Things that will help the GOP before 2022 elections.

[fredtoast]

(03-25-2021, 10:12 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Oh, I'm sorry I don't want to see marginalized communities oppressed. Don't be mad at me for telling you how gun control is not a liberal position.

So now "no fully automatic machine guns or bazooka's" equals "oppression".  Yep, just like the NRA.



"Marginalized communities" are the ones suffering the most (by far) from unregulated gun ownership.  Gun advocates are just exploiting them and using them as a pawn for propaganda to support their own position.  Anyone who REALLY cares about "marginalized communities" would support gun regulations that would help reduce the gun violence that is destroying them.

[Belsnickel]

(03-25-2021, 10:34 AM)masonbengals fan Wrote:  I don't understand how you say it isn't a liberal position. Who else is clamoring for it ?

When I say it isn't a liberal position I mean that speaking from a liberal ideology, gun control doesn't fit.

You see, something that many people don't know but is well known in political science is that political ideologies are worthless when looking at American politics. The vast majority of Americans do not hold political ideologies, but rather form ad hoc policy positions based on their perceived membership in certain groups. American politics runs almost exclusively on identity politics, in other words.

Speaking purely about political ideologies, liberalism is rooted in individual liberties. The government's role is to promote equity among the citizenry, i.e. everyone gets a fair shake. Gun control runs counter to this ideology as it both decreases individual liberties and increases inequality/inequity. Conservatism, however, sees the government's role as to promote a safe and secure society. To promote order within the populous. This is where gun control fits.

So, while gun control is a position the Democrats take, it is not a liberal policy. But, the Democrats also aren't a liberal party. They are, at most, centrist, when it comes to the overall party mainstream. There are more liberal members, but the party itself is very centrist.

[Belsnickel]

(03-25-2021, 10:43 AM)fredtoast Wrote: So now "no fully automatic machine guns or bazooka's" equals "oppression".

Yep, just like the NRA.

When there is inequity in the availability of firearms and the wealthy can use those tools, as well as the state, to oppress marginalized communities, taking those tools away from them just makes them helpless. This, of course, isn't the argument the NRA makes, though. For this you'd have to look towards the Socialist Rifle Association, the Liberal Gun Club, the Latino Rifle Association, the Huey P. Newton Gun Club, the National African American Gun Association, Pink Pistols, the John Brown Gun Club, or Armed Equality. All groups for people actually left-of-center who understand how important this stuff is. We may not be single issue voters like the NRA wants gun owners to be, but we know how important it is for an equitable society to be armed equitably.

[fredtoast]

(03-25-2021, 10:46 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Speaking purely about political ideologies, liberalism is rooted in individual liberties. The government's role is to promote equity among the citizenry, i.e. everyone gets a fair shake.

Conservatism, however, sees the government's role as to promote a safe and secure society. To promote order within the populous. This is where gun control fits.

This is a poor analysis.  A "safe and secure" society is essential to "everyone getting a fair shake".  Yet you act like they are opposites.  

Under your logic are environmental protection regulations "liberal" or "conservative".  How about regulations on workplace safety?  Regulations on financial and lending institutions?  Requirements for drivers licenses and vehicle registration?  Are you saying all of those policies are "conservative" because they promote a safe and secure society?

Gun regulation is needed both to "promote a safe and secure society" and to "promote equality" because currently marginalized communities are being held back by gun violence.  Families are destroyed.  Property values are depressed.  Business opportunities are reduced.  All due to excessive gun violence in these communities.  I have never heard a businessman say "I am not opening a branch in the community because not enough citizens there own fully automatic machine guns or bazookas."  Or a teacher say "I would not work at that school because there are not enough people with machine guns who live in that district."

It is all just a bunch of NRA propaganda under a different dress.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-25-2021, 10:34 AM)masonbengals fan Wrote:  I don't understand how you say it isn't a liberal position. Who else is clamoring for it ?

He means liberal in the classic sense, as in:

1.

willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.
2.
relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise

[fredtoast]

(03-25-2021, 10:56 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: When there is inequity in the availability of firearms and the wealthy can use those tools, as well as the state, to oppress marginalized communities, taking those tools away from them just makes them helpless.

NO ONE is using machine guns to oppress marginalized communities.  This is a ridiculous argument.

What is REALLY  happening is that marginalized communities are suffering and being oppressed by high rates of gun violence.  And the dumbest answer to that problem is "Make sure it is as easy as possible for criminals in these communities to buy and posses firearms.

[masonbengals fan]

(03-25-2021, 10:46 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: When I say it isn't a liberal position I mean that speaking from a liberal ideology, gun control doesn't fit.

You see, something that many people don't know but is well known in political science is that political ideologies are worthless when looking at American politics. The vast majority of Americans do not hold political ideologies, but rather form ad hoc policy positions based on their perceived membership in certain groups. American politics runs almost exclusively on identity politics, in other words.

Speaking purely about political ideologies, liberalism is rooted in individual liberties. The government's role is to promote equity among the citizenry, i.e. everyone gets a fair shake. Gun control runs counter to this ideology as it both decreases individual liberties and increases inequality/inequity. Conservatism, however, sees the government's role as to promote a safe and secure society. To promote order within the populous. This is where gun control fits.

So, while gun control is a position the Democrats take, it is not a liberal policy. But, the Democrats also aren't a liberal party. They are, at most, centrist, when it comes to the overall party mainstream. There are more liberal members, but the party itself is very centrist.

 I agree with the 1st sentence in bold but you lost me after that. Your definition of centrist is obviously different than mine. In my youth the Dems were a centrist party. Pretty much had this rural area (& me) that I live in sewed up at election time. Those days are over. And I don't believe it was we the people that changed but the Dem party itself. At least on the national scale. Those same people (lower to middle class) farmers, housewives, workers can't even identify with what we see now on a large number of points, one of those being gun control.

[Belsnickel]

(03-25-2021, 11:49 AM)masonbengals fan Wrote: I agree with the 1st sentence in bold but you lost me after that. Your definition of centrist is obviously different than mine. In my youth the Dems were a centrist party. Pretty much had this rural area (& me) that I live in sewed up at election time. Those days are over. And I don't believe it was we the people that changed but the Dem party itself. At least on the national scale. Those same people (lower to middle class) farmers, housewives, workers can't even identify with what we see now on a large number of points, one of those being gun control.

So, here's the thing, though. What got the Democratic party to win over those working class folks was the policies they abandoned. I think we could agree on that, right? Those policies can be traced back to FDR and include many pro-worker policies. However, it didn't take long for the Democratic party to abandon those progressive ideals. They started slipping away from them almost immediately post-FDR but they fully left the left behind from Bill Clinton on. They embraced neo-liberal policies, which despite the name is actually a host of conservative policies. That's what you see in the modern Democratic party and from folks like those in this thread who are upset to have their worldview challenged because they aren't as progressive as they like to think they are.

While the Democrats have moved left on some issues, they have moved to the right on others, and even some that they have moved to the left on they haven't moved as far left as they have moved right. This is evident in their social policies often falling far short on equity concerns. You perceive the Democratic party as being more to the left because the Republican party has moved further and further to the right. So because of the GOP shifting, it makes people think the Dems have shifted more than they have, but they're still firmly planted in the center. Just look at the fact that Biden won the nomination. He, Obama, and the Clintons are all centrists.

[TheUberHuber]

(03-24-2021, 07:26 PM)GMDino Wrote: I'm not entirely sure that banning certain kinds of weapons would do much.  But then I've never understood why we have such weapons as the AR-15, used in so many of these attacks, available anyway.  

Background checks, supported by a majority of Democrats and republicans and gun owners, seems a better step.  Close the loopholes, add a waiting period.  

It won't stop every mass shooting, nothing will short of complete elimination of all weapons which is impossible, but it will help.

I don't think banning them now will have any real impact since there are so many out there. Also, If Biden does it by executive order, then we will only have a ban until the next republican president. 

From a strategic pov, I just don't think this is the best bang for your buck use of political power. I know plenty of single issue voters who will not vote democratic because of this.

Making it harder to buy them makes sense,  banning them completely is just not smart if the dems want to keep the majority. It litterally feeds right into the right wing talking points that liberals are coming for everyone's guns. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-25-2021, 01:32 PM)TheUberHuber Wrote: I don't think banning them now will have any real impact since there are so many out there.

Well, that plus the objective fact that the previous "assault weapons" ban had zero effect on gun homicide rates.

Quote:Also, If Biden does it by executive order, then we will only have a ban until the next republican president. 

I find it more likely it would be stayed almost immediately at the Federal court level, the right can circuit shop too, and that the SCOTUS would jump on hearing it.  I honestly hope Biden does this for this exact reason.

Quote:From a strategic pov, I just don't think this is the best bang for your buck use of political power. I know plenty of single issue voters who will not vote democratic because of this.

On this we agree.  Unfortunately for Biden I don't think that's an option for him.  He's going to be under tremendous pressure to "do something" from groups that really went all out of him last year.

Quote:Making it harder to buy them makes sense,  banning them completely is just not smart if the dems want to keep the majority. It litterally feeds right into the right wing talking points that liberals are coming for everyone's guns. 

Unfortunately it's not a talking point, it's fact.  A major POTUS candidate already stated as such.  Additionally, Harris stated she was open to mandatory "buybacks" of "assault weapons during the campaign.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-06/kamala-harris-supports-mandatory-buyback-of-assault-weapons

[GMDino]

(03-25-2021, 01:32 PM)TheUberHuber Wrote: I don't think banning them now will have any real impact since there are so many out there. Also, If Biden does it by executive order, then we will only have a ban until the next republican president. 

From a strategic pov, I just don't think this is the best bang for your buck use of political power. I know plenty of single issue voters who will not vote democratic because of this.

Making it harder to buy them makes sense,  banning them completely is just not smart if the dems want to keep the majority. It litterally feeds right into the right wing talking points that liberals are coming for everyone's guns. 

Agreed.  Unfortunately I really don't think we can do anything short of reprogramming people to stop loving violence. We have a country where owning guns is a right, we don't take mental illness seriously enough and we have a culture that thinks killing people will solve our problems.  I am still for discussing the issue but I also understand that nothing will be done either.  This is literally our lot in the US and you just have to hope you aren't out when the next one happens.  And it will happen no matter what.

[masonbengals fan]

(03-25-2021, 12:41 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, here's the thing, though. What got the Democratic party to win over those working class folks was the policies they abandoned. I think we could agree on that, right? Those policies can be traced back to FDR and include many pro-worker policies. However, it didn't take long for the Democratic party to abandon those progressive ideals. They started slipping away from them almost immediately post-FDR but they fully left the left behind from Bill Clinton on. They embraced neo-liberal policies, which despite the name is actually a host of conservative policies. That's what you see in the modern Democratic party and from folks like those in this thread who are upset to have their worldview challenged because they aren't as progressive as they like to think they are.

While the Democrats have moved left on some issues, they have moved to the right on others, and even some that they have moved to the left on they haven't moved as far left as they have moved right. This is evident in their social policies often falling far short on equity concerns. You perceive the Democratic party as being more to the left because the Republican party has moved further and further to the right. So because of the GOP shifting, it makes people think the Dems have shifted more than they have, but they're still firmly planted in the center. Just look at the fact that Biden won the nomination. He, Obama, and the Clintons are all centrists.

Yes

That could/would be me. As a younger man I definitely thought I was more liberal than many & probably was. And even today in some aspects. But it's to a whole new level now that even I can't identify with.

They are said to be centrist but seem to cave to the more radical elements of the party at the drop of a hat. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-25-2021, 02:00 PM)GMDino Wrote: we have a culture that thinks killing people will solve our problems.

We do? 

Quote:This is literally our lot in the US and you just have to hope you aren't out when the next one happens.  And it will happen no matter what.

You worry about being struck by lightning too?  Because it's about as statistically likely as being involved in a mass shooting.  Unless you're a gang member, then your odds go way up since a large percentage (most?) mass shootings are gang related.

[fredtoast]

The entire discussion on "gun control" in the United States has been taken over by politics. Only a very small percentage of people even consider any serious logical regulations.

On the left the issue has become tied to "mass shootings". This leads to an unreasonable obsession with the so called "assault rifles". By far the most damage is done to society by gun violence in individual crimes. These usually involve hand guns. Only about a third of the overall population own guns. Only a small percentage of that one third own any semi-automatic rifles. The owners of these type of weapons are a very small percentage of the overall population. Yet any talk of outlawing these type of weapons is labeled by the right as "The government is going to take all the guns away from everyone."

Mass shootings have tremendous emotional impact on the general population for two reasons. First they are always big media events with multiple stories about the lives of the innocent victims. Second, because they strike fear in the suburban middle class who, for obvious reasons, are not usually concerned about the plague of gun violence in disadvantaged communities. Our politics are driven by public opinion, and public opinion always spikes in response to mass killings. So the policy arguments are shaped to address mass shootings. Meanwhile the real gun violence that damages society the most is not considered. And this gun violence does the most damage in already disadvantaged communities dragging them farther away from achieving and sort of equality in our society. Not saying gun violence is the #1 cause of poverty in those areas, but there is no denying that it impacts property values, business opportunities, and family support systems.

The policy that would have the most impact would be gun registration and owner licensing. It is just way too easy for a criminal to buy and possess a weapon. You often here gun advocates call to "Just enforce the laws we already have", but the problem with that is that it is extremely difficult to enforce the trafficking and illegal possession of weapons because of the lack of gun registration laws. Think of trying to enforce car theft and driving offenses without drivers licenses and car registrations. Convicted felons can roll with a car full of stolen guns as long as there is another adult in the vehicle to claim ownership. They can buy any type of weapon they want because with out registration requirements the black market is wide open. If they don't have any ID on them police can not run their criminal history to know if they are convicted felons or mentally ill.

Licensing and registration would not keep any law abiding citizen from owning a weapon. Weapons would be more likely to be secured if owners were held responsible for them. And it would make it possible for police to enforce the laws we already have against violent felons and mentally ill people owning weapons. These laws would actually have an impact on gun violence without restricting the rights of law abiding citizens. Yet they are never pushed to the front like they should be. And it is all because of politics.

[GMDino]

(03-25-2021, 02:37 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The entire discussion on "gun control" in the United States has been taken over by politics.  Only a very small percentage of people even consider any serious logical regulations.  

On the left the issue has become tied to "mass shootings".  This leads to an unreasonable obsession with the so called "assault rifles".  By far the most damage is done to society by gun violence in individual crimes.  These usually involve hand guns.  Only about a third of the overall population own guns.  Only a small percentage of that one third own any semi-automatic rifles.  The owners of these type of weapons are a very small percentage of the overall population.  Yet any talk of outlawing these type of weapons is labeled by the right as "The government is going to take all the guns away from everyone."

Mass shootings have tremendous emotional impact on the general population for two reasons.  First they are always big media events with multiple stories about the lives of the innocent victims.  Second, because they strike fear in the suburban middle class who, for obvious reasons, are not usually concerned about the plague of gun violence in disadvantaged communities.   Our politics are driven by public opinion, and public opinion always spikes in response to mass killings.  So the policy arguments are shaped to address mass shootings.  Meanwhile the real gun violence that damages society the most is not considered.  And this gun violence does the most damage in already disadvantaged communities dragging them farther away from achieving and sort of equality in our society.  Not saying gun violence is the #1 cause of poverty in those areas, but there is no denying that it impacts property values, business opportunities, and family support systems.

The policy that would have the most impact would be gun registration and owner licensing.  It is just way too easy for a criminal to buy and possess a weapon.  You often here gun advocates call to "Just enforce the laws we already have", but the problem with that is that it is extremely difficult to enforce the trafficking and illegal possession of weapons because of the lack of gun registration laws.   Think of trying to enforce car theft and driving offenses without drivers licenses and car registrations.  Convicted felons can roll with a car full of stolen guns as long as there is another adult in the vehicle to claim ownership. They can buy any type of weapon they want because with out registration requirements the black market is wide open.  If they don't have any ID on them police can not run their criminal history to know if they are convicted felons or mentally ill.

Licensing and registration would not keep any law abiding citizen from owning a weapon.  Weapons would be more likely to be secured if owners were held responsible for them.  And it would make it possible for police to enforce the laws we already have against violent felons and mentally ill people owning weapons.  These laws would actually have an impact on gun violence without restricting the rights of law abiding citizens.  Yet they are never pushed to the front like they should be.   And it is all because of politics.

Kinda why I say these discussions just go round and round and get nowhere...and never will more than likely.

For every "slippery slope" argument from one side there is this guy being used as an example of "do we really need this to get a meatball sub?".



As one commentator said: If you got a picture of him without him turning around he'd probably be down before he knew a gunman was in the store.

But I digress that it's a fun discussion to have about what might work and what could work and what it might lead to and what we could not do but I don't see it being resolved in anyway that actually cuts down on the gun violence in our country.

[fredtoast]

(03-25-2021, 02:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You worry about being struck by lightning too?  Because it's about as statistically likely as being involved in a mass shooting.  Unless you're a gang member, then your odds go way up since a large percentage (most?) mass shootings are gang related.

Look, I just wrote a long passage complaining about how mass shooting skew the discussion on gun control.  But at the same time we can't act like "there is nothing we can do"  or that it is just "the cost of freedom".

For example, wouldn't it be great if there was some way we would know if a person who was found to be mentally ill owned any firearms?  If mass shooting are done by "crazy people" then wouldn't it be a good idea to keep them from possessing firearms?

[Belsnickel]

(03-25-2021, 02:43 PM)GMDino Wrote: Kinda why I say these discussions just go round and round and get nowhere...and never will more than likely.

For every "slippery slope" argument from one side there is this guy being used as an example of "do we really need this to get a meatball sub?".



As one commentator said: If you got a picture of him without him turning around he'd probably be down before he knew a gunman was in the store.

But I digress that it's a fun discussion to have about what might work and what could work and what it might lead to and what we could not do but I don't see it being resolved in anyway that actually cuts down on the gun violence in our country.

That dude actually looks like he's a competition shooter. The flared grips are something you see more on their custom pistols to help facilitate faster reloads in competition.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-25-2021, 06:23 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That dude actually looks like he's a competition shooter. The flared grips are something you see more on their custom pistols to help facilitate faster reloads in competition.

Yeah, the flared mag wells are a dead giveaway.  Of course, that doesn't stand in the way of stereotyping a gun owner.  Not a fan of open carry personally, but if it's legal it's legal.

[GMDino]

(03-25-2021, 06:23 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That dude actually looks like he's a competition shooter. The flared grips are something you see more on their custom pistols to help facilitate faster reloads in competition.

Problem being the average person in subway doesn't know that.  I didn't know that.  When these discussions go on images like that, and there are plenty of others, only add to what I was talking about.

[GMDino]

I think the Texas gop will lead the way...they REALLY seem to have their fingers on the pulse of what matters!  

Three short months ago their hospital system was on the verge of collapse.
Seven weeks ago their power grid collapsed killing over 100.
Today, there was a mass shooting in Bryan, killing at least one.
And the Texas legislators are yapping about a song at footbal games... SMH pic.twitter.com/52EZVZi2Pu

— Hugh G Merriman MD (@merriman_md) April 8, 2021