EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 8904
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. 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. | ||
|
brian
United States9610 Posts
| ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On October 03 2017 04:56 farvacola wrote: Your mistake comes not from guessing as to the history, rather that "constitutional historians" are any less likely to pull stuff out of their ass than you or I  But at least someone who specialized in the constitution would regularly wipe their ass with it, as opposed to whatever store bought toilet paper I use. I would consider their ass a perfectly valid secondary source. | ||
KwarK
United States42008 Posts
On October 03 2017 04:57 brian wrote: sorry, i was trying to be sarcastic but wasn’t clear enough. oh well. Sorry, I wasn't quite sure. These days it's very difficult to tell who is deliberately saying something absurd and who isn't in this topic. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 03 2017 04:54 WolfintheSheep wrote: Wasn't the 2nd amendment also written in a time where standing armies were not a thing at all? So, rather than average citizens overthrowing a corrupt government, wouldn't the intent of protecting a free state be more along the lines of "when the British come back to claim their territory, it's a good thing the population can quickly militarize and defend ourselves from invaders"? Of course, I'm sure constitutional historians are a thing, who would have a proper answer as opposed to whatever I'm pulling out of my ass. It came from an era where the concept of a professional, full time army that was employed by the state was a pretty new idea. And paying them was a real problem. It was also an era without police or any form of professional law enforcement. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18819 Posts
On October 03 2017 04:58 WolfintheSheep wrote: But at least someone who specialized in the constitution would regularly wipe their ass with it, as opposed to whatever store bought toilet paper I use. I would consider their ass a perfectly valid secondary source. Haha, cheers to that. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3187 Posts
On October 03 2017 04:44 Logo wrote: Some of the mods that supposedly simulate automatic fire (like bump firing) aren't illegal though so why do they need to be restricted? My understanding is bump firing isn't that practical if you want to hit something in particular, because it's almost impossible to aim while bump firing. It's mostly just for experiencing what it feels like to fire an automatic. Most of the gun modifications that turn a semi-auto to an auto are illegal. | ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
On October 03 2017 04:58 KwarK wrote: Sorry, I wasn't quite sure. These days it's very difficult to tell who is deliberately saying something absurd and who isn't in this topic. You must be referring to The Onion? | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On October 03 2017 04:20 Ryzel wrote: Danglars, do you believe that the government should be allowed to take data on gun violence in the country? Just curious. State governments may do that to police forces in their state. Maybe a few take a state constitutional amendment to compel the same. On October 03 2017 04:21 Jockmcplop wrote: @Danglars Surely the best idea is to make something like a genuine step towards regulating some of the more outlandish parts of US law that allow anyone to own a gun regardless of who they are. Not the kind of legislation that bans one very specific type of gun, but law that we can mostly agree would make the country safer. Regulating who can own a weapon would be a start. People who have a history of violence or mental health issues should never be allowed a gun. Passing a test before ownership is allowed would be useful too. Stringent, strict testing before ownership would probably cut down on a decent number of gun deaths per year. I'm not sure what you mean by "who they are." Have you looked up your state's laws existing regulations on the seriously mentally ill? Many states have them, and many are very stringent. My state has a billion. I also have no problem depriving that right upon conviction of a violent felony. If there's a cheap gun safety test for the concealed carry/open carry permit, fine. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15401 Posts
On October 03 2017 05:28 LegalLord wrote: Let's see if those ads were worth the $100k it cost to put em up. Has to be. A million times over. If young activists see this type of stuff posted by people who seem similar to them (helped by Russian social media bots made to look like a certain type of activist), these ads suddenly have 100x the credibility of any major news outlet. Particularly when relating to race issues. When people reach a certain level of feeling powerless and disenfranchised, they are going to have a really easy time believing and spreading false ideology so long as it is empowering. It's not even a matter of having the article clicked. Just that headline being liked or shared by someone who looks like the kind of person they'd agree with has a huge impact on validating extremist views. The hivemind kicks in and suddenly a Russian operative is influencing thousands of young activists. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 03 2017 05:35 ShoCkeyy wrote: I've been reading it's upwards to 50k+ ads in total, and the 3000 here are the ones he plans to make public. The reach that $100k can have in Facebook is ridiculously btw. I work in Marketing and $100k is a lot in general for ads. Especially if an ad can cost you between $0.03 - $1.50 per click/view on facebook. We should try to put a dollar amount on the quantity of democracy that those $50-100k destroyed. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9351 Posts
On October 03 2017 05:35 Danglars wrote: I'm not sure what you mean by "who they are." Have you looked up your state's laws existing regulations on the seriously mentally ill? Many states have them, and many are very stringent. My state has a billion. I also have no problem depriving that right upon conviction of a violent felony. If there's a cheap gun safety test for the concealed carry/open carry permit, fine. I just meant regardless of circumstances or history. I don't live in the USA so I'm not entirely sure on how different states handle their gun laws. I'm just trying to say that as it is the law is obviously allowing circumstances to arise where there is too much gun violence, and there's areas of gun law that could be toughened up without doing too much harm to regular gun users. I don't think it'll happen though because the NRA is rich. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On October 03 2017 05:35 ShoCkeyy wrote: I've been reading it's upwards to 50k+ ads in total, and the 3000 here are the ones he plans to make public. The reach that $100k can have in Facebook is ridiculously btw. I work in Marketing and $100k is a lot in general for ads. Especially if an ad can cost you between $0.03 - $1.50 per click/view on facebook. *Especially for Facebook* where you could say, target your content/ads for Red leaning congressional districts in swings states where the user has indicated a like of guns (or some other metric you feel more applicable). | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On October 03 2017 04:31 Simberto wrote: Yes, but who cares. You don't seem to (want to) understand the argument. Due to your gun laws, it is easy to get a gun which you can turn into an automatic rifle at home, and then start murdering people with it. No one knows that you broke the gun laws until you start murdering people, at which point you are already murdering people, so it doesn't really matter if you also broke the gun laws. Good admission of the inefficacy of gun control laws. This discussion is always the same. I am totally fine with blaming your second amendment, because i don't think that constitutions are holy texts which are perfect in their current form, and may never be changed. Your second amendment is anachronistic and gets people killed. I know exactly how this discussion plays out: Some dude in the US kills a bunch of people with a gun. A: Maybe if people in the US didn't have so many guns, there would be less people killed with guns. B: But if people didn't have guns, only criminals have guns! We have to protect ourselves! Also government tyranny! A: Other country which have sensible gun laws don't have this problem with people killing random people with guns in this amount B: American exceptionalism!!! And there is no data from the US that supports that easier access to guns means that people can more easily get a gun to kill people with A: Because it is illegal to gather that data in the US due to laws pushed through by the gun lobby. But look at all these other countries. B: Only american data works! America is so exceptional it can never be compared to another country! Also tyranny! Also, there will be a bunch of weird ideas like that people who are for gun control want to ban all people from having guns. And the weird inability to understand that the availability of legal guns also influences the availability of illegal guns. It never works. So you will have to live with a random dude snapping and grabbing a gun to kill a bunch of people every few days forever. Because there is nothing that can be done. Except in all of the other countries which don't have this problem to this extent. And like "these discussions are always the same," no admission of the asymmetric disadvantages the other countries accept. You get weird ideas like opponents are arguing for "American exceptionalism," "only American data works," "I won't address tyranny, so I'm gonna herp derp 'tyranny' ironically!" We have to punish the law abiding because who knows when a criminal will snap! I should say, "a random dude snapping and grabbing his [randomly modified semi-auto or randomly pre-1986 full auto] gun to go kill a bunch... . It's poisonous and always equates criminals to the largely law-abiding, statistically less likely to cimmit crimes, stopping violent criminals from inflicting injury on their person or loved ones. Other countries might not protect their children from rape gangs, or borders from economic migrants, or their tabloid rags from jihadists, or politicians from hiding New Year's Eve sexual assaults. Hey, their citizens accept the results. I hope their representative governance reflects their citizens' choice of compromises. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19573 Posts
On October 03 2017 04:34 RenSC2 wrote: The Second amendment: It's not well defined, but there is that whole part about a well-regulated militia. I would think well-regulated would at least include keeping track of who is in that militia to possibly own a gun. I would also question the necessity of a well-regulated militia to maintain the security of a free state. We have the most powerful military in the world and it's not even close. We don't need a citizens' militia to defend America from invaders and we have a whole political process to defend us from the military itself (and your small-arms fire isn't going to stop airstrikes). Then there's the issue of police. It turns out that a whole hell of a lot of police in America have been gunned down in the line of duty. Police in America are much more on-edge than police in other first world countries without America's gun problems and they tend to be trigger happy and gun down citizens much more frequently. So arming the populace isn't disincentivizing police violence, but actually is one of the root causes of it. Focusing on the militia clause is a bad thought process because it actually would make even more gun control laws unconstitutional. Why? Here: 1. To start. States were the entities that "regulated" said "well regulated militias". Well regulated actually means well equipped in this context, but that doesn't really help. This means the Federal Government is 100% banned from regulating the militias until they are called up. For example, if we consider this a "state right", if Rhode Island and Florida want to equip militia members with Tanks, Apaches, and Nukes, Washington can say jack shit about it. 2. Next, the Militia is made up of all able bodied men (being defined as anyone past puberty), not really a great restriction. I guess it would be modified in the present day to include women, maybe, by the 14th. 3. The 14th Amendment has been interpreted to mean that all the restrictions that applied to the Federal government only in the Bill of Rights (Speech, Religion, 5th amendment, etc) are also applied against the state. When logically applied, it now means each individual person is now his own militia, and can decide that it is "necessary to the security of a free State" that he himself needs a tank and a nuke. We know Washington can have no say, because militias were never regulated by the Federal government prior to being called up, but because of incorporation doctrine, state capitals also have no say. In other words, by obsessing over the "militia" portion, you just made an argument for private tactical nukes for anyone who can afford it. The Scalia individual right interpretation gets around all the problems of the militia clause by saying it was an individual right from the very beginning, and that the right is subject to reasonable regulation, just like we don't have the right to publish slander, and the 4th Amendment doesn't mean cops can't chase a bank robber into an apartment building. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 03 2017 05:44 LegalLord wrote: We should try to put a dollar amount on the quantity of democracy that those $50-100k destroyed. Are you saying the Russia has proven the US to be a low quality democracy through this act? Or that it’s not a big deal, and please ignore the man behind the curtain, who happens to be Putin? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 03 2017 05:47 Logo wrote: *Especially for Facebook* where you could say, target your content/ads for Red leaning congressional districts in swings states where the user has indicated a like of guns (or some other metric you feel more applicable). And there are no rules for disclosure if the ads are targeted. So the person using facebook has no idea the rest of the country isn’t seeing the same thing. Or their neighbor. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On October 03 2017 04:21 Logo wrote: Responses like this are incredibly disingenuous. You're already abiding by or complicit with restrictions on what you're arguing is a civil right here. There are many existing gun restrictions in an effort to curtail the reckless and criminals. Is your ideological view that existing gun laws (i.e ANY law controlling guns) are unacceptable restrictions of your rights? If not then you agree there's a line dividing acceptable restrictions from unacceptable ones. But you defend your position, and the current line, as if it is ideologically pure and thus unbendable. It's already a bent position, some people think the line should be elsewhere. Even if you disagree it doesn't lead you to the arguments you are making. It's really no different than other topics where people do the same thing ("I only support completely free speech, but support trademarks and copyright laws!") Right back at you for ignoring the disingenuous "what about the children?" calls. You snipped it as a response, but that was tailored to child accidents, not some wide detailed ideological position. You'll have to do better or I'll get the impression you're looking to snip responses to emotional pleas to pretend it represents the full argument. Any real response to childhood safety? I've drawn two acceptable restrictions of my gun rights. If you didn't bother to read my prior interactions on this topic in the last pages, maybe I'm disinclined to fight the wind with your new arguments made in ignorance. | ||
| ||
