2016 Election Thread

[DaveW]

My (and a whole lot of other liberals) main two things on guns are:

 

1. Actually force a legitimate background check for anyone buying a gun. Maybe have an even more in depth one for someone buying a hand gun or automatic weapon (guns that literally only exist to kill other humans) I don think it should be easier to get an AR 15 then it is to get a drivers license or a job at McDonalds. If you want a hand gun or a AR 15 you should have to provide no less than two personal references in addition to a background check. (Of course this might cost a few bucks, so just put a small tax on handguns/automatic guns)

 

2. Seriously why on earth does a citizen need an AR15 or high capacity assault rifle anyways? I had a roommate with an AR 15 in college, and while he was a completely sane and rational human being, the thought of being so close to it made me nervous.

 

I also have a good friend who was killed senselessly and randomly by some idiot fire a gun into a crowd, and know another guy who was shot in the head (and lived) due to some paradnoid schizophrenic who had a gun on him at a party and basically "snapped",even with those biases I am still not calling for a "ban" on guns. (And 99% of liberals aren't calling for those either)

 

I may own a shot gun or hunting rifle some day, but I will be god damned if I ever bring a handgun or assault rifle anywhere near my home.

[mikecgrimes]

 

Your instincts are just right. The government can't make you buy potatoes and they can't make you buy insurance.  But they can tax you. 

 

But it's not a tax, also Barrack Obama has never heard of Jonathan Gruber.

[Craig Arko]

I'll consider it progress when our elected officials put the same level of effort into keeping citizens from slaughtering one another that they do peering into their bedrooms and making it difficult for some of them to vote.

 

Maybe a tax to provide Kevlar vests for teachers and kids in school would be a place to start. We can call it 'the pro-life tax.' That should be an easy sell.

[mikecgrimes]

 

My (and a whole lot of other liberals) main two things on guns are:

1. Actually force a legitimate background check for anyone buying a gun. Maybe have an even more in depth one for someone buying a hand gun or automatic weapon (guns that literally only exist to kill other humans) I don think it should be easier to get an AR 15 then it is to get a drivers license or a job at McDonalds. If you want a hand gun or a AR 15 you should have to provide no less than two personal references in addition to a background check. (Of course this might cost a few bucks, so just put a small tax on handguns/automatic guns)

2. Seriously why on earth does a citizen need an AR15 or high capacity assault rifle anyways? I had a roommate with an AR 15 in college, and while he was a completely sane and rational human being, the thought of being so close to it made me nervous.

I also have a good friend who was killed senselessly and randomly by some idiot fire a gun into a crowd, and know another guy who was shot in the head (and lived) due to some paradnoid schizophrenic who had a gun on him at a party and basically "snapped",even with those biases I am still not calling for a "ban" on guns. (And 99% of liberals aren't calling for those either)

I may own a shot gun or hunting rifle some day, but I will be god damned if I ever bring a handgun or assault rifle anywhere near my home.

 

The problem with background checks is someone else gets to say what my background is.  In theory background checks are a reasonable idea that everyone can get behind.  In practice background checks destroy the 2nd admendment. 

 

With 3D printers advancing it's pointless to have this debate.  As for the 2nd point why should anyone be allowed to buy 1.75 liters of hard alcohal or a 36 pack of beer, both have killed far more people that high capacity guns.  I can't just write off suicides and single murders or gang violence, but considering how focused in we are on the rare mass shooting that results in maybe 1-2 deaths per month in this country it seems odd how high we prioritize this issue.  I'll never own a gun I have no personal need, but only because I know many of my neighbors have guns.  It might seem crazy, but things might happen where suddeny the need for guns becomes clear.  Considering we are forced to buy insurance for things that might happen it would seem reasonable that some people would want to insure themselves with a gun for things that might happen.

[mikecgrimes]

Check out the Ted Cruz office space commercial.  I love stuff like that.  Nothing will top Bernie's ads but Cruz has some good comedy going.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Considering we are forced to buy insurance for things that might happen it would seem reasonable that some people would want to insure themselves with a gun for things that might happen.

 

If you want "a gun" - I might be fine with that.  Even a high capacity one.

 

But that's not what people do, they turn their basement into a Punisher safe-house because guns make them feel like they're tough and protected.

 

And here is the thing that gun enthusiasts seem to miss:  yes, YOU might be responsible and safe, but there are millions of people who aren't.  That sucks for you, but it's the same reason a safe tiger enthusiast doesn't get one for a pet: there are too many idiots.  Guns are lethal instruments of death.  Having them proliferate our country means they are easily accessible to people that everyone seems to agree shouldn't have them.  No matter how safe you are with your guns, the access to them is available for everyone and anyone who wants one.

 

That's how one nutjob shot dozens of innocent 6 and 7 year olds while they were trying to learn.  He got that gun because people who shout and whine and complain about their gun "rights" don't give a *#^$ if that puts lives in danger.  

 

 

[formerly33]

 

The problem with background checks is someone else gets to say what my background is.  In theory background checks are a reasonable idea that everyone can get behind.  In practice background checks destroy the 2nd admendment.

Do you seriously believe the government needs a background check to take control of someone's life?

[Mike Sixel]

A well regulated militia being necessary....blah, blah, blah.

 

do we still believe a militia is necessary, or is the premise right there wrong?

 

And, if we believe gun carriers should be part of a militia....why aren't they required to be part of one?

 

or is that not actually part of the bill of rights, and I dreamed it?

 

I'm sorry, but over 200 years ago, things were different. The entire premise is not valid any more, not in the US or any other first world country. Also, the weapons are completely different. I guess I would ask why it is ok to ban nuclear weapons or biological weapons, but not guns?

 

btw, I don't want to ban guns, but this idea that they will somehow something you when the government does something they will never do? I think that's pretty funny at this point in our development, both politically, and technologically.

[biggentleben]

So, I have to go through federally-mandated and -operated background checks to become a foster parent or take kids in my church on a youth trip, but not buy a gun. Makes sense.

[TheLeviathan]

 

A well regulated militia being necessary....blah, blah, blah.

 

do we still believe a militia is necessary, or is the premise right there wrong?

 

And, if we believe gun carriers should be part of a militia....why aren't they required to be part of one?

 

or is that not actually part of the bill of rights, and I dreamed it?

 

I'm sorry, but over 200 years ago, things were different. The entire premise is not valid any more, not in the US or any other first world country. Also, the weapons are completely different. I guess I would ask why it is ok to ban nuclear weapons or biological weapons, but not guns?

 

btw, I don't want to ban guns, but this idea that they will somehow something you when the government does something they will never do? I think that's pretty funny at this point in our development, both politically, and technologically.

 

Even if we allow people to have bazookas - they don't do a damn thing to stop a drone.

 

I understand having a personal weapon to help you feel safe.  Some kind of rifle or shotgun, fine.  I personally don't get that, or feel the need to do so, but I can live with that.  I could even understand having 2-3 hunting rifles.

 

But anything beyond that is completely indefensible behind the 2nd amendment.

[DaveW]

 

  As for the 2nd point why should anyone be allowed to buy 1.75 liters of hard alcohal or a 36 pack of beer, both have killed far more people that high capacity guns. 

This is such a terrible, tired and stupid comparison that continues to get tossed out. I will be all for that the day someone is able to take a 36 pack of beer, walk into a school and kill a dozen or so children.

 

This of course will be followed up with a "Well Drunk driving kills innocent people" bit, to which I will respond that I think our Drunk Driving laws should be significantly more strict (if you get caught, you do 60 days in jail, no iffs and or butts, maybe those 60 days are all weekends, but you HAVE to do the time) 2nd time? 1 year in jail.

 

I guarantee if you started tossing drunk drivers in jail for 60 days you would see the rate plummet.

[Mike Sixel]

the purpose of beer or whatever is to enjoy the product. Anything can kill anyone, but some things have the purpose of killing. Guns' reason for being is to kill. that's why they exist. 

 

The arguments for or against an items regulation depend on many things......not just how many people die from using them. It's kind of depressing to have this conversation over and over, like people trying to do anything to rationalize the fact that guns exist to kill a living creature. Any other use is ancillary.

 

Cars exist to get us from place to place, but still bad things happen sometimes, and people die. But you don't outlaw transportation....you regulate it and try to make it safer. I fail to see how people can't see the difference, other than they don't want to.

[mikecgrimes]

If you want "a gun" - I might be fine with that. Even a high capacity one.

 

But that's not what people do, they turn their basement into a Punisher safe-house because guns make them feel like they're tough and protected.

 

And here is the thing that gun enthusiasts seem to miss: yes, YOU might be responsible and safe, but there are millions of people who aren't. That sucks for you, but it's the same reason a safe tiger enthusiast doesn't get one for a pet: there are too many idiots. Guns are lethal instruments of death. Having them proliferate our country means they are easily accessible to people that everyone seems to agree shouldn't have them. No matter how safe you are with your guns, the access to them is available for everyone and anyone who wants one.

 

That's how one nutjob shot dozens of innocent 6 and 7 year olds while they were trying to learn. He got that gun because people who shout and whine and complain about their gun "rights" don't give a *#^$ if that puts lives in danger.

fair standered. I don't really know how I'll get home from work once they ban cars.

[Squirrel]

 

fair standered. I don't really know how I'll get home from work once they ban cars.

Well, I was to the point I didn't want to drive my car to/from work if I could help it. So I moved within walking/biking distance to work; and also fairly close to near door to door transit service so I can use that when it's too cold or raining.

[mikecgrimes]

the purpose of beer or whatever is to enjoy the product. Anything can kill anyone, but some things have the purpose of killing. Guns' reason for being is to kill. that's why they exist.

 

The arguments for or against an items regulation depend on many things......not just how many people die from using them. It's kind of depressing to have this conversation over and over, like people trying to do anything to rationalize the fact that guns exist to kill a living creature. Any other use is ancillary.

 

Cars exist to get us from place to place, but still bad things happen sometimes, and people die. But you don't outlaw transportation....you regulate it and try to make it safer. I fail to see how people can't see the difference, other than they don't want to.

. I understand the difference but I also understand the 2nd amendment. Some people clearly don't and will talk about 25 kids who died 6 years ago forever. Or was it the 12 kids who died 15 years ago that your willing to destroy this country over?

[mikecgrimes]

the purpose of beer or whatever is to enjoy the product. Anything can kill anyone, but some things have the purpose of killing. Guns' reason for being is to kill. that's why they exist.

 

 

so that's why the secret service has guns? That's not even why gang members have guns.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Some people clearly don't and will talk about 25 kids who died 6 years ago forever. 

 

Yeah.  And we should.  They were *#$^ing six years old.  At school.

 

We should never stop talking about it until it stops happening.

[TheLeviathan]

 

fair standered. I don't really know how I'll get home from work once they ban cars.

 

And we regulate cars.  That's why you can't drive 120 down main street.  It's why we insure people, inspect vehicles, and have a process for licensing people to use them.  We fine and prosecute people for even the most mild of mis-uses.

 

We have far more regulation and provisions in place to make sure of the safe use of cars than we do of guns.  And cars are meant for transportation.  Guns are made to kill.

[mikecgrimes]

Yeah. And we should. They were *#$^ing six years old. At school.

 

We should never stop talking about it until it stops happening.

bad things happen if you have an actual solution let me know.

[TheLeviathan]

 

bad things happen if you have an actual solution let me know.

 

Give up all your guns but the one you need for protection.  That goes for everyone.

 

When that happens, there won't be a cache for someone to raid and go shoot a bunch of kids.  As I said, YOU may be safe with them, but it doesn't take much for someone else to get them.  Even more, your demand to have more than you need creates an oversupply in this country that makes them too easy to attain.

 

The only way to stop 6 year olds from being murdered in their classroom is for people like you to give up the delusion that having 50 guns is protected by the second amendment.  

[mikecgrimes]

I get we want to ignore the true purpose of guns. That's fine, just understand we will never allow your side of the discussion to destroy our country. Plus you keep saying you don't want to ban guns so the next school shooting is on you. Guess only the president is good enough to be protected by guns.

[DaveW]

 

I get we want to ignore the true purpose of guns. That's fine, just understand we will never allow your side of the discussion to destroy our country. Plus you keep saying you don't want to ban guns so the next school shooting is on you. Guess only the president is good enough to be protected by guns.

Wow, this is one of the more dense things I have read on the internet, and that is saying a lot. The fact that this type of opinion is shouted out time and time again from leading GOP, Trump and the NRA is just sad and makes me embarrassed to be an American frankly.

[DaveW]

 

Yeah.  And we should.  They were *#$^ing six years old.  At school.

 

We should never stop talking about it until it stops happening.

While we are at it, the Jews should probably just go ahead and forget about that whole Holocaust thing since it was quite a while ago. Oh, and the gypsies, polish, homosexuals, and pretty much the rest of Europe should probably forget about it as well.

 

I mean "bad things happen" right?

[biggentleben]

 

I get we want to ignore the true purpose of guns. That's fine, just understand we will never allow your side of the discussion to destroy our country. Plus you keep saying you don't want to ban guns so the next school shooting is on you. Guess only the president is good enough to be protected by guns.

 

Y'know, I've had guns around my whole life. I've never once needed one for protection from another human. From animals, sure, but from humans, no. I work with the most intellectually disturbed people within my state, and I've never felt the need to have any level of protection with me when working with them. If I can feel that I need no physical protection to work with those who have the least rational thinking of any human on the planet, how on earth can any person feel they "need" a gun for protection?

 

We've created a culture of guns. Resolving conflict without a gun is plenty possible, but requires work and compromise, and we only have to look to our own leaders to see how little that anyone in Washington wants to work or compromise.

[mikecgrimes]

 

Y'know, I've had guns around my whole life. I've never once needed one for protection from another human.

 

The secret service hasn't needed one as far as I know to protect the president in over 30 years, of course we will never know how many acts they have prevented because people are rational to know any attempt to harm the president is a suicide mission. 

 

I assume far less people break into homes because of guns, far fewer rapes occur because of guns and far fewer people sleep with other peoples wives because of guns.  Pulling the trigger is not the only way a gun protects people.  As much as we are now focused on it law enforcement rarely pulls the trigger yet there is no question the gun saves police officers and others lives.  I assume the other side of this debate is fully aware of these things as I don't assume other people to be stupid.  So the question is why do they pretend to be ignorant.  I think we all know why.

[DaveW]

 

 

 

I assume far less people break into homes because of guns, far fewer rapes occur because of guns and far fewer people sleep with other peoples wives because of guns.  Pulling the trigger is not the only way a gun protects people.  As much as we are now focused on it law enforcement rarely pulls the trigger yet there is no question the gun saves police officers and others lives.  I assume the other side of this debate is fully aware of these things as I don't assume other people to be stupid.  So the question is why do they pretend to be ignorant.  I think we all know why.

Most break ins occur when the home owners/renters/etc aren't home. Unless your teaching fido how to use a gun then it's irrelevant. Are you implying that rape victims wouldn't be raped if they had a gun? Yeesh.

Also if someone thinks that owning a gun means their wife isn't going to cheat on them....oh boy...do I have some bad news for you friend.

[biggentleben]

 

The secret service hasn't needed one as far as I know to protect the president in over 30 years, of course we will never know how many acts they have prevented because people are rational to know any attempt to harm the president is a suicide mission. 

 

I assume far less people break into homes because of guns, far fewer rapes occur because of guns and far fewer people sleep with other peoples wives because of guns.  Pulling the trigger is not the only way a gun protects people.  As much as we are now focused on it law enforcement rarely pulls the trigger yet there is no question the gun saves police officers and others lives.  I assume the other side of this debate is fully aware of these things as I don't assume other people to be stupid.  So the question is why do they pretend to be ignorant.  I think we all know why.

 

That's the whole point. Those crimes you describe being proliferated with guns didn't start with guns. That was escalation. Protecting with escalating weaponry does not mean that it's an intelligent or even logical thing to do.

 

Once again, I've not even implied, let alone suggested, that all guns be banned, so to go along those lines is where ignorance and stupidity become words that can enter the conversation. I own multiple shotguns myself that I use for hunting and keeping cattle safe on my father's farm when I'm on the farm. I have no qualms with someone even owning a gun for the purpose of having a singular gun in the home for protection purposes. Where I find the hypocrisy is the people who have (as one case here recently) 17 handguns in their home, yet they cannot afford to pay rent or keep their heat on and have their children removed from them. Those same people will scream 2nd amendment, just as has been hollered here.

 

So let's examine that second amendment - coming from a very non-legal, this is my opinion only, examination:

 

The actual full text: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

No single person I know who owns a handgun intends to ever utilize that handgun within the confines of a militia. The arguments used for possessing guns are always individual rights, nothing to do with the protection of the country, the original intent of the second amendment.

 

I do find it interesting that the position of a longtime abolitionist, Lysander Spooner, is basically the calling card of those who are all for individual gun rights interpretations of the 2nd amendment. Especially since many of those who get those same ridiculous amount of guns do such because of their fear of people who are another color or race very frequently.

 

 

[TheLeviathan]

I get we want to ignore the true purpose of guns. That's fine, just understand we will never allow your side of the discussion to destroy our country. Plus you keep saying you don't want to ban guns so the next school shooting is on you. Guess only the president is good enough to be protected by guns.

We won't be destroying the country. We'll be making first grade classrooms a place where bloodbaths never happen. Like the rest of the western world.

 

Instead you clearly endorse the bloodbaths by choosing that consequence over the consequence of only having one gun rather than an arsenal. That trade off seems really easy to me.

[formerly33]

 

The secret service hasn't needed one as far as I know to protect the president in over 30 years, of course we will never know how many acts they have prevented because people are rational to know any attempt to harm the president is a suicide mission. 

 

I assume far less people break into homes because of guns, far fewer rapes occur because of guns and far fewer people sleep with other peoples wives because of guns.  Pulling the trigger is not the only way a gun protects people.  As much as we are now focused on it law enforcement rarely pulls the trigger yet there is no question the gun saves police officers and others lives.  I assume the other side of this debate is fully aware of these things as I don't assume other people to be stupid.  So the question is why do they pretend to be ignorant.  I think we all know why.

Thank god I haven't been raped or murdered, and the most surprising thing about it is we don't own guns.

 

I suppose you feel sorry for some guy whose wife was seduced/raped/murdered because he didn't have a gun. Well, how about the guy who makes use of his gun to rape/murder his wife? It'd happen even if he didn't have a gun? Maybe.

 

Dense argument? Well, it was meant to be. I'm defending a different stance with your argument. It doesn't work too well, does it?

And about your "destroying the country" platitude. Just. Stop. Now.

 

You know, if you're saved, you don't have to be afraid of death. But you still want a gun because it makes you feel invincible, immortal ... as if God's not enough. Right?

[mikecgrimes]

 

Thank god I haven't been raped or murdered, and the most surprising thing about it is we don't own guns.

 

Put a sign on your front door saying you don't own guns.  I don't own a gun either, but we have enough guns in this country that the criminal can't count on that.  The logic being used here is insane.  I'm sorry for implying guns prevent crime how silly of me.  As for being bothered by someone who has a basement full of guns, how far will you take this I'm not trying to take your guns I just want most of them garbage?  It would be one thing if an attempt at meaningful legislation took place after Sandy Hook but it didn't.  Instead the left think it's a political wild card they can play any time they don't want to be reasonable.  I'm stupid because I know you want to take all guns I get it.  Repeat the same three lies over and over.