|
I just had a crazy thought, what if the Democrats ran candidates that people wanted to vote for in local and state elections? Part of that might include reducing the sort of chicanery that shows Hillary being ahead of Bernie in total committed delegates. It's disingenuous to fuss about democracy being subverted when you cant even run a strait nomination process.
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 10:31 |
|
|
Helsing posted:The Democratic party cannot be realistically expected to lead the charge on this. Political parties, even powerful ones like the Democrats, don't have the capacity to engineer widespread social change. I would say the problem here is that these popular movements no longer trust the Democrats. Really, they don't trust any aspect of the national-level political establishment, which is why they seem so aimless - they want to act out to express their anger, raise their issues, and influence the political dialogue, but they are intensely paranoid of being exploited and then thrown away by any political figure of real importance, so they refuse to work within the political system. And the Dems have earned that paranoia - in recent years, the Dems have given giant honking middle fingers to traditionally loyal political supporters like teachers, labor unions, civil liberties supporters, and anti-war protesters. Hell, many of the big recent popular movements - like Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter - are basically uprisings by long-time Dem demographics feeling that the entire political establishment as a whole (particularly the Dems, who they actually expect to support them) is failing to adequately respond to or even really acknowledge their issues. Liquid Communism posted:discussing guns...is like a bat signal for shitposters. Shut up about guns. The Dems got into this situation by neglecting basically every major demographic of their base and rebelling against most of their traditional supporters, while pushing policies and platforms that are mostly virtually indistinguishable from those of Republicans, and completely abandoning the Democratic movements in many states to wither and die so they could focus more money on the presidential races - not by talking about maybe possibly putting common sense restrictions on your dumb single-issue that's already entirely dominated by a massive Republican lobbying agency anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:
There's that common sense thing again. Sure, what are your common sense gun restrictions that would win the hearts and minds of any voter not already in the bag for whatever corpse the Dems run? Maybe this time it'll really be common sense based. I'm thinking restrictions on bandoleer size and fabric type, requirements for a certain type of footwear to be worn when purchasing firearms, some sort of signed statement promising not to murder anyone, just spitballing here, what do you have?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
gobbagool posted:There's that common sense thing again. Sure, what are your common sense gun restrictions that would win the hearts and minds of any voter not already in the bag for whatever corpse the Dems run? Maybe this time it'll really be common sense based. I'm thinking restrictions on bandoleer size and fabric type, requirements for a certain type of footwear to be worn when purchasing firearms, some sort of signed statement promising not to murder anyone, just spitballing here, what do you have? Any voter whose "hearts and minds" are more concerned with gun laws (which they claim won't affect them anyway) than they are about civil rights, the economy, corruption and exploitation, or any of the other actual issues affecting America today probably weren't going to vote Democrat anyway, since the NRA is so far in bed with the Republicans it might as well be a pillow. I'm having trouble buying the fundamental assertion here - that there are a large number of people who are seriously in favor of minority rights, combating inequality, and so on, but voted against those things because they thought the right of rich white people to buy some particular flavor of firearms without background checks was more important than protecting the equality of black people, Muslims, and women.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Any voter whose "hearts and minds" are more concerned with gun laws (which they claim won't affect them anyway) than they are about civil rights, the economy, corruption and exploitation, or any of the other actual issues affecting America today probably weren't going to vote Democrat anyway, since the NRA is so far in bed with the Republicans it might as well be a pillow. I'm having trouble buying the fundamental assertion here - that there are a large number of people who are seriously in favor of minority rights, combating inequality, and so on, but voted against those things because they thought the right of rich white people to buy some particular flavor of firearms without background checks was more important than protecting the equality of black people, Muslims, and women. The average voter will vote against being inconvenienced, no matter how many people other he'd otherwise be in favour of supporting end up being oppressed. Why is "people care about themselves more than about others" such a surprising concept 
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 22:11
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
blowfish posted:The average voter will vote against being inconvenienced, no matter how many people other he'd otherwise be in favour of supporting end up being oppressed. Because this is D&D, where what should be trumps what is. If you don't consider absolutely everybody except yourself in your decisionmaking, you're obviously a bigot racist xenophobe wrongthinker
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
NNick posted:Abandoning gun control will not help the democratic party. It will alienate a huge and growing part of the base. Do you honestly believe that Democratic voters go to the polls primarily on the issue of gun control? If you are correct, that might well explain every lost election in the last two decades. Seriously, the actual progressive folks I know and speak with that vote might care a bit about gun control. Most don't. Most are more concerned with economic issues, health care, education, and immigration--so it would seem wise to focus on the latter, rather than the former. Focus on gun control, lose elections. Focus on student loan forgiveness, win elections. Love, Vitalis
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
If I were thinking of reasons the Democrats should be worried about next year then I'd suggest that another recession hitting and pushing unemployment up again or all those stories about people forced to buy insurance with deductibles so high they can't afford to see the doctor ought to be larger concerns. That and the fact that the primary front runner is currently flailing around and potentially burning important bridges in her increasingly desperate attempts to secure the nomination. I certainly wouldn't put support or opposition to gun control very high on a list of key election issues in 2016.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
Helsing posted:If I were thinking of reasons the Democrats should be worried about next year then I'd suggest that another recession hitting and pushing unemployment up again or all those stories about people forced to buy insurance with deductibles so high they can't afford to see the doctor ought to be larger concerns. That and the fact that the primary front runner is currently flailing around and potentially burning important bridges in her increasingly desperate attempts to secure the nomination. I certainly wouldn't put support or opposition to gun control very high on a list of key election issues in 2016. Also, why is Hillary Clinton referred to as the "front runner?" Voting results don't support that at all. Love, Vitalis
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
Vitalis Jackson posted:Also, why is Hillary Clinton referred to as the "front runner?" Voting results don't support that at all. Because most states in the union aren't 90% white and don't share a border with Vermont.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Any voter whose "hearts and minds" are more concerned with gun laws (which they claim won't affect them anyway) than they are about civil rights, the economy, corruption and exploitation, or any of the other actual issues affecting America today probably weren't going to vote Democrat anyway, since the NRA is so far in bed with the Republicans it might as well be a pillow. I'm having trouble buying the fundamental assertion here - that there are a large number of people who are seriously in favor of minority rights, combating inequality, and so on, but voted against those things because they thought the right of rich white people to buy some particular flavor of firearms without background checks was more important than protecting the equality of black people, Muslims, and women. Wait when did gun owners become not only solely white people but solely rich white people?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Wait when did gun owners become not only solely white people but solely rich white people? Common Sense. Seriously, this condescending 'if only you were sensible ' crap is why I am positive the party will never stop sticking their collective genitals in a mouse trap on this issue. Liquid Communism fucked around with this message at 00:28 on Feb 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
blowfish posted:The average voter will vote against being inconvenienced, no matter how many people other he'd otherwise be in favour of supporting end up being oppressed. Sure. The problem is that the "gun control is killing the Dems" people expect me to believe that these people would vote for higher taxes on themselves to support poor people, affirmative action that helps minorities but not themselves, and other assorted progressive measures that involve sacrificing their white privilege and economic prosperity and even safety in order to help the less fortunate, but the possibility of experiencing mild inconveniences in the course of their gun hobby is the one thing they absolutely have to vote selfishly on? Bullshit. They'd still be voting Republican even if the Dems left the status quo as otbis and didn't push further gun control. Jarmak posted:Wait when did gun owners become not only solely white people but solely rich white people? Well, gun hobbyists sure as heck ain't poor
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Sure. The problem is that the "gun control is killing the Dems" people expect me to believe that these people would vote for higher taxes on themselves to support poor people, affirmative action that helps minorities but not themselves, and other assorted progressive measures that involve sacrificing their white privilege and economic prosperity and even safety in order to help the less fortunate, but the possibility of experiencing mild inconveniences in the course of their gun hobby is the one thing they absolutely have to vote selfishly on? Bullshit. They'd still be voting Republican even if the Dems left the status quo as otbis and didn't push further gun control. You've got this weird thing about judging people voting for their own self interest. Maybe that's something democrats should change. Recognize that human beings are, at the core, interested in their own well being, and shaming people because they don't score well in your tmblr classification/purity test isn't a great strategy for overall success.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Sure. The problem is that the "gun control is killing the Dems" people expect me to believe that these people would vote for higher taxes on themselves to support poor people, affirmative action that helps minorities but not themselves, and other assorted progressive measures that involve sacrificing their white privilege and economic prosperity and even safety in order to help the less fortunate, but the possibility of experiencing mild inconveniences in the course of their gun hobby is the one thing they absolutely have to vote selfishly on? Bullshit. They'd still be voting Republican even if the Dems left the status quo as otbis and didn't push further gun control. Actually a large number if not the majority of gun hobbyists are poor, it's like you've never been to a rural area in your life. I'm not sure how many people would switch sides if the dems stopped pushing gun control, but I sure as hell know there's a lot of rural people who don't really care for the republicans but they vote for them because they're scared the democrats are going to take their guns away. Maybe they won't come pull a D lever but I bet a whole lot of them would stay home instead of pulling R. Also it's creepy as gently caress that you're so lacking in empathy that you think these people view these laws as "a minor inconvenience to their hobby".
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 02:08
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Wait when did gun owners become not only solely white people but solely rich white people? There is this mental image in the heads of a lot of Democrats where all gun owners are either the rich snooty white guys who live in penthouses, or dirt poor farmers in Alabama with Klan hoods under their bed and way too many cousins.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 02:41
|
|
|
If dems actually want to do something about guns they should nut up and loving pass an amendment about it. At this point gun control is for the left what gay marriage is for the right, just some red meat to throw out to your dumb low info base voters. And it's always over some mass shooting, which is the dumbest thing to worry about when it comes to guns- it's like worrying about being the victim of a terrorist attack. It really shows how the people who pursue it the most aren't really interested in limited gun crime but instead thirsty to score cheap political points while accomplishing nothing. It's an issue that has hurt democrats country-wide in off term elections for literally 0 gain. Gun control nuts are never going to vote R anyway. Main Paineframe posted:
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 02:45
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Actually a large number if not the majority of gun hobbyists are poor, it's like you've never been to a rural area in your life. The whole point is the difference is negligible. Yes - many people vote for for the Dems to expand gun regulations. Yes - many people vote for Republicans to decrease gun regulations. The mere fact people buy guns to 'defend against ISIS' shows how loving crazy their beliefs are. How many car analogies does it take to realize the delusion? They are not going to switch to Dems when Dems (magically) stop talking about gun regulations, and they really don't deserve empathy for clinging to their guns in the face of overwhelming evidence of the risk to their family and community. The gun issue will continue to be a issue in this country until gun deaths are down to levels similar to Western Europe. I hold the same stance on people with lovely views on climate change, abortion, etc. Why should guns be the issue Democrats disavow? Why not abortion or climate change? At least with climate change they can get that sweet, sweet oil money and abortion is way more political divisive than gun regulations.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 03:15
|
|
|
I think a lot of gun owning Democrats would simply prefer not to have their intelligence insulted by their elected representatives. Anyone who pays attention and reads the bills know that they are useless garbage. Democrats cannot seem to keep themselves from tacking on idiotic stuff to what people already broadly agree on--expanded background checks. Sure they should vote tactically and support Democrats who waste time on moronic legislation about cosmetic features. But that's the sort of thing that makes voters think that politicians don't know how to write laws about anything--and I don't think those voters have been proven wrong.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 04:11
|
|
|
Guns are one of those issues where anyone with a knowledge base beyond 'watched Rambo a bunch' picks up pretty quickly on legislators who apparently have never even seen a gun trying to write laws about one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 04:25
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Any voter whose "hearts and minds" are more concerned with gun laws (which they claim won't affect them anyway) than they are about civil rights, the economy, corruption and exploitation, or any of the other actual issues affecting America today probably weren't going to vote Democrat anyway, since the NRA is so far in bed with the Republicans it might as well be a pillow. I'm having trouble buying the fundamental assertion here - that there are a large number of people who are seriously in favor of minority rights, combating inequality, and so on, but voted against those things because they thought the right of rich white people to buy some particular flavor of firearms without background checks was more important than protecting the equality of black people, Muslims, and women. That's not really true (see: the existence of Sanders-type democrats, Vermont, etc). Beyond that, there's a bunch of people who really don't give a poo poo either way, or realize that it's a losing issue. Like literally guys - the most progressive person in the Presidential race is totally OK with gun rights. Stop pretending that it's a litmus test. In the end it doesn't really matter. Out of the democratic candidates Sanders is the better of the two on all the issues (including gun control), but I will probably vote for Clinton in the primary. But again, that doesn't make the mainstream Democratic party position on this any less toxic. Democrats literally cannot stop reaching for the third rail on this issue. Clinton in particular doesn't have anything to lose since she's Literally Democratic Satan anyway. But it'll turn out and motivate the base for any other Republican competitor. And it'll blow all kinds of downstream races. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 04:39 on Feb 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 04:31
|
|
|
gobbagool posted:You've got this weird thing about judging people voting for their own self interest. Maybe that's something democrats should change. Recognize that human beings are, at the core, interested in their own well being, and shaming people because they don't score well in your tmblr classification/purity test isn't a great strategy for overall success. Hey, I'm not judging. You've got the right to be as selfish as you like. I'm just pointing out the logical flaws in "well there are a ton of people who vote selfishly on this one particular issue but I'm sure they'll heroically sacrifice themselves for the sake of others on all other issues". Jarmak posted:Actually a large number if not the majority of gun hobbyists are poor, it's like you've never been to a rural area in your life. Yeah, I'm sure there are a ton of people who come home from their second minimum-wage part-time job to agonize over whether to spend their food money for the month on yet another fancy rifle with all the accessories. Paul MaudDib posted:Like literally guys - the most progressive person in the Presidential race is totally OK with gun rights. Stop pretending that it's a litmus test. Look, I don't really give a poo poo either way about gun control itself. It's entirely inconsequential. Gun rights are one of the least important political issues I can think of in modern America...which is why I think people who think gun control is literally deciding the fate of elections are either dumb or full of poo poo. Claiming that gun control is hurting Dems because people run to the polls scared that the government is gonna take away all their guns makes about as much sense as claiming that Obamacare hurt Dems because death panels...except that, unlike the AMA, the NRA directly profits from convincing Americans that the evil government will ban gun purchases any day now (so buy buy buy while you still can!). Incidentally, I haven't heard of any serious proposal by a real politician to outright ban guns, ever. Liquid Communism posted:Guns are one of those issues where anyone with a knowledge base beyond 'watched Rambo a bunch' picks up pretty quickly on legislators who apparently have never even seen a gun trying to write laws about one. So what? Most legislators have never seen a joint either and anti-drug laws are often lovely, doesn't mean drug laws are inherently illegitimate and we should start selling cocaine over the counter. And drug laws actually affect a lot more people a lot more negatively than gun control laws - as gun control opponents often point out, most gun owners wouldn't be affected by the various gun type restrictions that get proposed anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 05:29
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:So what? Most legislators have never seen a joint either and anti-drug laws are often lovely, doesn't mean drug laws are inherently illegitimate and we should start selling cocaine over the counter. And drug laws actually affect a lot more people a lot more negatively than gun control laws - as gun control opponents often point out, most gun owners wouldn't be affected by the various gun type restrictions that get proposed anyway. Holding up drug laws a a shining example of how other goods should be handled is pretty reprehensible for a progressive.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 11:50
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Yeah, I'm sure there are a ton of people who come home from their second minimum-wage part-time job to agonize over whether to spend their food money for the month on yet another fancy rifle with all the accessories.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 12:48
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Sure. The problem is that the "gun control is killing the Dems" people expect me to believe that these people would vote for higher taxes on themselves to support poor people, affirmative action that helps minorities but not themselves, and other assorted progressive measures that involve sacrificing their white privilege and economic prosperity and even safety in order to help the less fortunate, but the possibility of experiencing mild inconveniences in the course of their gun hobby is the one thing they absolutely have to vote selfishly on? Bullshit. They'd still be voting Republican even if the Dems left the status quo as otbis and didn't push further gun control. It's not so much that dropping the issue would get more people to vote Democratic, it's that it would motivate fewer people to vote Republican. Attempts to pass gun control fire up the Republican base and result in greater votes on that side while they don't do much to rally Democrats.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 13:16
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:If dems actually want to do something about guns they should nut up and loving pass an amendment about it. At this point gun control is for the left what gay marriage is for the right, just some red meat to throw out to your dumb low info base voters. And it's always over some mass shooting, which is the dumbest thing to worry about when it comes to guns- it's like worrying about being the victim of a terrorist attack. It really shows how the people who pursue it the most aren't really interested in limited gun crime but instead thirsty to score cheap political points while accomplishing nothing. Gun violence actual affects important Democratic blocs, whereas nobody is terroristing Alabama.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 14:13
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Gun violence actual affects important Democratic blocs, whereas nobody is terroristing Alabama. Good point, no blacks whatsoever in Alabama edit: since I know D&D goons are only vaguely familiar with demographics in red states, I'll help you. Alabama is about 25% black, a higher percentage than any blue state except MD gobbagool fucked around with this message at 14:34 on Feb 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 14:15
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Gun violence actual affects important Democratic blocs, whereas nobody is terroristing Alabama. Yeah, nobody does crazy gun poo poo in Ala-loving-bama. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Alabama_bunker_hostage_crisis
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 14:37
|
|
|
Right, which is why Alabamians should be in favor of gun control and not worried about Muslims
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 15:54
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Holding up drug laws a a shining example of how other goods should be handled is pretty reprehensible for a progressive.  Just because many of our current drug laws are flawed doesn't mean that the concept of laws regulating and restricting drugs is inherently illegitimate and that all drug laws should be repealed forever.Rent-A-Cop posted:I've had no fewer than three conversations in the last two weeks with friends and coworkers about eating ramen, taking out loans, or bouncing rent checks in order to buy guns. In one instance it wasn't even a new gun, just a slightly different version of a gun he already owned. I don't know where the idea that the rural working class are a bunch of frugal farmer types with lots of homespun wisdom comes from, but they are in fact just as dumb as everyone else and will gladly blow all of their money on shiny toys. I dunno why you people keep putting words in my mouth about people in rural areas being hicks or idiots or otherwise somehow different than anyone else. My point was that guns are a fairly expensive hobby, and I assumed minimum wage workers wouldn't be dedicating their lives to buying blinged-out guns with all the bells and whistles that cost more than they make in a month. All the gun owners I've met could very well afford to load their gun safe up with an arsenal and run down to the gun range to show it off to all their friends three times a week - they weren't champagne-sipping billionaires, but they were certainly well-off. Armyman25 posted:It's not so much that dropping the issue would get more people to vote Democratic, it's that it would motivate fewer people to vote Republican. Attempts to pass gun control fire up the Republican base and result in greater votes on that side while they don't do much to rally Democrats. Evidence shows that the Republicans get fired up about gun control regardless of whether there's a gun control bill being proposed. The thing that fires up the gun voters isn't gun control bills, it's the NRA - which has multiple vested interests in making sure that gun owners constantly feel like a gun ban is right around the corner, and is very good at pushing that view regardless of what the reality is. For example, in 2008 the NRA claimed that Obama was "the most anti-gun candidate ever", that he planned to totally ban handguns, that he would ban rifle ammunition, that he would require a federal firearms license for all gun ownership, and that he would close 90% of gun shops - among other claims. In 2012, they went even further, claiming that Obama intended to ban guns outright and repeal the Second Amendment, and asserted that Obama's lack of gun control initiatives in his first term was just a dastardly plan to lull gun owners into a false sense of sense of security. And this wasn't just helpless flailing - a year into Obama's first term, 55% of American gun owners believed that Obama would try to ban the sale of guns, despite the fact that he had been virtually silent on guns up to that point, other than signing a bill allowing for the carrying of guns in federal parks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 15:59
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:
Why yes, I agree that in some parallel dimension where legislators did their research and wrote fact-based laws rather than trying to outdo each other in a race to be more ideologically pure and not 'contaminate' themselves with knowledge of their subject matter, they could write effective laws. On the other hand, the last 100 years of drug and alcohol laws, from Prohibition onwards. If you're going to defend a purely pie-in-the-sky stance, please indicate that so we can tell the difference between it and observable reality.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
Gun control is kind of a stupid issue for Democrats at the moment for one reason: the only "sensible" gun control is the kind that does take guns away from people. If you want people to stop killing each other, and cops to stop murdering people in the street, handgun ownership needs to have a sea change. Scary assault weapons and giant magazines and silencers don't matter. An 8-round or 10-round magazine on a stock Glock pistol is more than enough. Plenty of people have reasons to own guns, but "because I want one" needs to be not good enough. And that kind of gun control is squarely killed by the second amendment. Until there is a serious grassroots nationwide movement to actually and literally repeal the second amendment, there is no point in running on "trying to regulate guns more than they already are."
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
Kinda striking how thoroughly stale and boring all these arguments are anyway. As I was saying above I think the sheer repetitiveness, viciousness and gridlock of the gun debate is more of a turnoff than the gun issue itself. There are a few people here who, whatever they might claim, are clearly happy to talk endlessly about guns. Doesn't really seem like they're trying to change anyone's mind or get a better understanding of their own thoughts either -- they just talk hearing themselves talk about their favorite pet issue, and will happily turn any political discussion into a de facto discussion on guns.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Also it's creepy as gently caress that you're so lacking in empathy that you think these people view these laws as "a minor inconvenience to their hobby". it's creepy as gently caress that these people's hobby revolves around deadly weapons of war
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Why yes, I agree that in some parallel dimension where legislators did their research and wrote fact-based laws rather than trying to outdo each other in a race to be more ideologically pure and not 'contaminate' themselves with knowledge of their subject matter, they could write effective laws. I guess you're right and we should completely repeal all currently-existing firearms laws - and, while we're at it, all other laws as well, since as you've pointed out, it's fundamentally impossible for legislators to write "effective" laws. In case anyone can't tell, I do not literally mean this, and am just making a point about the heavy use of hyperbole in his and many others' anti-gun-control arguments!
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:it's creepy as gently caress that these people's hobby revolves around deadly weapons of war people are weird you know legislating weirdness away is like tilting at windmills
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I guess you're right and we should completely repeal all currently-existing firearms laws - and, while we're at it, all other laws as well, since as you've pointed out, it's fundamentally impossible for legislators to write "effective" laws. Yes because 'legislators should not regulate a good without sufficient research to have a basic understanding of what they are seeking to regulate' really means 'anarchy in the UK'. There is plenty of hyperbole to go around, but attempting to paint opposing opinions as caricature is not a very effective means of discussion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:it's creepy as gently caress that these people's hobby revolves around deadly weapons of war To a large portion of this country firearms are the most important cultural symbol of self reliance. This "Lol ur hobby is dumb" is both incredibly alienating culture war bullshit and a strong signal that the democratic party not only doesn't understand them but is actively against them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:it's creepy as gently caress that these people's hobby revolves around deadly weapons of war Ban selfloading/bolt-action/pump-action/lever-action/breechloading/muzzleloading rifles/pistols/shotguns. You did mean guns that had been issued by armies, right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 04:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 10:31 |
|
|
Helsing posted:Kinda striking how thoroughly stale and boring all these arguments are anyway. As I was saying above I think the sheer repetitiveness, viciousness and gridlock of the gun debate is more of a turnoff than the gun issue itself. There are a few people here who, whatever they might claim, are clearly happy to talk endlessly about guns. Doesn't really seem like they're trying to change anyone's mind or get a better understanding of their own thoughts either -- they just talk hearing themselves talk about their favorite pet issue, and will happily turn any political discussion into a de facto discussion on guns. You can say the same thing about every major issue.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 05:22
|
|