2nd amendment discussion + taking tweets to task (Split from news thread)

[Icelandic]

We have actually done this many times, but it ends up just becoming a circular argument with everyone just getting mad at one another and no progress one way or the other :/

It wouldn't be politics if people agreed. >:3

[gaggedLouise]

Perhaps we should make a thread about Gun Control or move this to my thread on ideologies and philosophies, or ask a mod about splitting this off into its own thread?

I recall once or twice when people from the site team have exclaimed, "Oh no! not another gun debate thread!"  :P There's been a few of them already.

[TheGlyphstone]

Again, not finding too much I disagree with here. (I'm surprised! ;P)

It's almost like when reasonable, intelligent people discuss their differences with rationality, they can find common ground instead of flinging fistfuls of buzzwords and hostility at each other. :D Now if only we elect more people who understood that, we might see positive movement on this.

I likely have never seen anyone directly say an assault weapon is a pistol. But when people refer to an assault weapon as any semiautomatic firearm, that means literally anything from an AR-15 to a pistol, as they are all semiautomatic.

'Black Rifles' literally just means a rifle that is big, scary, and black. So like, AR-15s for example. That one just comes from ignorance more then anything else, as some seem to think that the color of the rifle indicates how dangerous it is.

So your issue isn't that they are directly violating the Constitution with their claims, but that inaccurate terminology is being used? Politicians in general tend to be a fairly ignorant breed, and I'm not going to innately concede any advantage to blue-flagged members of the species. But politicians who actually want to, say, ban pistols, are going to be much harder to find than ones who want to ban semi-automatic rifles but substitute 'weapons' as a generalization when talking about it.

[Tolvo]

Semi-automatic though would include most guns not used in active war. Unless they're bolt-action or a revolver, they're typically semi-automatic or fully automatic in nature.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46233560

Also I was just hearing about this, I don't know as much about French taxes but the fact that people have died is pretty worrying. It sounds like these protesters could learn from Black Lives Matter groups in how they allow people in emergency situations and emergency vehicles to pass. This seems like quite a mess in what is going on.

[RedRose]

Ha, and I was just going to post about it! Yes, it's a mess. I avoid demos like the plague. They turn into riots, violence or plain vandalism much of the time.
So, so very sad. I also feel for this poor mom trying to get to the ped.. only to get attacked. Of course she panicked. I had a similar thing in a foreign country and thank God the chauffeur who was a local was "used to it"... As if people didn't know Macron's style before voting, and as if mindless violence (or even non mindless demonstrating) will change that. Apparently the same type of guys who wanted to recreate The Purge in France are using this occasion to trash the country again.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/11/17/one-killed-16-injured-yellow-jackets-protests-rising-fuel-prices/

[Deamonbane]

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/16/eric-swalwell-democratic-lawmaker-warns-gun-owners/

A Democratic representative from California threatening to nuke it's own citizens for the sake of gun control. The fact that Democratic politicians can say this kinda crap and no one cares is insane.

https://twitter.com/repswalwell/status/1063527635114852352?s=21

^The tweet straight from the source.^

I'll be honest, it's a good point. It's not threatening to nuke citizens, it's telling folk that if their government decided to go to war with them, it would be very one-sided.

And it's a lot less aggressive than what GOP Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith had to say about voter suppression and public hangings.

I'm not playing the whataboutism game, but it really is.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/11/16/cindy-hyde-smith-its-great-idea-make-it-harder-liberal-folks-vote/?utm_term=.8733fb100e0d

[TheGlyphstone]

I'll be honest, it's a good point. It's not threatening to nuke citizens, it's telling folk that if their government decided to go to war with them, it would be very one-sided.

And it's a lot less aggressive than what GOP Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith had to say about voter suppression and public hangings.

I'm not playing the whataboutism game, but it really is.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/11/16/cindy-hyde-smith-its-great-idea-make-it-harder-liberal-folks-vote/?utm_term=.8733fb100e0d

Now having read the link....yeah. Saying it was a threat to nuke citizens is definitely warping the statement out of context.

[Iniquitous]

I'll be honest, it's a good point. It's not threatening to nuke citizens, it's telling folk that if their government decided to go to war with them, it would be very one-sided.

And it's a lot less aggressive than what GOP Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith had to say about voter suppression and public hangings.

I'm not playing the whataboutism game, but it really is.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/11/16/cindy-hyde-smith-its-great-idea-make-it-harder-liberal-folks-vote/?utm_term=.8733fb100e0d

Thank you. Because I read the link and could not understand what Icelandic was up in arms about.  There was not one thing said about threatening to nuke his constituents.  I honestly feel like the vast majority of people LOOK for things to get up in arms about.  They see a headline, make their judgement, and don't actually bother to understand what is being said in the article.

As for guns. I am pro second amendment and I am pro common sense gun laws. It's called finding the middle ground and it can be done.

[TheGlyphstone]

Semi-related side note, but apparently Heller vs. DC - the landmark case that actually definitively established the interpretation of the 2nd amendment as guaranteeing individual civilian gun ownership - is only 10 years old.

[Icelandic]

I'm not playing the whataboutism game

>Immediately plays the whataboutism game.

The difference between what you linked and what Swalwell said is that your politician in question is being held to task for her comments. Swalwell on the otherhand, has the privilege of being immune from almost any criticism due to the party that he is in.

[Icelandic]

Thank you. Because I read the link and could not understand what Icelandic was up in arms about.  There was not one thing said about threatening to nuke his constituents.  I honestly feel like the vast majority of people LOOK for things to get up in arms about.  They see a headline, make their judgement, and don't actually bother to understand what is being said in the article.

As for guns. I am pro second amendment and I am pro common sense gun laws. It's called finding the middle ground and it can be done.

I did read the article. In fact it sounds like I know more about the background to this then you do.

The representative in question is a anti-2nd amendment fanatic. And his prior advocacy for forcible disbarment of legal gun owners makes his comments all the more concerning.
 

[Oniya]

I would personally recommend that anyone interested in this should look up Stonekettle Station - particularly the series of entries titled 'Bang Bang Crazy'.  The writer is both a veteran and a gun owner, and makes some excellent points.

[Iniquitous]

I did read the article. In fact it sounds like I know more about the background to this then you do.

The representative in question is a anti-2nd amendment fanatic. And his prior advocacy for forcible disbarment of legal gun owners makes his comments all the more concerning.

Again, you are getting bent out of shape over nothing.  1. He wasn't threatening anyone. He was responding to someone saying that he wanted a war over guns ... his response was that it would be a short one because the government has nukes. A) he is factually correct - the government has nukes.  I would certainly hope they'd never be used on us american citizens, but yes, the government does indeed have nukes. B) He also said “I’m sure if we talked we could find common ground to protect our families and communities.”

I seriously look at this as a case of people looking to get pissed at anything they can.  I do not think he misspoke - he is factually correct, it would be a very short war if our government decided to nuke us.  Likely to happen? No.  Is it possible that it could happen? Sure.  Anything can happen.

As for his stance on gun ownership - he has the right to his belief, he can yell it from the rooftops.  He can try to get legislation passed - but I suspect that the minute he tried his political career would be over.  Now, if he wants to discuss common sense gun regulation? I am all for that.

[Deamonbane]

>Immediately plays the whataboutism game.

The difference between what you linked and what Swalwell said is that your politician in question is being held to task for her comments. Swalwell on the otherhand, has the privilege of being immune from almost any criticism due to the party that he is in.

In your original post, you asked why people weren't up in arms about what the Swalwell said. I gave you an example of why.

On your end, you have a tweet that makes a good point, and only people who are looking for a fight would find it offensive. One the other, you have someone talking about what a good idea it would be to make sure that liberals can't vote. Tell me which one is the cause for overreaction?

[RedPhoenix]

Threadsplit for 2nd amendment debate plz. :)

[Blythe]

Gimme a sec, folks, and I'll be splitting off the 2nd amendment stuff shortly

[Blythe]

And thread is now split off to its own topic. I left a link to this new thread in the What's In The News thread since quite a few posts were split off. 2nd amendment/tweet dialogue can resume here in this thread.

[Tolvo]

Also since when does being a Democrat protect anyone from criticism? Like, have you see any political discourse or debates?

Frankly I think the guy really undersold it. The government would probably not nuke its own citizens even if there was a revolution, it wouldn't have to. Ignoring nukes, the disparity between civilian and military power is so vast it is ridiculous. If every militant group and civilian with a gun attempted an uprising together they would not even stand a chance. It is why historically a lot of revolutions require a massive number difference or military personnel breaking rank and joining the revolution. Even the American Revolution was that way, George Washington and many fighting for independence were British military.

[RedPhoenix]

Also since when does being a Democrat protect anyone from criticism? Like, have you see any political discourse or debates?

It doesn't. At all.

There are entire subcultures of Americans who do nothing but criticize Democrats or liberals for existing at all, regardless of what they do. In fact those people are, oddly enough, the same ones that spread this idea that democrats are immune from criticism.

I literally received mail labeled as "Public Health Warnings" with biohazard signs from political organizations - the warning was that democrats were running for office. I got this and similar other "everything will be aborted and killed by terrorists if you vote democrat" letters daily for the past three months.

Every time a GOP politicians speaks they blame everything on Democrats. Their followers repeat it ad nauseam.

There are entire "news" services that do nothing but criticize liberal politicians and celebrities.

Hell just go read our President's twitter if you want to see a never-ending stream of "DEMS BAD."

That you could see all this and somehow conclude Democrats are immune from criticism is pretty strange.

[RedPhoenix]

That was a generic "you" not you personally Tolvo. I should have said "one".

[Skynet]

Forgive me if I just weigh in with a link, but I did a pretty lengthy discussion on how gun rights in America are being championed mostly by people who do not care about civil rights at all. This is not to say that gun rights aren't important or a smokescreen, but that most Republicans and conservatives who champion it do not have the American peoples' best interests at heart.

[QuackKing]

Forgive me if I just weigh in with a link, but I did a pretty lengthy discussion on how gun rights in America are being championed mostly by people who do not care about civil rights at all. This is not to say that gun rights aren't important or a smokescreen, but that most Republicans and conservatives who champion it do not have the American peoples' best interests at heart.

I dunno, mang. I mean it is true that gun lobbyists aren't necessarily paragons of virtue, but to paint them as almost being malicious makes it creep eerily close to concern trolling. They serve as a voice for something, which is important in the creation of public policy.

I mean, I personally think that people should be able to have even more guns with even fewer restrictions, because the 2nd Amendment was created to allow the gamers people to rise up against a tyrannical government and be able to properly protect their claim to land/freedom. So while I may not agree with gun lobbyists on all issues, their beliefs are sometimes tangentially related to my own.

[Tolvo]

Skynet seems pretty accurate. The NRA are quite different from hunting and sport enthusiasts who want protections for gun owners. They're also deeply in bed with various people like Trump. They also make more money every time there is a mass shooting, gun sales in general go up after every mass shooting with how they stoke fear and people feel the need to stock up in case the government finally comes for their guns. Money matters more than lives to them.

[TheGlyphstone]

More or less. Lobbyists are lobbyists, and while I despise the breed entirely regardless of what specific issue they are shoveling cash into a congresscritter's pockets to promote, they're an endemic fact of life in politics by this point. But gun advocates and gun lobbyists are two very different groups for me despite their similar activities; the former are indeed serving as a voice for the people, the latter are just legalized bribery. The NRA specifically I have extremely deep-seated issues with on several levels, at least as far as their political presence goes*. They are a fundamentally extremist group, whose 5 million members are only a tiny fraction of the 100+ million gun owners in America, and their official policy platforms don't even align with the majority of their own membership base in some cases. Whatever they started as, the organization now acts to justify its own existence, which they do through stocking fear and paranoia to a fever pitch while exploiting tragedies to further solidify their power.


*The NRA's non-political wings are an entirely different story. They run hunters' safety classes and have a legal assistance fund for people accused of gun-related crimes, for instance, both respectable and beneficial activities. I've been told that before the 60's or 70's it was an almost militantly apolitical organization, until an internal leadership coup by its own extremist wing hijacked the organization's platform and has kept it ever since.

[TheGlyphstone]

(addendum, my advocate/lobbyist distinction should apply to any major issue, not simply guns. Health care, food subsidies, whatever. Lobbyists are dumb and a huge part of the problem with modern politics.)