Total posts: 1,080
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
But how many have been killed by drone strikes under Trump overall?
says that Trump has conducted 2243 drone strikes in his first two years in comparison to Obama's 1878 in his eight years of presidency.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
This is somewhat similar to how my country does things. We have government student loans, but they are interest free (for now). When you start working and if your income passes a threshold, a percentage of the amount that goes over the threshold is taxed to pay off your student loan. This way, the student gets an education without too much pressure from ballooning loans and the government gets a return in an educated worker as well as recouping the loan.
<br>
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
The article means that for any given mass shooting event, if the mass shooter is using a semi-automatic rifle, he/she is likely to kill twice as many people than if he/she were to use a non semi-automatic gun. The article does not state that semi-automatic rifles are twice as more likely to kill you as any other gun in general
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Christen
Trump's tax cuts help the wealthy, which allows them to help the middle class by creating more jobs, which allows them to help the poor by paying their tax dollars for the welfare/SNAP benefits that they receive. That's the basic idea of Trickle Down Economics. As the rich get richer, the poor get richer too. It's working.
If you tax the wealthy too much, they will leave the country and invest elsewhere. This is what happened in Venezuela. They tried to help the poor by severely harming/taxing the rich, and the rich decided they weren't going to put up with it anymore and left.
Are you able to substantiate these statements?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Ruthless dictator. I think picking the same option for Stage 2 breaks it. Or I could actually be a ruthless dictator
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
No, just semi automatics. That still leaves tasers, pump action and lever action rifles, revolvers as well as knives, spears, swords, that brick lying down the driveway and your aunt's garden chair should the need arise to give someone a good chairing
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Genocide?Inequality is built into our DNA. There is only one systemic cure for that.
Created:
Posted in:
✓ Random inane rant against democrats
✓ Misrepresents your argued position
✓ Deflects from relevant points that criticize Donald
✓ Must be ethang5
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
The distinction here is analyzing what effects Trump has personally had on the economy, verses the growth of the economy that would've occurred had Trump been replaced with a potato sack that simply rubber stamped republican legislative policy.Highest employment numbers for women, and minorities? Growth close to 4% for the first 2 years? The fastest growing economy of developed countries? The strength to stop other countries misusing us with lopsided trade deals?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
But why did God make it so we needed to drink water to not die? Why did he need to make farts audible? We don't make excessively audible noises when we breath. Why the discrepancy between the forms of gas expulsion?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
But why did God make it so we needed to drink water to not die? Why did he need to make farts audible? We don't make excessively audible noises when we breath. Why the discrepancy between the forms of gas expulsion?
Created:
Posted in:
If I go swimming I still have to close my mouth in order to not drown.
If I want to fart, I must let out an audible and embarrassing noise.
Non-black people are often susceptible to skin cancers, so why aren't we all black.
There are many signs that God did not design our bodies with intelligence. Instead, it seems like he rolled a bunch of dice when creating us. Why else would my penis be of such modest stature?
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
What are some of the major policies of Democrats that you feel are based upon feelings rather than common sense?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Nooooooope. It's your claim so it's your burden to meet.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
This isn't evidence or an argument for anything.Orly... Guess it's blind luck then that he is presiding over such large job creation. Certainly can't be due to competence, right?You like astrology? I hear it's a fun hobby.Obama sure believed in magic wands.
If your claim is that Trump has personally had a positive impact on job creation, the correct approach would be to substantiate this claim with his position on job creation, legislation that he has personally advocated for and signed off on, followed by the impact that the legislation had on job creation.
I personally think, and all accounts suggest that Trump isn't competent or informed enough to have a position on anything meaningful, and that's hes a sock puppet for Republican agenda.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Of course there is
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Not really. It's true that attempts to ban conventional firearms is likely to be a futile effort and that any candidate who is aware of the Heller decision should probably know of this.
However the constitution and supreme court rules have enough wiggle room in their wordings such that it is the right of the lawmakers to argue on the basis of those wiggle rooms.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
There's been no legal danger to your guns ever since the Heller decision and there won't be any danger until the decision is overturned. The question to banning guns in America comes purely from a moral and sensibility perspective
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
To my understanding, ICE and Border Patrol are two separate agencies.
The article you originally brought up about Obama vs Trump deportation refers to ICE deportations. That is, deportations of aliens already within US borders.
Your later post makes reference to Border Patrol apprehensions which is not the same as ICE deportations. The article you originally brought up does not indicate eitherway whether Border Patrol apprehensions of Trump's presidency compared to Obama's were up or down, only that Obama's ICE deportations were up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Why are you talking about border apprehensions now when you were talking about deportations before?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
My personal theory is the support for the secure communities program
Obama expanded the secure communities program which helps to explain the uptick in deportations during his presidency. It was discontinued due to its unpopularity in indiscriminate deportations rather than only the criminals which explains the drop of deportations after the program was discontinued. The unpopularity of the program while it was active lead to the establishment of "sanctuary cities" which decreased deportations towards the later years of the program.
Trump revived the program upon becoming POTUS, however the sanctuary cities have not revised their stance on supporting the program, leading to decreased deportations.
At any-rate it's a better theory than waving your hand and asserting that there must've been more illegal crossings
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The process of deportation hasn't remained consistent throughout though so comparing the deportation numbers to decide whether more illegals entered during Obamas or Trumps administration seems silly
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Having higher yearly deportation numbers doesn't necessarily mean that more illegals were slipping over the border.Obama had yearly deportation numbers much much higher than Trump, which means of the ones we KNOW about, much more illegals were slipping over the border than the ones we know about under Trump.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
@HistoryBuff
One "line" that I think is pretty reasonable is the point of viability. That is, when a fetus stands some chance of surviving outside of the womb. This generally occurs at 24 weeks
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
You can't have it both ways. Either you are talking about a federal license as in your previous post, or you are talking about a federally mandated state level license. That said I don't see why it matters because both would do the same thing.You can't make every state use a licensing scheme unless it's federally mandated, so that makes no sense.
wait I thought you were talking about licenses, make up your mind.
So when determining the constitutionality of the 2nd to a mandated license, your argument is "Well you have to ask for permission, which may or may not be granted. Since rights are not granted this makes it unconstitutional". Leaving aside whether this line of argument actually has any merit, the protest permit example is a similar situation. Protesting is covered under the 1st amendment, and yet a permit must be granted or denied in many cases.
In this case, it's irrelevant what the permission is, whether license or permit. It's the underlining concept of "This is my right and yet it can be blocked by government rubber stamping".
lol right it's the completeness, comprehensive whatever of the control scheme, so whether it's a license or permit, certificate etc based is irrelevant, since the criteria for any of those can be set to whatever level is decided, what form or piece of paper is required isn't important.what license do you just need to get once and never renew or reapply for?I don't believe you ever indicated it was something to be renewed or retested but rather a one and done process.
If you don't have any better arguments than "Muh guns. Pls not muh guns. Evil government bad!" followed by shitty red herrings, I'll take my leave.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
However you are advocating for a federal license
This is incorrect. State level licensing would achieve the same goal.
because of some irrational fear and irrational trust that the federal government is going to save you in the extremely remote chance you'd need their protection. Even though it would be state police and not federal that would come and investigate the crime. They only show up in the nick of time on tv.
Never asserted this.
Driver's licenses vary from state to state and is not a federal license.
Which is irrelevant because it doesn't change the impact of drivers license utility
you can pull up some old threads about rights, rights are not granted they are recognized even if they are not absolute, if you have to apply or get a license for one that is not a right, you are asking permission which may or may not be granted. I'm not interested in taking the time to explain it to you further because it's already been discussed many times.
We both know this argument is a crock of shit, because you'd still probably say no to licensing even if they were granted absolutely. Apart from this, there is already such behaviour in other amendments. For example protest permits.
I disagree with your opinion that it may not be as effective or comprehensive, simply because you have delusions that your government is going to save you.
They may not be as effective or comprehensive simply because the bar is set to comprehensive and complete licensing for new owners of guns. Anything less than that is not as effective or comprehensive. Since you have not shown your collection of schemes to be as such, they may not be as effective or comprehensive. This has nothing to do with government, it's just pure logic.
licensing and registration schemes are in part up to the states, often they just get tied up in court and most thrown out, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44618.pdfpage 41 NY state is a good example of all the schemes they have tried and are trying to really not avail or effect on crime.
Amazing. But this isn't an argument against the efficacy of licensing
there are states with almost no laws or regulations other than required by the NICS checks and they have some of the lowest or lowest murder rates which shouldn't be the case if laws work and the absence of laws/licenses decrease murders.
Amazing, but irrelevant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
sure but for safety it's not needed because it could be accomplished without an actual license, you haven't proven the other methods wouldn't accomplish the same safety requirements because the other methods or combination of would be just as effective.
So let's be clear here. Licensing is a comprehensive and effective method for increasing gun safety. You are proposing a combination of roundabout methods that may not be as effective or comprehensive, simply because you have delusions that your government is out to get you. Pardon me if I'm not impressed.
how is that useful? You are given a bill of sale along with the serial number so should it be stolen or lost you already have all the info needed.the usefulness of that is questionable at best, much like Maryland's bullet casing data base, similar idea, never solved one crime, cost tax payers 5 million + before they stopped that completely stupid idea.
I would imagine that authorities find car licenses and registrations to be pretty useful. Given that gun licensing would be literally the same system transplanted onto guns, I find your objections to be bullshit.
you don't have a constitutional right to own a car, but you do a gun, so that comparison isn't valid unless you first abolish the 2a which is a different topic altogether.
Constitutional rights aren't unlimited and needing to obtaining a license first doesn't prevent one from owning a gun in any-case.
I think those definitions apply and show the differences, so obviously a license is unconstitutional and is not needed to prove completion of a safety program.
Showing definitions, waving your hands around and then concluding that therefore it's unconstitutional does not actually make it unconstitutional.
when firearms are sold the serial number is recorded and is actually put into a data base which can only be accessed under certain circumstances like crime scenes. You don't hear about it much because it is rarely useful, but it can be done.generally speaking.
Then why is it a problem for you if supposedly this information is already available to the government? They've already got your information. They could be coming for your guns right now. Perhaps you should take to the streets in protest.
they only thing a license would that isn't or can't already be done is allowing the government to "grant permission", rights are not granted.
Yeah.. except for holding it up to the officer when you are stopped so you can prove that it is your gun and that you are eligible to own guns. Basic stuff like that.
Created:
Posted in:
I don't see the point. I'm assuming the intent is to switch out semi-automatics for semi-automatics that just look different? In which case you've enacted an expensive program which doesn't actually functionally do anything. I would understand if the intent was to switch out semi-automatics for pump-action or lever action guns. But you may as well shovel money in a bonfire otherwise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
ok I think I understand you now as to why you want licenses. With a license you think it will increase safety AND the government can keep track of who has them for eventual confiscation or whatever. You started out focusing primary on the accidental gun deaths which is covered by a hybrid of safety in school, no cost training, pre purchase safety + test etc, but that doesn't give you the tracking and big brother control a license would.
I mean.. my position hasn't changed at all since the start of the conversion. I've been pretty clear that licensing will be effective in increasing safety. Obviously I don't think the government will be confiscating guns for whatever reason. That's purely your imagination at work.
My thoughts on what the government would do with licensing information is for example, determining whether a particular gun found at a location actually belongs to a person. Or perhaps determining who the owns the gun found at the crime scene. Or whether or not a person is eligible to possess the gun found in his car boot. It's really not all that dissimilar to car licenses and I can't understand why you've formulated these crackpot scenarios when you already basically have the same thing with cars.
you can save your childish condescending comments btw.
You want and enjoy a greater separation between government and individuals and that's perfectly fine. However if you spout out drivel that isn't based in reality and use it to justify bad policy, I'm going to call it out like it is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
yeah weaker as in you couldn't go to someone's house and confiscate it, I know exactly why people want licensing lol, why would people be caught, with a gun unless they were already doing something illegal?"a light form of gun control" lol that's richIf you go to a private indoor range you must sit through a safety course and take a test before purchasing range time and or renting guns. The NRA ranges give you a card, like a membership card so you don't have to do it every time. Before you fill out the background check from for places who use the electronic version you have to watch a short video first about it being a crime to purchase a gun for someone else, 10 years jail time etc, safety instructions could easily be incorporated with that process as well. A hybrid of these ideas accomplishes everything you said a license would without haven't an actual registry, if in fact it's about safety which you try to use as an argument but be honest it's really about control and for confiscation/registration.
Wrong. Only licenses would achieve what I said licenses would achieve. I can and have pointed out holes in every single one of your ideas. You seem to be going into tinfoil hat territory and going "Please no licenses, just no licenses, muh guns". This position is not backed up by sort of reasonable logic and is completely irrational on your part.
It's completely fine to say you don't want licenses because you think they'll infringe on your freedoms to use and own guns. However it's utterly dishonest to pretend that not having licenses achieves the same thing as having licenses.
many important jobs do not require a license just a certificate, nurse's aids and medical assistants just to name a couple so the importance of a license is not what as you say and in some cases they are about tracking, controlling and or taxing.
You can dredge up as many examples as you like. The overwhelming majority of examples where you are personally in charge of lives around you where some fuck up you make costs lives requires a license. I don't know about the specifics of the two examples you brought up, but I would imagine that 1, their scope of medical is extremely limited 2, some sort of certification is available for them and 3, that certification is overwhelming preferred to those who do not have that certification. This is not a reasonable objection to having gun licenses when guns are demonstrably a threat to people when improperly used.
I'm try this again in hopes you understand, it's not "x causes more death than y, therefore ignore y" it's you don't care with the same level of passion about x which causes more death because they aren't caused by guns, therefore I don't believe you actually care about deaths but rather disguise it to push for more gun control which can't be proven to have any statistical impact. People who make these gun grabbing arguments aren't concerned about lowering preventable deaths because they never put any attention or effort into those things which kill far more people, especially children than guns do, selective moral outrage.
The reason I'm talking about guns and not any other sort of deaths is because this is a thread about gun control. As for why gun control is an often talked about topic, it's because it's one topic that you for instance are completely and irrationally unable to bend on. If you were to discuss any other preventable deaths with me, I would probably say that they are also bad and should be also lowered, just like with gun deaths.
This is a terrible attempt at rationalising why gun control should not be talked about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I have suggested many ways to increase education which doesn't require a license
Which are all inferior to mandatory licensing
which is useless for the reasons I've given.
I believe your only reasoning was that accidental gunshots (on the basis of lack of gun safety knowledge) are relatively rare. Which is pretty poor reasoning and doesn't make licenses useless at all. If you had any other reasonings, perhaps summarize them.
Again a license is not require, many things gain you a certificate of completion, a license is an obvious step for confiscation which is why you push it so hard.
While a certificate of completion would be similar to a license in many regards, in that it would indicate that one has completed training, it would be just a weaker form of licensing. For example, if someone were caught with guns in their car, with a license or lack thereof you could very easily check if that person should or should not possess guns.
there is no bicycle license requirement in the U.S., as far as pools go they are personal ones that people own on their property, I never mentioned cars, you are simply trying to muddy the issue, it won't work.
So when things require licenses, it's important to understand why things require licenses. When you are driving a car, you are essentially piloting a block of metal that very easily has the potential to kill. As you've noted, a license is often not required when you are on private property. So clearly licenses are focused around the safety of those around you rather than your own personal safety.
When you mention bike fatalities, it is not the bikes riders and their responsibilities that are killing people. In the vast majority of cases it is the cars which bike riders share the road with that are killing bike riders. So clearly in bike fatalities, it is the cars which need to be licensed. Which of course, they are. This isn't a case of me muddying the issue, it's a case of you fundamentally misunderstanding why sometimes licenses are required and why sometimes not.
As far as pools go, private pools fall under the personal safety bit.
my position is this isn't about safety but rather a veiled attempt at gun control, obviously if it was about safety then there would be focus and concern about the very things which cause much more death, especially to children, or at the very least safety in schools, no cost training etc
Let me put your mind at ease. It's a rather unveiled proposition for a light form of gun control that is heavily focused around gun safety and has been ever since I responded to your spiel about gun control.
And to reiterate, x causes more death than y, therefore ignore y is not a valid form of reasoning. It is you throwing dirt onto a wall and seeing what sticks because your position is completely indefensible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Not at all. It's common sense that accidents will happen whether licensed or not. The key point that I've made which you've yet to respond to is that those who have acquired the knowledge necessary to obtain a license are on average "better" than those who are not.it proves a license doesn't prove what you think it does. and even with a license accidents happen.
Given the extremely small number of accidental gun deaths, voluntary, no cost safety and training would have a better outcome than forced licensing.
I disagree. People who undergo voluntary training can only ever be a subset of the set of all those who undergo mandatory training. Hence the outcome of mandatory training can only ever be better than voluntary training.
um, no a certificate of completion, but regardless a license is meaningless in this context, these accidents are super rare, the burden and infringement of a license will never be implemented, nor should it.
The argument that an event occurs rarely, and therefore we should not care about it is an incredibly weak argument and just begs the question what threshold is large enough that cannot be ignored and why?
licenses for bicycles and pools too?
There are already such licenses. For bikes, cars require licenses because by and large, they are the causes of fatalities involving bikes. Public pools, as businesses obviously require licenses.
I can't help but think you advocate for gun licensing because you think it will have some kind of control factor, you even saidWhen it comes to my safety, I'm not going to take your solemn oath that you know your shit.yet you are at much more risk for so many other things hurting you than a firearm accident. Of those accidental gun deaths the % of the person other than the one who has the gun being killed is probably much smaller than the already small rate of accidental gun deaths. You'd probably have a better chance of being stuck by lightning, don't go outside.
The argument x is more probable than y, therefore ignore y is obviously not a valid argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
LOL I know and see people all the time with a driver's license who can't drive for shit let alone drive safely but still managed to get a license. Tell me, you've been taught right, wrong, safe, unsafe, do/did you follows what you learned 100% did you ever knowingly, foolishly do something you know wasn't safe? Would having a license changed your choice then? Do you see why I think this is absurd, license, not safety.as you know I think, as part of a driving license you are taught safety and laws as well, specifically using a cell phone while driving, yes?4,637 people died in car crashes in 2018 due to cell phone use.
None of this negates my point. I didn't argue that licenses were ironclad. In fact I gave a similar scenario in terms of a biology degree before. The fact remains, having to go through a process of safety or learning in order to obtain a credential in that area puts you above those that do not barring proven and extensive experience as an alternative. When we are speaking of young adults who do not have that experience, a license is the only demonstrable way of determining who has gone through that process of learning. Your anecdotal evidence is irrelevant in the face of this.
This applies for every facet of life where some sort of knowledge is required. Your assertion that guns should be the lone exception to this basic rule of society is patently absurd.
accidental gun deaths have been going down generally, most recent I could find was 2015 which was an uptick year, 489 for that year but sure I'm all for gun safety, however the personal risk is much much higher from a licensed automobile driver than an unlicensed gun owner
That's great, but we aren't comparing car deaths to gun deaths. By this logic, the risk for licensed pilots is much less than for licensed drivers, and hence pilots shouldn't need licenses?
what is the estimate for the number of screening that would be needed per year?would this be taxpayer funded? or a burden on the would be purchaser, if they can afford it and pass it they can buy one? how would that work?
Again, I'm not advocating for any particular implementation of screening, just the concept of screening itself
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
you haven't shown how gun safety requires a license, btw you don't need a driver's license to drive on your own property, nor do you need a hunting license.You could require a gun safety course designed however is best without any need of a license.safety is important I agree with that and have given ideas how that could easily be accomplished, no license needed.
I've never said that knowledge of gun safety requires a license. However it's simply a fact that If I make 100 people do a gun safety course, they are going to be on average better with gun safety than 100 people who do not. Licenses are evidence that you know your shit. When it comes to my safety, I'm not going to take your solemn oath that you know your shit. No business works like that. It's the entire point behind licenses, degrees and certifications.
in 2018 there were over 26 MILLION NICS checks, you propose to do over 26 million mental health assessments per year? Tell me how that is remotely possible.
The whole point of me mentioning the new group of legal adults per year was because they represented a portion of those eligible to buy a gun, who have not yet done so. The implication being that they can be initially screened for severe psychological defects which are unlikely to change throughout their lives. While 26 million is a lot, a majority of those are owners who already own guns. In which case it would be senseless screening them multiple times.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
a license isn't required to teach someone safety, nor does having a license mean you understand safety
If there were 100 people who are owners of a degree in biology from an accredited university, and 100 people who are not owners of such a degree, I am going to assume that the degree holders in biology are going to know more about biology than the 100 people who do not, because the degree signifies that the holder has received 3-4 years of specialized instruction and has demonstrated that they are able to express that instruction in tests. It might be the case that one of the degree holders barely graduated and one of the non-degree holders actually has 50 years of field experience in a particular biology field, but I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that the degree holders know more about biology in general given a random sample selection.
Same thing for a gun license. If some of the requirements for the gun license include extensive instruction in gun safety, as well as a passing mark in some sort of gun safety test I think it is a pretty fair and reasonable assumption that on average they are going to know more about gun safety than those who have not gone through the instruction and tests required to get the gun license
how does a license for a gun prevent crime?
Negligent discharge is in some cases a crime
hhmm I guess so, so like if a certain group commits a disproportionate percentage of murders we should not allow them to have guns because they are undesirable? People with disabilities because of the reduce physical dexterity? Women because they are generally more emotional? You may want to rethink how this could even work at all, talk about a slippery slope.
If you think it's a slippery slope, it is up to you to demonstrate that is indeed a likely slippery slope. Personally I was more thinking along the criteria of those that demonstrate a certain percentage of classical psychopathy signs or severe emotional instability. But whatever bizarre scenarios float your boat I guess?
there are legal ways to make a determination if someone is mentally unable/unfit to own a firearm so I have no idea what more you are asking for.
It's about proactive vs reactive methods, in addition to a multi-layered approach.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
how does a license for a gun prevent crime?
"After reading through 300 different news stories about these discharges one thing has become clear. In all of the articles that we went through these discharges WOULD NOT have happened if those handling the firearms followed proper gun safety protocols."
you haven't articulated what this "screening" isHow effective is this screening (whatever that is)What would be the criteria for denial because of this screening?
The basic idea of a screening is to prevent undesirable people from acquiring something. There is no focus on any particular example of screening, only the concept of screening itself
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
the Boy Scouts have been doing gun safety and education probably since it's inception. Schools also have done similar. While my school has hunter safety as an elective it also included archery, boating, farm tractors and trapping. I took archery again in college and yeah we actually shot targets with arrows. If we can just save one life by educating kids on safety isn't it worth it? (see what I did there ;) )
Sure that could be one way to go about it to teach kids gun safety measures. However this doesn't really negate the efficacy of a screening and some sort of a gun license for gun possession
they are not constitutional rights for starters. There is no sanity screening required before you get a driver's licence that I know of.
Constitutional rights are not unlimited.
You've missed my point about car licenses and pilot licenses. The point is that there are many objects or roles in this world that require a certain screening and/or license due to their potential to cause risk to yourself and/or others. Cars may not require a psychological screening, but they are a good example for the concept of being forced to go through a process of learning in order to acquire a license in order to legally drive.
minimize it to what? what's the acceptable cut off limit?
How long is a piece of string?
are there other ways to minimize without additional gun control that haven't been attempted or implemented yet?
Probably. If you were to make such suggestions I could certainly discuss them with you. But again, the assertion of the existence of such solutions is not the same as solutions and also they need not be mutually exclusive solutions to gun control
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
If it looks like a cow, sounds like a cow and shits like a cow, it's probably a cow and not some other farm animal
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
when there is only tunnel vision for one "solution" you'll understand my skepticism
There isn't tunnel vision for one solution. Arguments are predicated on disagreements. If you suggest solutions for gun violence that don't run contrary to the principles of gun control, there's a good chance that I'll agree with you. The issue seems to be that you disagree with me that gun control is a solution for gun violence, which is why seemingly only gun control is ever discussed
How do you plan to get guns out of criminal's hands? by attrition?
Yep.
safety is a great thing, something that could even be offered in schools and or at no cost, yet.....(insert cricket sounds here)
If you could demonstrate with solid evidence how such programs could be effective without backfiring sure. However inserting more guns into a situation runs contrary to the principal of slowly taking guns out of a system so then it'd be a question of which is the more effective solution
we just minority report people when the come of age? is that the plan? or prove yourself before we allow you to have your rights? I don't see anyway a screening could work in the U.S. sure in some fascist, socialist country, but not in the U.S.Do you need believe in the 4th amendment? presumption of innocence?
Why not? Are drivers licenses not a screening for the ability to drive a car? Are pilot licenses not a screening for the ability to pilot an airplane?
there are illegal drugs which law abiding citizens don't have yet the demand is still filled in various ways including from outside the U.S. What plans or steps could be taken to ensure this doesn't happen with guns? Right now there is little to no demand and profit to bring in guns from other countries so it's not so much of a problem, but I think that could change with a ban.If we can't stop illegal drugs, convince me guns could be stopped.
You don't stop anything at all. The whole point of gun control is minimization not elimination. Obviously you can't stop 20 people who each have parts of an AR-15 shoved up their buttholes from individually arriving on the shores of Florida by rowboat.
We all agree, I think, we don't want guns in the hands of people who would do harm/crime with them. How do we realistically keep them from the hands of criminals in any meaningful way without turning into a military state.
To go down that line of reasoning, first you'd have to make a well-reasoned argument that America is likely to turn into a military state in the first place.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Your coyness aside, I'm happy to say that there are many factors involved in murder rates. It's just that while I can readily identify guns as one such factor and propose solutions for that factor, you seem be going more along the lines of "not guns, not guns, please not guns, anything but guns, muh second amendment, fuck you". Which isn't actually helpful.I can understand why you'd say that, however I would also ask because the population is increasing (more people) and yet the murder rate is decreasing one would think with more people should mean more unstable murderers right? And yet that doesn't seem to be the case does it?
I would say that's been true for a very, very long time. Which more gun control will have NO effect on, not in many decades anyway.
This goes back to the point that HistoryBuff made. Sitting on your hands and ignoring a problem just because you don't like the solution isn't actually a solution to the problem.
Apart from this, each year, a new group of legal adults becomes eligible to purchase guns. If all of that group understood gun safety measures and all of that group were actually screened to not be a psycho, I don't think it's improbable that you'd get results somewhat quickly.
At the very least you probably wouldn't have cases where a retard randomly walks into a walmart just to test his 2a rights because he/she would understand that guns aren't a toy to be used in such a manner and doing so is profoundly retarded.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
When compared to itself the crime/murder rate isn't going up (and has trended down) yet the number of guns is going up.If more guns = more murders this shouldn't be so, the rate should be going up drastically, yet it is not. Must be something other than guns that is the problem.
You've assumed some sort of linear relationship where x amount of increases in guns must necessarily equal some xy increase in gun deaths. It might be the case that the relationship is actually logarithmic, in which case the answer could be that the US has reached a saturation level of guns such that increases in gun ownership no longer results in a meaningful increase in murder rates (or more plainly, everyone who wants a gun to commit crimes already has a gun. Them now having two guns doesn't increase or decrease the likelihood of them committing a crime).
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
As I said before, I don't think having a majority conservative or liberal as bad at all. The issue to me is hijacking the process and cheating to get there. While you are correct that Roberts tends to be more swingy and tries to be non-partisan, it does not change the fact that ultimately he leans conservative, making the entire SCOTUS lean conservative.Ok, so how is having a majority bad? Judges, essentially are either liberal or conservative- you either define the constitution based on what it was meant to be or what you think it should be. So, there by definition has to be an ideological majority. Now, Chief Justice Roberts is a bit of a swing vote nowadays, so it really isn't an issue.
You had no idea about precedent. You foolishly claimed that the Republicans in 2016 were the first group to ever violate this "gentlemens' handshake" and that McConnell violated precedent. You got proven wrong. I'd propose that you admit you were ignorant of the facts instead of digging a deeper hole for yourself.
Not really. The democrats have never violated the "gentleman's handshake". I do not view a suggestion via negotiation and compromise as equivalent to the action of actually hijacking the process through bogus pretext.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
“If the President consults and cooperates with the Senate, or moderates his selections… then his nominees may enjoy my support, as did Justice Kennedy and Justice Souter.”
So to be clear. The justification is poor
1. Because the "Biden" rule was never actually put into practice
2. Because the 2016 example doesn't actually follow the so called "Biden" rule
3. And as demonstrated before, it was a flimsy pretext for advancing Republican goals anyway as evidenced by the subsequent declaration of intent to ignore the Biden rule should it prove advantageous
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
@bmdrocks21
The Biden rule isn't actually a thing, and is a flimsy pretext for the Republican stonewalling.
The actual intent for the suggestion was either the president to hold off on an appointment until the election was over, or for the president to consult with congress or to seat a moderate. In this case, I do believe Garland is a moderate and was also a passing suggestion from McConnell in the first place.
Apart from this it's plainly obvious that it was a flimsy pretext because he has no qualms about ignoring the so called Biden rule when it suits him
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
His entire post was about how this doesn't break precedent.
If you read his post, you'll find out that it does break precedent but blames it on the democrats. Which is a lazy justification for breaking precedent.
I think you are confusing us. Your argument thus far is Orange man and McConnell bad for breaking precedent and stacking. Having a 5-4 majority is far from stacking lmao.
Having a 5-4 majority is sufficient for conservative leaning judgments. Whether or not the supreme court is filled with a 9-0 or a 5-4 majority is entirely irrelevant because in either-case a particular agenda can be pushed unevenly, which is the entire point of court stacking.
I have offered the job security point, which is the entire point of life terms.
This is trivially mitigated by sane implementation which is why I told you to stop being lazy and actually think about the points you make.
I'm sorry that having justices with brains triggers you.
What triggers me is you having an opinion on a topic you clearly know very little about. And then when I challenge your opinion on the basis that the status quo also has the same problems, you just keep deflecting.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Just because someone posts a huge block of points doesn't mean that addresses any of your points. Greyparrot's post has questionably shifted blame onto the democrats, however this leaves several points still unaddressed.
1. The republicans have exploited a method which allows for the stacking of courts and breaks precedent
2. You've made no intelligent argument against a rotating court
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
The "high" part in "high crime" does not refer to the severity of the crime but the "high" office of the person who commits the crime. There's not really a set standard. But if one can be impeached for lying about a blowjob, I don't imagine the standard to be very high.so if you admit it isn't far fetched for trump to do what it did, but you just think it's illegal. would you agree that this isn't a 'high crime' per the threshold of impeachment?
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
The fact you said that this one thing violated the "gentlemen's handshake" but that nothing else EVER before did kinda makes it the worst thing. You said "The issue is that the Republicans in this instance did not want to abide by the gentleman's handshake that has lasted for the entirety of America's history up till 2016 in filling up vacant SCOTUS seats and resorted to cheating instead."
Not at all. A gentleman's handshake is but an informal agreement. The fact that it was violated might make it the worse thing in terms of honourable conduct, but it's hard to quantify it as being the worst thing in terms of the SCOTUS. Any insinuation you think I might've made that it was the worst thing is entirely imaginary on your part.
Cheating? Lol. They are running a country, not playing a game of wiffle ball.
cheat1. act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage.
I don't see the problem
The nomination was tossed down because of both parties "due to the blockade on confirmations imposed by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Democratic objections to expediting Russell's nomination without confirming longer-pending Democrats"This also states that the nominee, Ronald G Russell was a Republican, so this wasn't made on party lines.
Russell wasn't a SCOTUS nominee.
Finally, this passed the House in May of 2016. Why should we allow a president with about half a year remaining make a decision like that?
Why should a president not? It's one of his/her duties as laid out in the constitution with no reference to time remaining.
Do you have a better argument than an arbitrary time limit where a president should not perform his role?
One solution is to keep things the way the Founding Fathers intended it ^_^
Keeping things the way the founding fathers intended it isn't a solution
1. Because it's a simple and mindless appeal to authority
2. Because I don't believe the constitution is all that specific on the structure of the supreme court, only that there is one
3. Because keeping the status quo isn't a solution because the problem has not been fixed
How about you try again instead of being lazy.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Meh, I'd say that FDR's little attempted court stacking fiasco violated it far before 2016, but whatever.Tell me exact what McConnell did and how that was far worse than anything else in history regarding the SCOTUS.
It's quite simple. Upon a SCOTUS seat being vacated, the president nominates a new judge upon which the senate votes to confirm or reject. The senate majority leader in this particular instance has the ability to decide whether or not something is to be voted upon. In this case, the senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell decided that under no circumstances would Obama's nomination be voted upon.
As for why I think it was far worse than anything else in history regarding the SCOTUS, I don't. I have no idea where you got this notion from and I will thank you to actually pay attention to my words instead of inventing random things.
I think the move was incredibly depraved, but more importantly it stacked the court. Which has been my entire point all along since you brought up court stacking in the first place.
Being on the Supreme Court pays well and it is one of the most prestigious positions anyone can hold. To think that rotating courts is a good idea is incredibly naive. You think they won't pander to their boss to keep that job? Their duty is to interpret the constitution, not play along in some damn popularity contest to keep their job.
Determining problems that can occur with any given system is a great skill to have. However giving up on those problems at the first hurdle is incredibly lazy and in your case, incredibly intellectually dishonest so let's go through this slowly.
You think rotating courts is a bad idea, because the sitting justices will pander to their boss to keep that job, because that job provides wealth and prestige.
How might one fix this problem? I can think of two solutions to this problem. What about you?
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Let's not try to pretend that Democrats never stacked the courts before with their own ideologues.
What does this have to do with anything? No one denies that the courts have swayed left and right over history depending on the party affiliation of the president at the time. That's not the issue here. The issue is that the Republicans in this instance did not want to abide by the gentleman's handshake that has lasted for the entirety of America's history up till 2016 in filling up vacant SCOTUS seats and resorted to cheating instead.
Here is exactly what Sanders said: "We’ve got a terrible 5-4 majority conservative court right now. But I do believe constitutionally we have the power to rotate judges to other courts and that brings in new blood into the Supreme Court and a majority I hope that will understand that a woman has a right to control her own body and that corporations cannot run the United States of America."It is all about control and putting people in power that you agree with.
Rotating judges for your own agenda obviously isn't a good thing. That said, there are plenty of conservatives who believe in women's rights and the general idea behind a rotating court to keep it from stagnating is obviously still good.
Created: