|
Mulva posted:I do love how you have to go to 2013. No, the point is 2008, when the Democrats had a super-majority and couldn't be stopped from doing anything they wanted for a few months. That was prime time to pass their most important, most pressing issues. Nobody could stop them, they were at the height of all possible power in this government. Gun violence was not a major issue for voters while staring down the worst recession in 100 years, no. I assure you that people were more worried about the jobs and houses they were losing in 2008. If Democrats took their two month supermajority to tackle what were, at the time, a bunch of pet issues that weren't popular with voters, they wouldn't have just been beaten in Obama's first midterm, they would have handed a supermajority to the GOP. This "devoid of context, in a bubble, all other things being equal, in hindsight" assessment of political history is asinine. Choosing some tiny point in history where it was theoretically possible by process to pass something, and then summarily declaring that because it didn't happen, it's actually not something that anyone wants to do, ever, for the rest of time, makes absolutely zero logical sense. Xombie fucked around with this message at 14:07 on Jun 3, 2022 |
#
¿
Jun 3, 2022 14:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 21:14 |
|
|
Mulva posted:That's all very interesting, but I've found over the decades I don't loving care about the excuses people trot out for why they failed. I don't even care if they are true. Unfortunately "I don't care" isn't an argument. The topic of conversation is not "does poster Mulva care?" or "what can we do to make poster Mulva care?". quote:. It doesn't make them less of a failure, and I remember a bunch of those 2008 guys making bones in 2007 in the run up to their elections about what they'd do to make sure another Virginia Tech didn't happen. I don't know who you think you remember doing something in 2007 in the "run up to elections" that occurred in 2008, but congress already did pass a background check law in 2007. As VT was the first major mass shooting since Columbine, there was absolutely no public will to push among voters for more gun control measures beyond this. No one was running on a gun control platform, at least not anyone that won in 2008. quote:Why the gently caress did you take time out of your day to go to bat for people that literally could not care less if you live or die? Decorum? Boredom? OP, this is a politics forum for discussing politics. Sometimes, people discuss politics. I don't need to be friends with politicians to discuss them. Xombie fucked around with this message at 15:21 on Jun 3, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2022 15:19
|
|
|
Mulva posted:What's that gotten you? Because the hilarious chart that just got brought up to defend the Democrats as "Gun control not even being an issue in 2008." also has those 2008 numbers being remarkably similar to....the current 2022 trend. Which has been trending downward for like 5 years at this point. So I guess what, the thing that is achievable given current priorities among the electorate as far as gun control goes is "Nothing", and threads over and we all go home? If you're trying to argue that this thread achieves nothing of substance in the real world, I'm sorry to break it to you but that is true for all threads in this forum whether you agree with the prevalent opinions or not. And it certainly makes no impact on the validity of anyone's opinion.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2022 15:24
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:after midterms Republicans will enjoy a permanent supermajority due to voting rights being sabotaged at the state level. Your argument is that there will be no gun control because the GOP will win senate seats in four of: Vermont, New York, Illinois, Maryland, California, Washington, and Hawaii?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2022 16:03
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:Super majority was likely a bad word choice but Republicans will get rid of the filibuster (or have some other loophole) to where it is effectively the same result. I would not say this is the same thing. A supermajority is also actually traditionally a 2/3 majority, not simply the ability to overcome a filibuster. They don't even have the ability to get a filibuster "supermajority", let alone a true supermajority. They can get rid of the filibuster but they're still facing own a veto. Xombie fucked around with this message at 16:48 on Jun 3, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2022 16:40
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Either way they don't really have to pass anything, just prevent the Dems from doing so, which is easily done by them. And they will have no qualms about nuking the filibuster with their secure control of various state houses and SCOTUS It doesn't seem like they've ever had any trouble doing this without a majority.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2022 16:46
|
|
|
Nanomashoes posted:How bout the Afghanis, who also won. I think you'll find the tactic of "simply continue to exist between rear end whoopings until the invader gets tired and goes home" won't work in a civil war.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2022 01:32
|
|
|
Nanomashoes posted:But it seems like political discontent and the unwillingness of an american army to fight would be greater, no? And I'm told that's what won Vietnam. You're not going to get to fight the Army. The police have tanks. The National Guard has jets. The FBI will simply arrest you before you ever get the chance to try pea shooters against any of it. Resistance to the US government on US soil exists only as long as they're willing to put up with it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2022 04:24
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:One theme that tends to follow these discussions is the doublethink that the populace has so many arms that terrible violence is inevitable, but simultaneously so poorly armed that any thought of self-defense against right wing militias or a tyrannical government would be a fools errand. How in the hell is this "doublethink"? Terrible violence isn't a synonym for self-defense. Going down in a hail of bullets is terrible violence but not "self-defense". quote:It’s a round-about way to argue that the state should hold a monopoly on violence, which probably isn’t a great thing to argue considering the US government’s track record and that the GOP will enjoy a permanent majority very soon. The state does have a monopoly on violence. The state has tanks, fighter jets, and nukes. Owning a rifle doesn't impact the state's ability to do violence to you.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2022 04:39
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:Violence is a pretty important component of self-defense. Not dying is a pretty important component of "self-defense". It is in fact the primary component. quote:The state has a monopoly on violence *now*, you shouldn't be arguing that should be the case going forward unless you believe a GOP one-party state will be an ethical steward of that violence. This is a strawman. No where did I argue about what the state should or shouldn't have. I said that the state does have a monopoly on violence. The state has a military. The state has intelligence services. You having an assault rifle doesn't give you an ounce of equal power to the state. It doesn't even square you up with the firepower of your local municipality. quote:The state has had tanks, fighter jets, and nukes in every conflict since the end of World War 2 and they've still fared pretty lovely in quite a few of them. Once again, "fared pretty lovely" in these cases consist of the US winning nearly every battle but then leaving because long-term occupation is too politically inconvenient. You don't get this benefit in a civil war. quote:First off, the idea that the US government would use nukes on its own soil is insane, and if you're talking about a traditional insurgency, they can't really go leveling entire cities with tanks or fighter jets either, unless they feel like doing free PR for the insurgents. The thing is that they don't need to. You will never get that far. The local police has enough firepower to put down an insurgency. Failing that, the National Guard can do it with just their basic infantry. That's assuming you don't get the FBI to arrest you long before it gets that far. quote:Arguing the odds is just silly because if we find ourselves in armed conflict with the government, its because we already weighed our options and getting shot at was better than the alternative. It's not "silly" that reality doesn't fit your fantasy civil war scenario. You're talking like no one has come into armed conflict with the US government on US soil. Waco, Ruby Ridge, and the Bundy standoff just to name a few. The ATF and FBI didn't even need the military for any of these.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2022 14:58
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:These can't simultaneously be true, sorry. The US government is not some unstoppable juggernaut and the US military has always fared poorly against insurgencies. The odds are even more dire for the government if the insurgents have the backing of a foreign power. The US government absolutely is an unstoppable juggernaut within the US. If you're doing it within the US, you aren't a scrappy insurgency, you're just a person breaking the law, and get to be treated like someone breaking the law. Please look up the record for groups getting into standoffs with the US government in the past 30 years. The fact that you have to continually insist that this argument be framed in your personal civil war fantasy and not in reality is just a testament to how absurd it is.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2022 15:02
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:"Not dying" isn't a certainty when you drive to the store for groceries, much less any conflict in the history of forever. I'm sorry but you have completely lost track of your own point here with all the red herrings you are trying to throw out. You were criticizing people for saying that too many guns means inevitable violence but that self-defense against the government is impossible. I stated that these two things are not equivalent, because getting into a violent interaction is not necessarily "self-defense". Now you're talking about how dangerous it is to get groceries? quote:The local police can put down an insurgency? The local police here couldn't handle a ragtag band of the local right-wing militia, and chances are the militia and the police are the same people. You and a few buddies rifles are not even remotely a "local militia". Yes SWAT teams are fully capable of stopping you. quote:Waco was a PR nightmare that changed the entire way the ATF does business, Ruby Ridge was ONE MAN holding off 6 US Marshalls, and during the Bundy Standoff the government was reluctant to even engage and most of them walked away with a slap on the wrist. All of these people lost to the US government and are either dead or were arrested. If being dead or arrested is the goal of what you think an insurgency is, then I guess yeah you'll have a chance to succeed at it. If your goal is to actually win a firefight with US Marshalls, the ATF, the FBI, or the National Guard, holding them off indefinitely, then no, you're delusional. quote:Regardless I'm not talking about a scenario where 10-20 of the local wing nuts decide to make a statement. I'm talking about large uprisings or secessions. You don't seem to comprehend that the US government has no interest in letting you get that far and no one has ever gotten that far because the US government puts a stop to it. The US government is undefeated against both uprising and secessions. There is no material difference between "local wing nuts" and "uprisings". You're not going to launch an uprising against the US government with rifles. The FBI will infiltrate and arrest you, or they will come and fight you and arrest you. If you don't get killed in the process. That's how these things go down. quote:You are aware that the GOP is about to permanently takeover your government, right? And that they'll be busy collapsing human rights during the next few years? Leftists often say that liberals will attempt to preserve their comfortable lives in the face of a fascist takeover, but I didn't think anyone would come out and admit that they'd never consider fighting back. I have zero interest in reframing arguments in your fantasy scenarios, but there is no world in which you win a firefight with the US government. It doesn't matter if it's a permanent fascist state or the 1000 year reign of Joe Biden's disembodied head in a jar. "Considering fighting back" doesn't mean "winning". Your will is not bulletproof. Every level of the US government has more firepower than you can, in any real world scenario, remotely compete against.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2022 16:07
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:You might want to update your understanding there. Between Cliven Bundy and company's little standoff out west and the Jan 6 insurrection, the will of the US government to crack down seems to have softened immensely. Last I checked, both of these groups literally lost, being arrested by the FBI and driven off by the National Guard (and then also arrested by the FBI), respectively. Neither actually achieved the goal of their confrontation with the US government. Once again: Resistance to the US government exists only so far as they're willing to tolerate it. This level of tolerance stops far short of you winning. Xombie fucked around with this message at 16:14 on Jun 6, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2022 16:10
|
|
|
Mulva posted:That's because they are entitled white people that weren't really trying very hard. The response to them rambling around was so anemic that any given level of school shooter level intensity from like....3 people at the insurrection? And we have a lot of dead senators. It was that close for awhile there. Once again, these arguments that an insurgency against the US government could definitely be successful all seem to rely on complete fantasy. "Oh it would have worked if they really tried". This is a scenario that exists solely in your head. Here, in real life, actual armed conflicts against the US government on US soil have given the US government an undefeated record, using only an ounce of their actual firepower. quote:How does that factor into your metric? The fact that entitled white people can literally get away with treason if it's framed the right way? What did they "get away with"? Boatloads of them were arrested, they were all driven off, and they achieved none of their stated goals. Is this your victory scenario in an insurgency you want to be part of?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2022 16:40
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:The point is when conflicts happen, and especially in self-defense situations, people aren't looking at the fight and saying to themselves "Unless I have a 100% chance of surviving this, I'm not going to bother". If you don't survive, you didn't defend yourself. You lost. quote:When did I say that me and my buddies rifles were a local militia? For one, I'm not part of right-wing anything. Secondly, there are actual local militias and they vastly outnumber the active SWAT teams. I don't think you fully appreciate how well armed the right-wing is in this country and how law enforcement and Trumpers talking about insurrection are the exact same people. How many of them have won? Because in recorded history, when they outgun the SWAT, they get to face the FBI and ATF. If they outgun them, they get to face the National Guard. No one outguns the National Guard. The answer to how many of them have actually withstood even federal law enforcement is zero. quote:"The government would never let you do it" rings a bit hollow if you're right-wing. A little over a year ago we watched the far right in this country walk right into the Capitol with the cops' help while they ransacked the place. Only one person was shot, and most got a slap on the wrist. No organizers have been held responsible. 846 people have been charged. Is "getting arrested, or possibly being killed, while not achieving any of your goals" the victory scenario in your fantasy civil war? quote:How many empires throughout history got high on their own supply until hubris caught up with them and they collapsed under their own weight? Considering that we're on a speed run to economic collapse, climate disaster, and a fascist coup; you'll likely get to see massive shifts in how this country looks and operates within the next 10-20 years. What you were taught in school is a lie, we do not have the perfect method of government and our institutions are crumbling before our very eyes. Your fantasy scenario is getting beyond out of control. Yet here in real life the US government still has an undefeated record on US soil against people violently standing up against it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2022 16:48
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Bundy, his kids, and their closest associates had their charges thrown out with prejudice and are back at their long-time activities of running the BLM and other users off public lands they feel should be theirs for grazing with threats of violence. Of the rest of the 26, nine did time, only two over 366 days. I'll ask you the same as everyone else: is losing but possibly getting out of jail after losing your "victory" scenario in a civil war?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2022 16:53
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:If a community of 100 people are being attacked, one dies, the other 99 who survived aren't throwing up their hands and saying "Aw shucks we lost!". You can't seem to name a conflict with the US government on US soil where they didn't lose. quote:I like how you're discussing how nobody can slip by the governments' defenses as we're hearing reports on 1/6 how the national guard was ordered to stand down and the Capitol police were actually helping the rioters. We're discussing 1/6 where the rioters lost, didn't achieve their goal, and hundreds are facing prosecution. Do you think you're going to get a better result without having allies in the government and the help of authorities? quote:Regardless of how often you want to call government fallibility a "fantasy", its very much a real thing and recent events have done nothing but highlight that fact. Frankly its impressive you're trying to argue this in the face of a Supreme Court takeover and the future Congress takeover due to compromised voting rights. I'm calling your scenario a fantasy because it is a fantasy. It is not a real thing, because real things have actually occurred. There is not actually anything you can say to force people to argue with you in the context of an invented scenario in your head where everything you say is automatically right because you can invent any hyperbolic future scenario to logically justify it. I have no interest in it, sorry. Here in real life, actual real people are really dying to gun violence.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2022 17:10
|
|
|
Mulva posted:There was literally gunfire through a door, on one side of which was a mob of angry people and on the other was a bunch of senators. The thing that stops them from being dead senators is nobody shot back the other way through that door. That's it. Do you understand that this just proves my point exactly? That the US government will always have a larger, more violent response in waiting to violence against it? If you break a window, they shoot you. If you shoot at the window with a gun, they shoot you with a bigger gun. They always have a bigger gun. quote:You have a completely irrational level of esteem for the United States government and it's competence,. The fact that the government has a more violent response to any action you take against it isn't "esteem" for the government, it's an observation of reality. It doesn't need to be competent to kill you. quote:and also a complete misunderstanding of how things like tanks and jets and nukes work. Because they didn't need tanks and jets and nukes. Did you notice that? Every single senator survived, the vote that the insurrection was intended to stop took place the next day in the same room. As I've said repeatedly: the government does not actually need tanks and nukes to stop you. It has many levels of violence and capability you and a rifle can't scratch the surface of. quote:What do you imagine is the practical difference you can easily spot between a "For real coming to kill people" insurrection and the out of shape white people version we got? What magic pig signal do you think goes into the air to summon the real response team, and not the limp dick one that was there? How fast do you think they can respond at any given point? I'm not sure what other way to put this: The government responded with a level of violence one notch above what they were facing. If you get people firing through the door, they respond with yet another one notch above that. You are shifting towards some argument about what you consider an appropriate response to 1/6. But the fact is that it isn't the topic of conversation. What is the topic is if you or some other poster or some imagined leftist insurrection could pull off "1/6 but successful". History, including 1/6, says you can't, and you're already at a greater disadvantage than an insurgency backed by the sitting president.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2022 17:23
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:I can name plenty of minor conflicts which completely altered government policy, in some cases completely neutering the agency like the ATF post-Waco. That's a huge victory. Altered policy, or altered policy in a way that the belligerents advocated? Because I'm pretty sure "altering ATF response" was not what the Branch Davidians were trying to achieve. quote:The GOP is about to permanently control our institutions, 1/6 was part of that for better or for worse. If that's a loss I'd hate to see what a victory looks like. Literally all of these goals, the groundwork for them, and people achieving them were in government long before 1/6. Most of them have been in the government for decades. Absolutely none of this is a result of the actions of 1/6. In reality, 1/6 was attempt by Trump to mount a coup to keep him as president. Is he currently president? Nope. quote:Your entire argument is built on a foundation of "it hasn't happened so it won't ever happen", which is, in and of itself fantasy. My entire argument is actually "armed victory against the US government hasn't happened, for these reasons that are currently still in place and will be in place for the foreseeable future". You're welcome to prove that they won't be in place, but you haven't. Your imaginary scenario where the US enters a fascist 1000 year reich just makes it less likely to succeed because there would be a more violent response to leftist insurrection. So you're welcome to prove me wrong by actually coming up with an example where your "leftist armed revolution against the US government" has ever worked, but you don't seem interested in doing so. You can't come up with an example where the US government actually lost.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2022 17:31
|
|
|
Mulva posted:Because once a government loses it doesn't tend to exist anymore, so there's generally only one example. It's not the sort of thing you get a do-over to. This is demonstrably untrue. Autonomous, breakaway, and secessionist regions exist the world over with governments that continued to exist after capitulating or brokering ceasefires. Free Derry, MAREZ, etc. There is no successful example of this in US history.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2022 17:47
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:I sure wish liberals would stop trying to empower the government right before it tips into the GOP's hands forever. Stating "there are tanks" doesn't create tanks. The tanks are there whether you admit them or not. It isn't Schroedinger's cat.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2022 17:49
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:You know there are guides on how to handle insurgencies and you don't attempt to brutally crush them with indiscriminate violence, right? I'm just going to repeat myself here: The thing is that they don't need to. You will never get that far. The local police has enough firepower to put down an insurgency. Failing that, the National Guard can do it with just their basic infantry. That's assuming you don't get the FBI to arrest you long before it gets that far. quote:It's pretty disappointing that people could see exactly why Trump sending a bunch of blackmask Feds in unmarked vans to disappear Portlanders in 2020 was a giant misstep, but somehow think that the public will react positively toward the government if tanks are firing shells past the local retirement home. Heck, even The Troubles in Ireland didn't really get their start until the government was heavy handed and tipped public favor toward the IRA. I'm sorry, but what? The IRA was established 1-3 years after the Easter Rising, and at the same time Sinn Féin won a landslide victory in the 1918 Irish elections.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2022 18:38
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:I can repeat myself too: There is significant overlap between the insurrectionist right, the police, and the national guard. This has absolutely no bearing on their capability to put down whatever insurrection you believe leftists will mount. It also doesn't make you more likely to succeed, it makes you more likely to fail. quote:The FBI utterly failed to prevent 1/6 and they were advertising that on the open internet like Coachella. We can go round and round on this forever, so its probably about time we dropped it. Once again, the participants in 1/6 lost. It was explicitly endorsed by the sitting president at the time, who personally held back the National Guard and still failed to achieve its goal. The vote it was intended to stop occurred the very next day in the same spot. But you think you're going to be more successful against the sitting government who is fighting your insurrection? 1/6 was not a scrappy grassroots uprising against the entire government, it was one branch pitting a riot against the other. None of your argument makes sense using 1/6 as an example. It fails to prove your point on any level. It proves you wrong on several.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2022 20:35
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:I wasn't only talking about leftist insurrections, the right is far better positioned to use violence to get what they want, but they'll have control of the government soon enough through Democrat inaction and voter suppression so its a moot point. You are talking about leftist insurrections if you think the right will get a permanent rule of government. quote:The people in 1/6 lost? Not a single organizer was punished, Literally government officials. Because again, this was not a grassroots uprising. quote:the rubes on the ground barely got a slap on the wrist, More than 800 of them are charged with crimes, dozens are currently in prison. quote:Trump is still living his best life, While being literally not president, which again, was the goal of the insurrection. quote:and they've made the Democrats look weaker than ever. "Democrats look weak" is not a result of the insurrection, but you know this. quote:Sure they didn't manage to reinstall Trump into the WH, You mean the entire point of the exercise? quote:but they had a great trial-run for future action Again, success is based on things that have happened, not things that haven't. quote:and they barely suffered any consequences for it. If by some miracle they don't mop the floor with you guys in 2024, they're going to do it again. Who is "you guys", here? What even is this? At this point you aren't even talking about gun control or your insurrection fantasies, you're just hamfistedly trying to shoehorn a "Dems Bad" red herring into a discussion where you can't seem to stick to an argument without directly contradicting it. Your example of a "successful insurrection" is one where hundreds of people were arrested, many are in jail, which was broken up by the National Guard, and they completely failed to achieve their stated goal despite being explicitly endorsed and supported by a branch of the government itself. But somehow this is "successful" because you can imagine that they could totally, for realsies succeed when they plan to do it in the future, which you also argue they don't plan to do because they won't have to because the actual government officials that organize it will be in charge of the government anyway. And on top of all that, they didn't use guns. This is your blueprint for a leftist anti-whole-government armed insurrection that justifies our society continuing to use children as bullet sponges? edit: By the way, Enrique Tarrio got indicted today. So much "winning". Xombie fucked around with this message at 21:44 on Jun 6, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2022 21:39
|
|
|
Mulva posted:And some rear end in a top hat would talk about a magic box that could carry you from point A to point B and bring up similar fatality numbers and go IT'S CARS THE MAGIC BOX IS CARS. Or they'd say "My being responsible a responsible owner is all I can control, and irresponsible owners are outside my ability to influence.", or one of a thousand other arguments that have been hashed out before or since. You mean the magic box that requires classes and a continually renewed license to operate, which has to be registered with the state and inspected upon being re-registered across state lines? The box where your safe operation of it is under constant, direct, strict police observation and enforcement?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2022 14:26
|
|
|
Mulva posted:You do know that plenty of states do require licenses and renewals both to own a gun, right? Like say....Massachusetts is just that. You need to talk to your local police department, you need to take a firearms course, and you need to get it renewed every....I wanna say six years? There's also strict rules for transport. You think it's a counterpoint to bring up that a handful of states have strict firearm laws? What exactly is your point with this response? Massachusetts has one of the lowest rates of gun deaths in the country, tying New York and only beat by Hawaii. Xombie fucked around with this message at 14:55 on Jun 7, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2022 14:53
|
|
|
Dietrich posted:I think this is the point where we're supposed to talk about how the state borders aren't mile high impenetrable walls and state/local gun control measures can only do so much. They do actually work in Massachusetts though because it's surrounded by other permit states. Whereas in Chicago it's next to useless, because its southern border is Indiana.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2022 15:01
|
|
|
Mulva posted:What's yours? Driver's licenses are also state based, and states that think it matters put the same level of restrictions on guns. Others didn't because they didn't care. It's not some massive impossibility that is never done, roughly 1/5th the country is required to do it. Car licensing and registration is effectively uniform throughout the entire country. On top of that, the US regulates safety standards for the cars themselves at the federal level. When the US enacted a universal 21 year old drinking age in order to cut down on drunk driving, they enforced it via withholding highway funds. So no, it is not the same situation as guns right now. quote:And no, Massachusetts isn't surrounded by other permit states. Vermont, New Hampshire, and New York are all far more lax. New York has an assault weapons ban and the permit requirements for handguns. That is not "far more lax".
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2022 15:22
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:Yes, people with a history of severe depression shouldn't own a gun. But the other statistics are complete rubbish. Statistically some people are careless with their firearms so that must mean you will be too! Statistically some people keep a gun in the house for criminal reasons, so having a gun increases the likelihood that you'll commit a crime with it! Next up: not requiring drivers licenses or car insurance for everyone that believes they're a perfect driver.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2022 15:27
|
|
|
Mulva posted:There's a variation of 2 years for full license throughout vast swaths of the country, and those are the especially stupid teenage years. So not quite uniform. Nor are the requirements in testing for the various licenses all the same. But I guess it's all 'basically' the same to you. That's very uniform compared to guns, where it varies from "very strict" to "absolutely loving nothing". quote:New York City has different laws than the entire state, and a whole lot of guns in New York in general require no license to speak of. So yeah, less strict. The two I just mentioned are New York state laws. quote:But again, what is your point beyond random trivia? If you don't want to discuss gun control, you're welcome to go somewhere else. No one is forcing you to be in the thread.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2022 15:36
|
|
|
Mulva posted:And I didn't mention them! I mentioned the others. Funny how that works right? Then I'll just repeat myself: New York has an assault weapons ban and the permit requirements for handguns. That is not "far more lax". That New York City has even more gun laws doesn't change that. quote:....someone is forcing you to be in this thread? I'm not the one complaining about the direction of discussion. quote:No but serious, what's the conclusion or argument here? It's just a series of disparate facts that amount to nothing. That's not a discussion, it's a loving pub quiz. I'm not quite sure how you aren't able to connect different facets of "guns should, at the minimum, be regulated at the same level of cars", when "guns should, at the minimum, be regulated at the same level of cars" is what started this thread of discussion. But again, if you're upset that you're discussing it, no one is making you respond.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2022 15:53
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:We've already discovered that you're arguing from a position of hypocrisy but now this bad faith garbage? Make sure you tear down that straw man real good for everyone to see, gun ownership is exactly the same as drunk driving you see. That isn't bad faith or a straw man.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2022 15:55
|
|
|
Mulva posted:I don't like putting words in people's mouths, it's better people just say they mean straight up. Also, you know, how the whole debate and discussion thing works. You debate and have a discussion, you don't drop random thoughts and then go "GOD JUST INTUIT WHAT I MEANT GEEZ!". What in the hell are you on about? Literally the first and only thing I said to you was: "You mean the magic box that requires classes and a continually renewed license to operate, which has to be registered with the state and inspected upon being re-registered across state lines? The box where your safe operation of it is under constant, direct, strict police observation and enforcement?" How was this too vague for your comprehension? You brought up state-level enforcement. Those are the only two topics I've discussed with you and I have to spell it out for you how they're connected? quote:None of that matters at all to any real problem facing the country. None of the mass shooters would have been caught up by that requirement, nor would any randos buying illegal guns. Fine, go ask your local government to get on that if they aren't already, all seems fairly straightforward and non-objectionable. It like literally any gun control is never going to happen at a federal level, but we've already established all change doesn't have to be federal. Again: if you don't want to discuss gun control, maybe you shouldn't be in thread whose title is "Gun Control." You don't get to just amble into the conversation and declare it moot and everyone has to move on. Xombie fucked around with this message at 16:46 on Jun 7, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2022 16:44
|
|
|
Mulva posted:I mean you can get as aggro as you want, it's not going to change anything. Which is the point unless you are using this as a circle jerk chamber. If everything remains equal and nobody changes their mind "Anti-gun control" wins. For gun control to win you actually have to change minds. Again: if you don't want to discuss gun control, you're welcome to go discuss things you do want to discuss in threads whose title isn't "Gun Control."
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2022 17:13
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Do we care about political realities in this thread or only theoretical fantasies where we get to implement every idea we have perfectly? I thought we were having a serious discussion but maybe I was just interrupting your solo fantasies? Because the more different measures you are tacking on that we should do the less likely we are to reach your goal This "political reality" isn't any different for any topic where you're proposing a solution from the left. I fail to see why it's a trump card for gun control when it isn't for any other topic of conversation. Like Mulva, if you don't actually like the topic of gun control, no one is forcing you to be part of it. But if all you have to add to the discussion is the thought-terminating cliché of "America is pretty conservative", what exactly do you want people to discuss with you? It isn't actually up to anyone here to "sell" the idea of gun control, because none of us are actually politicians.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2022 17:19
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:gently caress off with trying to frame disagreeing with you as deserving of punishment. What in the hell are you talking about?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2022 17:21
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Your repeated declarations that we aren't talking about gun control correctly, obviously, you bad faith rear end in a top hat I'm pointing out that you're stating that discussing gun control is useless, in the gun control discussion thread. In what way is it "bad faith" to point out that this is just a thought-terminating cliche that doesn't add anything purposeful to the discussion, any more than it does on proposing any leftist solution to any problem in the United States. I'd still like to know how that, in any way, shape, or form is saying you "deserve punishment". quote:"Relating gun control to other issues is off topic in the gun control thread" I didn't ask anyone to moderate you. I said that if you don't like discussing the topic, there's lots of other topics on the forum you can discuss. But people don't have to stop talking about gun control just because, some poster, think it's pointless. Xombie fucked around with this message at 17:27 on Jun 7, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2022 17:25
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:"I keep telling you that your posts on this topic are not relevant and don't belong here I didn't say your posts about how we should stop discussing this "don't belong here". In reality, what I said is that they don't add anything to the conversation except to state that you don't like having the conversation. If you don't like having the conversation, no one is making you be part of it. quote:I can't understand why you'd interpret that as an effort to have your posts removed forcibly in this, the forum where that has been SOP for a decade+" I'm curious what "force" is being used in reminding you that you don't actually need to be part of a discussion you don't see as purposeful. And reminding you that it doesn't mean other people can't continue with the discussion just because you don't see it as purposeful. And once again, I'll ask what you think "this idea is pointless because conservative America hates it" adds to a discussion in a forum where the vast majority of posters are coming from the left side of the spectrum with their solutions to any political problem in the US.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2022 17:32
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:You keep framing disagreement with you as disagreement with the conversation itself, to tell people that disagreeing with you is not productive participation. gently caress you. You stop disagreeing with me. Your disagreement is the conversation itself. If it isn't, then you won't mind answering what you think "this idea is pointless because conservative America hates it" adds to a discussion in a forum where the vast majority of posters are coming from the left side of the spectrum with their solutions to any political problem in the US. Why is it suddenly on gun control, Manchin-ism has a point?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2022 17:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 21:14 |
|
|
PeterCat posted:There are no inspections or license or insurance requirements to own a car. A private transfer of title ownership has to be done at a DMV, actually. But as Cease to Hope points out, you're just hair splitting.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2022 21:22
|
|