In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On October 13 2016 01:50 KwarK wrote: The primary process brought Clinton left, she's adopted a lot of BLM issues as her own, she's pledged to increase the minimum wage, she's promised increased taxes on the 1%, you got what you could. You didn't get everything you wanted but a voter who demands everything they want from a candidate before they vote for them is a voter no candidate is interested in trying to win. As I keep saying, your symbolic disenfranchisement of yourself isn't going to fill Clinton or Trump with regret, neither are going "if only I'd done everything GH wanted, I'd have won one more vote". They'll just group you with the rest of the Greens voters and label the box "not worth appealing to, ignore their concerns.
None of this matters to GH because his fundamental assumption is that Hillary is a snake that will back out of everything she's pledged.
Never mind the fact that even if she's purely selfishly looking out for her own self-interest, working toward some of these are in her self-interest because they buy her good will for the 2020 election. She can't just piss off everyone for her own selfish interest if she wants a second term.
This whole "she only want power selfishly" is childish. She wants power because she likes it and it's her life, certainly, but also because she wants to do something with it, namely push her centre left agenda. There is absolutely no reason to think she doesn't believe that she can make her country better and that it's not her goal.
I'm sorry to bring that up again, but I think you people are certain Clinton is not sincere because she is too ambitious for a woman in your eyes. I'm positive that considering her trajectory, nobody would doubt she cares about her country, just like Obama, Bush or Bill Clinton did, and isn't motivated by making it a better place did she happen to be a man.
On October 13 2016 05:02 LegalLord wrote: The NRA has a habit of being remarkably obtuse on "common sense gun regulation" that simply seeks to give law enforcement the ability to keep guns out of the hands of obviously unqualified people. It doesn't do them any favors.
But you have to keep in mind that you're talking about (what is now) a constitutional right. "common sense gun regulation" is common sense but a lot of it is pretty sticky when it comes to actually enforcing it. Are you advocating for police to take away your guns or search your house and body for guns if they or others judge you unqualified to have them? Not saying you directly but making a point about it.
Universal background check without a possible national registry is a hard sell to make with anyone no matter how many "do you want ice cream" polls you have.
Reductive arguments that constantly claim that any sort of regulation is impossible because gun ownership is a basic right and to risky are the reason we can’t have discussions on the subject. Speech and voting are also rights, but we limit those. Same with religion. We can restrict rights as long as everyone is allowed due process.
And the arguments would hold more water if the NRA and gun lobby was not trying to limit every aspect of the government’s interaction with guns. The CDC can’t do researching into gun violence. Sections of the government designed to regulate are prohibited from creating data bases. I have not checked recently, but there was a while where in the late 2000s where the ATF couldn’t make requests about gun sales using a computer.
So as much as I love the discussion about guns being a basic right, we really need to get down the fundamental that the gun lobby is preventing laws that currently exist on the books from being enforced.
I'm not saying any regulation is impossible beacuse gun ownership is a basic right I'm saying that the regulations proposed by the left won't do anything but limit rights. How is the NRA and gun lobby any different then the lobby organizations for gun control? The CDC can't do research into gun violence because they were partisan when they were allowed to and we can't alllow government agencies to be openly partisan like that. Sections of the government are prohibited from keeping lists of people who have guns because keeping lists of people for specific reasons are scary.
What we really need to get down to is discussing why we really want gun control and how to peruse those reasons while balancing the limit of a constitutional right like any other constitutional right. Making the argument about one side or the other is the antithesis of any reasonable debate.
That rule on the CDC was passed in the 90s. It has been almost 20 years and I doubt may of the people who worked there still do. This is the arguments I am talking about. You say you are for gun control, but then we get an endless line of what-about-the-left. You bring up an agencies actions from nearly 20 years ago and assume we can never let them do research again because of that.
How about this, no new laws for 4 years, but we fund every agency and remove all restrictions on collecting data on gun violence and gun sales?
The argument is that if we fund them again whats to stop them from being partisan again? Its not like they came out and said "we're going to collect information to advocate for gun control". The very data that they collect would be hamstrung from the start as people scope over it for the slightest reason to call them partisan again and their defenders argue against these calls. That they would come from the obvious different sides of the isle automatically makes them partisan even without trying to be partisan from the start. Then we get a bunch of tainted data politically that doesn't help anyone but those that are trying to score political points.
On October 13 2016 05:37 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 13 2016 01:54 TheYango wrote:
On October 13 2016 01:50 KwarK wrote: The primary process brought Clinton left, she's adopted a lot of BLM issues as her own, she's pledged to increase the minimum wage, she's promised increased taxes on the 1%, you got what you could. You didn't get everything you wanted but a voter who demands everything they want from a candidate before they vote for them is a voter no candidate is interested in trying to win. As I keep saying, your symbolic disenfranchisement of yourself isn't going to fill Clinton or Trump with regret, neither are going "if only I'd done everything GH wanted, I'd have won one more vote". They'll just group you with the rest of the Greens voters and label the box "not worth appealing to, ignore their concerns.
None of this matters to GH because his fundamental assumption is that Hillary is a snake that will back out of everything she's pledged.
Never mind the fact that even if she's purely selfishly looking out for her own self-interest, working toward some of these are in her self-interest because they buy her good will for the 2020 election. She can't just piss off everyone for her own selfish interest if she wants a second term.
This whole "she only want power selfishly" is childish. She wants power because she likes it and it's her life, certainly, but also because she wants to do something with it, namely push her centre left agenda. There is absolutely no reason to think she doesn't believe that she can make her country better and that it's not her goal.
I'm sorry to bring that up again, but I think you people are certain Clinton is not sincere because she is too ambitious for a woman in your eyes. I'm positive that considering her trajectory, nobody would doubt she cares about her country, just like Obama, Bush or Bill Clinton did, and isn't motivated by making it a better place did she happen to be a man.
written version of that? I'm sorry but the guy is unbearable. Starts with "i'm the best informed person in the universe and therefore the fact i don't like clinton is fucking hugely meaningful". Don't have the patience to listen to the rest.
What the girl says is that people don't know why they hate her. They just heard she is unsincere and that her email stuff is bad. And that's true; if someone doesn't like Clinton because she was presumably unsincere about the mistake she made with her emails, they should fucking hate Trump for his fake college. I'm not talking about that dude, i'm talking about the public.
But if he says something interesting, just tell me the timing. Sorry i don't want to spend 12 minutes listening to someone who starts like that.
On October 13 2016 05:02 LegalLord wrote: The NRA has a habit of being remarkably obtuse on "common sense gun regulation" that simply seeks to give law enforcement the ability to keep guns out of the hands of obviously unqualified people. It doesn't do them any favors.
But you have to keep in mind that you're talking about (what is now) a constitutional right. "common sense gun regulation" is common sense but a lot of it is pretty sticky when it comes to actually enforcing it. Are you advocating for police to take away your guns or search your house and body for guns if they or others judge you unqualified to have them? Not saying you directly but making a point about it.
Universal background check without a possible national registry is a hard sell to make with anyone no matter how many "do you want ice cream" polls you have.
Reductive arguments that constantly claim that any sort of regulation is impossible because gun ownership is a basic right and to risky are the reason we can’t have discussions on the subject. Speech and voting are also rights, but we limit those. Same with religion. We can restrict rights as long as everyone is allowed due process.
And the arguments would hold more water if the NRA and gun lobby was not trying to limit every aspect of the government’s interaction with guns. The CDC can’t do researching into gun violence. Sections of the government designed to regulate are prohibited from creating data bases. I have not checked recently, but there was a while where in the late 2000s where the ATF couldn’t make requests about gun sales using a computer.
So as much as I love the discussion about guns being a basic right, we really need to get down the fundamental that the gun lobby is preventing laws that currently exist on the books from being enforced.
I'm not saying any regulation is impossible beacuse gun ownership is a basic right I'm saying that the regulations proposed by the left won't do anything but limit rights. How is the NRA and gun lobby any different then the lobby organizations for gun control? The CDC can't do research into gun violence because they were partisan when they were allowed to and we can't alllow government agencies to be openly partisan like that. Sections of the government are prohibited from keeping lists of people who have guns because keeping lists of people for specific reasons are scary.
What we really need to get down to is discussing why we really want gun control and how to peruse those reasons while balancing the limit of a constitutional right like any other constitutional right. Making the argument about one side or the other is the antithesis of any reasonable debate.
That rule on the CDC was passed in the 90s. It has been almost 20 years and I doubt may of the people who worked there still do. This is the arguments I am talking about. You say you are for gun control, but then we get an endless line of what-about-the-left. You bring up an agencies actions from nearly 20 years ago and assume we can never let them do research again because of that.
How about this, no new laws for 4 years, but we fund every agency and remove all restrictions on collecting data on gun violence and gun sales?
The argument is that if we fund them again whats to stop them from being partisan again? Its not like they came out and said "we're going to collect information to advocate for gun control". The very data that they collect would be hamstrung from the start as people scope over it for the slightest reason to call them partisan again and their defenders argue against these calls. That they would come from the obvious different sides of the isle automatically makes them partisan even without trying to be partisan from the start. Then we get a bunch of tainted data politically that doesn't help anyone but those that are trying to score political points.
That isn’t an argument. That is just the slippery slope fallacy. Guns are not some magical issue that are immune to unbiased research.
I put that suggestion out there to see if you would provide some sort of counter offer. But you have reverted to the default “We can’t be 100% the research won’t be biased, so we can’t have any” argument. Which is an effort to keep the discussion where it is, without solutions or suggestions.
Do you truly believe it is impossible to have accurate scientific research performed or funded by the government on gun violence? And do you believe it is impossible the government to have a data base and data on gun sales and not infringe on the right to own guns?
The notion that federal agencies are or ought to be non-partisan organizations needs some serious scrutiny as it is demonstrably untrue given the presidential power of appointment. Reagan's EPA vastly underperformed relative to their statutory mandate, and yet, liberals haven't decided to abandon the agency. I wonder why?
On October 13 2016 05:02 LegalLord wrote: The NRA has a habit of being remarkably obtuse on "common sense gun regulation" that simply seeks to give law enforcement the ability to keep guns out of the hands of obviously unqualified people. It doesn't do them any favors.
But you have to keep in mind that you're talking about (what is now) a constitutional right. "common sense gun regulation" is common sense but a lot of it is pretty sticky when it comes to actually enforcing it. Are you advocating for police to take away your guns or search your house and body for guns if they or others judge you unqualified to have them? Not saying you directly but making a point about it.
Universal background check without a possible national registry is a hard sell to make with anyone no matter how many "do you want ice cream" polls you have.
Reductive arguments that constantly claim that any sort of regulation is impossible because gun ownership is a basic right and to risky are the reason we can’t have discussions on the subject. Speech and voting are also rights, but we limit those. Same with religion. We can restrict rights as long as everyone is allowed due process.
And the arguments would hold more water if the NRA and gun lobby was not trying to limit every aspect of the government’s interaction with guns. The CDC can’t do researching into gun violence. Sections of the government designed to regulate are prohibited from creating data bases. I have not checked recently, but there was a while where in the late 2000s where the ATF couldn’t make requests about gun sales using a computer.
So as much as I love the discussion about guns being a basic right, we really need to get down the fundamental that the gun lobby is preventing laws that currently exist on the books from being enforced.
I'm not saying any regulation is impossible beacuse gun ownership is a basic right I'm saying that the regulations proposed by the left won't do anything but limit rights. How is the NRA and gun lobby any different then the lobby organizations for gun control? The CDC can't do research into gun violence because they were partisan when they were allowed to and we can't alllow government agencies to be openly partisan like that. Sections of the government are prohibited from keeping lists of people who have guns because keeping lists of people for specific reasons are scary.
What we really need to get down to is discussing why we really want gun control and how to peruse those reasons while balancing the limit of a constitutional right like any other constitutional right. Making the argument about one side or the other is the antithesis of any reasonable debate.
The public and/or the government has access to countless lists, e.g.
Where basically everyone lives Anyone that owns a car Anyone that has any number of licenses to practice a particular profession Anyone that has committed a crime Anyone that's done any federal service Anyone that's traveled to certain places
And, again, I could go on and on, but the point is that "the government having a list is scary" is a ridiculous argument. The government has lists of people for all kinds of purposes in relation to all kinds of things. Being scared of a list of registered gun owners is nothing but paranoia considering that the government can already find you in countless other ways.
Your first three are for registration purposes's the fourth is for the government to know which rights to limit for you the fifth is again registration related and the last is for the government to use to take away your constitutional rights again but for special circumstances such as a disease or national security.
Being scared of a list of gun owners and the guns they own can be used to identify who has guns and take them away. You can't argue with that statement. I'm not saying the government will or I'm afraid the government will or I believe Obama or Hillary ever wanted to or would do in any circumstance. But the fact remains that it scares a portion of the population that are then extremely motivated to vote.
Its no different in this case then for pro Israel politics. Its a legitimate concern because it effects politics in the country in a very real way.
On October 13 2016 05:31 LegalLord wrote: DWS being unseated was probably the most consequential result of the leaks. A result I'm sure a lot of us welcome.
She seemed like a real piece of work and not very well liked. There will be a great book on how she stayed in power for so long. I bet that the fact she was a rep from Florida, the state that cost them the 2000 election, was a factor.
The current head, Donna brazile is basically from her faction as well. My issue with DWS was two fold, I disliked both her politics and thought she was awful at the job. If Brazile is better on either front I find doubtful.
On October 13 2016 05:02 LegalLord wrote: The NRA has a habit of being remarkably obtuse on "common sense gun regulation" that simply seeks to give law enforcement the ability to keep guns out of the hands of obviously unqualified people. It doesn't do them any favors.
But you have to keep in mind that you're talking about (what is now) a constitutional right. "common sense gun regulation" is common sense but a lot of it is pretty sticky when it comes to actually enforcing it. Are you advocating for police to take away your guns or search your house and body for guns if they or others judge you unqualified to have them? Not saying you directly but making a point about it.
Universal background check without a possible national registry is a hard sell to make with anyone no matter how many "do you want ice cream" polls you have.
Reductive arguments that constantly claim that any sort of regulation is impossible because gun ownership is a basic right and to risky are the reason we can’t have discussions on the subject. Speech and voting are also rights, but we limit those. Same with religion. We can restrict rights as long as everyone is allowed due process.
And the arguments would hold more water if the NRA and gun lobby was not trying to limit every aspect of the government’s interaction with guns. The CDC can’t do researching into gun violence. Sections of the government designed to regulate are prohibited from creating data bases. I have not checked recently, but there was a while where in the late 2000s where the ATF couldn’t make requests about gun sales using a computer.
So as much as I love the discussion about guns being a basic right, we really need to get down the fundamental that the gun lobby is preventing laws that currently exist on the books from being enforced.
I'm not saying any regulation is impossible beacuse gun ownership is a basic right I'm saying that the regulations proposed by the left won't do anything but limit rights. How is the NRA and gun lobby any different then the lobby organizations for gun control? The CDC can't do research into gun violence because they were partisan when they were allowed to and we can't alllow government agencies to be openly partisan like that. Sections of the government are prohibited from keeping lists of people who have guns because keeping lists of people for specific reasons are scary.
What we really need to get down to is discussing why we really want gun control and how to peruse those reasons while balancing the limit of a constitutional right like any other constitutional right. Making the argument about one side or the other is the antithesis of any reasonable debate.
The public and/or the government has access to countless lists, e.g.
Where basically everyone lives Anyone that owns a car Anyone that has any number of licenses to practice a particular profession Anyone that has committed a crime Anyone that's done any federal service Anyone that's traveled to certain places
And, again, I could go on and on, but the point is that "the government having a list is scary" is a ridiculous argument. The government has lists of people for all kinds of purposes in relation to all kinds of things. Being scared of a list of registered gun owners is nothing but paranoia considering that the government can already find you in countless other ways.
And in the era of google maps and Facebook, it is hard to see a reason to fear a list like that existing.
I respect the desire for people to have privacy, and understand concerns about government violating that right...
but like one of the main things about resisting restrictions on gun ownership is about resisting overbearing government and having the government fear people...
So are people really thinking they're going to overthrow a government that has planes, tanks, and bombs, but ONLY if the government doesn't know upfront where they started on?
That and the dichotomy of "I'll shoot anyone who tries to take my gun away and am proud of it!" and "I'm worried the government will take my gun away if they know I have one" are really odd to me.
On October 13 2016 05:37 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 13 2016 01:54 TheYango wrote:
On October 13 2016 01:50 KwarK wrote: The primary process brought Clinton left, she's adopted a lot of BLM issues as her own, she's pledged to increase the minimum wage, she's promised increased taxes on the 1%, you got what you could. You didn't get everything you wanted but a voter who demands everything they want from a candidate before they vote for them is a voter no candidate is interested in trying to win. As I keep saying, your symbolic disenfranchisement of yourself isn't going to fill Clinton or Trump with regret, neither are going "if only I'd done everything GH wanted, I'd have won one more vote". They'll just group you with the rest of the Greens voters and label the box "not worth appealing to, ignore their concerns.
None of this matters to GH because his fundamental assumption is that Hillary is a snake that will back out of everything she's pledged.
Never mind the fact that even if she's purely selfishly looking out for her own self-interest, working toward some of these are in her self-interest because they buy her good will for the 2020 election. She can't just piss off everyone for her own selfish interest if she wants a second term.
This whole "she only want power selfishly" is childish. She wants power because she likes it and it's her life, certainly, but also because she wants to do something with it, namely push her centre left agenda. There is absolutely no reason to think she doesn't believe that she can make her country better and that it's not her goal.
I'm sorry to bring that up again, but I think you people are certain Clinton is not sincere because she is too ambitious for a woman in your eyes. I'm positive that considering her trajectory, nobody would doubt she cares about her country, just like Obama, Bush or Bill Clinton did, and isn't motivated by making it a better place did she happen to be a man.
written version of that? I'm sorry but the guy is unbearable. Starts with "i'm the best informed person in the universe and therefore the fact i don't like clinton is fucking hugely meaningful". Don't have the patience to listen to the rest.
What the girl says is that people don't know why they hate her. They just heard she is unsincere and that her email stuff is bad. And that's true; if someone doesn't like Clinton because she was presumably unsincere about the mistake she made with her emails, they should fucking hate Trump for his fake college. I'm not talking about that dude, i'm talking about the public.
But if he says something interesting, just tell me the timing. Sorry i don't want to spend 12 minutes listening to someone who starts like that.
I've listened to a lot of his stuff before. He straw-mans like crazy. He's also pretty annoying in how he caricaturizes people. Not worth listening to IMO. I watched most of it with subtitles myself.
Overall in that video he just lists reasons why a reasonable and informed person might dislike Hillary.
On October 13 2016 05:57 Biff The Understudy wrote: if someone doesn't like Clinton because she was presumably unsincere about the mistake she made with her emails, they should fucking hate Trump for his fake college.
On October 13 2016 05:02 LegalLord wrote: The NRA has a habit of being remarkably obtuse on "common sense gun regulation" that simply seeks to give law enforcement the ability to keep guns out of the hands of obviously unqualified people. It doesn't do them any favors.
But you have to keep in mind that you're talking about (what is now) a constitutional right. "common sense gun regulation" is common sense but a lot of it is pretty sticky when it comes to actually enforcing it. Are you advocating for police to take away your guns or search your house and body for guns if they or others judge you unqualified to have them? Not saying you directly but making a point about it.
Universal background check without a possible national registry is a hard sell to make with anyone no matter how many "do you want ice cream" polls you have.
Reductive arguments that constantly claim that any sort of regulation is impossible because gun ownership is a basic right and to risky are the reason we can’t have discussions on the subject. Speech and voting are also rights, but we limit those. Same with religion. We can restrict rights as long as everyone is allowed due process.
And the arguments would hold more water if the NRA and gun lobby was not trying to limit every aspect of the government’s interaction with guns. The CDC can’t do researching into gun violence. Sections of the government designed to regulate are prohibited from creating data bases. I have not checked recently, but there was a while where in the late 2000s where the ATF couldn’t make requests about gun sales using a computer.
So as much as I love the discussion about guns being a basic right, we really need to get down the fundamental that the gun lobby is preventing laws that currently exist on the books from being enforced.
I'm not saying any regulation is impossible beacuse gun ownership is a basic right I'm saying that the regulations proposed by the left won't do anything but limit rights. How is the NRA and gun lobby any different then the lobby organizations for gun control? The CDC can't do research into gun violence because they were partisan when they were allowed to and we can't alllow government agencies to be openly partisan like that. Sections of the government are prohibited from keeping lists of people who have guns because keeping lists of people for specific reasons are scary.
What we really need to get down to is discussing why we really want gun control and how to peruse those reasons while balancing the limit of a constitutional right like any other constitutional right. Making the argument about one side or the other is the antithesis of any reasonable debate.
That rule on the CDC was passed in the 90s. It has been almost 20 years and I doubt may of the people who worked there still do. This is the arguments I am talking about. You say you are for gun control, but then we get an endless line of what-about-the-left. You bring up an agencies actions from nearly 20 years ago and assume we can never let them do research again because of that.
How about this, no new laws for 4 years, but we fund every agency and remove all restrictions on collecting data on gun violence and gun sales?
The argument is that if we fund them again whats to stop them from being partisan again? Its not like they came out and said "we're going to collect information to advocate for gun control". The very data that they collect would be hamstrung from the start as people scope over it for the slightest reason to call them partisan again and their defenders argue against these calls. That they would come from the obvious different sides of the isle automatically makes them partisan even without trying to be partisan from the start. Then we get a bunch of tainted data politically that doesn't help anyone but those that are trying to score political points.
That isn’t an argument. That is just the slippery slope fallacy. Guns are not some magical issue that are immune to unbiased research.
I put that suggestion out there to see if you would provide some sort of counter offer. But you have reverted to the default “We can’t be 100% the research won’t be biased, so we can’t have any” argument. Which is an effort to keep the discussion where it is, without solutions or suggestions.
Do you truly believe it is impossible to have accurate scientific research performed or funded by the government on gun violence? And do you believe it is impossible the government to have a data base and data on gun sales and not infringe on the right to own guns?
Its not a slippery slope argument when theres no slope to slip on. Its an argument of whats the point when it will do nothing from the start. I'm not saying the research would be biased I'm perfectly sure the average or right group of people would be non partisan and the truth would and could go either way. I'm saying that the research they do will be partisan by the people that use the research. It has nothing to do with the research at all.
I say no to both you're questions. I think the government could and should fund research on a bunch of different policies and it should be its own department. I'm saying you don't think through your arguments past "are they good" and ignore what will happen if they become real policy. You aren't arguing the same things I'm arguing.
On October 13 2016 05:37 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 13 2016 01:54 TheYango wrote:
On October 13 2016 01:50 KwarK wrote: The primary process brought Clinton left, she's adopted a lot of BLM issues as her own, she's pledged to increase the minimum wage, she's promised increased taxes on the 1%, you got what you could. You didn't get everything you wanted but a voter who demands everything they want from a candidate before they vote for them is a voter no candidate is interested in trying to win. As I keep saying, your symbolic disenfranchisement of yourself isn't going to fill Clinton or Trump with regret, neither are going "if only I'd done everything GH wanted, I'd have won one more vote". They'll just group you with the rest of the Greens voters and label the box "not worth appealing to, ignore their concerns.
None of this matters to GH because his fundamental assumption is that Hillary is a snake that will back out of everything she's pledged.
Never mind the fact that even if she's purely selfishly looking out for her own self-interest, working toward some of these are in her self-interest because they buy her good will for the 2020 election. She can't just piss off everyone for her own selfish interest if she wants a second term.
This whole "she only want power selfishly" is childish. She wants power because she likes it and it's her life, certainly, but also because she wants to do something with it, namely push her centre left agenda. There is absolutely no reason to think she doesn't believe that she can make her country better and that it's not her goal.
I'm sorry to bring that up again, but I think you people are certain Clinton is not sincere because she is too ambitious for a woman in your eyes. I'm positive that considering her trajectory, nobody would doubt she cares about her country, just like Obama, Bush or Bill Clinton did, and isn't motivated by making it a better place did she happen to be a man.
The rare species of the libertarian youtuber who rants about the military industrial complex. The fucking South sudan argument lol, the average age in that nation is <18, by definition most soldiers are child sodiers. Christ man.
On October 13 2016 05:02 LegalLord wrote: The NRA has a habit of being remarkably obtuse on "common sense gun regulation" that simply seeks to give law enforcement the ability to keep guns out of the hands of obviously unqualified people. It doesn't do them any favors.
But you have to keep in mind that you're talking about (what is now) a constitutional right. "common sense gun regulation" is common sense but a lot of it is pretty sticky when it comes to actually enforcing it. Are you advocating for police to take away your guns or search your house and body for guns if they or others judge you unqualified to have them? Not saying you directly but making a point about it.
Universal background check without a possible national registry is a hard sell to make with anyone no matter how many "do you want ice cream" polls you have.
Reductive arguments that constantly claim that any sort of regulation is impossible because gun ownership is a basic right and to risky are the reason we can’t have discussions on the subject. Speech and voting are also rights, but we limit those. Same with religion. We can restrict rights as long as everyone is allowed due process.
And the arguments would hold more water if the NRA and gun lobby was not trying to limit every aspect of the government’s interaction with guns. The CDC can’t do researching into gun violence. Sections of the government designed to regulate are prohibited from creating data bases. I have not checked recently, but there was a while where in the late 2000s where the ATF couldn’t make requests about gun sales using a computer.
So as much as I love the discussion about guns being a basic right, we really need to get down the fundamental that the gun lobby is preventing laws that currently exist on the books from being enforced.
I'm not saying any regulation is impossible beacuse gun ownership is a basic right I'm saying that the regulations proposed by the left won't do anything but limit rights. How is the NRA and gun lobby any different then the lobby organizations for gun control? The CDC can't do research into gun violence because they were partisan when they were allowed to and we can't alllow government agencies to be openly partisan like that. Sections of the government are prohibited from keeping lists of people who have guns because keeping lists of people for specific reasons are scary.
What we really need to get down to is discussing why we really want gun control and how to peruse those reasons while balancing the limit of a constitutional right like any other constitutional right. Making the argument about one side or the other is the antithesis of any reasonable debate.
That rule on the CDC was passed in the 90s. It has been almost 20 years and I doubt may of the people who worked there still do. This is the arguments I am talking about. You say you are for gun control, but then we get an endless line of what-about-the-left. You bring up an agencies actions from nearly 20 years ago and assume we can never let them do research again because of that.
How about this, no new laws for 4 years, but we fund every agency and remove all restrictions on collecting data on gun violence and gun sales?
The argument is that if we fund them again whats to stop them from being partisan again? Its not like they came out and said "we're going to collect information to advocate for gun control". The very data that they collect would be hamstrung from the start as people scope over it for the slightest reason to call them partisan again and their defenders argue against these calls. That they would come from the obvious different sides of the isle automatically makes them partisan even without trying to be partisan from the start. Then we get a bunch of tainted data politically that doesn't help anyone but those that are trying to score political points.
That isn’t an argument. That is just the slippery slope fallacy. Guns are not some magical issue that are immune to unbiased research.
I put that suggestion out there to see if you would provide some sort of counter offer. But you have reverted to the default “We can’t be 100% the research won’t be biased, so we can’t have any” argument. Which is an effort to keep the discussion where it is, without solutions or suggestions.
Do you truly believe it is impossible to have accurate scientific research performed or funded by the government on gun violence? And do you believe it is impossible the government to have a data base and data on gun sales and not infringe on the right to own guns?
Its not a slippery slope argument when theres no slope to slip on. Its an argument of whats the point when it will do nothing from the start. I'm not saying the research would be biased I'm perfectly sure the average or right group of people would be non partisan and the truth would and could go either way. I'm saying that the research they do will be partisan by the people that use the research. It has nothing to do with the research at all.
I say no to both you're questions. I think the government could and should fund research on a bunch of different policies and it should be its own department. I'm saying you don't think through your arguments past "are they good" and ignore what will happen if they become real policy. You aren't arguing the same things I'm arguing.
Thank you for clearing that up. You are correct, we have nothing further to discuss on the subject as we hold views on the value “unbiased” research and if the government is capable of it.
I don't see how researchers being partisan is a justification for barring an organization from conducting research at all.
If the organization is partisan, you work through it. But you literally can't have the discussion without doing research--that's just completely nonsensical. How can you make policy about something when you refuse to let data be collected on the thing you're trying to make policy about? If you aren't gathering real information, you're making policy based on feelings rather than the state of the real world.
On October 13 2016 06:24 TheYango wrote: I don't see how researchers being partisan is a justification for barring an organization from conducting research at all.
If the organization is partisan, you work through it. But you literally can't have the discussion without doing research--that's just completely nonsensical. How can you make policy about something when you refuse to let data be collected on the thing you're trying to make policy about? If you aren't gathering real information, you're making policy based on feelings rather than the state of the real world.
Partisan is also really misused, I mean it's true everyone is biased and what not, but it's always used as a way to avoid having to admit where the truth really lies. Like sometimes the truth is partisan because one party has it right and the other is wrong.
Trying to avoid that sort of result is really just putting your party above the country which is how we've gotten into this whole mess in the first place.
On October 13 2016 05:37 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 13 2016 01:54 TheYango wrote:
On October 13 2016 01:50 KwarK wrote: The primary process brought Clinton left, she's adopted a lot of BLM issues as her own, she's pledged to increase the minimum wage, she's promised increased taxes on the 1%, you got what you could. You didn't get everything you wanted but a voter who demands everything they want from a candidate before they vote for them is a voter no candidate is interested in trying to win. As I keep saying, your symbolic disenfranchisement of yourself isn't going to fill Clinton or Trump with regret, neither are going "if only I'd done everything GH wanted, I'd have won one more vote". They'll just group you with the rest of the Greens voters and label the box "not worth appealing to, ignore their concerns.
None of this matters to GH because his fundamental assumption is that Hillary is a snake that will back out of everything she's pledged.
Never mind the fact that even if she's purely selfishly looking out for her own self-interest, working toward some of these are in her self-interest because they buy her good will for the 2020 election. She can't just piss off everyone for her own selfish interest if she wants a second term.
This whole "she only want power selfishly" is childish. She wants power because she likes it and it's her life, certainly, but also because she wants to do something with it, namely push her centre left agenda. There is absolutely no reason to think she doesn't believe that she can make her country better and that it's not her goal.
I'm sorry to bring that up again, but I think you people are certain Clinton is not sincere because she is too ambitious for a woman in your eyes. I'm positive that considering her trajectory, nobody would doubt she cares about her country, just like Obama, Bush or Bill Clinton did, and isn't motivated by making it a better place did she happen to be a man.
The rare species of the libertarian youtuber who rants about the military industrial complex. The fucking South sudan argument lol, the average age in that nation is <18, by definition most soldiers are child sodiers. Christ man.
On October 13 2016 05:37 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 13 2016 01:54 TheYango wrote:
On October 13 2016 01:50 KwarK wrote: The primary process brought Clinton left, she's adopted a lot of BLM issues as her own, she's pledged to increase the minimum wage, she's promised increased taxes on the 1%, you got what you could. You didn't get everything you wanted but a voter who demands everything they want from a candidate before they vote for them is a voter no candidate is interested in trying to win. As I keep saying, your symbolic disenfranchisement of yourself isn't going to fill Clinton or Trump with regret, neither are going "if only I'd done everything GH wanted, I'd have won one more vote". They'll just group you with the rest of the Greens voters and label the box "not worth appealing to, ignore their concerns.
None of this matters to GH because his fundamental assumption is that Hillary is a snake that will back out of everything she's pledged.
Never mind the fact that even if she's purely selfishly looking out for her own self-interest, working toward some of these are in her self-interest because they buy her good will for the 2020 election. She can't just piss off everyone for her own selfish interest if she wants a second term.
This whole "she only want power selfishly" is childish. She wants power because she likes it and it's her life, certainly, but also because she wants to do something with it, namely push her centre left agenda. There is absolutely no reason to think she doesn't believe that she can make her country better and that it's not her goal.
I'm sorry to bring that up again, but I think you people are certain Clinton is not sincere because she is too ambitious for a woman in your eyes. I'm positive that considering her trajectory, nobody would doubt she cares about her country, just like Obama, Bush or Bill Clinton did, and isn't motivated by making it a better place did she happen to be a man.
The rare species of the libertarian youtuber who rants about the military industrial complex. The fucking South sudan argument lol, the average age in that nation is <18, by definition most soldiers are child sodiers. Christ man.
...So what's your point?
that the concept of a child soldier on a continent with a median age of 19 years is utterly meaningless?
"[ISIS is] hoping and praying that Hillary Clinton becomes president of the United States, because they’ll take over not only that part of the world, they’ll take over this country."
On October 13 2016 06:24 TheYango wrote: I don't see how researchers being partisan is a justification for barring an organization from conducting research at all.
If the organization is partisan, you work through it. But you literally can't have the discussion without doing research--that's just completely nonsensical. How can you make policy about something when you refuse to let data be collected on the thing you're trying to make policy about? If you aren't gathering real information, you're making policy based on feelings rather than the state of the real world.
You don’t. If you can never do the research, the discussion can never happen. It is impossible to zero in on the problems with gun sales or think up solutions to those problems. So nothing happens, which has been the goal all along.
It isn’t an argument, it’s a tactic. They don’t believe it is true, but know it is necessary to keep any gun safety laws from being passed or the currently regulations being enforced.
On October 13 2016 06:30 Doodsmack wrote: "[ISIS is] hoping and praying that Hillary Clinton becomes president of the United States, because they’ll take over not only that part of the world, they’ll take over this country."
- Ronald McDonald, 10/12/16
You say Ronald McDonald but I can't help feeling like it was some other clown.
EPT
