2016 Election Thread

[USAFChief]

Speaking of the felon thing, I think that "law" needs to be overturned as well! If someone gets a felony, pays their time in prison/fines etc then I think they should be allowed to vote. Not allowing them to vote is just more of a scarlet letter effect and is a symptom of a much larger issue with incarceration in America (namely it's a complete disaster and embarrassment as a whole)

Felony disenfranchisement is different, state by state, and is considered constitutional under the 14th amendment.

 

The practice is considered, by some, to have been another area where Republican politicians have sought in recent decades to prevent minorities from voting.

[DaveW]

 

Felony disenfranchisement is different, state by state, and is considered constitutional under the 14th amendment.

The practice is considered, by some, to have been another area where Republican politicians have sought in recent decades to prevent minorities from voting.

Ah, thanks for the info on that.

 

[USAFChief]

I actually don't think the Hillary hate is because she's a woman. At least very little of it.

 

It's because her last name is Clinton. Right wing hate radio has spent two decades telling people that name is evil. Plenty of people accept that as fact, actual evidence be damned.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I actually don't think the Hillary hate is because she's a woman. At least very little of it.

It's because her last name is Clinton. Right wing hate radio has spent two decades telling people that name is evil. Plenty of people accept that as fact, actual evidence be damned.

 

I agree.  I don't think misogyny is behind the Clinton hate either.  She's been associated closely with the last two Democratic presidencies and the right-wing has become more and more vitriolic through both.  It's her name and attachment to Bill and Obama.

[TheLeviathan]

 

And in other news, another mass shooting, involving an assault rifle, which is being called an act of domestic terrorism. I won't post a link because it was carried in just about every news site I follow so I assume you all have read about it already. I'd repost the video of Obama responding to a question by a gun-shop owner, but, well, not sure it's pertinent because I don't know who the shooter was or what his motivation was.

Anyway ... only in America.

 

We'll have to see, the story I read today implies it was Islamic terrorism again.  And we've seen ample evidence that this does not happen only in America.

 

Not that our gun laws don't help make it easier I'm sure.

[PseudoSABR]

 

We'll have to see, the story I read today implies it was Islamic terrorism again.  And we've seen ample evidence that this does not happen only in America.

 

Not that our gun laws don't help make it easier I'm sure.

This is another case of both.  It sounds like he was motivated by anti-gay hate (according to his father), and he called 911 before the shooting to pledge allegiance to ISIS.  

 

What's the reasonable argument that AR-15s are legal, again?

[TheLeviathan]

I don't think you can say only in America when Europe is facing this as well. But our laws make a guy who was investigated to have ISIS ties able to conceal and carry. Crazy.

[Brock Beauchamp]

What's the reasonable argument that AR-15s are legal, again?

My biggest problem with the banning of AR-15s is that banning single models of rifles is short-sighted. Someone can design something that's just like an AR-15 but not an AR-15 and we're back at square one.

 

And an AR-15 isn't terribly different than many hunting rifles (provided it hasn't been modded for automatic fire, obviously).

 

Though restricting magazine size is pretty obvious. I have yet to see a hunter need or use a 25 round magazine.

[mikecgrimes]

 

This is another case of both.  It sounds like he was motivated by anti-gay hate

 

Google Islam and gay.  Of course this murderer/terrorist hated gay people.  By the way based on Hollywood and our media it wouldn't be shocking if people in Islamic countries think the majority of white people in this country are gay.  I don't know if any of that really matters, he just as easily could have found a reason to target others clearly he was driven by hate.

[Brock Beauchamp]

To be clear, I'm not saying nothing should be done. Putting limits on barrel length, magazine size, ability to purchase, background checks, public carry laws, and considering an outright ban on handguns are all things that should be on the table.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Honestly, when you start an argument with a statement like this, it's really hard to take the rest of it seriously.

 

You can more or less find "dirt" on every politically powerful person in America, and make an argument that the majority of them have done something where if they weren't rich/powerful they may have gotten in trouble.

 

The "Hilary should be in jail" trope/meme is just tired at this point. Hilary has some things going on where I can see why people would be hesitant to vote for her, but not because "she should be in jail with her husband"

 

Dave, the email scandal alone would put anyone else in jail.  Full disclosure, I work on military networks doing IT related engineering.  I have a clearance, and it is a process that has literally taken years to get vetted for.  The rules are very clear on the matter, and the network which would have contained all of those emails does not allow them to be removed.  The only way to accomplish what she was accused of would be to intentionally circumvent the system (which isn't impossible, but not something you can accidentally do).  Hillary took that information and moved it offsite to a non-secure facility in secret.  The only difference between what Snowden did and what Hillary did is that he leaked it to WikiLeaks.  Her reason for storing it offsite is a bit more nebulous.

 

I'll be direct on your first point.  This is more dismissive than anything else; and to be honest, I know you can do better than that.   When you do that, it's pretty hard to take you seriously, and I find personally in the realm of politics, that's your approach when someone disagrees.  I do like it when you take the time to discuss it because you're smart and usually well reasoned, but not when you respond in a dismissive manner. 

 

The Hillary in jail may be an old meme, but it's based off of real information.  I listed several links earlier, and while I agree there's plenty of grasping at straws in the links I provided, there's a few of them that are far more insidious.  The email scandal in particular, I do know quite a bit about, because I have been working in defense for about four years over a number of commands.

 

What this really comes down to is the tired old thing we all do when it's our guy:  pretend it's political BS.  She's on your team, so short of publicly shooting someone on national TV, you're going to give her a pass.   Republicans are just as guilty. I might add.  That's why I'm no longer a Republican.  Four years of watching GWB get a pass for things that Bill Clinton never received was enough.  And when it comes to politics in this country, if we simply held our own accountable instead of looking the other way when it was one of our guys, this country would be in a LOT better shape.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Speaking of the felon thing, I think that "law" needs to be overturned as well! If someone gets a felony, pays their time in prison/fines etc then I think they should be allowed to vote. Not allowing them to vote is just more of a scarlet letter effect and is a symptom of a much larger issue with incarceration in America (namely it's a complete disaster and embarrassment as a whole)

 

Concur.  Once their time is served.  It's served.  I can agree with logic that says that abuse of your freedoms requires forfeiture of others (though I think that after serving the ability to earn some of them back should be on the table), but the idea that voting is one of them is just silly. 

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

I actually don't think the Hillary hate is because she's a woman. At least very little of it.

It's because her last name is Clinton. Right wing hate radio has spent two decades telling people that name is evil. Plenty of people accept that as fact, actual evidence be damned.

 

I think the last name being Clinton isn't a whole lot more than her gender, though it's a bigger factor I agree.  But the most obvious simply is that Hillary is not a good person.  She's got a bad reputation for good reasons.  Her last name is certainly a part of it, but she's been at the center of a number of scandals.  Republicans haven't done themselves a favor in politicizing her life down to whatever color she dyes her hair, but there's still plenty of wheat once you've sifted through the chaff.  I don't want her in office because I don't trust her to be a good leader.  Truthfully, I don't trust Trump either, or just about anyone whose name was on either ticket this year. 

 

Power is one nasty animal to contain.  It is always the worst types of people that seek it out, and usually the ones that stop at nothing to get it who attain it.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

 

 

What's the reasonable argument that AR-15s are legal, again?

 

The second amendment to the constitution. 

 

If you want gun control, then it's time to repeal it.  But 'the people's rights to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed' is a clear mandate from the founding fathers.  Like it or not, they wanted that.  And if you read their writings, it had a lot to do with the idea that it presented a check against tyranny in a way no document could ever do.  This was the same group of people who said that those who trade their freedoms for security deserve neither.  And I think that just maybe, they might be an authority on the matter.  They saw tyranny first hand.  They understood how it developed, and they knew that no government would ever be immune to it.  They put their lives on the line to stop it, and they did everything in their power to make it difficult to happen here... including I might add, the second amendment. 

 

I understand if you don't like ARs.  I even understand if you want some form of gun control.  But it won't solve the problem you want it to solve, and I really don't understand how you'd be more than happy to give up your guns and trust a guy like Dick Cheney to not take advantage of it. 

 

 

[PseudoSABR]

 

The second amendment to the constitution. 

Wrong.  A ban on assault weapons existed during the Clinton administration; we just let that ban expire.   We don't need to overturn the second amendment to ban/or limit particular types of guns.   (Recent cases, Heller and McDonald, apply to handguns in the home, where the second amendment was found to establish a fundamental right to self-defense by fire arm; that ruling would not get extended to semi-automatic weapons).  

 

As far as fundamental rights go, it's not matter of no 'infringement' its always about a balancing of how much infringement can be justified by government's interest.  Like yelling fire in a movie theater, etc.  There are lots of reasonable limits to fundamental rights that we live with day to day.

 

Again, the second amendment does not prevent states/feds from enacting reasonable gun control.  Please don't perpetuate this myth, as it just empowers gun-advocates to unreasonably resist any change whatsoever.   We need gun-advocates to show some willingness to go back to 90s legislation or else wise negotiate in good faith. 

[DaveW]

This dude was apparently on a terrorist watch list, yet was still able to buy and legally own a gun. Seems to me like banning guys on a watch list would be a good move....a move they tried to actually pass a few years ago but the GOP shot it down.

[Brock Beauchamp]

The government infringes on free speech all the time. I can't say Donald Trump raped my dog without repercussion. I can't yell fire in a crowded theater. I can't say lots of things because the government has deemed it irresponsible and illegal.

 

Yet the first amendment says the government shall not abridge free speech.

 

The founding fathers were smart men but like all men, they were mortal and flawed. They wrote the best document possible but like all things, the further we move away from their time, the more flawed the document becomes because no one in the 18th century could even fathom space flight, the Internet, or rocket launchers.

 

It's no coincidence the most flawed and controversial amendment is the one directly linked to technology and not ideology.

[DaveW]

 

 

  The only difference between what Snowden did and what Hillary did is that he leaked it to WikiLeaks.

 

I'll be direct on your first point.  This is more dismissive than anything else; and to be honest, I know you can do better than that.   When you do that, it's pretty hard to take you seriously, and I find personally in the realm of politics, that's your approach when someone disagrees.  I do like it when you take the time to discuss it because you're smart and usually well reasoned, but not when you respond in a dismissive manner. 

 

  She's on your team, so short of publicly shooting someone on national TV, you're going to give her a pass. 

Wow, this is incredibly condescending towards me and definitely talking "down" to me. Frankly I have no desire to engage you in any conversation on this topic moving forward.

[DaveW]

 

I don't think you can say only in America when Europe is facing this as well. But our laws make a guy who was investigated to have ISIS ties able to conceal and carry. Crazy.

While there have been some mass shootings (typically carried out by several individuals) in Paris, Brussels, etc it is still happens significantly more in the USA (ten fold) overall.

 

I mean most reasonable people aren't asking for a ban on guns, they are asking for some basic restrictions and some very basic safety provisions (i.e. extended background checks, no guns for people with violent history/terrorist watch list)

 

I also don't see the point in any citizen ever needed to own an AR-15.

[ashbury]

 But 'the people's rights to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed' is a clear mandate from the founding fathers.

"Well-regulated" is also pretty unambiguous, as is "militia" with regard to the idea at the time how to defend the country.

[DaveW]

 

 

 

 

Again, the second amendment does not prevent states/feds from enacting reasonable gun control. 

THANK YOU.

 

Just look at NYC for a perfect example, once they enacted smart gun laws (btw: people can still obtain a gun/own a gun legally, there are just a lot of steps that have to be taken) the murder rate dropped overnight to nearly a 50% decrease, and has stayed there since.

 

It's not just a coincidence either.

 

Here is an example I like to use:

My drivers license expired and like an idiot I didn't get it renewed in time (I live in NYC, don't have a car, don't really need one) because of that I have to do the following to get my license (even though I had one for 10+ years and a clean driving record.

 

Step one:

Get a learners permit, which required 3! forms of ID and my SS card. Take a written test for the permit.

 

Step two:

Attend a mandatory 5 hour pre licensing class.

 

Step Three:
Pass a driving test.

 

Meanwhile, in a dozen+ states (Florida included) I could just walk into a store/gun show, buy a gun, and have it immediately.

 

Why is getting a drivers license 1,000x more difficult/time consuming then buying an AR-15 which can literally kill 50+ people in the span of a few moments?

[DaveW]

A few questions to the people who don't want ANY changes to gun laws:

 

1. What would be the harm in mandatory background checks on ALL gun purchases?

 

2. What would be the harm in not letting violent offenders purchase guns? (At least until they could prove they were no longer a violent threat...i.e. counseling etc)

 

3. What would be the harm in at least at first denying someone who is on a terrorist watch list a gun? If they get denied, there could be an appeal process even! But don't just give them an AR-15 no questions asked!

 

4. What is the logical point of owning/purchasing an AR-15?

 

5. What is the logical need for non law enforcement to ever need an extended clip for an Assault Type Rifle?

[DaveW]

Is this the worst tweet of all time?

 

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/742034549232766976

 

 

[DaveW]

According to the AP, this is the 18th time in his presidency that Obama has had to address the nation due to a mass shooting.

 

Again, bad **** happens all over the world, but it happens time and time and time and time and time again in the US.

 

Something has to change at some point, sadly though, I don't think it's going to happen, if 18 dead kids in Sandy Hook won't spark change, I doubt 50 LGBT will, just sad all around.

[USAFChief]

 

"Well-regulated" is also pretty unambiguous, as is "militia" with regard to the idea at the time how to defend the country.

Yet no gun rights advocate EVER quotes the entire amendment.  

 

Regardless, just because it's an amendment to the constitution doesn't make in immune to interpretation (unless you hold that the 2nd Amendment means it should be legal for private citizens to own working tanks, anti aircraft missiles, and tactical nukes), nor does it mean it couldn't be changed. 

 

But we can't even have reasonable discussion, because gun rights advocates won't even listen to arguments for bans against weapons designed to kill humans, 25 round clips, anti-personnel rounds, etc etc etc.  

 

So I say screw em.  Ban private ownership of weapons.  It works in other countries. 

[TheLeviathan]

I know people say "I don't want to take your guns", well screw it - i'll say it.  Yes, you should, for the better of us all, turn in your punisher cache for good.

 

Time to just dig in and move away from these instruments of death towards civility.

[Brock Beauchamp]

This is one of those times where I feel this quotation should be drilled into every American's head until they acknowledge its importance:

 

"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

 

- Thomas Jefferson to H. Tompkinson (AKA Samuel Kercheval), July 12, 1816

[DaveW]

It's also worth keeping in mind that the 2nd amendment was ratified in 1791, back when fire arms were basically muskets etc, I have a hard time believing ANYONE had any clue on what firearm's (and their power) would eventually become aka AR-15's, hand guns and the like.

 

It's important to remember just how many things have changed in the US (and World) since 1791....

 

1791- 2nd amendment passed

1879- Lightbulb invented

1885- Automobile Invented

1895- Radio invented

1903- Airplane Invented

2012- BYTO shut down

 

So basically the 2nd amendment was passed almost a hundred years+ prior to electricity coming to America, the automobile being invented, radio, TV, and of course hand guns, assault rifles, shotguns and more.

 

At some point, doesn't it makes sense to mayyybeee take a newer age approach to things? It's not like we are using 1791  medical books these days to cure illness and ailments. People seem to think that if we change anything in terms of guns it somehow is UN-patriotic, when in reality it's just changing with the times and evolving.

 

 

 

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

It's also worth keeping in mind that the 2nd amendment was ratified in 1791, back when fire arms were basically muskets etc, I have a hard time believing ANYONE had any clue on what firearm's (and their power) would eventually become aka AR-15's, hand guns and the like.

 

It's important to remember just how many things have changed in the US (and World) since 1791....

 

1791- 2nd amendment passed

1879- Lightbulb invented

1885- Automobile Invented

1895- Radio invented

1903- Airplane Invented

2012- BYTO shut down

 

So basically the 2nd amendment was passed almost a hundred years+ prior to electricity coming to America, the automobile being invented, radio, TV, and of course hand guns, assault rifles, shotguns and more.

 

At some point, doesn't it makes sense to mayyybeee take a newer age approach to things? It's not like we are using 1791 medical books these days to cure illness and ailments. People seem to think that if we change anything in terms of guns it somehow is UN-patriotic, when in reality it's just changing with the times and evolving.

Again, it's no coincidence that the most problematic amendment is the one most closely linked to technology.

 

The ideology behind the second amendment is noble but the inclusion of technology (firearms) causes all sorts of problems 225 years down the line.

 

A rocket launcher is a firearm. It's hand held. It fires a projectile.

 

Yet we somehow still manage to see the logic in "no, man, you don't get to own a rocket launcher".

[USAFChief]

The second amendment to the constitution. 

 

If you want gun control, then it's time to repeal it.  But 'the people's rights to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed' is a clear mandate from the founding fathers.  Like it or not, they wanted that.  And if you read their writings, it had a lot to do with the idea that it presented a check against tyranny in a way no document could ever do.  This was the same group of people who said that those who trade their freedoms for security deserve neither.  And I think that just maybe, they might be an authority on the matter.  They saw tyranny first hand.  They understood how it developed, and they knew that no government would ever be immune to it.  They put their lives on the line to stop it, and they did everything in their power to make it difficult to happen here... including I might add, the second amendment. 

 

I understand if you don't like ARs.  I even understand if you want some form of gun control.  But it won't solve the problem you want it to solve, and I really don't understand how you'd be more than happy to give up your guns and trust a guy like Dick Cheney to not take advantage of it.

 

As long as we're on the subject, I think we can also put to rest the notion that your or my gun ownership is any kind of real barrier to tyranny.

 

Because I can have have every AR on the planet, mountains of ammo, and it wouldn't take the military five minutes to deal with me and a militia of any size imaginable.

 

For all practical purposes, it wouldn't even take a significant portion of the military.

 

BTW, for the record...we already dealt with Dick Chaney, through peaceful transfer of power, as we've done for two plus centuries. If it ever comes to something different, I'd feel much better if guns weren't available than trusting whichever militia forcefully took control of my street to leave me and mine alone.