Things that will help the GOP before 2022 elections.

[Forever Spinning Vinyl]

(03-10-2021, 10:54 PM)hollodero Wrote: Amongst the amazing things coming out of the USA, this has to be amongst the most amazing ones.

That's not even disguied any more. Hey, we want fewer people voting, so we want to make it as uncomfortable as possible, especially in those areas where we already tried to make voting hard by opening very few polling places and allowing long lines to begin with. These people tend to vote the wrong way, hence let them starve. Don't sit down! Stand there and suffer, or better, just take your potentially liberal views and go home.

Maybe add playing the same annoying song for hours while at it. Put sunlamps across the path, heat this thing up to 125 degrees fahrenheit; these poeple standing in line must literally feel the heat. There's so much potential still unleashed...

Beacon of democracy.

Yeah, but, you see, you're a foreigner. Your opinion only matters to Patriots if they can use it in a political argument. Other than that, they don't care about outside opinions, especially opinions from Europe. That place is LOADED with socialists . . . at least, that's what I hear. People are saying this. Many people.

[GMDino]

Financing shams?

https://www.local10.com/news/local/2021/03/17/ex-sen-frank-artiles-home-raided-in-shill-candidate-investigation/

Quote:Ex-Sen. Frank Artiles’ home raided in shill candidate investigation
Prosecutors seek evidence he paid for a plant to shake up November election



PALMETTO BAY, Fla. – A search warrant was executed Wednesday morning at the home of former Florida Sen. Frank Artiles as part of the Miami-Dade State Attorney’s Office’s investigation into whether he illegally funded a planted candidate in the November election.
Sources say the warrant involves the search of his electronics, including his cell phone and computer, and the contents of a safe in Artiles’ Palmetto Bay house.

Investigators are looking for evidence of Artiles’ possible communication with Alex Rodriguez, a shill candidate in the District 37 Florida Senate race, and whether there is proof Artiles illegally paid for and paid off the sham candidate.

News of the raid, first reported by Local 10 News, dropped as a bombshell in Tallahassee.

?Breaking: search warrant raid right now at home of resigned #Florida Sen. Frank Artiles re shill candidate he planted, Alex Rodriguez.
re: scheme to dupe voters/manipulate a Nov 2020 FL senate election.
Much to come... @WPLGLocal10
Background https://t.co/AncQuHuKME pic.twitter.com/gzl87cmDjJ

— Glenna Milberg (@GlennaWPLG) March 17, 2021

 

Rodriguez, a third-party candidate in that race, has the same last name as the Democratic incumbent Jose Javier Rodriguez, who narrowly lost to Republican challenger Ileana Garcia.


A Local 10 News investigation shortly after the election found that Alex Rodriguez, a deep-in-debt machinery rep in Boca Raton, falsified his address on his campaign filing form, and that he didn’t fundraise or campaign for the position he was on the ballot for. He also lied to Local 10 News in November when we asked him to explain his curious no-show, no-party campaign and suspicious campaign finance records.

Masterminding a sham candidate is not illegal, but financing one is.


Prosecutors have been working the case for months, following the money and communications between Artiles and Alex Rodriguez.


They may have been done in by their digital footprints. Rodriguez was keeping his apparent handler Artiles informed of his progress as a candidate.
And sudden changes to his campaign donor list trace back to Artiles’ home IP address.

Artiles, now a lobbyist, resigned his state Senate seat in 2017 after using a racial slur among colleagues and amid reports that a former Hooters calendar girl and a Playboy model with no political experience were hired as “consultants.”

The raid at Artiles’ home wrapped up before noon, and the former state senator was spotted inside the house with his attorney.
Neither had a comment Wednesday.

Garcia won the District 37 race by just 32 votes over Jose Javier Rodriguez. Shill candidate Alex Rodriguez got over 6,000 votes.

There is no evidence that suggests Garcia was involved or had any knowledge of the shill being planted in the race.

[BigPapaKain]

(03-18-2021, 03:51 PM)GMDino Wrote: Financing shams?

https://www.local10.com/news/local/2021/03/17/ex-sen-frank-artiles-home-raided-in-shill-candidate-investigation/

They're just not even trying to cover up the corruption anymore, are they?

[GMDino]

(03-19-2021, 02:02 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: They're just not even trying to cover up the corruption anymore, are they?

Oh they try.  I said the other day* that the good thing about the gqp attracting more and more crazies is that they say the quiet part out loud and they don't think they are doing anything wrong so they aren't very good at hiding anything.






*"other day" could mean yesterday or thee months ago...I don't remember exactly.

[TheUberHuber]

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/23/us/politics/biden-gun-control.html

Banning assault rifles sure would help the gop.



“This is not and should not be a partisan issue — it is an American issue,” President Biden said on Tuesday.
“This is not and should not be a partisan issue — it is an American issue,” President Biden said on Tuesday.Credit...Anna Moneymaker for The New York Times
Annie KarniCatie Edmondson
By Annie Karni and Catie Edmondson
March 23, 2021
WASHINGTON — Faced with the second mass shooting in a week, President Biden and Democrats on Capitol Hill called on Tuesday for fast action to enact stricter gun laws, a plea that was immediately met with a blockade of opposition by Republicans.

In brief, somber remarks from the White House, Mr. Biden called on the Senate to pass a ban on assault weapons and to close background check loopholes, saying that doing so would be “common sense steps that will save lives in the future.”

His demand for action was the latest in what has become a doleful ritual in Washington: making a renewed call for gun safety legislation after a deadly shooting, this one at a Colorado grocery store where 10 people, including a police officer, were killed on Monday.

“This is not and should not be a partisan issue — it is an American issue,” Mr. Biden said. “We have to act.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Continue reading the main story

But while polling regularly shows broad support for tighter gun laws and specific policies like a ban on assault weapons, Republicans in Congress remained all but immovable on the issue, repeating longstanding arguments on Tuesday that gun violence should be addressed through steps like more policing rather than limiting gun rights.

Refer someone to The Times.
They’ll enjoy our special rate of $1 a week.
“There’s not a big appetite among our members to do things that would appear to be addressing it, but actually don’t do anything to fix the problem,” said Senator John Thune of South Dakota, the No. 2 Senate Republican.

President Barack Obama was unable to win passage of tighter gun legislation even after the shootings in 2012 at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, which left 20 children and six adults dead. Since then, there has been little progress at the federal level, even as the epidemic of gun violence has raged on.

On Tuesday, Mr. Biden noted that he had to draft a proclamation to keep the White House flags at half-staff because they had already been lowered to honor eight people killed by a gunman in the Atlanta area less than a week earlier.

ADVERTISEMENT

Continue reading the main story
“Another American city has been scarred by gun violence and the resulting trauma,” the president said.

As a senator, Mr. Biden was a prominent supporter of the original assault weapons ban in 1994, which expired a decade later and has never been renewed. Since then, Mr. Biden has been involved in other gun control proposals that have gone nowhere in Congress, and he was described by aides as realistic about the difficulty of passing any meaningful legislation this time around.

ImageEmployees of a King Soopers supermarket in Boulder, Colo., leaving flowers outside the store on Tuesday, the day after a mass shooting there.
Employees of a King Soopers supermarket in Boulder, Colo., leaving flowers outside the store on Tuesday, the day after a mass shooting there.Credit...Eliza Earle for The New York Times
When asked by a reporter whether he had the political capital to move forward with gun safety measures, the president expressed uncertainty. “I hope so,” he said, crossing his fingers. “I don’t know. I haven’t done any counting yet.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Continue reading the main story
Proponents of tighter gun laws said they hoped the latest shootings would push the Biden administration to action.

“I don’t think there’s any question that passing gun safety legislation is unfinished business for Biden,” said John Feinblatt, the president of Everytown for Gun Safety, a gun violence prevention organization, noting Mr. Biden’s record on the issue in the Senate and the role he played in developing the Obama administration’s response after the Sandy Hook massacre.

“It’s understandable that addressing the pandemic came first,” Mr. Feinblatt said, “but in the face of rising crime rates and two mass shootings in less than a week, the Biden administration now has to govern like it is the strongest in history on gun safety.”

On Capitol Hill, lawmakers quickly splintered along partisan lines.

Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, an outspoken voice on gun control, said that Congress’s inaction had made lawmakers “complicit” in allowing “completely predictable” violence go unchecked. He sounded a note of optimism, citing Mr. Biden’s personal commitment to the issue.

ADVERTISEMENT

Continue reading the main story
“This time feels different,” Mr. Blumenthal said on Tuesday at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. “The dawn of a new era, with a president completely committed to gun violence prevention. I know from having heard him privately and publicly that he shares this passion. So do majorities now — in the House and the Senate.”

House Democrats passed two bills this month aimed at expanding and strengthening background checks for gun buyers by applying them to all gun buyers and extending the time the F.B.I. has to vet those flagged by the national instant check system.

Colorado Shooting
Latest Updates
Updated
March 24, 2021, 2:02 p.m. ET2 hours ago
2 hours ago
A victim remembered: ‘She had dreams.’
The kind of gun bought by the suspect would have been prohibited from sale under a Boulder law, but a judge blocked it.
YouTube won’t take down a video of the shooting.
Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the majority leader, vowed on Tuesday to put the bills to a vote on the Senate floor, and Mr. Biden urged their passage while also calling for a new assault weapons ban. The gunman in the Colorado shooting was armed with both a military-style semiautomatic rifle and a pistol.

Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, said that he was “open to the discussion” around gun control measures, but that he was opposed to the two House-passed bills.

ADVERTISEMENT

Continue reading the main story
“What I’m not attracted to is something that doesn’t work, and there have been deep-seated philosophical differences between Republicans and Democrats about how to deal with gun violence,” he said.

Even before the recent shootings, Democrats had begun advancing stricter gun control measures that faced long odds in the 50-to-50 Senate. But even with unified Democratic control, speedy congressional action seems as elusive as ever.

The twin pieces of legislation passed in the House have been deemed ineffective and too expansive by most Republicans; only eight House Republicans voted to advance the universal background check legislation. The bills would almost certainly not muster the 60 votes needed to clear a filibuster in the Senate.

Aware of the challenges of passing new gun laws, White House officials said, Mr. Biden has since taking office been pressing aides on what can be done to strengthen existing legislation with presidential authority.

ADVERTISEMENT

Continue reading the main story
After the searing tragedy at Sandy Hook, Mr. Obama chose not to press ahead immediately with legislation. He instead asked Mr. Biden, then vice president, to put together a package of proposed measures.

Mr. Biden, who had helped pass the landmark Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act as well as the 10-year assault weapons ban while in the Senate, came back five weeks later with proposals for legislation and executive action, but the Obama administration’s push to pass a background check bill failed.

What to Know About Gun Laws and Shootings in the U.S.
In the last five years, there have been at least 29 shootings in the United States with four or more fatalities, according to data compiled by the Violence Project. The number of overall injuries from firearms reached a 50-year high in 2017, with nearly 40,000 people killed.
Americans make up about 4.4 percent of the global population but own 42 percent of the world’s guns. Research shows that 31 percent of mass shootings worldwide from 1966 to 2012 were committed by Americans.
The Times examined how weapons were obtained in 19 shootings from 2009 to 2018. Many of the guns used in mass shootings are bought legally and with a federal background check.
At the state level, there is a checkerboard of gun laws that align with the partisan tilt of each state. While 13 Democratic-controlled states have restricted gun access in recent years, 14 Republican states have loosened their gun laws.
“The failure to get legislation passed was one of Obama’s greatest regrets,” said Kris Brown, the president of Brady: United Against Gun Violence, a nonprofit group.

Mr. Biden faces political gridlock on the issue despite longstanding public support for tighter gun laws, growing calls for action from many Democrats and the waning influence of the National Rifle Association.

ADVERTISEMENT

Continue reading the main story
According to a Pew Research Center poll in 2019, growing proportions of Americans in both parties supported tighter gun laws. There was broad bipartisan support as well on some specific steps, including barring people with mental illnesses from buying guns. About 71 percent of Americans — including a slight majority of Republicans — favored banning high-capacity ammunition magazines, while 69 percent, including half of Republicans, backed an assault weapons ban.

Mr. Biden said on Tuesday that it was wrong “to wait another minute, let alone an hour, to take common sense steps that will save the lives in the future.”

Image
“What I’m not attracted to is something that doesn’t work, and there have been deep-seated philosophical differences between Republicans and Democrats about how to deal with gun violence,” said Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader.
“What I’m not attracted to is something that doesn’t work, and there have been deep-seated philosophical differences between Republicans and Democrats about how to deal with gun violence,” said Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader.Credit...Michael A. McCoy for The New York Times
But the challenge for his administration will be figuring out how much political capital it is willing to expend on a politically intractable issue, given the other monumental crises it is simultaneously confronting.

ADVERTISEMENT

Continue reading the main story
“This tragedy just happened last night, so I would not expect a new proposal put forward under 24 hours,” Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, told reporters aboard Air Force One en route to Ohio, where the president promoted his $1.9 trillion pandemic relief package. While the administration has rolled out more than 30 executive orders in its first weeks, none of them addressed gun violence.

For now, Susan Rice, the director of the Domestic Policy Council, and Cedric Richmond, the director of the office of public engagement, have been overseeing the administration’s planned executive actions on guns, as well as plans to provide more funding for gun violence prevention.

One executive action under consideration is classifying “ghost guns,” which are kits that allow a buyer to assemble a fully functioning long gun or handgun, as firearms. Such a classification would require them to be serialized and subject to background checks.

Gun violence prevention groups are also pushing the administration to define what it means to be “in the business” of selling guns. Under current law, people who are “in the business” of selling guns have to conduct a background check, but it does not define what that means.

ADVERTISEMENT

Continue reading the main story
The administration is also working to fulfill Mr. Biden’s campaign promise of making a $900 million investment over eight years in programs that tackle community violence, officials said.

The limited prospects for passing even modest gun legislation this year were on display on Tuesday on Capitol Hill.

Senator Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, has a longstanding bipartisan proposal — written with Senator Patrick J. Toomey, Republican of Pennsylvania — to close legal loopholes that allow people who buy firearms at gun shows or on the internet to avoid background checks.

But the bill has been unable to muster the 60 votes needed to pass the Senate. And Mr. Manchin — who as a moderate from a deeply conservative state is often in the position of deciding whether Democrats can push through their agenda in the evenly divided chamber — also opposes dismantling the legislative filibuster that requires most legislation to win 60 votes.

ADVERTISEMENT

Continue reading the main story
Mr. Manchin said that he was interested in reviving the Manchin-Toomey legislation, but that he was opposed to the House-passed universal background check bill, citing its provision requiring checks for sales between private citizens. Separately, Mr. Toomey told reporters that he believed that additional changes would be required for his legislation with Mr. Manchin.

“I want to find something that can pass,” Mr. Toomey told reporters. “That probably would require something that’s a little bit different. We’ve got to see if we can figure out how to thread that needle.”

Glenn Thrush contributed reporting.

ADVERTISEMENT

Continue reading the main story
Refer friends and family to The Times for $1 a week.
Refer friends and family to The Times for $1 a week.

Facts are critical. Share them with those you care about.
Refer someone to our special rate of $1 a week.
REFER NOW
Site Index
Site Information Navigation
2021 The New York Times Company
NYTCoContact UsAccessibilityWork with usAdvertiseT Brand StudioYour Ad ChoicesPrivacy PolicyTerms of ServiceTerms of SaleSite MapCanadaInternationalHelpSubscriptions

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

Rifles of any type are the weapon in only ~300 deaths per year.  An "assault weapons" ban would have zero effect on gun related crime, which was adequately demonstrated by the empirical evidence that it had zero effect the last time we had one.  Which perfectly exemplifies that Democrats aren't interested in public safety, they're interested in restricting your rights.  So you're right, this will help the GOP in 2022.

[GMDino]

(03-24-2021, 05:14 PM)TheUberHuber Wrote: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/23/us/politics/biden-gun-control.html

Banning assault rifles sure would help the gop.

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.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(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.

Good thing you're understanding anything isn't part of the Constitution.  It's a semi-automatic rifle, they've been in existence for close to 100 years.  A guy could use an M1 Garand and easily do just as much damage, if not more, due to the power of the 30.06 round.

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

Background checks are already a thing.  What loopholes are you talking about?  Also, waiting periods aren't too onerous, I'd have zero issue with them on their own.

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

No, it won't.  Nothing you're proposing would have any discernable effect on gun violence, an "assault weapons" ban has already been empirically proven to do nothing.  Honestly the only thing you're proposing that would is a waiting period, which is why, on their own, I don't have a lot of issues with them.

[Belsnickel]

(03-24-2021, 07:36 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Good thing you're understanding anything isn't part of the Constitution.  It's a semi-automatic rifle, they've been in existence for lose to 100 years.  A guy could use an M1 Garand and easily do just as much damage, if not more, due to the power of the 30.06 round.

Well, the Garand is just a WWII-era assault rifle, anyway. I call my Winchester '94 an assault rifle because that's what it was designed for, cavalry assaults.

(03-24-2021, 07:36 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Background checks are already a thing.  What loopholes are you talking about?  Also, waiting periods aren't too onerous, I'd have zero issue with them on there own.


No, it won't.  Nothing you're proposing would have any discernable effect on gun violence, an "assault weapons" ban has already been empirically proven to do nothing.  Honestly the only thing you're proposing that would is a waiting period, which is why, on their own, I don't have a lot of issues with them.

Background checks are a thing, but there are lots of places (like Virginia) where private-party transfers occur and do not require an FFL or any sort of background check to be performed. No check, no record, completely under the table. Those are the transfers that some groups are trying to make sure are eliminated by requiring background checks for all transfers.

As for the waiting period, when I was doing research on gun control policies for a memo I did a bit of a meta analysis in which different methods were compared from different studies and what not. The most effective, in fact the only conclusively effective policy in reducing firearm deaths was a waiting period. It had a very significant correlation to a reduction in suicides and lesser so with homicides. It was the only policy that I recommended implementation of in addition to funding research and investigating another policy option (permit-to-purchase, which has some evidence for but lacked as much of a solid evidentiary background).

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-24-2021, 07:52 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, the Garand is just a WWII-era assault rifle, anyway. I call my Winchester '94 an assault rifle because that's what it was designed for, cavalry assaults.

Both adequately demonstrating why the term is a completely useless one only used to stoke fear in people.

Quote:Background checks are a thing, but there are lots of places (like Virginia) where private-party transfers occur and do not require an FFL or any sort of background check to be performed. No check, no record, completely under the table. Those are the transfers that some groups are trying to make sure are eliminated by requiring background checks for all transfers.

Yes, I know.  Unfortunately, even starting to enforce such a rule would require a complete gun registry, which is currently illegal.  Without a registry the compliance rate for this requirement would be close to zero.

Quote:As for the waiting period, when I was doing research on gun control policies for a memo I did a bit of a meta analysis in which different methods were compared from different studies and what not. The most effective, in fact the only conclusively effective policy in reducing firearm deaths was a waiting period. It had a very significant correlation to a reduction in suicides and lesser so with homicides. It was the only policy that I recommended implementation of in addition to funding research and investigating another policy option (permit-to-purchase, which has some evidence for but lacked as much of a solid evidentiary background).

Hence my, for the most part, support of them.  Thank you for the empirical reinforcement.  I will say I would like an application to be exempt from the waiting period based on number and type of firearms owned.  The last firearm I purchased was a CZ Redhead Premier, last Christmas.  It is annoying that I had to wait ten days to pick it up considering the amount, and type of other firearms I already own.  Of course getting an exemption for this would also require a registry, which I oppose.  I also realize, at the end of the day, the ten day waiting period isn't a huge deal and really only annoys me as we now live in world of near instant gratification.

[GMDino]

(03-24-2021, 07:52 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, the Garand is just a WWII-era assault rifle, anyway. I call my Winchester '94 an assault rifle because that's what it was designed for, cavalry assaults.


Background checks are a thing, but there are lots of places (like Virginia) where private-party transfers occur and do not require an FFL or any sort of background check to be performed. No check, no record, completely under the table. Those are the transfers that some groups are trying to make sure are eliminated by requiring background checks for all transfers.

As for the waiting period, when I was doing research on gun control policies for a memo I did a bit of a meta analysis in which different methods were compared from different studies and what not. The most effective, in fact the only conclusively effective policy in reducing firearm deaths was a waiting period. It had a very significant correlation to a reduction in suicides and lesser so with homicides. It was the only policy that I recommended implementation of in addition to funding research and investigating another policy option (permit-to-purchase, which has some evidence for but lacked as much of a solid evidentiary background).

Well, good thing I didn't say anything about "Assault rifles" then?

Anywho the problem is even if there is evidence that something might work, even a little bit, there will be resistance from the "slippery slope" folks.  It doesn't matter how popular the change would be with the public as long as there is a vocal group fighting it and money pouring into politicians to keep them from enacting it.

To that latter I've heard "we need to address the problem" a dozen times since the last shooting but they never say what the problem is or how they would address such a thing.  Other than "keep bad guys out/build a wall".  I did see that tweeted today.

Edit to add: That's why these conversations just go round and round. For too many it is an all or nothing approach, on both ends. "Common sense" changes are rejected as either not enough or opening the door to too much. It is also why I find it funny/sad that the Onion shares the same story they have for years.

‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens https://t.co/c1FEE0smko pic.twitter.com/u0TucOuQ71

— The Onion (@TheOnion) March 23, 2021

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-24-2021, 08:33 PM)GMDino Wrote: Well, good thing I didn't say anything about "Assault rifles" then?

No, you just mentioned AR15s and stated you can't understand why anyone should own one.

Quote:Anywho the problem is even if there is evidence that something might work, even a little bit, there will be resistance from the "slippery slope" folks.  It doesn't matter how popular the change would be with the public as long as there is a vocal group fighting it and money pouring into politicians to keep them from enacting it.

No, it doesn't matter how popular with the public it is to violate the Constitution, you are correct.  As for the "slippery slope" you have only yourself, your ilk and the Democrats to blame for this.  They constantly want more, after every shooting the demand for more curtailment grows.  Remember, "Hell yes we're coming for your AR15's, for you AK47's"?  Every single person who cares about gun ownership rights does, and they will never forget it.  Like I said, you blew any chance of compromise long ago when the real end game was outed.

Quote:To that latter I've heard "we need to address the problem" a dozen times since the last shooting but they never say what the problem is or how they would address such a thing.  Other than "keep bad guys out/build a wall".  I did see that tweeted today.

Odd that you'd say that, considering two of the most knowledgeable posters on the forum on this topic just agreed that all of your proposals will have minimal to zero effect on gun violence, with the exception of a waiting period, on which they both agreed.  Seems like there is an agreement on addressing the problem, it's just an agreement that actually works, but doesn't satisfy your need to limit the rights of others.

Quote:Edit to add:  That's why these conversations just go round and round.  For too many it is an all or nothing approach, on both ends.  "Common sense" changes are rejected as either not enough or opening the door to too much.  It is also why I find it funny/sad that the Onion shares the same story they have for years.

‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens https://t.co/c1FEE0smko pic.twitter.com/u0TucOuQ71

— The Onion (@TheOnion) March 23, 2021

Ahh yes, a reliable liberal talking point.  Of course more firearms means more firearms related incidents.  We could eliminate 99% of traffic fatalities if we mandated use of public transportation for everyone.  Freedom is messy, some people will abuse it, and it's not always safe.  That being said it's far better than the nanny state alternative in which the government knows best and will keep you safe from yourself.  I find it interesting that I have to explain that concept to a person who spent the last four years tied in a Gordian knot over Trump and his use of governmental power.

[GMDino]

Like I said

(03-24-2021, 08:33 PM)GMDino Wrote: Edit to add:  That's why these conversations just go round and round.  For too many it is an all or nothing approach, on both ends.  "Common sense" changes are rejected as either not enough or opening the door to too much.  It is also why I find it funny/sad that the Onion shares the same story they have for years.

‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens https://t.co/c1FEE0smko pic.twitter.com/u0TucOuQ71

— The Onion (@TheOnion) March 23, 2021

...and that's all I said.

Anyway, back to the topic of the GOP  I feel this helps explain Trump and his most fervent followers who will probably be the frontrunners in the build up to 2024...and for no other reason. 

[Belsnickel]

I just want to be clear on this, too. Not only would an AWB not have any statistically significant impact on crime, it would likely do the same thing we have seen with machine guns (as well as AKs). Putting a ban in place would have to carve out exceptions for those already legally owned, there is just no way around it. If you cut off the supply and cap it where it is at the point of legislation it causes a supply shortage that will cause an increase in costs over the years. What this means is that wealthier individuals will be able to afford these items while the poor, working, and middle classes will be left unarmed. This means it would disproportionately affect lower wealth communities which are already marginalized as it is. I'm not a full-on socialist, so I'm not big on quoting Marx, but "[u]nder no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary."

And this is why gun control is not progressive policy.

[fredtoast]

(03-25-2021, 09:40 AM)Belsnickel Wrote:  What this means is that wealthier individuals will be able to afford these items while the poor, working, and middle classes will be left unarmed.

You are getting worse than the NRA with this propaganda.


"Oh Lordy, we can't have any kind of gun regulations because it will mean poor people can't afford fully automatic weapons or bazookas!  That means they will be UNARMED!!"

[GMDino]

(03-25-2021, 09:40 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I just want to be clear on this, too. Not only would an AWB not have any statistically significant impact on crime, it would likely do the same thing we have seen with machine guns (as well as AKs). Putting a ban in place would have to carve out exceptions for those already legally owned, there is just no way around it. If you cut off the supply and cap it where it is at the point of legislation it causes a supply shortage that will cause an increase in costs over the years. What this means is that wealthier individuals will be able to afford these items while the poor, working, and middle classes will be left unarmed. This means it would disproportionately affect lower wealth communities which are already marginalized as it is. I'm not a full-on socialist, so I'm not big on quoting Marx, but "[u]nder no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary."

And this is why gun control is not progressive policy.

To me it is a "horse is already out of the barn" situation without even taking into account who would be able to afford them.

Doesn't change my mind about why we had them in the first place.  As some who is not a gun owner I don't get the need/want for it but it is what it is.

As an aside last year when we had the TP shortage one of my "libertarian" (he's a staunch conservative) friends told me the answer was price gouging.  His idea was that if stores kept raising the prices then people wouldn't hoard it and there would be plenty of supply.  *I* thought that would then mean that the people in the area that need TP wouldn't be able to afford it even if there was a good supply and that limiting purchases made more sense.  (Obviously supply chain problems were a separate issue.)  Applied to the gun issue you can have any arms you like that you can legally get but it might take a few days for a background check.  That keeps them affordable and might help with some of the gun deaths as you said earlier.

I also still don't have an argument against registration because I really and honestly don't believe anyone in the government is coming for your guns*, but then I also don't have a dog in the fight.

* Just heard a story yesterday about a current SC case where police were doing a wellness check and determined the guy needed help, took him to the hospital and then came back and confiscated all his guns.  So I know that in individual cases they will "take your guns".

[fredtoast]

(03-24-2021, 09:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:   Like I said, you blew any chance of compromise long ago when the real end game was outed.

You obviously don't know what the term "compromise" means.

It means both sides give up a little but neither gets everything they want.  In order to reach a compromise it is required that both sides admit what the "real end game" is and then agree not to go that far.

In the case of guns it is just silly argument because having a gun registry is not required for gun confiscation laws, and it is possible to have gun registry without gun confiscation.  It is a logical fallacy created by the gun lobby as a pretend argument against a law that will help everyone except criminals.  

These people try to wrap themselves in the Constitution, but they admit that if a law is passed throught the Constitutional process they will ignore it.  They don't really give a shit about the Constitution.  All they care about is their guns.  They believe in "rule by guns" instead of "rule by democracy"

[Belsnickel]

(03-25-2021, 09:53 AM)fredtoast Wrote: You are getting worse than the NRA with this propaganda.


"Oh Lordy, we can't have any kind of gun regulations because it will mean poor people can't afford fully automatic weapons or bazookas!  That means they will be UNARMED!!"

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.

[GMDino]

Apparently the gop believes blocking this will help them too.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/544763-senate-panel-dukes-it-out-over-voting-rights

Quote:Senate panel dukes it out over voting rights
BY MARTY JOHNSON - 03/24/21 03:10 PM EDT


Lawmakers on the Senate Rules Committee clashed Wednesday over sweeping Democratic legislation on voting rights and campaign finance and redistricting reform.

“This bill is essential to protecting every American’s right to vote, getting dark money out of our elections, as well as some very important anti-corruption reforms,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), the panel's chairwoman, said in her opening statement on the For the People Act. “It is about strengthening our democracy by returning it to the hands of its rightful owners: the American people.”

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), the ranking member on the panel, argued against the legislation, saying it would “force a single, partisan view of elections on more than 10,000 jurisdictions across the country.”

Known also as H.R. 1 and S.1, the bill is a top priority for Democrats. It passed the House in the last session of Congress, but failed to gain any traction in the Republican-controlled Senate.

Coming in at over 800 pages, S.1 is hefty, wide reaching and complex. 

Outside of the issues surrounding voting rights, it would create an independent nonpartisan redistricting commission in an attempt to get rid of partisan gerrymandering, restructure the makeup of the Federal Election Commission and work to give more transparency to campaign donations.

All of the issues received air time during the several-hour hearing, though sections of the bill addressing voting rights received much of the scrutiny handed out by Republicans.

Under the legislation, all states would be mandated to offer mail-in ballots, a standard period for early voting and same-day voter registration, as well as automatic voter registration. It also calls for the implementation of new voting machines and provides more resources for states to prevent foreign election threats.

GOP witnesses and members argued that many of the deadlines set for states to have these reforms in place were impractical and that the proposed expansion of voting rights would open the door for voter fraud. Republican lawmakers also characterized S.1 as a Democratic power grab and the federalization of elections. 

The question of voter fraud was at the pinnacle of the latest general election. Former President Trump repeatedly claimed that mass election fraud was the reason why he lost to President Biden on Election Day, launching dozens of lawsuits in protest. However, all of the lawsuits were dismissed, with many being tossed by judges who were appointed by Trump.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many states expanded voting rights for residents, namely more accessible early voting. This led to over 100 million Americans voting early, either by mail or in person, a record. Overall, nearly 160 million Americans cast a ballot in November, the most ever.

The Brennan Center for Justice, however, has noted that since the election, over 250 bills have been introduced in state legislatures that would make voting harder. Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center, testified Wednesday that the state proposals represented a “crisis for our democracy.”

Also present at the hearing was former Attorney General Eric Holder (D), who now chairs the National Democratic Redistricting Committee.

“For as long as this country has existed there have been two opposing forces that have fought over how we define and confer the rights and privileges of citizenship, freedom and equality,” Holder said during his testimony. “Every step that has brought us closer to universal suffrage has been met by those — often by those who are in power — who want to maintain an unjust status quo.” 

S.1 is a clearly stated priority for Democrats, but also serves as a precursor for the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, another voting rights bill that passed the House last session of Congress that the party is expected to reintroduce later this year.

Named after the late congressman and civil rights icon John Lewis (D-Ga.), the legislation would rewrite the preclearance formula found in the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The original preclearance required states and jurisdictions with histories of racial discrimination — largely the Jim Crow South — to submit laws that would alter voting procedures to the Department of Justice for approval. 

However, the formula was deemed unconstitutional in a landmark 2013 Supreme Court case, though Chief Justice John Roberts made it clear that Congress was well within its power to construct an updated formula.

• Angus King signals he would nix filibuster for voting rights
• Rep. Terri Sewell declines to run for Senate in Alabama
  

Standing in the way of both bills is the Senate’s filibuster rule, which allows the minority party to hold up legislation if it doesn’t have 60 votes of approval. Calls for nixing the procedural tool have gained steam in recent weeks. 


The Biden administration has signaled that the president — who served in the Senate for decades — was open to the idea after previously balking at the change. 

But it's far from clear that Democrats have all 50 of their members behind changing the filibuster. Moderate Democrat Joe Manchin (W.V.) has continued to hold his ground in support of the filibuster.

[masonbengals fan]

(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.

 I don't understand how you say it isn't a liberal position. Who else is clamoring for it ?