Remember When Obama Took The Guns?

[GMDino]

(03-02-2018, 06:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Nope, we claim that confiscation is the end game of the anti-gun side.  To support this I have cited multiple laws and sources.  You have done nothing, not a single thing, to refute this logically.

Yes.  That "slippery slope" to the "end game."  There is no "logic" involved in that argument.  Just paranoia and fear.

Thanks again, and have a great weekend!

[Belsnickel]

(03-02-2018, 02:13 PM)michaelsean Wrote: It's not really slippery slope if he can point to real life situations in California.  All's he's saying is it will eventually move east.

Which is something I disagree with. Though SSF and I have had discussions on here about the different political climate regarding these sorts of things. California really is a different world than what we see over here on these sorts of things. I'm sure there are folks who would advocate for confiscation here, but they are few and far between. Most liberals I know in my area are gun owners. Whether it's for home protection, hunting, or for taking care of the squirrels eating the birdseed, there is usually one tucked away somewhere.

[GMDino]

(03-02-2018, 06:33 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Which is something I disagree with. Though SSF and I have had discussions on here about the different political climate regarding these sorts of things. California really is a different world than what we see over here on these sorts of things. I'm sure there are folks who would advocate for confiscation here, but they are few and far between. Most liberals I know in my area are gun owners. Whether it's for home protection, hunting, or for taking care of the squirrels eating the birdseed, there is usually one tucked away somewhere.

As you are aware of the area I live in you know it's the same here.

Complete "gun confiscation" is just not going to happen.

[Belsnickel]

(03-02-2018, 06:39 PM)GMDino Wrote: As you are aware of the area I live in you know it's the same here.

Complete "gun confiscation" is just not going to happen.

To be fair, a lot of "liberals" in your neck of the woods only claim the title due to the union ties.

I know they exist up there, but I don't know too many real liberals from the area.

[GMDino]

(03-02-2018, 06:45 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: To be fair, a lot of "liberals" in your neck of the woods only claim the title due to the union ties.

Not anymore!  LOL

A lot of registered democrats that voted for Trump though.  A lot that are seeing through him now too.  Not enough, but a lot.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-02-2018, 06:33 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Which is something I disagree with. Though SSF and I have had discussions on here about the different political climate regarding these sorts of things. California really is a different world than what we see over here on these sorts of things. I'm sure there are folks who would advocate for confiscation here, but they are few and far between. Most liberals I know in my area are gun owners. Whether it's for home protection, hunting, or for taking care of the squirrels eating the birdseed, there is usually one tucked away somewhere.

I don't think it moving east is a given.  I think such things are certainly an agenda item for the Democratic party.  Hillary literally said that the Australian solution was something we should "look in to".  People like GM are basing their points on the nation as a whole.  What about the Constitutional rights of the people who live in deep blue states?  Who cares because I don't live there?  Who cares if CA is literally confiscating legally purchased property, it won't happen here!  There's a difference between the desired result of the anti-gun side and what they'll actually get.  That does nothing to change what they are trying to achieve though.

[Belsnickel]

(03-02-2018, 06:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't think it moving east is a given.  I think such things are certainly an agenda item for the Democratic party.  Hillary literally said that the Australian solution was something we should "look in to".  People like GM are basing their points on the nation as a whole.  What about the Constitutional rights of the people who live in deep blue states?  Who cares because I don't live there?  Who cares if CA is literally confiscating legally purchased property, it won't happen here!  There's a difference between the desired result of the anti-gun side and what they'll actually get.  That does nothing to change what they are trying to achieve though.

I don't disagree. This is where my focus on primarily Virginia politics comes into play. Our state Democratic party would turn this state redder than a cardinal if they whiffed the idea of confiscation or something like the Australia solution. I haven't really seen this trend on a national level, but regardless of all of this there is no way confiscation should be considered.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-02-2018, 06:56 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't disagree. This is where my focus on primarily Virginia politics comes into play. Our state Democratic party would turn this state redder than a cardinal if they whiffed the idea of confiscation or something like the Australia solution. I haven't really seen this trend on a national level, but regardless of all of this there is no way confiscation should be considered.

Agreed, and here is where the disconnect in the discussion on this board occurs.  Saying someone wants something to happen is not tantamount to saying they'll get it.  But claiming they want it is no less true for that.  I've made the comparison before, anti-abortion and gun control advocates use the exact same chip away/stepping stone strategy.  What reasonable person would be against a "common sense" law to ban abortions in the third trimester, except when the mother's life is in danger?  Then it progresses to, what reasonable person would object to any third trimester abortion.  The next step would be second trimester abortions, after all, who can't make up their mind to have an abortion within three months of becoming pregnant?  It's just "common sense".

I know you know this, but I feel it needs to be stated, these are not my positions.  However, one would have to be stupid not to see the end game (there's that word again!) for the anti-abortion activist.  IMO this is equally true of anti-gun types and it's equally obvious.  BTW, I'm going to start using "redder than a cardinal" from now on. 

[SunsetBengal]

(03-01-2018, 11:12 AM)Griever Wrote: im sure if we could go back far enough on this board, when obama talked about gun reform after sandy hook im sure the usual suspects were screeching autisticly here about obama was gonna come and steal all their guns". Yet they are silent when the sitting president says basically that

or was he joking again, despite "saying what he means"

What exactly does screeching autisticly sound like?  

I mean, I'm sure that a person of your high morals would never use the characteristics of a disabled person, simply to amplify a political point.. 

[GMDino]

(03-02-2018, 06:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't think it moving east is a given.  I think such things are certainly an agenda item for the Democratic party.  Hillary literally said that the Australian solution was something we should "look in to".  People like GM are basing their points on the nation as a whole.  What about the Constitutional rights of the people who live in deep blue states?  Who cares because I don't live there?  Who cares if CA is literally confiscating legally purchased property, it won't happen here!  There's a difference between the desired result of the anti-gun side and what they'll actually get.  That does nothing to change what they are trying to achieve though.

Then there is no slippery slope and and it's much ado about nothing.  It's a fear that is unfounded in reality but makes a great talking point (gun confiscation) to obscure talking about reasonable regulations and instead argue that rights are being taken away.

Thanks.

[SunsetBengal]

(03-02-2018, 08:45 PM)GMDino Wrote: Then there is no slippery slope and and it's much ado about nothing.  It's a fear that is unfounded in reality but makes a great talking point (gun confiscation) to obscure talking about reasonable regulations and instead argue that rights are being taken away.

Thanks.

Well, if you remember correctly, NYC tried that.  It was called "stop and frisk", instituted by then Mayor Rudi Guliani.  From what I understand, it worked tremendously.  Thousands upon thousands of weapons were taken from criminals that were not legally allowed to possess them.  I also understand that violent crime went down during this period.  Yet, the folks from your side screamed that it was wrong to stop and frisk known criminals.  Y'all are all about government programs, until one of them actually works...  

[GMDino]

(03-02-2018, 08:52 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Well, if you remember correctly, NYC tried that.  It was called "stop and frisk", instituted by then Mayor Rudi Guliani.  From what I understand, it worked tremendously.  Thousands upon thousands of weapons were taken from criminals that were not legally allowed to possess them.  I also understand that violent crime went down during this period.  Yet, the folks from your side screamed that it was wrong to stop and frisk known criminals.  Y'all are all about government programs, until one of them actually works...  

To the bolded they were already breaking the law.  That's not coming after legal gun owners and "confiscating" their guns.  Did they take guns away from non-criminals?  No.

To the rest: the program caught flack because they targeted certain races and not "criminals".  Had it been implemented in a way to avoid targeting one race and still be as successful there would have been less flack.  Along with a question about how effective the program was in lowering violent crime.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/21/it-looks-like-rudy-giuliani-convinced-donald-trump-that-stop-and-frisk-actually-works/?utm_term=.79fb50251295

Quote:Crime in New York declined quickly after 1990 and has generally stayed low. There was a brief uptick last year at the same time as a further drop in the stop-and-frisk count, but in four of the past five years, levels of crime fell alongside the number of stop-and-frisks. Supporters of the policy often point specifically to gun crimes as a rationale for its use (since the policy often aimed at finding illegal firearms on suspects), but 2016 saw the fewest shootings during the first six months of the year in decades.



View image on Twitter

Quote:[/url][url=https://twitter.com/Azi]Azi

@Azi

STAT OF THE DAY -- 435: # of shootings in 1st six months of the year, fewest in city's history.
5:02 AM - Jul 12, 2016 · Washington, DC

A separate study looked at whether or not the policy had a significant effect on the number of robberies and buglaries in New York. No effect was found.


The broader problem with stop-and-frisk was that it was applied heavily to communities of color. More than half of those detained and searched, according to the NYCLU's data, were black, and nearly a third were Latino.




That's part of the reason that the NYCLU has the data: A federal judge determined that the NYPD needed to release data on its application of stop-and-frisk on a quarterly basis as part of a settlement of a lawsuit filed in 1999 charging that black New Yorkers were unfairly targeted. That claim was bolstered when a New York police officer recorded conversations with his superior officers in which they told him to target black and Hispanic people.

In every year, at least 80 percent and often 90 percent of those who were stopped were found not to have done anything wrong. When he was the city's public advocate, before being elected mayor, De Blasio released a report on the practice, finding that stops of whites were twice as likely to result in discovery of a weapon as a stop of a black person and that blacks were only two-thirds as likely as whites to be carrying something illegal. In other words: Most people were innocent, but whites who were stopped were more likely to be breaking laws regarding weapons or contraband.

In 2013, a federal judge determined that the policy of stop-and-frisk in New York City was discriminatory and unconstitutional. The city challenged the ruling, but the transition to the new mayor in 2014 meant that the appeal was dropped. The practice is still viewed very negatively by communities of color in New York City.

[SunsetBengal]

(03-02-2018, 08:58 PM)GMDino Wrote: To the bolded they were already breaking the law.  That's not coming after legal gun owners and "confiscating" their guns.  Did they take guns away from non-criminals?  No.

To the rest: the program caught flack because they targeted certain races and not "criminals".  Had it been implemented in a way to avoid targeting one race and still be as successful there would have been less flack.  Along with a question about how effective the program was in lowering violent crime.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/21/it-looks-like-rudy-giuliani-convinced-donald-trump-that-stop-and-frisk-actually-works/?utm_term=.79fb50251295

Awesome, that last graphic shows that the racial breakdown is about equal to the prison demographic breakdown.  Not sure why race should be an element when considering a "stop and frisk" of "known criminals", but somehow it is.  

Let me put it to you differently.  Step out of your insulated life, and go spend a day or two on the street.  Go to all sections of town, don't just spend time in "the hood".  Watch for yourself who is perpetrating on who.  I'm a Surveyor, I'm outside a lot.  I see lots of stuff that I wish I did not, during the natural course of my job.. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-02-2018, 08:45 PM)GMDino Wrote: Then there is no slippery slope and and it's much ado about nothing.  It's a fear that is unfounded in reality but makes a great talking point (gun confiscation) to obscure talking about reasonable regulations and instead argue that rights are being taken away.

Thanks.

Except I've literally shown in dozens of ways how it has precisely happened in CA.  Your constant denial of a proven reality doesn't exactly do your argument any favors.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-02-2018, 06:02 PM)ballsofsteel Wrote: Your trying to tell everyone in this post what he really meant like Sarah mule face Suckabee does for Drumph. Good job, carry on.

No I was clarifying something for Dino. Please continue with your obsession though.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-02-2018, 07:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Agreed, and here is where the disconnect in the discussion on this board occurs.  Saying someone wants something to happen is not tantamount to saying they'll get it.  But claiming they want it is no less true for that.  I've made the comparison before, anti-abortion and gun control advocates use the exact same chip away/stepping stone strategy.  What reasonable person would be against a "common sense" law to ban abortions in the third trimester, except when the mother's life is in danger?  Then it progresses to, what reasonable person would object to any third trimester abortion.  The next step would be second trimester abortions, after all, who can't make up their mind to have an abortion within three months of becoming pregnant?  It's just "common sense".

I know you know this, but I feel it needs to be stated, these are not my positions.  However, one would have to be stupid not to see the end game (there's that word again!) for the anti-abortion activist.  IMO this is equally true of anti-gun types and it's equally obvious.  BTW, I'm going to start using "redder than a cardinal" from now on. 

I agree. I am against abortion in most cases, and it’s still quite obvious to me what they are doing. We saw it with smoking. Twenty years ago who would have believed you wouldn’t be able to smoke in a bar?

[GMDino]

(03-02-2018, 09:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Except I've literally shown in dozens of ways how it has precisely happened in CA.  Your constant denial of a proven reality doesn't exactly do your argument any favors.

So is it a slippery slope that is destined happen or not?

Make up your mind.

One time you say "it's happening right now!!!11!!1!"  And the next you say you only mean that is the "end game" that won't happen but that doesn't matter because "they" want it to.


Your constant switching just to argue isn't doing your reputation any favors.

[GMDino]

(03-02-2018, 09:16 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Awesome, that last graphic shows that the racial breakdown is about equal to the prison demographic breakdown.  Not sure why race should be an element when considering a "stop and frisk" of "known criminals", but somehow it is.

Ask the courts that found against it. I bet they explained why.  

(03-02-2018, 09:16 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Let me put it to you differently.  Step out of your insulated life, and go spend a day or two on the street.  Go to all sections of town, don't just spend time in "the hood".  Watch for yourself who is perpetrating on who.  I'm a Surveyor, I'm outside a lot.  I see lots of stuff that I wish I did not, during the natural course of my job.. 

I worked in the projects when I was in my early 20's. You don't know anything about my "insulated life" anymore than SSF "knows" all about me.

Look at the story I quote again:

Cops "randomly" stopping and frisking turned into stopping and frisking minorities at a 2:1 ratio. With the "1" actually having been found to have committed more crimes...yet they didn't change the ratio. Weird.

[Belsnickel]

(03-02-2018, 07:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: BTW, I'm going to start using "redder than a cardinal" from now on. 

Honestly, I just pulled that one out of thin air. It's our state bird, so it just seemed appropriate.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-02-2018, 09:36 PM)GMDino Wrote: So is it a slippery slope that is destined happen or not?

Make up your mind.

I'm seriously starting to wonder if you have suffered severe brain damage. 

Quote:One time you say "it's happening right now!!!11!!1!"

 
In CA, yes, it is.

Quote:And the next you say you only mean that is the "end game"

It is.

Quote:that won't happen

That's more Matt's belief than mine, but I get his point.

Quote:but that doesn't matter because "they" want it to.

]Yes, which means they will continue to push for it and those of us who find the right important need to be mindful of that.

Quote:Your constant switching just to argue isn't doing your reputation any favors.

Except I've literally never switched.  I'll leave you to try and score more internet points, you're in full GMDabo mode.