2016 Election Thread

[ashbury]

Mod note. I need to say it again: don't make it personal. I needed to remove another post. Stick to the issues.

[glunn]

Moderator note -- I have read the past few pages of this thread because people have expressed concerns about the level of disrespect that some posters have been showing for opposing views.

 

I am pleasantly surprised by the level of discourse compared with what I have seen elsewhere, but there is room for improvement.  Let's all keep in mind that when posters strongly disagree it becomes especially important that we be respectful.

[ashbury]

weapons designed to kill humans. 

 

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.

I don't actually think it can be put to rest. Not unilaterally, at least.

 

I had been planning to respond to the previous statement about killing humans (man this web site is a time sink ). Behind many of the arguments against any limits on gun rights is the notion that one day in the not too distant future, representatives of the government will be paying visits to you and me, demanding this or that of our private property to the government's ever-growing pile of assets. "We noticed that you didn't sign up for Obamacare, you need to pay this penalty now." Or whatever the current bugaboo happens to be. And when enough has become too much, the private citizens with these "notions" plan to simply blow that government agent away on the spot. Not today or tomorrow, quite, but pretty soon, and like-minded people will be doing the same all at about the same time in coordination. "Obama's coming for your guns" is the vanguard tip of this expectation that Obama's coming for everything.

 

It's kind of a Walter Mitty fantasy, of saving the country from itself (or, more aptly, from usurpation by unnamed treacherous outsiders, which is why in the case of Obama it's so important to cast doubt on his legitimacy as the president), which is not easily dislodged by arguments about how large the opposing force would really be at such time as it would actually arrive.

 

Compromise proposals such as protecting the ability to shoot for sport are met with tepid condescension at best, because sport isn't at all what they are fundamentally looking to retain.

 

One side of the discussion can not simply "put to rest" the notion of shooting the coming illegitimate government, one member of it at a time. It is part of the core belief. And unless it is addressed in a better way than saying you will be outnumbered, which only encourages an Alamo last stand fantasy on top of it all, the two sides on the Second Amendment issue are merely talking past one another.

[TheLeviathan]

It's not about being "outnumbered", it's about being hilariously outgunned.  I don't care what your personal cache looks like, it probably doesn't match the fortress and armory of your average high level terrorist.  

 

And yet we're smoking them via drone without even leaving our command center.  The notion that the average citizen, even as part of a large coalition, has a prayer against the government is comedy at this point.  It may have been true even 20 or 30 years ago, but we're past the point technologically that a milita is even relevant.

 

Not to mention the "regulated" part - that's plenty vague to pass much more restrictive laws.

[ashbury]

The notion that the average citizen, even as part of a large coalition, has a prayer against the government is comedy at this point.

I genuinely hope that one of the gun-rights advocates in this discussion weighs in on your and Chief's point of view. As I said above, I think it's orthogonal to what their actual hope/concern is. I doubt I accurately stated it on their behalf, although I tried to at least get in the right neighborhood, that sometime in say the next 30 years or so we're going to be glad we have an armed populace - which I have to say, has not been the case so far in my 60+ years of life, ever.

 

(And, I got up out of bed to add this, 'cause it was gnawing at me, that after asking posters to watch out for the personal characterizations, I hope I didn't run afoul too much myself. One standard technique in conflict resolution is to try "here's what I think you are saying". I may have gotten it wrong, but I wasn't parodying.)

[glunn]

I am a former member of the NRA, but left when it seemed to me that it was getting too political.  In the 1970s and 1980s I kept a shotgun and a backpack full of shells in the trunk of my car in case of a Russian invasion.  I continue to own a number of shotguns and handguns for personal defense purposes and hunting ducks.

 

I am a gun rights advocate in terms of believing that law abiding citizens should be allowed to possess rifles, shotguns and handguns for home defense.  However, I have never considered buying an assault rifle, because assault rifles are not good for home defense or hunting.  http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/01/02/gun_control_ar_15_rifle_the_nra_claims_the_ar_15_rifle_is_for_hunting_and.html

 

I agree with Ashbury that people may be talking past each other on this issue.  Clearly, in a revolution against the government an assault rifle would be much deadlier than a hunting rifle, a shotgun or a handgun.  On the other hand, it seems to me that an assault rifle would be ineffective against government forces who have drones, armored assault vehicles, helicopters and smart bombs. Therefore, I agree with those who feel that defense against government oppression is not a good reason to allow access to assault rifles, but I can understand why people who believe that they may eventually be facing government forces would want as much firepower as possible.

 

As for the Second Amendment, even if you can somehow ignore the part about a well regulated militia, it seems to me that no one is arguing that people should be allowed to own machine guns or RPGs, so we all seem to agree that the Second Amendment is not absolute and that a line needs to be drawn somewhere.

[Craig Arko]

[mikecgrimes]

 

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?

 

Probably because even a law abiding citizen can easily kill others with a car, also because of the 2nd amendment we all basically already have a gun license from birth.  We can change the 2nd amendment through the required process, what we can't do is ignore it under the idea that something is "common sense"  I know it requires thinking of some uncommon events but nearly every suggested solution requires Americans to face the possibility of not being allowed to defend themselves.  I don't own a gun and never will but the enemy will never know that unless the laws restrict my access to a point where they have nothing to worry about. 

[Steve J]

In the 18th and maybe 19th Century, it was pretty well understood that the militia would potentially consist of any able-bodied man.  A "Well Regulated" militia would be predicated on those involved being practiced and competent, often with their own weapons, and ready to serve on short notice.   

 

It simply does not fit the idea that the State controlled the arms independent from the hands of the People. 

 

And as poorly as semi-automatic weapons in the hands of civilians may fare against modern soldiers, removing all firearms would certainly make the citizens' case all the much the worse.  

[Mike Sixel]

It saddens me the number of people whose first response when 50+ people die....that their first response....is about themselves, and their guns, and not about the people that just died.

 

The US has a gun violence problem. Denying that is like denying the earth is round. The facts are very clear, gun violence is a huge problem here compared to other parts of the world. 

 

The question is, should we just point at a piece of paper written over 200 years ago, when guns couldn't fire fast at all, or should we acknowledge there is a problem and try to do something about it.

 

"thoughts and prayers" don't save lives. All they do is make the person saying that feel like they actually did something.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Every so often, this needs to be posted again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0

[TheLeviathan]

 

It simply does not fit the idea that the State controlled the arms independent from the hands of the People. 

 

And as poorly as semi-automatic weapons in the hands of civilians may fare against modern soldiers, removing all firearms would certainly make the citizens' case all the much the worse.  

 

"Regulating" need not mean controlling.  It could mean, you know, regulating what kinds of arms the citizenry has access to.  Which we already do, by the way.  

 

An ant versus my boot doesn't get any more hopeless if the ant is missing a leg.  

[TheLeviathan]

 

Probably because even a law abiding citizen can easily kill others with a car, also because of the 2nd amendment we all basically already have a gun license from birth.  We can change the 2nd amendment through the required process, what we can't do is ignore it under the idea that something is "common sense"  I know it requires thinking of some uncommon events but nearly every suggested solution requires Americans to face the possibility of not being allowed to defend themselves.  I don't own a gun and never will but the enemy will never know that unless the laws restrict my access to a point where they have nothing to worry about. 

 

So can a law-abiding person with a gun.  Hunting accidents and plain, legal stupidity kill people every year.  You don't have to be acting like a criminal to kill someone with a gun either.  

 

And the problem with the "required process" is the NRA and the tentacles it has firmly around the throat of so many. "Common Sense" is just code for "stop listening to lobbyists and pass laws independent of them".

[Craig Arko]

“This is a sad and dark day for this country we all love.

 

“We want to say that this tragedy is unthinkable. But it is not.

 

“Once again, a mass shooting has torn a community apart. Make no mistake: Our country is in the grips of a gun violence crisis. It claimed at least 50 lives early this morning. It claimed 33,000 lives last year.

 

“Some will say that our nation must accept this as the new normal. Some will say that there is nothing we can do to make our country safer from gun violence. It’s not true. We cannot let armed ambushes become the new normal in our country. We have to do better than this. And we can. We have to do more to ensure hatred doesn’t find its evil voice in the crack of a gunshot. We are heartbroken that this attack allegedly targeted our country’s LGBTQ community as they celebrated Pride Month.

 

“We are incredibly grateful to the first responders who acted so bravely this morning to save lives and bring this horror to an end. We grieve for those taken and with their loved ones, and we pray for strength for the injured. Our hearts and prayers are in Orlando and with our fellow Americans in the LGBTQ community.”

 

-- Former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and Navy combat veteran and NASA astronaut Captain Mark Kelly

[TheLeviathan]

 

Therefore, I agree with those who feel that defense against government oppression is not a good reason to allow access to assault rifles, but I can understand why people who believe that they may eventually be facing government forces would want as much firepower as possible.

 

But at some point we just have to dismiss tinfoil hat theories and hopelessly outmatched realities and look at the day to day cost of guns.  We can't sit back and say "well, you never know when the government...." while every day people are dying of gun violence.  The belief you need guns to protect yourself from the government, in 2016, is about as relevant as saying you need them for an alien invasion, zombie outbreak, or the inevitable rise of the apes.

 

We can't make public policy based on that kind of thinking.

[Steve J]

 

"Regulating" need not mean controlling.  It could mean, you know, regulating what kinds of arms the citizenry has access to.  Which we already do, by the way.  

 

 

 

Here is a link that explains what the term "well regulated" meant to those of the 18th and 19th Centuries.

 

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

 

And a well regulated militia vs a modern solider is not exactly an "ant", I would think.

[Steve J]

 

 

 

 

 

 

The US has a gun violence problem. Denying that is like denying the earth is round. The facts are very clear, gun violence is a huge problem here compared to other parts of the world.

The question is, should we just point at a piece of paper written over 200 years ago, when guns couldn't fire fast at all, or should we acknowledge there is a problem and try to do something about it.

"thoughts and prayers" don't save lives. All they do is make the person saying that feel like they actually did something.

 

gun killings are on the decline have been for some time, particularly after the liberalization of gun laws.

[Mike Sixel]

 

gun killings are on the decline have been for some time, particularly after the liberalization of gun laws.

 

Not gun shootings. If you read freakonomics 2, you'd know that shootings are up, deaths are down. Why? Because so many ER professionals have returned from combat that we are now better at saving shooting victims.

 

The numbers and data are clear, we have a gun shooting problem here. Are you really denying that? That the US isn't more violent with guns than other first world nations?

[Steve J]

 

Why limit it to other First World nations?

 

And where exactly are these increased shootings happening?  What are the gun laws there?

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Here is a link that explains what the term "well regulated" meant to those of the 18th and 19th Centuries.

 

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

That's an interesting observation, one definitely worth noting.

 

But that doesn't really change the meaning very much... In that case, "well-regulated" means "in proper working order".

 

Given the stark contrast in American gun violence when compared to almost every other industrialized nation on the planet, it's hard to call what we have "in proper working order".

 

This is a flawed data set because it only deals with gun-related death (not attempted murder, accident, or other) but these numbers are hard to swallow.

 

Firearm-related homicides per 100,000 people:

 

USA: 3.43

 

Next closest western country:

 

Greece: 0.53

 

Next closest western country that isn't an embarrassing comparison to the United States:

 

Canada: 0.38

 

The United States' firearm homicide rate is ten times that of Canada.

 

The United States is right behind Nicaragua in firearm-related homicides. I visited Nicaragua earlier this year. It's a lovely country full of lovely people.

 

Who make, on average, about $5,000 a year and don't have even basic amenities. It's embarrassing to compare to them in almost any statistic.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Here is a link that explains what the term "well regulated" meant to those of the 18th and 19th Centuries.

 

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

 

And a well regulated militia vs a modern solider is not exactly an "ant", I would think.

 

There is no militia in "working order".  So, you're right, it doesn't even stand the same chance as the ant vs. my boot via not existing.

[Craig Arko]

The 'well-regulated' militia in the United States is better known as the National Guard.

 

It has been subject to revisions in the law many times, including the Dick Act of 1903.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903

[TheLeviathan]

I think it might be stretching it to call the National Guard a "militia" in the sense the 2nd amendment was written, but you're right that it's probably as close as we come.

 

So, if that's true, then you can have a gun if you sign up to be part of the National Guard.

[PseudoSABR]

The thing about the Constitution is that it was authored by many minds who had disparate purposes. Everything that ended up in the Constitution was a result of compromise not consensus.  It's simply foolhardy to go back and try to find 'original intent,' invariably the historian discards that which doesn't fit his theory, and brings forward that which confirms his theory. (See Scalia in writing Heller v. DC).

 

I personally think the second amendment was premised on the fear that we might not always have a standing army.  The personal right to bear arms only extends as far as it is part of a well-regulated militia.  But that narrow reading of course has been left behind in favor of broader readings that favor various interest groups - original intent be damned.   

[Badsmerf]

It amazes me how self absorbed trump is with his response to this tragedy. Instead of unifying and promoting peace, he instead brags about his opinion. I really hope people open their eyes.

 

There needs be some real progress on guns. We are now victims of our own laws. I don't think banning handguns or assault rifles is the solution. I think making it more difficult to get guns is. When it's easier to get a item that can kill do many people than a driver's license, we have a problem.

[Craig Arko]

"Odd how many Americans invoke the 2nd Amendment to justify gun ownership, rather than explore whether or not it's a good idea"

 

-- Neil deGrasse Tyson

[Badsmerf]

Caught some of Clinton's speech on cnn radio. Very articulate and strong imo. Even called out Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. She also touched on a rigged economy and the 1 %. I don't think I've heard her use the same language as Bernie Sanders before..... Interesting. It was very purposeful too.

 

While she has her flaws, as well pointed out in this thread, her message is tough to argue against.

[DaveW]

http://www.theonion.com/article/concerned-nra-official-rushes-out-purchase-congres-53084?utm_content=Main&utm_campaign=SF&utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing

[DaveW]

 

 

Caught some of Clinton's speech on cnn radio. Very articulate and strong imo. Even called out Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. She also touched on a rigged economy and the 1 %. I don't think I've heard her use the same language as Bernie Sanders before..... Interesting. It was very purposeful too.

While she has her flaws, as well pointed out in this thread, her message is tough to argue against.

Agreed, a very good speech, sounded very presidential.

Now just compare it to Trumps rants and raves on twitter and on fox news earlier today.

 

Obviously as a pretty liberal guy, I am very biased in the following statement: But if you compare the two responses by the candidates the last 24 hours, it's really hard to see how ANYONE reasonable could ever vote for Trump.

[DaveW]

Sadly, the Onion is once again on fire.