The Well-Mannered Politics Thread

[Tank]

It’s a big fucking circle.........people need guns to protect themselves from people with guns. Not sure how you break that cycle in a way that will be accepted.

That said buyback and ban of tactical assault weapons should be a no brainer.

 

[BloodRaven]

It’s a big fucking circle.........people need guns to protect themselves from people with guns. Not sure how you break that cycle in a way that will be accepted.

That said buyback and ban of tactical assault weapons should be a no brainer.

Well imagine if everyone at the concert was strapped with a concealed carry, they dont know where the shooters are, theyre out of range, and likely paranoid about the thousands of revolvers being waved and pointed around so maybe some would shoot each other.

 

[BloodRaven]

Also when the 50 gay guys were shot dead in that florida nightclub a few years ago the NRA swore that if some were carrying it would never have happened... but then another crazy person with an assault rifle took down ten armed cops in Dallas. What im getting at is my 45 just isnt going to do shit if someone comes at me with an AR-15

 

[Rusfan]

Also when the 50 gay guys were shot dead in that florida nightclub a few years ago the NRA swore that if some were carrying it would never have happened... but then another crazy person with an assault rifle took down ten armed cops in Dallas. What im getting at is my 45 just isnt going to do shit if someone comes at me with an AR-15

Well, one was where people were all cole to the shooter in the club while the other was in a building two stories up 100 feet across the sreet

 

[balfan23]

Maybe they have those bodyguards to protect them from the crazies with the guns. It's not a fucking difficult concept. They are a body GUARD. GUARD. A GUARD. Do you know what a GUARD is? Do you know what the verb GUARD means? Jesus fucking Christ. Of all the moronic conservative talking points, the notion that wealthy liberals are hypocrites for having armed guards is one of the dumbest and worst. Like, hello! They have guards to protect them from the many people with guns that hate celebrities. It wouldn't be a necessity if we didn't have more guns that people. Jesus Christ.

People tried this rhetoric against Obama. "Oh, Obama's a hypocrite. He's guarded by men with guns." Yeah, because presidents have been SHOT before. Reagan? JFK? Lincoln? Ringing any bells? Maybe presidents are protected by armed guards because presidents have been KILLED before by men with guns.

And to really bring this point home, I must remind you all that Lincoln, JFK, and Reagan were likely under protection from the best trained armed guards we had -- and they still got shot. Two of them died. And yet, nobody sees a goddamn problem. And yet, it's hypocritical for people to have armed guards.

Also, because I'm feeling feisty now, the second amendment hasn't ever and doesn't now allow average citizens the right to bear arms. "It being necessary to preserve a well-armed militia..." Hmm. Anyone here join any militias lately? I'm thinking about joining the one down the street. Can anyone tell me what it's like?

They are not hypocrites for having armed guards .... they are hypocrites for telling those without the means to hire such protection that they shouldn't have the right to defend themselves. As you say, not a difficult concept.

If I am to be labeled a moron, the label me that for coming out here and saying ANYTHING. I've told myself 1,000 times never bother to state a political view in today's climate because it is guaranteed to be met with gallons of venom.

So much for the "Well Mannered" part of the title on this thread. I suppose you can say I've learned my lesson. Go spew your nastiness on someone else, thanks.

 

[rossihunter2]

It is a violation of our constitution.
The founding document of this country.
It expresses the limits of our government ( or is supposed to ) While spelling out our rights and freedoms.

im pretty sure laws change when they are no longer appropriate to their time... like slavery perhaps

 

[K-Dog]

im pretty sure laws change when they are no longer appropriate to their time... like slavery perhaps

Which is another amendment in the constitution.
I don't see how my chosen method of protecting my family is no longer appropriate though.

 

[K-Dog]

It’s a big fucking circle.........people need guns to protect themselves from people with guns. Not sure how you break that cycle in a way that will be accepted.

That said buyback and ban of tactical assault weapons should be a no brainer.

 

[K-Dog]

They are not hypocrites for having armed guards .... they are hypocrites for telling those without the means to hire such protection that they shouldn't have the right to defend themselves. As you say, not a difficult concept.

If I am to be labeled a moron, the label me that for coming out here and saying ANYTHING. I've told myself 1,000 times never bother to state a political view in today's climate because it is guaranteed to be met with gallons of venom.

So much for the "Well Mannered" part of the title on this thread. I suppose you can say I've learned my lesson. Go spew your nastiness on someone else, thanks.

Celebrity lives have more value than ours hunh?

The hide button makes this thread easier to stomach.

 

[Tank]

Serious question. What does this have to do with civilians owning tactical assault rifles?

 

[29BmoreBird22]

I am a fourth amendment guy myself and there is way more different interpretations of that one. I had to learn to make it my best friend.

I am right there with you being a fourth amendment guy, and yeah, lots of open ended interpretation that I generally agree with.

 

[29BmoreBird22]

So freedom of press is just about ye ol' printing press right?

The press referred to printed and written material, so nah...

 

[29BmoreBird22]

No clue what you are talking about.

It was a comment that in more conservative constitutional positions, the right side tends to look at the amendment and what is written is what it applies to. For example, the fourth guarantees a right to privacy according to the Supreme Court, but privacy is never mentioned in the fourth amendment, so a conservative would say you don't have a right to privacy.

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.

That's the second amendment. It's for a militia, but conservatives tend to disregard that and make the interpretation that every person has a right to bear arms for any reason. It's actually also the left looking at it for exactly what it says and not allowing for open ended interpretation. A bit of a reversal.

 

[29BmoreBird22]

So, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't assault rifles outright illegal in the US? Or was that a talking point of gun control recently?

 

[Willbacker]

It was a comment that in more conservative constitutional positions, the right side tends to look at the amendment and what is written is what it applies to. For example, the fourth guarantees a right to privacy according to the Supreme Court, but privacy is never mentioned in the fourth amendment, so a conservative would say you don't have a right to privacy.

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.

That's the second amendment. It's for a militia, but conservatives tend to disregard that and make the interpretation that every person has a right to bear arms for any reason. It's actually also the left looking at it for exactly what it says and not allowing for open ended interpretation. A bit of a reversal.

The last 4 words are whats important.

 

[The Raven]

They are not hypocrites for having armed guards .... they are hypocrites for telling those without the means to hire such protection that they shouldn't have the right to defend themselves. As you say, not a difficult concept.

If I am to be labeled a moron, the label me that for coming out here and saying ANYTHING. I've told myself 1,000 times never bother to state a political view in today's climate because it is guaranteed to be met with gallons of venom.

So much for the "Well Mannered" part of the title on this thread. I suppose you can say I've learned my lesson. Go spew your nastiness on someone else, thanks.

Celebrity lives have more value than ours hunh?

The hide button makes this thread easier to stomach.

Never said celebrity lives were more important, but given their publicity, celebrities and politicians are obviously more prone to attacks. They receive more threats than the average American. You, too, can use guns to protect yourself right now. As can they. Again, not a difficult concept to grasp. It's hardly hypocritical for celebrities to have armed guards when they likely get frequent threats from armed assailants. But maybe if there were fewer guns, both celebrities and average folks may not need to protect themselves with guns. That's what I'm saying.

With more guns, people need a gun for protection.

Without guns, people probably don't need a gun for protection.

Is that understandable?

The notion that I value celebrity lives more than "average" lives is wrong, baseless, and stupid. Don't even know where K-Dog comes up with his shit.

The last 4 words are whats important.

Why aren't the first four words important?

 

[The Raven]

So, if not gun control in combination with other things like mental health awareness and resources, what would you do to stop mass shootings, @Willbacker, @balfan23, and @K-Dog? What do you propose?

 

[Willbacker]

It is indisputable that gun control has worked, in conjunction with other things, in most other advanced nations. To deny that is to simply deny reality.

Australia enacted strict gun control in the 1990s and hasn't had a mass shooting since. The homicide rate has also declined.

The UK enacted gun control laws in the early 2000s and has seen a decline in gun violence.

Japan has had a zero tolerance law since 1958 and has one of the lowest gun violence rates in the world.

There is a statistical correlation between gun ownership and gun violence.

If you can't see this, get some help.

And, if gun control isn't the answer, what the hell is?

Are you wanting stricter gun control policies cuz it makes the country more safe? Yet I'm sure you are 100% for illegal immigration, sanctuary cities and against the travel ban. Where do the people from these countries go to. England? By the way their violent crime rate per capita is above ours Austrailia? You talking about the 92% Caucasian country that's trying to force us to take immigrants that seeked asylum there. Or Canada who are now frantically trying to figger out how to control the dam that's opened up lol.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/10/worlds-highest-murder-rates_n_5125188.html

Lots of other ways to do violence than use a gun. England has proven that. 9/11 has proven that. And there's a lot more examples. Again you are not ever stopping crime by creating senseless laws. Why don't you ever look at the other side of a coin one time and take the time to look up how many lives have been saved by gun.

 

[Willbacker]

.

Why aren't the first four words important?

Well with the way the Democrats want govt to control everything..................

While it may seem unlikely how do you know foreign enemies cant reach our inlands?

 

[The Raven]

Are you wanting stricter gun control policies cuz it makes the country more safe? Yet I'm sure you are 100% for illegal immigration, sanctuary cities and against the travel ban. Where do the people from these countries go to. England? By the way their violent crime rate per capita is above ours Austrailia? You talking about the 92% Caucasian country that's trying to force us to take immigrants that seeked asylum there. Or Canada who are now frantically trying to figger out how to control the dam that's opened up lol.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/10/worlds-highest-murder-rates_n_5125188.html

Lots of other ways to do violence than use a gun. England has proven that. 9/11 has proven that. And there's a lot more examples. Again you are not ever stopping crime by creating senseless laws. Why don't you ever look at the other side of a coin one time and take the time to look up how many lives have been saved by gun.

I'm for a pathway to citizenship, but only because it's not fiscally reasonable to deport illegal immigrants. It costs too much money. Get them through the process and get them paying taxes and contributing to the country. They do the work nobody else want to and they're actually less criminal than citizens that are born here. I'll triple source that for good measure

http://www.businessinsider.com/immi...han-native-born-americans-trump-speech-2017-3
http://thehill.com/latino/324607-re...rants-commit-less-crime-than-us-born-citizens
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/26/us/trump-illegal-immigrants-crime.html

Well with the way the Democrats want govt to control everything..................

While it may seem unlikely how do you know foreign enemies cant reach our inlands?

Because we have the strongest military in the world and we could mobilize in an instant if we needed to? Liberal as I am, I've always believed TR's words of speaking softly but carrying a big stick.

At any rate, what's your solution to mass shootings?