|
Fulchrum posted:So because Obama was actually motivated by a spree killer in an elementary school, that means the NRA was right to oppose him tooth and nail? WOuldn't that mean the NRA is gonna oppose Sanders just as hard? The NRA's argument was that Obama would be more likely to support gun control than Romney. They're also racist and conservative, which is why they would probably oppose Sanders in a hypothetical general where that happened.
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 13:35 |
|
|
bulldoze the NRA nationalize all gun manufacturers
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
Maybe you guys should not have guns, you seem to make terrible choices with them on the reg.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:Maybe you guys should not have guns, you seem to make terrible choices with them on the reg. Maybe YOU guys should not have elections!!!
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
It's difficult to recall the last time someone here armed with a ballot paper used it to murder insanely high amounts of schoolchildren.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
Click On Detroit posted:Snyder, who was re-elected by a comfortable margin in 2014
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:It's difficult to recall the last time someone here armed with a ballot paper used it to murder insanely high amounts of schoolchildren.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
Nessus posted:If you think about it, that's what everyone who voted for W. did. You're right, America shouldn't have guns, or elections.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 00:48
|
|
|
Cantorsdust posted:As left as I am, I have to disagree. No other industry is held to a standard like that. No one sues kitchen knife manufacturers for murder. No one sues car manufacturers for (non-defect-related) car crashes. No one sues oil companies for arsonist fires. It's a third party selling a tool. Suing third parties for selling tools that are used in ways not intended by the manufacturer is unfair, unless the manufacturer is encouraging "off-label" use a la a pharmaceutical company advertising a product for a use not approved by the FDA. I'm with you on that, but would it also prohibit lawsuits against "shop who sold firearm to known violent felon (or other risk group)"? I genuinely don't know, but it'd be crappy if it did.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 01:27
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:The NRA's argument was that Obama would be more likely to support gun control than Romney. They're also racist and conservative, which is why they would probably oppose Sanders in a hypothetical general where that happened. Given Obama had gun control measures such as a new AWB in his official 2008 platform and on the whitehouse.gov site after election, this was not groundless speculation. The gaslighting at the time was "oh, but he's just saying that for the base, don't think he'd ever push for that sort of thing." I'll grant, I don't expect them to back Sanders just since the Democratic party line on gun control has had such a transformative effect over the years on the NRA and other pro-gun groups, and because he has voted for some anti-gun measures even if not all of them.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 01:27
|
|
|
All guns should be controlled into the heads of active NRA supporters until the problem is fixed.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 02:19
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:It's difficult to recall the last time someone here armed with a ballot paper used it to murder insanely high amounts of schoolchildren. Cameron's sure as poo poo trying to make that dream come true.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 02:21
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:It's difficult to recall the last time someone here armed with a ballot paper used it to murder insanely high amounts of schoolchildren. Martin Robbins just had a nice op-ed in The Guardian implying that country just did precisely that. Although I guess technically, Actual Babies aren't in school yet.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
I can't help but think that all those who are banking on Sanders making Hillary "move to the left" having some long-term effect on her governance are deluding themselves. Obama ran to the left of Hillary in '08, and became a corporatist horrorshow once elected, putting the lie to all that high-minded bullshit - why on earth would a clear-thinking person believe that Hillary will honor whatever lip service she pays to Sanders' flanking maneuvers? Her commitments and principles are pretty clear by now, aren't they?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 02:38
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:Martin Robbins just had a nice op-ed in The Guardian implying that country just did precisely that. FAUXTON posted:Cameron's sure as poo poo trying to make that dream come true. I do not live in Britain, my friends. I live in sunny Australasia where the wine flows and the guns are relaxed and not firing constantly because some boy was bad at math and the girls didn't like him.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 02:51
|
|
|
The_Raven posted:I can't help but think that all those who are banking on Sanders making Hillary "move to the left" having some long-term effect on her governance are deluding themselves. Obama ran to the left of Hillary in '08, and became a corporatist horrorshow once elected, putting the lie to all that high-minded bullshit - why on earth would a clear-thinking person believe that Hillary will honor whatever lip service she pays to Sanders' flanking maneuvers? Her commitments and principles are pretty clear by now, aren't they? I guess I'd answer this in a more general way. While I expect Hillary to be pretty friendly with big money, I don't think any president is going to not be at least somewhat friendly. I don't think Hillary is going to shut down the government or slash services to millions for the sake of giving big money yet another bonus, though; I also don't think she's going to appoint judges who would happily produce whatever outcome big money wants; I also think she is, at the least, significantly less likely to invade Iran. All of these things matter. Maybe Bernie Sanders would do all of them, I dunno. I do expect he'd have to compromise, and lacking the depth of the Clinton network - which, yes, includes big money to some extent - he would probably actually have to either compromise more, or accomplish less, than Clinton would. To put it in a different kind of way, I think Clinton is a much safer bet to 'actually win the election' than Sanders, and is also more likely to have wider coat-tails. As much as we may poo poo on corporatist third way Democrats, they are preferable to the current batch of Republicans. Nessus fucked around with this message at 03:06 on May 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 03:03
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:I do not live in Britain, my friends. I live in sunny Australasia where the wine flows and the guns are relaxed and not firing constantly because some boy was bad at math and the girls didn't like him. So if the dead schoolchildren die at sea they don't count?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 03:09
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:So if the dead schoolchildren die at sea they don't count? Not when discussing gun violence in schools.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 03:10
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:I do not live in Britain, my friends. I live in sunny Australasia where the wine flows and the guns are relaxed and not firing constantly because some boy was bad at math and the girls didn't like him. Yeah but your PM is a conservative lunatic who eats onions like George Costanza except on purpose https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yecNfSLnxp8
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 03:31
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:Yeah but your PM is a conservative lunatic who eats onions like George Costanza except on purpose He is, yes.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 03:32
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Probably because they haven't yet stopped beating their wives. Sorry, I'm not sure that what you wrote is related to what I wrote, apologies if I was unclear. What I wrote had nothing to do with Hillary or her chances in the general or what Sanders would do in the Oval Office, merely that I don't think Hillary gives a drat about whoever is going to make her make progressive, anti-corporate noises in primary season. She knows on what side her bread is buttered as a practical matter, and her administration will unabashedly reflect her vision and no other. This being the case, if Sanders et al don't have a path to win the nomination without the use of underwear gnomes, I'm not sure the effort is really anything worthwhile, sorry if that sounds too pessimistic. I'm willing to hold my nose and vote for Hillary in the general, because putting the executive in the hands of the fairly dangerous GOP is unconscionable. However, I believe thinking that she will have a Road To Damascus moment in some putative debate with Sanders is folly.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 04:24
|
|
|
Under the vegetable posted:If I drive into a pedestrian with the intent to harm them, should they sue Dodge? Cool, you're probably right. Let's let the courts decide in case the situation is maybe a little bit more nuanced. Blanket rules governing how courts and the legal system in general is required to act is how we end up with mandatory minimums and similar poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 05:14
|
|
|
If I cut my own finger off while I'm prepping vegetables to make gumbo, should I sue Calphalon?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 05:19
|
|
|
Salvor_Hardin posted:Cool, you're probably right. Let's let the courts decide in case the situation is maybe a little bit more nuanced. Blanket rules governing how courts and the legal system in general is required to act is how we end up with mandatory minimums and similar poo poo. If the courts create stupid precedent (as they did), it's up to Congress to override it.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 05:19
|
|
|
The_Raven posted:Sorry, I'm not sure that what you wrote is related to what I wrote, apologies if I was unclear. What I wrote had nothing to do with Hillary or her chances in the general or what Sanders would do in the Oval Office, merely that I don't think Hillary gives a drat about whoever is going to make her make progressive, anti-corporate noises in primary season. She knows on what side her bread is buttered as a practical matter, and her administration will unabashedly reflect her vision and no other. This being the case, if Sanders et al don't have a path to win the nomination without the use of underwear gnomes, I'm not sure the effort is really anything worthwhile, sorry if that sounds too pessimistic. As for pushing her to the left, Bernie might open rhetorical possibilities... kind of like how people have expressed concern that, for instance, various Republican horseshits would perhaps make it so it's politically acceptable, in theory, to cut Medicare or Social Security now.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 05:55
|
|
|
The_Raven posted:I can't help but think that all those who are banking on Sanders making Hillary "move to the left" having some long-term effect on her governance are deluding themselves. Obama ran to the left of Hillary in '08, and became a corporatist horrorshow once elected, putting the lie to all that high-minded bullshit - why on earth would a clear-thinking person believe that Hillary will honor whatever lip service she pays to Sanders' flanking maneuvers? Her commitments and principles are pretty clear by now, aren't they? This is dumb. Obama didn't run appreciably to the left of Hillary in '08.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 06:32
|
|
|
Cantorsdust posted:As left as I am, I have to disagree. No other industry is held to a standard like that. No one sues kitchen knife manufacturers for murder. No one sues car manufacturers for (non-defect-related) car crashes. No one sues oil companies for arsonist fires. It's a third party selling a tool. Suing third parties for selling tools that are used in ways not intended by the manufacturer is unfair, unless the manufacturer is encouraging "off-label" use a la a pharmaceutical company advertising a product for a use not approved by the FDA. I mean, I even agree with you on those votes, they seem fine to me. But phrase it a different way, I think.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 06:33
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:This is dumb. Obama didn't run appreciably to the left of Hillary in '08. He ran appreciably to the hope of Hillary. When you're running on hope and change, you don't have to elaborate on your policies too much, you can allow individuals to project.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 06:34
|
|
|
DACK FAYDEN posted:Guns are intended to shoot things, though. Pretty much all guns are advertised to either shoot targets, shoot attackers, or shoot animals. The guns aren't designed to shoot innocent people.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 06:47
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:This is dumb. Obama didn't run appreciably to the left of Hillary in '08. He agreed with Hillary on pretty much everything except the Iraq war, which badly hurt Hillary.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 06:53
|
|
|
Has anyone floated the idea of Harry Reid as a VP pick? Because he'd be a great person as an arm-twister for the president against the senate.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 07:23
|
|
|
Neeksy posted:Has anyone floated the idea of Harry Reid as a VP pick? Because he'd be a great person as an arm-twister for the president against the senate. Yes I'm sure the person who recruited Obama to run against Hillary in 2008 is high on Hillary's list of potential running-mates.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 07:24
|
|
|
Neeksy posted:Has anyone floated the idea of Harry Reid as a VP pick? Because he'd be a great person as an arm-twister for the president against the senate. He's also retiring and had that whole life and vision threatening accident earlier this year.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 07:36
|
|
|
CongoJack posted:Pretty much all guns are advertised to either shoot targets, shoot attackers, or shoot animals. The guns aren't designed to shoot innocent people. Lockpicks is the comparison I think of on this. They're designed to open locks you don't have a key for. There are times this might be perfectly legitimate, even a helpful service. There are other times then it's malicious and criminal. For this reason, some states regulate who can carry lockpicks (like guns), or who can buy them (like guns.) If you go to Lock Pick Shop A and buy Brand B lockpicks, technically legally but giving a clear impression you plan to go burglarize someone, Lock Pick Shop A might be found liable (guessing here, since that's definitely true for guns). On the other hand, no one's going to find Manufacturer B legally at fault. That's just stupid: they weren't involved in the transaction, and it's no sort of product defect.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 08:04
|
|
|
Zelder posted:Serious question: is there anyone here who isn't going to vote for Bernie in the primary and is a democrat? I'm doing that, and then I'll be voting for Clinton in the general. It'll depend on how things are looking and if he is even still in the race by the time he hits Colorado. Also on how well he survives the vetting in the interim. He is, after all, not a hero. He's just never been tested. What I've learned about him so far has been a distinctly mixed bag with some nice stuff and some poo poo. If he focuses his campaign on his more admirable stances - and keeps it positive so as not to be a spoiler - then strategically voting for him in the primary is a way to signal support for those stances and to give Hillary cover to move left. She'll take it if we give it to her. She has stayed consistently at the left edge of the achievable. But that's the thing, I wouldn't be voting for him, I'd just be using him as a signaling device. At the heart of it I honestly don't think he has the temperament, skill set, or connections to be an effective president and I'd rather elect someone with achievable goals and a realistic strategy to get there. So If he uses the attention he is getting to push stances I don't agree with - such as his opposition to nuclear energy, protecting gun manufacturers, Isreal, or whatever other things pop up between now and then - then voting for him in the primary wouldn't signal what I want to signal . So I wouldn't do it in that case.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 08:25
|
|
|
Under the vegetable posted:Oh, thanks, I didn't realize all these Republicans and Conservatives might be potential voters for the Democratic candidate if only he weren't a darn socialist. Gop GOTV efforts are spurred by fear. They are scared of socialists. Ergo, bernie is a living get out the vote machine for republicans.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 08:30
|
|
|
ATP_Power posted:He's also retiring and had that whole life and vision threatening accident earlier this year. This is hear-say. He was slugged by a mafia thug for non-payment while his brother laughed.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 09:15
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:Lockpicks is the comparison I think of on this. They're designed to open locks you don't have a key for. There are times this might be perfectly legitimate, even a helpful service. There are other times then it's malicious and criminal. For this reason, some states regulate who can carry lockpicks (like guns), or who can buy them (like guns.) That seems like it would depend on the details though, which is why the blanket ban on lawsuits is a terrible idea. Look at what was happening with drug manufacturers - they were (are) paying their reps to talk up doctors about off-label and dangerous uses of their products. They were rightly found liable for this practice even though there was no product defect. Now this occurred via regulators, but there are no regulators with teeth for firearms manufacturers. Lawsuits and discovery are the only way to expose these things if that is the case for gun manufacturers. Are sales reps for gun makers actively promoting some sort of wink-wink, nudge - nudge background check policy for retailers? Are they promoting gun sales by creating an atmosphere of fear via trade groups? Are they pushing sales without background checks by promoting gun shows? Does any of this cross the line into civil liability by increasing the number of guns out there beyond what is reasonable or making them more likely to get into the wrong hands? We have no idea, and now it is illegal to sue manufacturers to obtain the information that might confirm this one way or another. If there is nothing illegal going on, there is absolutely no need for legislative immunity to lawsuits.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 12:56
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:That seems like it would depend on the details though, which is why the blanket ban on lawsuits is a terrible idea. Look at what was happening with drug manufacturers - they were (are) paying their reps to talk up doctors about off-label and dangerous uses of their products. They were rightly found liable for this practice even though there was no product defect. This is dumb. The "gun show loophole" is one that allows private owners, not dealers, to sell their property without a background check. You might as well be lobbying to be able to sue rolling pin and pan manufacturers for when cartoon wives hit their husbands over the head with their product. Well, we don't know what's going on behind the scenes when their reps are meeting with Bed Bath and Beyond. The only dealers really trying to break the law and sell firearms illegally are the ones pressured to by the ATF. Bottom line is, the proletariat has a right to be armed and I have no idea why anybody left leaning really thinks that we're better off with the government having a monopoly on them. The people living in our most dangerous neighborhoods are the ones most in need of an ability to defend themselves and they're also the ones most disenfranchised by the system of gun control laws and consistent bullshit charges to prevent them from obtaining the means of self preservation.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 13:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 13:35 |
|
|
Man, I remember when that guy shot at me with his rolling pin since he was able to avoid a background check. Was a harrowing evening.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 13:34
|
|