|
Neurolimal posted:Jesus christ. How accurate is that since it seems like a huge deal?
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 11:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 18:03 |
|
|
bird food bathtub posted:A completely unsurprising result when one of only two realistically possible political parties goes completely ape-poo poo insane, starts openly supporting white supremacist/nazi organizations and wants to force it's citizenry into bankruptcy, or death, or bankruptcy and then death to give a few more points to it's donor class stock portfolios. That's part of it, but ultimately the southern strategy is to blame in more ways than one. With the completion of the southern strategy in the form of the Tea Party wave of 2010, parties are almost completely geographically and ideologically sorted. You don't have northern and southern wings of the democratic party being basically different parties that align for strategic reasons. Or, rather, you do have different wings, but even the most conservative Democrats are substantially more liberal than the most liberal Republicans. There's a strong line of argument out there that holds such highly sorted and highly polarized party systems aren't stable, and tend to break apart either naturally or under crisis. Granted, most of the analyses on the matter I read happened before the 2016 election, so a lot of them assumed, as did we all, that Donald Trump would lose, and that breaking apart might begin imminently. As it is, the Republican party is doomed to victory for the moment, but the fissures in our party system are already more than apparent.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 12:59
|
|
|
Radish posted:How accurate is that since it seems like a huge deal? If you want to be extremely generous to a terrible person, Weinstein likely meant that it was too positive for Sanders to be willingly engaging BLM after painting him as racist/out of touch. Regardless of intentions the outcome is the same; an important BLM message was drowned out by a gun control wedge.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 14:03
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:A reminder, you can still be arrested for parody on twitter: You can be arrested for any or no reason. Depending on what happens after that, you might be able to successfully sue, but you were still arrested.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 15:51
|
|
|
Yea I think people don't realize that police can just arrest you if they feel like it and it's up to you to demonstrate that the arrest was unjustified.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 15:54
|
|
|
You can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 16:04
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Yea I think people don't realize that police can just arrest you if they feel like it and it's up to you to demonstrate that the arrest was unjustified. The general attitude is that you deserved it for some reason, police are infallible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 16:15
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:So treat DC v. Heller like the right treats Roe v. Wade ? Yeah basically. Heller is an incredibly weak decision that basically means nothing except we can't enact total ownership bans. Ok fine, we dont need to.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 16:18
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Regardless of intentions the outcome is the same; an important BLM message was drowned out by a gun control wedge. Gun control is a black lives matter issue. Black people are disproportionately victims of gun violence. People of color also strongly favor gun control compared to whites.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 16:24
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Gun control is a black lives matter issue. Black people are disproportionately victims of gun violence. People of color also strongly favor gun control compared to whites. If you polled BLM, I strongly doubt you would see a preference to have Sandy Hook take precedence over police brutality. Let alone be actively used to smother police brutality. Let alone not even be about Sandy Hook, but an attempt to smear a political opponent over gun control in Vermont.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:If you polled BLM, I strongly doubt you would see a preference to have Sandy Hook take precedence over police brutality. Let alone be actively used to smother police brutality. Let alone not even be about Sandy Hook, but an attempt to smear a political opponent over gun control in Vermont. I agree, I don't think gun control has ever been a clear message from BLM and tying them to that message would not only be disingenuous, it may actually be incredibly harmful in many ways. Let BLM speak for themselves, don't create causes for them. If you google BLM and gun control, you get a lot of stories about white groups trying to co-opt BLM to be a gun control group. BLM should be distinctly what it is, which is a unified voice against state violence against minorities.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:If you polled BLM, I strongly doubt you would see a preference to have Sandy Hook take precedence over police brutality. Let alone be actively used to smother police brutality. Let alone not even be about Sandy Hook, but an attempt to smear a political opponent over gun control in Vermont. Black lives matter isn't just about police brutality, and it's incredibly cynical to suggest it is as a means to attack your political opponents. For instance, BLM was critical in publicizing the Flint water crisis. It's not a smear to accurately describe Bernie's mixed record on gun control. JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 18:05 on Oct 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Black lives matter isn't just about police brutality, and it's incredibly cynical to suggest it is as a means to attack your political opponents. For instance, BLM was critical in publicizing the Flint water crisis. It was in fact a distraction cause bernie was not in the wrong on the sandy hook lawsuit at all, and attempting gun control through lawsuits is an incredibly dumb idea
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
I think the discussion on gun control after this most recent shooting should be a maximum quantity that you can own/possess at once. It would have stopped this shooting, it would be relatively enforceable (though you need a national registry to prevent purchases over the limit), and it is "common sense." No one needs 33 high powered rifles. Accumulating many of anything is hoarding, and hoarding is a recognized mental illness. It has the benefit of shifting the conversation to quantity and minutia (what about people who already own more? What about inheritances?) but is very clear that people should be allowed to own some guns. This bump stock thing is just total bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
Condiv posted:It was in fact a distraction cause bernie was not in the wrong on the sandy hook lawsuit at all, and attempting gun control through lawsuits is an incredibly dumb idea  they criticized Bernie! Gun manufacturers should not have special liability protections for their products you corporate stooge.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
Tarantula posted:So uh, since gun chat is still going can someone explain to this silly foreigner, why the whole "well regulated militia" is ignored? Or what it actually means? Because I never see it brought up in gun debates. It's an inconvenient bit that doesn't make much sense in the modern context and tends to support pro-gun-control arguments, so it's largely ignored by the 2nd Amendment crowd. Put simply, back when the Constitution was signed, long-term professional standing armies weren't much of a thing outside of big, rich empires like the British that needed a constant always-ready deterrent and had the money to pay for it. The US states also weren't completely comfortable with giving too much power to a central government yet, and the Founding Fathers were generally suspicious of standing armies as well. As a result, when the Revolutionary War ended, the US disbanded practically its entire army - the expectation was that state militias, raised as needed, would be sufficient to handle most threats. A "well-regulated militia" and a supply of civilians who could handle firearms was critical because at the time it was thought that militias would be pretty much the sole source of national defense. In the end, that proved impractical pretty quickly, and escalating conflicts with Native American tribes due to American expansionism quickly demonstrated the necessity for a professional national army. But by then, the Constitution was already written and signed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
Stereotype posted:I think the discussion on gun control after this most recent shooting should be a maximum quantity that you can own/possess at once. It would have stopped this shooting, it would be relatively enforceable (though you need a national registry to prevent purchases over the limit), and it is "common sense." No one needs 33 high powered rifles. Accumulating many of anything is hoarding, and hoarding is a recognized mental illness. I think number limits would be fine too, on either arms or ammo
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:It's an inconvenient bit that doesn't make much sense in the modern context and tends to support pro-gun-control arguments, so it's largely ignored by the 2nd Amendment crowd. And the successors to these state militias would be each state's national guard/naval militia
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
it is perhaps useful to note that the people writing the Bill of Rights were, not to put too fine a point on, southern nobility, and the whole point of the first ten amendments as originally written (the editing process, for example, completely reversed the text of the Tenth) was to prevent a federal government that could possibly imperil slavery from ever coming into being. This plan did not pan out. The Second, in particular, was to prevent the formation of a national army. No, really, why bother paying for a national army; in the South, we have the bunch of people the most powerful plantation owner hands out rifles to, who handle all our defense needs. We can scale that neofeudal arrangement up to a national level, saves us all a lot of money, right? It was a total failure as designed not just within the lifetime of the man who wrote it, but before his loving presidency. It turns out the Well-Regulated Militia's defense against French and English gunboats impressing American sailors and taking their poo poo is a rowboat asking "uh please stop?"
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:
This has been gone over countless times. It's a very bad precedent to hold manufacturers as liable for the actions of a product sold to a third party by a second party retailer. "gun manufacturers are really scummy" doesn't change that. quote:Black lives matter isn't just about police brutality, and it's incredibly cynical to suggest it is as a means to attack your political opponents. For instance, BLM was critical in publicizing the Flint water crisis. To make sure we're on the same footing here, are you saying that this: Doesn't imply that Weinstein wanted to stop attention being drawn to the Erica Garner ad? Disconnect yourself from the primaries. Not once have I mentioned HRC wrt this tweet. Do you really believe that this memo isn't cynical at all?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
On the pro-control side, I've always wondered if it would be more effective to argue that firearms on the personal level break MAD, that second strike capability is too unreliable to ensure peace through mutually assured destruction. For the pro-firearns side, I think their strongest argument here would be to argue the the militia angle and cast it in terms like the old Black Panther police patrols, or like the modern Huey P Newton or John Brown gun clubs. To be charitable and leave aside the already argued racist angle, the main reason they don't is that it comes really close to to advocating violence against the state and its agents, which is frowned on here and elsewhere. Beyond getting you in serious trouble, eroding the state's monopoly on violence by private citizens - vigilantes are a slippery slope to strongmen, basically. Besides, what the hell are they going to do if they win? Put on uniforms and Weekend at Bernie's
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
I don't think it's productive to bring MAD into gun discussion, primarily because it's not panned out that way ever (when someone starts shooting, everyone else runs away, not pulls out a glock and gets in a shootout), and because MAD's record isn't as shaky as one might imply. We're all under "threat" of MAD right now, and the fact that we haven't been obliterated in nuclear hellfire since the creation of nukes is a pretty good argument in its favor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
Condiv posted:I think number limits would be fine too, on either arms or ammo Even just on a store by store basis. Like one gun per store per year. Imagine the Vegas shooter going to 33 different stores to buy all those guns and filing new paperwork at each one. It would have stopped him, or at least significantly decreased the number of weapons he had.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
The best part of the argument for quantity limits is that you can point to the military or police. They both only have one, maybe also a side arm. Any argument against that is tacitly admitting you either do not plan to use them responsibly, or you are an insane hoarder.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:This has been gone over countless times. It's a very bad precedent to hold manufacturers as liable for the actions of a product sold to a third party by a second party retailer. "gun manufacturers are really scummy" doesn't change that. No it isn't. Bankrupting gun manufacturers, or forcing them to radically change their products so they kill fewer innocent people, also has the advantage of circumventing the 2nd amendment. quote:To make sure we're on the same footing here, are you saying that this: Weinstein is a cynical shitbag. You cannot seriously contend that tweet has nothing to do with the democratic primary campaign.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:No it isn't. Bankrupting gun manufacturers, or forcing them to radically change their products so they kill fewer innocent people, also has the advantage of circumventing the 2nd amendment. That...doesn't address anything I said there. I didn't say that it would fail to circumvent the second amendment. I said that it's a bad precedent to set for future laws and restrictions, not even specifically pertaining to guns. quote:Weinstein is a cynical shitbag. You cannot seriously contend that tweet has nothing to do with the democratic primary campaign. It's a good thing nobody had gone into the primary WRT that tweet, then.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/916340398485852161
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:
What is the special liability protection that they enjoy?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
Man representing deer country likes guns I'm shocked
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
26 page list article, no thanks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 18:47
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:What is the special liability protection that they enjoy? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act They can't be sued when their products are used in crimes, even if that's wholly predictable when those products are designed. Neurolimal posted:That...doesn't address anything I said there. I didn't say that it would fail to circumvent the second amendment. I said that it's a bad precedent to set for future laws and restrictions, not even specifically pertaining to guns. It's not a bad precedent and the vast majority of products are held to the standard guns are exempted from.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:What is the special liability protection that they enjoy? That special liability protection that they got originally came about because a gun manufacturer set up an affiliate retail store in an unpopulated area on the Connecticut/New York border for ~*some reason*~ after NYC banned gun stores and over 700 shootings in New York over 5 years involved guns from this store/manufacturer. New York decided to sue them and Congress decided to make it impossible to do. Bernie voting for it was dumb and he did it because Vermont has a ton of gun owners and affiliated distributors.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:I don't think it's productive to bring MAD into gun discussion, primarily because it's not panned out that way ever (when someone starts shooting, everyone else runs away, not pulls out a glock and gets in a shootout), and because MAD's record isn't as shaky as one might imply. We're all under "threat" of MAD right now, and the fact that we haven't been obliterated in nuclear hellfire since the creation of nukes is a pretty good argument in its favor. I was trying to write that unlike nuclear deterrence, with guns it's too easy for an attacker to pull off a decapitation strike and too hard for a defender to maintain second strike capability, so guns aren't able to provide deterrence. Nukes work for MAD, guns don't? I mean, the conclusion follows the premises and it provides a contrast to the empathy-based approach focusing on the victims that have been used so far. If one approach isn't working try a different one. Against it? The assumptions break down when there's more than two actors and you can count on the threat of vengeance, non-rational actors, and advocating the utility of being able to carry out a preemptive strike.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:That special liability protection that they got originally came about because a gun manufacturer set up an affiliate retail store in an unpopulated area on the Connecticut/New York border for ~*some reason*~ after NYC banned gun stores and over 700 shootings in New York over 5 years involved guns from this store/manufacturer. New York decided to sue them and Congress decided to make it impossible to do. that lawsuit sounds as dumb as the oklahoma lawsuit against colorado for legalizing marijuana
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
Condiv posted:that lawsuit sounds as dumb as the oklahoma lawsuit against colorado for legalizing marijuana lol, those are not the same thing at all. Literally every other type of manufacturer/distributor has liability in a situation like this; except for guns. It also works like that in nearly every other first world country. That is an insane scenario to defend the right of a corporation to have legal immunity. Bernie-san can have a bad vote. It is okay. It is not mandatory to defend the corporation in this scenario.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:lol, those are not the same thing at all. Literally every other type of manufacturer has liability in a situation like this; except for guns. Ehhhh, no. It's been a while since I read that lawsuit but I remember the lawsuit striking me as particularly absurd; the equivalent of holding all car manufacturers liable because, statistically, some cars will be used in crimes. Congress did pass a special immunity bill for gun manufacturers, which was also absurd, but absurdly unnecessary, not absurdly evil; the underlying lawsuit that the immunity was passed in response to was already a ridiculous suit. It was based on a largely speculative theory of damages to begin with and most likely would have failed anyway without congressional action. Here's a decent NPR summary : http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/06/446348616/fact-check-are-gun-makers-totally-free-of-liability-for-their-behavior The only thing the specific immunity law you're talking about really actually does is establish that gun manufacturers don't have any need to cover their guns in warning labels that read DANGER: POTENTIALLY LETHAL. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 19:30 on Oct 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Ehhhh, no. It's been a while since I read that lawsuit but I remember the lawsuit striking me as particularly absurd; the equivalent of holding all car manufacturers liable because, statistically, some cars will be used in crimes. That's not what the article you linked says and that's not what the lawsuits were about. The one gun store on the CT/NY border that was responsible for 700 guns used in crimes in NY was being sued because the gun manufacturer claimed that they just picked that location at random because the retail space was available and they didn't keep track of where their guns ended up because they dumped all of their records after one year. NY sued them for negligence because they continued to supply their retail location with cheap disposable handguns that were almost all purchased to use in crimes in NY even AFTER they were told that about 90% of a specific handgun sold there was used in crimes in NY. Congress granted them a legal shield that made them 100% immune from liability UNLESS they could prove in court that they KNOWINGLY allowed those guns to continue being sold for ONLY that reason. That is an insanely difficult burden of proof that no other industry has. Even the article you linked says that: quote:In 2000, for example, New York City joined 30 counties and cities in suing gun manufacturers, saying manufacturers should have been making their products safer and also better tracking where their products were sold. Manufacturers, one argument at the time went, should stop supplying stores that sell a lot of guns that end up being used in crimes. Look at that loving explanation for why gun manufacturers needed a special legal immunity that no other industry has. Look at it. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Oct 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Ehhhh, no. It's been a while since I read that lawsuit but I remember the lawsuit striking me as particularly absurd; the equivalent of holding all car manufacturers liable because, statistically, some cars will be used in crimes. i mean, i could see the suit for the kid having been shot by his friend having at least some merit, and i think it's bad the plcaa blocked that, but yeah suing gun manufacturers for their guns being used in crimes is dumb as is using lawsuits to try to extend gun control laws (or in oklahoma's case, anti-weed laws) to areas without the same ones
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The one gun store on the CT/NY border that was responsible for 700 guns used in crimes in NY was being sued because the gun manufacturer claimed that they just picked that location at random because the retail space was available and they didn't keep track of where their guns ended up because they dumped all of their records after one year. this is exactly why i said that suit sounded as dumb as the oklahoma suing colorado for legalizing marijuana bs
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 18:03 |
|
|
Condiv posted:this is exactly why i said that suit sounded as dumb as the oklahoma suing colorado for legalizing marijuana bs This is, again, not an issue of the commerce clause and you don't seem to understand the difference between consumer liability laws and lawsuits between two states. It works this way in literally every other industry and every other major country. The knife, poison, explosives, automobile, plane, and gardening tool industry are not destroyed. The level of legal immunity they have is unprecedented for a major national class.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 19:38
|
|