|
Kalit posted:Why do you draw the line at beef for agriculture? Looking at this, it's easy to see all of animal products is equal to changing to nuclear energy with regards to emissions. Well, no, that's not what that graph says. Eliminating animal products would be equivalent to the emissions avoided by global use of nuclear power *in 2018*. There was, to say the least, not very much nuclear power being generated in 2018 compared to fossil fuel power, and it seems obvious that the emissions reductions from nuclear power would absolutely dwarf the reductions from the elimination of animal products, if nuclear power was actually made to account for a significant fraction of baseline global demand. That graph is very much not at all saying that eliminating animal products would be equivalent to switching substantially to nuclear power in terms of emissions reductions
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2022 05:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 13:25 |
|
|
Does C-SPAM have a US Poli Sci / CE thread? I couldn't find it from a quick visual of the front page Content I was gonna post if it hasn't been already: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-5d7V4Sbqk
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2022 05:38
|
|
|
Inner Light posted:Does C-SPAM have a US Poli Sci / CE thread? I couldn't find it from a quick visual of the front page Not in general, threads tend to be pretty specific but there is the all purpose thread for discussing any current event that catches your eye without being probed for it (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2022 06:01
|
|
|
Inner Light posted:Does C-SPAM have a US Poli Sci / CE thread? I couldn't find it from a quick visual of the front page
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2022 08:28
|
|
|
In America!
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2022 16:37
|
|
|
Inner Light posted:Does C-SPAM have a US Poli Sci / CE thread? I couldn't find it from a quick visual of the front page Why did they produce this now? I can understand the reasoning of always be vigilant, but why now? Also, how am I going to stay tuned if an EMP has disabled the phones? Or if NYC has no power and everyone's phone batteries died? These people have forgotten the lessons of 9/11 in which the tower collapse cut most of the fiber trunks in the Eastern Seaboard. You couldn't get a call out of Long Island for about a month. A nuclear bomb going off is going to be more damaging.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2022 16:42
|
|
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:And? Again, that has jack poo poo to do with my original post. This is so loving stupid. You're not even disputing the description, you're just trying to tack on irrelevant poo poo in an argument that nobody but you is having because of an imagined slight toward your favorite political party. No, it doesn't because there is never, ever going to be a circumstance where a political party is going to let an external source dictate their own rules. It'd be like suing my employer because my manager gave Bob a promotion and I didn't get it. We're not going to endlessly litigate what is or isn't fair. If you don't like the Democratic Party, Republican Party or Libertarian Party you have the options of ceasing donations, voting for a different one or not voting at all! Imagine a scenario where the Federal government dictates what a political party can or can't do - that'd be freaking crazy. TheIncredulousHulk posted:lol okay so you're just making up imaginary Republicans and ascribing opinions to them now and pretending poo poo like the Federalist Society hasn't been working for this for 40 years I'm not making up anything. Trump has publicly stated the abortion ban is terrible idea. They absolutely appall figures like Paul Gosar and Steve King. Conservative business interest have desperately desired for immigration and almost got it with George Bush Jr. attempted DACA reform but now it's freaking impossible. TheIncredulousHulk posted:What do you think Liz Cheney is going to do exactly? You think she's gonna go back to a state where she's not even from and sigh wistfully looking out the window of a cabin? I have no idea what she's going to do but the original point of this conversation was changes in the existing power structure. Liz Cheney being removed from office is an example of that. TheIncredulousHulk posted:Oh word? So the Yemen genocide is over? The US war budget didn't get jacked up? Thank you Squad!!! You asked me for an example of "The Squad" going against the will the party leadership. I gave you yet another example. TheIncredulousHulk posted:You said in some scenarios you would stay home and not vote for the hypothetical primary-disregarding Democrats, which is you using your power at the ballot box to try to concede the election to the fascist death cult. So rather than being vague and hand-wavey, can you outline what your options would have to be in order for you to not vote for the hypothetical primary-disregarding Democrats over the fascist death cult? Lets look at what I actually said, Crosby B. Alfred posted:I might stay home and not vote. It would depend on who's running on the opposition and my options for alternative candidates. You presented a large vague hypothetical and I can't such answer question with millions of possible outcomes which why I responded which such an open answer. As I said, it depends. TheIncredulousHulk posted:Yes it is thunderously obvious you want to redirect critical attention away from the Democrats, dude, there's no need for you to announce it lol. I do think it's pretty funny that you tried to frame a ham-handed attempt at changing the topic in a way that implicitly absolves the Democrats from any role in this vaguely contextualized societal situation you illustrated with a two-and-a-half year old tweet. No, I'm capable of having more than one discussion at once and I'm getting more value out of the latter. Personally, I don't find it funny but really sad. Some of us are genuinely trying make sense of this confusing world, make difference while it appears some people would just rather remain angry at world than do anything else. Gucci Loafers fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Jul 17, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2022 18:11
|
|
|
Cimber posted:I have to wonder how much of the current insanity within the GOP is directly related to 9/11, and how much of it would be going on today had 9/11 not happened. They were already well on their way with Rush Limbaugh and the general right wing media movement post-Nixon. They were already dabbling in deranged conspiracy theories with the Clintons (not that Bill was a great guy or anything to be clear) and threw in an obviously partisan impeachment hearing for fun. My paternal grandparents who never owned technology more advanced than a color tv were using chud language in the late 90s. The social media vortex would've undoubtedly sealed the deal regardless of world events. 9/11's big contribution to the degradation of political discourse was getting most democrats on board with and legitimizing republican talking points for a few years, which might have sped things up but didn't alter the path we were already on. Bush's folksy act was paving the way for Palin who would pave the way for Trump. Obviously it's impossible to account for all the ripple effects of not having 9/11, but I think a reasonable timeline would be Bush falling out of favor after one term as he nearly did anyway with 9/11, Kerry or Gore get stuck holding the bag for the housing crash which was already pretty baked-in, then you get McCain or Romney with some divergent timelines after that, but none that involve the GOP base becoming less extremist.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2022 18:20
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:No, it doesn't because there is never, ever going to be a circumstance where a political party is going to let an external source dictate their own rules. You mean like how Trump didn't get 147 lawmakers to vote to illegally overturn the election? https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/07/us/elections/electoral-college-biden-objectors.html Or how the GOP establishment rallied against him in the primaries with their business as usual candidates and Donald cut through and destroyed each and every one of them like Mike Tyson in his prime? They went from a whole stockpile of Never Trumpers to wholeheartedly supporting him, backpedaling and rationalizing everything he did. Trump didn't (entirely) succeed in what he attempted, mind, and I'm aware that you're referring to voters and individuals but I would largely view Trump circa 2014 or 2015 as an "external source" - at least for the most part. Now he's the norm and the template and a LOT of the bullshit he threw out there is effecting "the rules" and the people that determine what they mean. Also, I think you're ignoring the influence of lobbyists and big money that are "external sources" that manage to change the rules all the time. See Super PACS for one. And Super Delegates on the Democratic side. The Moral Majority, the Tea Party, the NRA and a whole host of other influences have managed to change things within the Republican Party and how they go about poo poo. External (and well financed) forces change the rules all the loving time, even if it's not always at the flick of a switch. Maybe I am unclear on your definition of "external sources" and, if so, I apologize for misunderstanding what you're saying.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2022 19:24
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:You mean like how Trump didn't get 147 lawmakers to vote to illegally overturn the election? You're not incorrect, but I suspect that many of those things you mentioned (tea party, NRA, conservative super PACs) haven't been outside what the GOP actually believed or wanted, but rather pushed the boundaries of how much of the quiet stuff they could say out loud, and how extreme they could get with their policies, without losing the popular support. And we've seen, despite the Lincoln Project folks (who are mostly full of poo poo), that the party has been able to largely abandon dog whistles or even the veneer of any sort of good governance or actual policy, and Republican voters will still give them their votes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2022 20:00
|
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:You're not incorrect, but I suspect that many of those things you mentioned (tea party, NRA, conservative super PACs) haven't been outside what the GOP actually believed or wanted, but rather pushed the boundaries of how much of the quiet stuff they could say out loud, and how extreme they could get with their policies, without losing the popular support. And we've seen, despite the Lincoln Project folks (who are mostly full of poo poo), that the party has been able to largely abandon dog whistles or even the veneer of any sort of good governance or actual policy, and Republican voters will still give them their votes. I'm not sure but maybe. I think some of it, though, and the more extreme psycho poo poo wasn't really desirable from that end and it was more like the Frankenstein monster unleashed scenario where now, if they want to win elections, they have to deal with this Qanon 4Chan Alex Jones bullshit. I feel confident thinking that probably 75% of GOP candidates loving loathe most of their base and wouldn't be caught dead fraternizing with any of them. Then again, the same thing could be said about the democrats. Problem is, a not insignificant number of the loons on the GOP side are currently actually getting elected and appointed as judges and poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2022 20:29
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:I'm not sure but maybe. I think some of it, though, and the more extreme psycho poo poo wasn't really desirable from that end and it was more like the Frankenstein monster unleashed scenario where now, if they want to win elections, they have to deal with this Qanon 4Chan Alex Jones bullshit. I feel confident thinking that probably 75% of GOP candidates loving loathe most of their base and wouldn't be caught dead fraternizing with any of them. Yeah, I would imagine there's a Venn Diagram there with plenty of overlap as well. Thinking on the last 30-40 years of GOP politics, it really feels like they've been doing the infamous Lee Atwater quote in reverse, and slowly working their way back from more abstracted concepts to just outright stating the end goals that they desire.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2022 22:28
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:You mean like how Trump didn't get 147 lawmakers to vote to illegally overturn the election? Let's look at what the actual lawyers stated during the case, remember this is internal the party itself. Not actual governing. quote:"If you had a charity where somebody said, Hey, I'm gonna take this money and use it for a specific purpose, X, and they pocketed it and stole the money, of course that's different. But here, where you have a party that's saying, We're gonna, you know, choose our standard bearer, and we're gonna follow these general rules of the road, which we are voluntarily deciding, we could have — and we could have voluntarily decided that, Look, we're gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way. That's not the way it was done. But they could have. And that would have also been their right, and it would drag the Court well into party politics, internal party politics to answer those questions." You can't sue a charity because they did something with they money you gave that you didn't like. You can't sue Trump for not building the wall or Bush Jr. for raising taxes. Or are you saying I should be able too?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2022 23:44
|
|
|
https://apnews.com/article/indiana-mall-shooting-345348912b288dce656083b2422c2fde Another mass shooting, this time at a mall. No motive yet, but it was clearly planned as he walked in with a rifle and several magazines of ammo. I wonder if a motive will be found, are we looking at another example of the violence that results from the rhetoric the GQP is spewing? Oof, and an armed civilian stopped him. So what are the odds that this will empower the arguments for the 'Cops don't protect us.' crowd, vs the 'Good guy with a gun' crowd? Dull Fork fucked around with this message at 03:13 on Jul 18, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2022 03:10
|
|
|
Another mass loving shooting. But don't worry a good guy with a gun got his rear end. Great. Instead of mass shootings they will become mass shootouts with people shooting each other while trying to kill the actual gunmen. GREAT STUFF fully normal stuff
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2022 03:26
|
|
|
Dull Fork posted:https://apnews.com/article/indiana-mall-shooting-345348912b288dce656083b2422c2fde Yeah. I honestly wish that random person hadn't of shot him, because of the ammo (no pun intended) it's going to give to chuds.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2022 05:30
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Yeah. I honestly wish that random person hadn't of shot him, because of the ammo (no pun intended) it's going to give to chuds. You wish the shooter hadn't been stopped, leading to possibly more deaths because it would be politically advantageous to you? That's some pretty awful thinking.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2022 06:17
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Yeah. I honestly wish that random person hadn't of shot him, because of the ammo (no pun intended) it's going to give to chuds. It's not like it actually makes a difference though. Everyone has already decided which side of the culture war they're on and won't be shifted. If there's a chance they could be you could just point out that this is a piss in the ocean compared to the hundred other mass shootings that WEREN'T stopped by a good guy with a gun.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2022 08:07
|
|
|
House Democrat Alcee Hastings (who was impeached as a federal judge for bribery and misusing funds and was brought before the ethics committee as a congressman for misusing campaign funds) died last year. He had 23k left in his campaign account and his ex-wife took all of it and gave no reason why. She did properly document and submit the disbursement to the FEC, for some reason, though. Even in death, he found a way to skirt campaign finance laws. He was a weird situation where he was impeached by a Democratic congress and the DNC tried to primary him when he ran for Congress, but he was popular with his local district and kept getting elected, so they gave up on trying to punish him. Hastings was basically the first test case of the Trump rule, where you just refuse to resign and keep winning elections until everyone decides its not worth it to make an issue out of your corruption anymore. https://twitter.com/noahpransky/status/1548120926293671942 As a fun bonus Alcee Hastings story, he was under investigation for having inappropriate relations with a female staffer in 2019 and paying her a large amount of money. But, the investigation was dropped when he revealed that he had secretly married the staffer years ago and had been employing her - which is not a violation, because you can't pay off your wife for an inappropriate office romance. https://twitter.com/noahpransky/status/1548120936225710080 Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 14:21 on Jul 18, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2022 14:12
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Yeah. I honestly wish that random person hadn't of shot him, because of the ammo (no pun intended) it's going to give to chuds. The best case chud scenario is still 3 dead and another example of how public spaces are no longer safe to attend. A good guy with a gun acting immediately and precisely still leaves us with a mass casualty event whereas severely restricting firearms would've prevented it all together along with a string of other mass casualty events where good guys with guns utterly failed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2022 14:29
|
|
|
A good guy with a gun is still ultimately reactive when we need to be pro-active. Unfortunately too many people think "more policing" is that pro-activity.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2022 14:50
|
|
|
Even the good guy with a gun was a guy waiting for the opportunity to kill people. He saw himself as Batman instead of the Joker, but it's still a guy wandering around with the ability and desire to end human life, just waiting for the opportunity.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2022 15:08
|
|
|
I feel safer knowing that the true solution to mass shootings is more gunfire and bullets flying around in public spaces. Nothing adds to my sense of peace and tranquility than the idea of exponential gun usage basically anywhere I might go.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2022 15:17
|
|
|
Eventually two different open carrying "good guys with a gun" will each think the other is a bad guy with a gun and start a public standoff e: wait, has that already happened?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2022 15:21
|
|
|
blunt for century posted:Eventually two different open carrying "good guys with a gun" will each think the other is a bad guy with a gun and start a public standoff Probably. There are definitely situations where the cops have killed them because they arrive on scene and think the "Good Samaritan" is the shooter. A recent example: https://www.cpr.org/2021/06/25/johnny-hurley-arvada-police-shooting-update/
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2022 15:24
|
|
|
I was kind of thinking, theoretically even in a "good guy with a gun" scenario, someone is going to end up dead or injured since the ideal "good guy with a gun" is not shooting until someone has confirmed themselves a "bad guy with a gun" by shooting. Maybe the good guy shoots the bad guy before he gets a shot off, but that opens a can of worms of taking de-escalation off the table and "good guys" shooting one another.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2022 15:30
|
|
|
blunt for century posted:Eventually two different open carrying "good guys with a gun" will each think the other is a bad guy with a gun and start a public standoff Anecdotes for this sort of thing will be tricky, because after any shooting the police and media comb through the history of every shooter in order to produce a bad guy narrative. Even if both gun owners had clean records, at least one of them would be depicted as "troubled" or connected to a gang. There aren't many people out there who are immune to having their life history combed over for a hint of personal fault. Kaal fucked around with this message at 15:33 on Jul 18, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2022 15:31
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Yeah. I honestly wish that random person hadn't of shot him, because of the ammo (no pun intended) it's going to give to chuds. Have hope, maybe it was armed leftist who plugged the guy? Maybe the shooter's motives were similar to the highland shooter's? Which, the longer it takes for the cops to say something about his motive, make me think it is. Cops still won't admit the Highland shooter's motives even though he planned it for weeks also says something to me. Instead they barf out a dismissive word salad: “We have no information to suggest at this point it was racially motivated, motivated by religion, or any other protected status,” Is the most guarded phrase used to wiggle around the fact that the shooter was a GQP brain poisoned young adult. So, we could be seeing more examples of stochastic terrorism at work, while the police try to downplay the threat because they don't want the public waking up to the fact that Right Wing Media is turning people into terrorists.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2022 15:35
|
|
|
According to the new report released yesterday, 400 good guys with guns didn't stop the Uvalde shooter. The local police just kept calling for backup and then the backup was calling for backup before they felt safe enough to make a move. Apparently, the local police waited until state police arrived on the scene, the state police waited until 150 federal DHS and border patrol agents arrived on the scene, and then they spent some more time trying to figure out who was in charge to authorize the local police to move. https://twitter.com/Phil_Lewis_/status/1548731332766961665 quote:Nearly 400 law enforcement officials rushed to a mass shooting at a Uvalde elementary school, but “systemic failures” created a chaotic scene that lasted more than an hour before the gunman who took 21 lives was finally confronted and killed, according to a report from investigators released Sunday.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2022 15:36
|
|
|
Dull Fork posted:Have hope, maybe it was armed leftist who plugged the guy? Why do you think this is better and/or makes a difference? I'm talking specifically with regards to gun owners using this as a rallying cry about how they need less gun restrictions/more guns/etc, since I think that's what Sharkie is implying (please correct me if I'm wrong).
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2022 15:44
|
|
|
If we're talking about good guys with guns, the latest mass shooting in Denver was caused by police firing into a crowd. Five bystanders injured in downtown Denver as police officers shoot at man authorities say was armed. The only people hurt were those shot by police.The Colorado Sun posted:Five people were hurt in Lower Downtown Denver early Sunday when police officers shot a man they say was armed as bars in the crowded entertainment district let out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2022 15:53
|
|
|
I think good guy with a gun discourse gets into the issue of focusing on people over policy. Obviously sometimes the people involved are assholes or have lovely policies. And unfortunately people have a different line for when someone is the good guy with a gun. My grandfather was a lovely cop, and my dad has a story about the store being robbed underneath their apartment leading to my grandfather to wildly shoot down Flatbush Avenue at some teenagers boosting a TV set. Going to go ahead and say that he was indeed a Bad Guy with A Gun. But I think we all recognize that there are times where physical violence and even killing is justified. So, yeah if a guy happens to have a gun and he's protecting people at the moment that is good. The issue isn't him the individual, the issue is the policies and circumstances that allow us to live in a culture where gun violence is so prevalent that another person with a gun has to intervene and get in a shootout.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2022 15:57
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Why do you think this is better and/or makes a difference? I'm talking specifically with regards to gun owners using this as a rallying cry about how they need less gun restrictions/more guns/etc, since I think that's what Sharkie is implying (please correct me if I'm wrong). Because armed leftists aren't the ones weeping and gnashing their teeth over losing gun rights, and are generally far more amenable to gun control than 'from my cold dead hands' types. I also believe that any amount of positive publicity for armed leftists is a good thing. Any public examples of leftists killing active shooters is a good thing, and its even better if that shooter was a right wing nutjob. Because people need to see leftists as more than the boogeymen fox news says they are. Also, remember how quickly the right turned out in favor of gun control when it was the Black Panthers showing up to the California State Capitol building? Who says more armed leftists doesn't result in better gun control?  As an aside, I'm pretty torn on the subject of gun control because I distinctly believe that leftists will need to arm and protect themselves from increasing violence from the Right's own voters, the increasing violence by militarized police, and the potential for a fascist take over here in a few years. I do believe that less guns would make this country a safe place. I believe that less fascists will make it safer, faster.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2022 16:31
|
|
|
Dull Fork posted:Because armed leftists aren't the ones weeping and gnashing their teeth over losing gun rights, and are generally far more amenable to gun control than 'from my cold dead hands' types. I also believe that any amount of positive publicity for armed leftists is a good thing. Any public examples of leftists killing active shooters is a good thing, and its even better if that shooter was a right wing nutjob. Because people need to see leftists as more than the boogeymen fox news says they are. Eh, call me skeptical about more armed leftists resulting in better gun control. There definitely wasn't additional gun control laws passed when NFAC were doing armed protests in 2020. All that happened was fellow protestors getting shot from an accidental discharge and the leader probably getting prison time for allegedly pointing a rifle at a police officer. Kalit fucked around with this message at 16:44 on Jul 18, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2022 16:37
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Eh, call me skeptical about more armed leftists resulting in better gun control. There definitely wasn't additional gun control laws passed when NFAC were doing armed protests in 2020. All that happened was fellow protestors getting shot from an accidental discharge and the leader probably getting prison time for allegedly pointing a rifle at a police officer. Dang I guess we're 50/50 on examples of armed leftists getting gun control passed as a reaction to them. While still showing that they'll still throw the book at them to take out their leaders. I guess its better than what they did to Fred Hampton huh? As far as I know, NFAC didn't barge into a capitol building brandishing their arms. The NFAC definitely didn't get into shootouts while Copwatching, protecting civilians like the Black Panthers did. So one could say they didn't really go as far as the Black Panthers did, maybe that is why there wasn't gun control passed? But the cops didn't try any riot suppressing tactics on them either either now did they? Any time the militarized police don't get to enact their repressive violence on armed civilians protesting is good, and helps people see the police for the cowardly bastards they are. Also, again I do distinctly believe that armed leftists are more for gun control than armed white supremacist's, and having positive examples of armed leftists being highlighted due to their actions can bring their beliefs on gun control more into the spotlight as well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2022 17:06
|
|
|
blunt for century posted:Eventually two different open carrying "good guys with a gun" will each think the other is a bad guy with a gun and start a public standoff It very nearly happened in the Gabby Giffords shooting in 2011. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna41018893 quote:But before we embrace Zamudio's brave intervention as proof of the value of being armed, let's hear the whole story. "I came out of that store, I clicked the safety off, and I was ready," he explained on Fox and Friends. "I had my hand on my gun. I had it in my jacket pocket here. And I came around the corner like this." Zamudio demonstrated how his shooting hand was wrapped around the weapon, poised to draw and fire. As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun. "And that's who I at first thought was the shooter," Zamudio recalled. "I told him to 'Drop it, drop it!'"
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2022 17:12
|
|
|
Dull Fork posted:Dang I guess we're 50/50 on examples of armed leftists getting gun control passed as a reaction to them. While still showing that they'll still throw the book at them to take out their leaders. I guess its better than what they did to Fred Hampton huh? Maybe I'm incorrect, but I thought the Mulford Act was already in the works when the Black Panthers marched on the statehouse? If I'm remembering that correctly, I'm unsure why you're bringing that up as a point. Theoretically, it could have impacted a vote or two, but it wasn't the reason that it was being drafted. The point of the bill being drafted in the first place is probably more in response to the Copwatching aspect. But I think that historical context plays a huge role in it. This was just 3 years after the Civil Rights Act. I think it's safe to say that the US was much more outwardly racist than they are today. Do you agree or disagree that this would play a large impact on why the Mulford Act was passed 55 years ago? And why the reaction today might not be passing a law that would be severely opposed by its political party's base? On top of opposition to banning handguns being much lower among the general populace at the time? Kalit fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Jul 18, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2022 18:08
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Maybe I'm incorrect, but I thought the Mulford Act was already in the works when the Black Panthers marched on the statehouse? If I'm remembering that correctly, I'm unsure why you're bringing that up as a point. Theoretically, it could have impacted a vote or two, but it wasn't the reason that it was being drafted. The point of the bill being drafted in the first place is probably more in response to the Copwatching aspect. Oh hm, you may be correct on the timing. The act referred to as Assembly Bill 1591 was introduced on April 5, 1967. The Black Panther's marched and entered the capitol building on May 2nd. However, this article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act makes specific mention of the black panther's actions. "A.B 1591 was made an “urgency statute” under Article IV, §8(d) of the Constitution of California after “an organized band of men armed with loaded firearms [...] entered the Capitol” on May 2, 1967; as such, it required a 2/3 majority in each house. On June 8th, before the third reading in the Assembly (controlled by Democrats, 42:38), the urgency clause was adopted, and the bill was then read and passed." So yeah, I grant it was the Copwatching aspect that prompted the Mulford act, not the march on the capitol, but it scared them enough to make mention of it specifically and call it a 'urgency statue'. Historical context is important, I agree. The U.S. was more outwardly racist yes, but I think the material outcomes from back then, and today are woefully similar. I 100% believe that if an organization like the Black Panthers did Copwatching and protected civilians as aggressively as they did in the 60s, there would absolutely be new gun control coming down the pipe. Hell, we can look at the billions getting poured into police budgets across the nation as a result of the Floyd protests of 2020, and the wave of anti-protester bills that got proposed. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/12/republicans-push-anti-protest-laws-blm-demonstrations So yeah, if those protesters were armed, I am pretty confident that the Right would have figured out how to placate their base while still sticking it to those 'evil commie bastards' (aka passing bills that allow them to jail armed leftists while not jailing red blooded conservatives)
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2022 18:46
|
|
|
Kalit posted:If you're going to make this passionate claim, I hope you're as passionate about people not eating animal products. Since that makes just as much of an impact with regards to climate change... Look, a lot of D&D's general views on climate change are so behind how bad things already are, I almost didn't post a response, but the reality is making this about the individuals choices versus holding the corporations/country's/lifestyles of the top percent responsible is some very broken brain liberal stuff. You don't fix things by not eating beef, when this poo poo is not just allowed, by idolized by this culture. https://twitter.com/NiicePeaches/status/1548294601881989120?s=20&t=htJ6Xp1A_xtKU6q5zoBocw And I care about the environment and eat ethically sourced meat weekly, and I know that I'm 100% having less of an impact than somebody who eats vegan but has a kid. I think anyone looking at the forest vs the trees can see how the country (and a large part of the world) responded to Covid and not see we're not going to fix this. (And i'm not saying don't try, but just seeing the writing on the wall). (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) LionArcher fucked around with this message at 19:00 on Jul 18, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2022 18:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 13:25 |
|
|
blunt for century posted:Eventually two different open carrying "good guys with a gun" will each think the other is a bad guy with a gun and start a public standoff It happens literally all the time and is the reason why people are told to not be good guys with guns. "good guy with gun" is a fantasy similar to "defend my home from the filthy criminals" Sure it might happen once in a hundred times but most of the time it's you making things worse and less safe for everyone
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2022 19:02
|
|