's tough to measure because it's self-reinforcing. Gerrymandered districts are uncompetitive - there's either no challenger, or there's a Some Dude challenger who gets minimal support because it's a district no Dem has come within 20 points of winning. But in 2013 we elected Dems to all 3 statewide offices and only won 32 House of Delegates seats. So I'd say that it's closer to the latter than the former.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 04:32
|
|
|
rudatron posted:What the democrats really seem to lack, more than anything else, is an ideology. It's just a kind of loose collection of special interests. Things is, the GOP is kind of the same thing too, so it's not just them? It isn't that they lack an ideology. It is that they both represent the same ideology. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk8ibrfXvpQ
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 04:42
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Yeah most gun owners arn't libertarians poo poo stains though. I can't tell who you're agreeing with or not. NNick posted:It isn't that they lack an ideology. It is that they both represent the same ideology. Ok but you posted the wrong video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsOMEUamYkc
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 04:45
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:TBH you're much more likely to be shot by the cops rather than a gun owner in the US anyways, especially if you're black. Why would you make a claim that's so easy to falsify? There were 53,023 total incidents of gun violence in the USA in 2015. 4,372 of those incidents involved cops in some way (shooting or getting shot at). Of those incidents that involved cops, 1140 ended in a cop killing someone (actually not all of these are gun deaths, but the vast majority are). Of those 1140 killed by cops, 303 were black. This would indicate that about 1,162 of the 4,372 incidents of gun violence with cops involved also involved at least one black person who wasn't a cop. In 2013, there were 5,723 murder victims in the United States, 2,491 of them black. You are massively more likely as an American of any race to be shot by a fellow citizen than by a cop. Smudgie Buggler fucked around with this message at 04:55 on Feb 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 04:53
|
|
|
Xae posted:There are a bunch of algorithms that can be used to create districts Oh, I know people have tried, but do any of them make sense in practice? I seem to remember one method that looked reasonable in some cases but sliced up Colorado like a pizza centered on Denver. Pretty sure that's exactly the case that's mentioned.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 06:55
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:You are massively more likely as an American of any race to be shot by a fellow citizen than by a cop. This whole thing is very dumb but I know his "point" is going to be that there's X thousand cops and 300 million Americans and however many million LAWFUL GUN OWNERS therefore
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 06:57
|
|
|
Zombies' Downfall posted:Why aren't you thrilled by this idea? It's a good one. We desperately need comprehensive mental healthcare reform (along with every other kind of healthcare reform) in the US, and I think it would be rhetorically effective and force the right to either admit there's more to our mass shootings than that or come off as insensitive hypocrites. Maybe stress veterans in there somewhere. Nah I'm fine with increased funding for health care. Ceding ground on guns doesn't thrill me. Both because ease of access to guns is absolutely a factor in our mass shooter problem and honestly it feels like throwing up our hands and saying "You know what, you won. AK47s for everybody!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 07:11
|
|
|
Harry posted:Ban all the guns obviously. Obviously
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 07:16
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Speaking of bizarre sexual issues, the Democratic party should probably keep Bill Clinton at least 500 yards distant from any mention of the word "feminism" because I honestly feel like he might get struck by lightning every time he starts talking about women. why what is the problem with having lots of casual sex, unless you think feminism is a synonym for ban sex
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 10:58
|
|
|
blowfish posted:why Maybe because he violated pretty much every HR rule in the book while porking his intern on his desk? Young women are a lot less keen to accept the trade off with the big dog that the olds were. My mother loves Bill Clinton, my wife and teenage daughter either feel bad for her or actively dislike her for not leaving Bill.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 12:14
|
|
|
blowfish posted:why There is a reason every employee handbook for every organization on Earth has "DON'T gently caress YOUR SUBORDINATES" on page #1 and it isn't because of puritanism run amok. I know Mad Men is cool and all but it's the fashion we need to bring back, not the loving your way through the steno pool. Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 12:58 on Feb 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 12:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 21:55 |
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:Why would you make a claim that's so easy to falsify? Pretty sure he meant a cop is more likely to kill someone then a gun owner. But that's just me thinking when someone says something obviously wrong that would make complete sense with a minor alteration it was probably a misstatement instead of writing a treatise in order to slam dunk on it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 14:08
|
|
