[QUOTE=TheFilmSlacker;53001331]2018 is gonna see a Democrat sweep in the USA. It can only gpet better from here.[/QUOTE]
I'm not American but I don't believe that for a second.
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;53001334]Watch as young people see this news and think "Oh that means I don't have to vote!"[/QUOTE]
I imagine the presidential election in which their votes didn't count did a much better job of it than this article could ever hope to.
[QUOTE=Ona;53002371]Right now, any democrat who launches a platform based on gun regulation instead of fighting against Trump is being foolish.[/QUOTE]
Any Democrat who launches a platform based primarily on [I]either[/I] gun control [I]or[/I] opposing Trump is being foolish.
Hillary lost because she didn't campaign for the last two months and assumed "not being Trump" was good enough for her to win.
Democrat: "I'm not Trump, vote for me!"
Voter: "Okay, you're not Trump, but [I]what are you?[/I]"
Democrats need to have an actual platform. If they bank on winning because they're not Republicans, say hello to Trump winning 2020 (if he's not impeached first) and a continued Republican majority fucking over America until Democrats actually run on a platform that isn't "we're not them".
[QUOTE=Rossy167;53002462]I'm not American but I don't believe that for a second.[/QUOTE]
What is it that you don't believe? A blue wave flipping one or both houses of Congress, or that things will get better?
Because one of those is strongly shown by polls. The other is optimism.
[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;53002999]Clinton winning was strongly shown by polls. Don't get complacent.[/QUOTE]
Not by polls run by people who knew what they were doing. FiveThirtyEight got the final popular vote right and Trump won the electoral college by margins of error.
You're right not to get complacent, but "Trump 2016 means polls don't matter" is a stale meme.
[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;53002999]Clinton winning was strongly shown by polls. Don't get complacent.[/QUOTE]
Polling showed Trump still having a chance of winning and probability's a funny thing; not even the most left-wing place would be so foolish as to call the Hillary campaign a [I]sure[/I] win before the election if they've got any attachment to reality.
Clinton won, if the popular vote was the only thing that mattered. Trump won on the technicality of winning the electoral college in key states by pants-shittingly small margins, and the US intelligence community unanimously agrees that Russian state meddling helped tip the scales.
In a fair election Clinton [I]would have[/I] won, even with her pathetic decision to spend more time in the weeks prior to the election writing her book about how she won than actually campaigning.
I understand and agree with what you are getting at, but the polls would've been more representative if it weren't for the Russians having stolen voter lists and exercising highly targeted Facebook propaganda on undecided voters in swing states and swing districts.
The polls are meaningless if everyone assumes they're going to win and stays home instead of voting when the election rolls around, yes, but the 2016 presidential election with an ineffective US government/intelligence response and an unaware social media industry is not comparable to the 2018 midterm races across various states in a post-Trump/Russia-reveal America.
Don't get cocky. American voters have about a 2 week long attention span. However, it's not unprecedented for a major American party to completely disintegrate and give way to a new one. Funny enough, the democratic party seems to be the only one that has survived since the country's founding
[editline]24th December 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;53002999]Clinton winning was strongly shown by polls. Don't get complacent.[/QUOTE]
Clinton's [B]winning[/B] was favored by about 75%, but that's not the same thing as polling at 75%. Her margins were pretty tight, and even 538 posted a disclaimer article a week or so before the election warning of this
[QUOTE=Da Big Man;53001485]Jesus Christ the basic right to healthcare, LGBTQ rights, and an impossibly large number of other good things for the American people are more important than the paranoia of the left taking your fucking guns away. Which by the way hasn't happened, it didn't happen under Obama, and it won't ever happen.[/QUOTE]
Primarily democract controlled states have enacted sweeping gun reforms, and Obama was a proponent of the AWB mk2 proposed after Sandy Hook. Obama would have signed it into law if it had made it to his desk.
Why is it that we can't have one without the other?
So long as they don't make the myriad of mistakes they did last year. The bar of shittiness wasn't very high and yet they somehow managed to make themselves look equally as bad by some of their actions. Yes, obviously in hindsight Trump has been terrible, but that isn't an excuse for shittiness on either side. If they don't clean up their act I feel, or at least hope, that third parties will become more popular.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;53003290]Primarily democract controlled states have enacted sweeping gun reforms, and Obama was a proponent of the AWB mk2 proposed after Sandy Hook. Obama would have signed it into law if it had made it to his desk.
Why is it that we can't have one without the other?[/QUOTE]
Because that's just not the democratic platform/party politics in the USA. You have to decide which issues are most important to you and compromise. If you find a candidate that you agree with 100%, you're probably going to end up voting for some 3rd party nobody
[editline]24th December 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;53003307]So long as they don't make the myriad of mistakes they did last year. The bar of shittiness wasn't very high and yet they somehow managed to make themselves look equally as bad by some of their actions. Yes, obviously in hindsight Trump has been terrible, but that isn't an excuse for shittiness on either side. If they don't clean up their act I feel, or at least hope, that third parties will become more popular.[/QUOTE]
The only third party that would pick up traction would be an alternative to the Republicans, the democrats are still a major party, even if nobody liked their candidate in 2016.
I think more than how much people disliked Clinton, 2016 had a lot more to do with racism in this country
[QUOTE=Sableye;53001408]Because democrats from rural states would touch that? Guns aren't really the top tier item on the list[/QUOTE]
It wouldn’t matter if they get enough of a majority to pass federal laws like another AWB.
[QUOTE=Da Big Man;53001485]Jesus Christ the basic right to healthcare, LGBTQ rights, and an impossibly large number of other good things for the American people are more important than the paranoia of the left taking your fucking guns away. Which by the way hasn't happened, it didn't happen under Obama, and it won't ever happen.[/QUOTE]
Last time I checked, dumb republicans trying to deny us of those things would not threaten to undermine the bill of rights or erode the checks and balances of government power. The 2nd amendment was originally intended as the final check on government power.
Also yes it did happen in New Orleans during hurricane Katrina through an unlawful extrajudicial order. It was such a blatant violation that mainstream news even picked up on it. [url]http://youtube.com/watch?v=kf8trl69kzo[/url]
[QUOTE=Reds;53001528]Basing your political spectrum on "but they might take my toy that goes bang away if I vote for them" is ridiculously childish and not so much shortsighted as gouging your own eyes out.
Your gun culture is ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=RichyZ;53001645]I dont mind paying 2000 dollars to get an ambulance as long as i can shoot beer cans with my 1911[/QUOTE]
Yeah ok because guns are toys that have no meaningful purpose other than for entertainment. Get real. Guns are not toys, they are weapons which many people rely upon to protect and provide for their livelihoods. What’s really shortsighted is that you’re completely okay with our government going anywhere near our bill of rights for the purpose of restricting civil liberties, especially considering recent events within the last 2 decades.
[QUOTE=Sega Saturn;53001562]Imagine caring about one issue so much that even as your party has completely sold you up the river and embarrassed our country on a historical level, you're still obsessing over the delusion of the liberal stormtroopers coming for your firearms. Gun control is only a mid-level issue for most Democrats and there's no consensus on the appropriate action to take. In other words, it's hardly on the agenda when compared to the issues listed in the quote above.[/QUOTE]
Considering the response that happens anytime a publicized shooting happens, it’s only a mid-level issue when they know there isn’t enough momentum to fear monger people into giving away their rights. How else would shit like the Patriot Act be allowed to pass?
Also from what I’ve seen, the general consensus among politicians advocating for gun control is to ban semiautomatic weapons so it will be easier to ban everything else in the future, instead of doing something actually useful like allocating funds to the DOJ to prosecute straw purchasers, or giving the ATF resources to go after unscrupulous gun dealers instead of constantly flip flopping on what gun accessories are legal or illegal, or fixing the NICS background checks so that wife beaters don’t slip past the system because people can’t do their fucking job right, etc...
I also already gave an example of gun confiscation being done illegally. I don’t want to imagine what would happen if something like this was ordered at the federal level. Considering the current sitting president is fairly incompetent yet allowed to completely abuse his authority without much hindrance, I don’t have much confidence that any measures currently in place could prevent an acting president from unlawfully overreaching on matters of gun control.
[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;53001599]I love shooting guns, but really, why is "as long as they wont take away our guns" one of the first things mentioned when it seems democrats may become a majority in government? Shouldn't healthcare, infrastructure, and other major things be of more concern? Mention it if theres actually a serious threat to the 2nd amendment, but there really is none at this time.[/QUOTE]
There will be a serious threat when another publicized shooting happens and politicians use another tragedy to further their agenda. Yes we should be concerned about health care and the absolute shit state of the country, but anything we pass in favor of those causes won’t mean shit if the most fundamental rights we have continue to be eroded. I don’t care if they make promises to end world hunger; I’m not going to give a vote to someone who wants to take away my means of self preservation and sufficiency.
[QUOTE=Ona;53001664]Nobody is trying to say you can't?[/QUOTE]
I don’t know, sounds like a lot of people are saying just that.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;53001660]Because life isnt fair, lets get the shit that matters over the shit that doesnt
Alternatively: we can worry about it later, important shit needs fixing right now[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=proboardslol;53003309]Because that's just not the democratic platform/party politics in the USA. You have to decide which issues are most important to you and compromise. If you find a candidate that you agree with 100%, you're probably going to end up voting for some 3rd party nobody
[editline]24th December 2017[/editline]
The only third party that would pick up traction would be an alternative to the Republicans, the democrats are still a major party, even if nobody liked their candidate in 2016.
I think more than how much people disliked Clinton, 2016 had a lot more to do with racism in this country[/QUOTE]
But getting back to the rest:
[QUOTE=Ona;53001664]This idea that "democrat = anti-gun = I have to vote republican so I can keep my guns!!!" Is a toxic mindset that people like Trump and his cronies will use at every opportunity to get support from people whose idea of freedom isn't complete without the smell of burning gunpowder. The U.S had a democrat in power for 8 years, and there are still guns a'plenty.
What people are saying is "Fucking relax about your goddamn guns and look at the big picture, will you? Nobody's going to come and take your guns away!"
The whole issue with America's gun obsession is something that needs a lot of careful work and discussion so that a compromise can be reached between the people who refuse to accept a "free" country without the ability to own enough firepower to arm a small town, and the people who are saying "hey, maybe we should do something about all these dead people who are getting shot a lot, maybe?" - None of which can take place in a world where President Shit-Gibbon is trying to tell the [B][I]motherfucking CDC[/I][/B] what words it can and can't use. The last thing any Democtratic power worth a damn right now is thinking is "Boy, I can't wait to send out an army of goons to steal everybody's guns! muahahaha!"[/QUOTE]
I’d probably be more convinced if that last line wasn’t a perfect description of Dianne Feinstein and a few other prominent politicians.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;53002795]Any Democrat who launches a platform based primarily on [I]either[/I] gun control [I]or[/I] opposing Trump is being foolish.
Hillary lost because she didn't campaign for the last two months and assumed "not being Trump" was good enough for her to win.[/QUOTE]
During the elections? yeah, I can understand this.
But now, after a year of Trump essentially rear-ending the entire country? I'd say "not being Trump" is a pretty good starting point for any candidate. That said, my comment was more related to somebody launching a campaign basically saying "Hey, you know all that garbage the last adminstration broke? Well, I'll, like, fix all that if I'm elected into power, jus' saying." Would be a good option.
Not just "I'm not Trump.", more like "I will undo the damage Trump did."
[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;53003923]
Yeah ok because guns are toys that have no meaningful purpose other than for entertainment. Get real. Guns are not toys, they are weapons which many people rely upon to protect and provide for their livelihoods. What’s really shortsighted is that you’re completely okay with our government going anywhere near our bill of rights for the purpose of restricting civil liberties, especially considering recent events within the last 2 decades.
[/QUOTE]
Can you give me an example of a civilian occupation that can't be done without the use of a firearm? Guards don't really count considering there are plenty of guard jobs that don't require you to carry any lethal weaponry.
[QUOTE=nox;53004138]Can you give me an example of a civilian occupation that can't be done without the use of a firearm? Guards don't really count considering there are plenty of guard jobs that don't require you to carry any lethal weaponry.[/QUOTE]
I guess there's homesteaders rely on them though there is no significant number of them and even if strict gun laws came into effect I doubt hunting weapons would be impacted enough to have a significant impact on them.
I'm sorry that some politicians don't like firearms. I do like firearms, but you know what I like more? Living in a first world country not saddled by trillions of dollars of debt, not plagued by rising tuition costs and falling life expectancy, and not being embarrassed multiple times a day by our "President" as he lays fresh manure on the American people. I'll gladly take needlessly strict gun control over this utter shitshow [b]any day.[/b] We just can't afford to allow our government to be run so poorly by such incompetents.
[QUOTE=Anderan;53004233]I guess there's homesteaders rely on them though there is no significant number of them and even if strict gun laws came into effect I doubt hunting weapons would be impacted enough to have a significant impact on them.[/QUOTE]
A very small portion of Americans are living remotely enough to justifiably say their gun keeps food on the table, and even then there are firearm alternatives; traps, crossbows, longbows, big-bore airguns which are legally not firearms but just as effective at bringing down mid-size game.
[QUOTE=nox;53004364]A very small portion of Americans are living remotely enough to justifiably say their gun keeps food on the table, and even then there are firearm alternatives; traps, crossbows, longbows, big-bore airguns which are legally not firearms but just as effective at bringing down mid-size game.[/QUOTE]
As moot of a point as this is, if you think anything you just listed is "just as effective" as a firearm for anything larger than or equal to the size of a deer or a hog, you are grievously incorrect.
[QUOTE=Revenge282;53004375]As moot of a point as this is, if you think anything you just listed is "just as effective" as a firearm for anything larger than or equal to the size of a deer or a hog, you are grievously incorrect.[/QUOTE]
And how many people in the U.S, exactly, rely on hunting and personally grown food as their primary source of food?
I'm sure there are some people out there, living off the grid, who only eat what they catch and grow. But how many of them are there out of necessity instead of choice? How many people in the U.S, on average, [I]require[/I] a firearm to continue living? And I do mean this in the most literal terms here. If somebody is eating what they catch, but are doing so because they [I]can[/I] and [I]want to[/I], rather than being [I]forced to.[/I] Then that doesn't count.
I'd wager the amount of people in the states who actually need, through sheer necessity, to hunt food and/or protect personal crops to survive is very, very low. If you ask me, this isn't a valid argument for such freeform gun ownership. And hasn't been for a long time. It might have been that way back when the constitution was written, but that was over 200 years ago, now. A lot changes in over two centuries. Hell, a lot has changed in the last two [I]decades.[/I]
The most commonly cited reason for owning a gun in this day and age is "protection". But the fallacy there seems to be that in places like Britain, Australia, many parts of Asia, ect... Places which are largely considered to be "just as" civilised and advanced as the United States, gun ownership is much less common and much more heavily regulated... And yet violent crime seems to be much lower than in the U.S.
I'm privileged to say that in my 24 - almost 25 - years of being alive, I've never felt like the power to kill somebody at the squeeze of a trigger was necessary for me to own. Which isn't to say I haven't expressed interest in owning a gun. I would love to get into target shooting or gun collection one of these days, perhaps even skeet shooting or something like that. But I've so far never had the time or money to pursue it and it hasn't been [I]as[/I] interesting to me as some other hobbies I'd like to pursue. But that's the key point there. For me, owning guns would be a hobby. A luxury, a passtime. I've never felt like owning a gun is something I've [I]needed[/I] to do in order to stay safe or remain "free".
I think this idea that "gun ownership = freedom" is something deep-set in U.S culture, something that isn't present in a lot of other westernised cultures. And something that could, in many cases, be harmful to people. On a political scale, there are thousands of people who will vote for a harmful political party based solely on the fact that the other option is stricter on gun ownership, and gets painted as being "restrictive". And as a result we get situations where people like Trump come into power by exploiting that fear, and then they keep afloat on top of it despite all the damage they do to other aspects of life.
After all, what good is owning a gun if you can't afford to live in your own home? What good is owning a gun if you can't afford to pay medical bills? If you can't afford to drive anywhere, or you get denied service/employment due to your race, or sexuality, or gender identity?
You can't shoot sickness. You can't shoot starvation. You can't shoot bigotry or discrimination. A gun won't solve any of those issues. And despite that, there are still thousands of Americans who will hold onto their guns over these other freedoms, all the while saying that by taking their gun, you would somehow be taking their liberty from them.
I suppose it's just hard for me, as somebody who wasn't born in the states, and who hasn't lived there, to understand how a mindset like that can exist. I look in from the outside, and see a country that's trying to fight fire with fire and then complaining about all the fire that's around. All the while, big, serious issues get lost amid arguments that, really, don't have any bearing on the matter at hand.
This whole thread? This whole news story? It's about how unpopular Trump has made the Republican party and how much influence the Democrats are now capable of asserting simply due to their rival making such a mess of things. Then one person posts "I sure hope they don't take my guns" And that's all we can fucking talk about for three pages.
[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;53003923]It wouldn’t matter if they get enough of a majority to pass federal laws like another AWB.[/quote]
You mean the assault weapons ban that my great-aunt dreaded until it was passed and then suddenly every gun she owned was illegal except for her AR-15?
[quote]Last time I checked, dumb republicans trying to deny us of those things would not threaten to undermine the bill of rights or erode the checks and balances of government power. The 2nd amendment was originally intended as the final check on government power. [/quote]
So where are all the gun-nuts storming DC in order to defend Social Security? To defend Medicare/Medicaid? Top ensure health-care for all? To end crony capitalism? To end the massive inequality of wealth in this country that was bought out by lobbyists for large corporations and banks?
Oh right, those poor, poor people were told by the very same people who promised to let them keep their guns that those entitlement programs are for moochers and bums, and are a drain on the system, while promising that if the rich get richer, then so will everyone else, and they (y'all?) bought it hook, line, and sinker, so long as you get to keep your boomsticks.
Which who can blame you? Why should you ever get involved politically and pressure representatives who give a shit about [I]actually[/I] fixing the health-care and education systems to consider your gun rights and negotiating or suggesting solutions, when you have a guy who will just let you keep your guns, so long as you vote them in to gut those services? That's too much like work!
[quote]Yeah ok because guns are toys that have no meaningful purpose other than for entertainment. Get real. Guns are not toys, they are weapons which many people rely upon to protect and provide for their livelihoods. What’s really shortsighted is that you’re completely okay with our government going anywhere near our bill of rights for the purpose of restricting civil liberties, especially considering recent events within the last 2 decades. [/quote]
So then you should have no issue with them banning bump-stocks or other means of artificially increasing your effective rate-of-fire? They're not a toy after all, so having fun with your guns isn't important.
And before you start the whole "but I should be able to customize my gun!" argument, the 2nd amendment as-written guarantees you a right to arms, not to fancy accessories that make them more "fun".
[quote]Considering the response that happens anytime a publicized shooting happens, it’s only a mid-level issue when they know there isn’t enough momentum to fear monger people into giving away their rights. How else would shit like the Patriot Act be allowed to pass?[/quote]
I remember a lot of people being against the Patriot Act because they saw that it would allow for increased levels of government surveillance on its own citizens, which violated rights of personal privacy.
[quote]There will be a serious threat when another publicized shooting happens and politicians use another tragedy to further their agenda. Yes we should be concerned about health care and the absolute shit state of the country, but anything we pass in favor of those causes won’t mean shit if the most fundamental rights we have continue to be eroded. I don’t care if they make promises to end world hunger; I’m not going to give a vote to someone who wants to take away my means of self preservation and sufficiency.[/quote]
So you won't vote for someone who might vote to remove your right to live innawoods when the shit hits the fan (which trust me, if shit gets THAT bad I highly doubt you or anyone else will care about living legally in terms of fire-arm ownership), but you'll vote for someone who allows you to do so on the pretense that they take away the ability for people to pursue healthy lives without going into massive debt?
[QUOTE=Ona;53004407]And how many people in the U.S, exactly, rely on hunting and personally grown food as their primary source of food?
I'm sure there are some people out there, living off the grid, who only eat what they catch and grow. But how many of them are there out of necessity instead of choice? How many people in the U.S, on average, [I]require[/I] a firearm to continue living? And I do mean this in the most literal terms here. If somebody is eating what they catch, but are doing so because they [I]can[/I] and [I]want to[/I], rather than being [I]forced to.[/I] Then that doesn't count.
I'd wager the amount of people in the states who actually need, through sheer necessity, to hunt food and/or protect personal crops to survive is very, very low. If you ask me, this isn't a valid argument for such freeform gun ownership. And hasn't been for a long time. It might have been that way back when the constitution was written, but that was over 200 years ago, now. A lot changes in over two centuries. Hell, a lot has changed in the last two [I]decades.[/I][/QUOTE]
I'm assuming you've never lived in a rural area. It's very common for people out in those areas to need to hunt for food to make ends meet. (One deer can provide enough meat for a month or two for a family of 4-5 if properly prepared.) So yes, banning weapons is literally endangering the livelihood of those people. That combined with lacking rural education standards are the reason those areas so consistently vote Republican. If the Democrats got their heads out of their asses regarding guns and focused on the actual issues regarding gun crime then they'd get the rural vote far more easily even with the lacking educational standards.
[QUOTE=Revenge282;53004375]As moot of a point as this is, if you think anything you just listed is "just as effective" as a firearm for anything larger than or equal to the size of a deer or a hog, you are grievously incorrect.[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://www.bigboreairguns.com/bisonhunt07/stephme.jpg[/IMG]
Modern airguns are capable of up to 600 ft lbs of energy at the muzzle, more than enough for big game hunting. As a bonus, airguns are vastly quieter, ammunition that can be made in the field, air pressure can be hand pumped in a survival situation, they're single shot weapons but generally that's not an issue for hunting.
I won't even go into crossbows, but they're a common tool for African poachers.
I honestly can't believe that some people in this thread can look at all the egregious shit the Republicans have done over the last two years, including [B]selling this country to the Russians[/B] and somehow think that gun control is a deal breaker for voting for a Democrat.
[QUOTE=nox;53004503][IMG]http://www.bigboreairguns.com/bisonhunt07/stephme.jpg[/IMG]
Modern airguns are capable of up to 600 ft lbs of energy at the muzzle, more than enough for big game hunting.[/QUOTE]
I'm legitimately not sure why this is even relevant honestly. If they can still kill big game then what difference does it even make if it's an air rifle or an actual rifle firing bullets?
As with anything, a tool can easily be dangerous. Cars and machinery, for example, are both exceedingly dangerous. They're just usually given a pass by people who are for restricting guns because they aren't intended to kill which is dumb. They're dangerous tools so we take steps to ensure they're operated safely. Guns are no different, they just happen to be designed to kill to begin with so people need to be more cautious with them is all.
On the topic of guns, why do gun owners have to give them up just to get the social healthcare and other benefits we need?
Why is it even a issue for most Democrats?
Theoretical question: it's fairly established Russia exerted Pro-Trump influence last year, is that going to be a thing in '18?
I mean isn't Russia' s geopolitical aim assumed to be more chaos than support of a particular party, meaning we shouldn't assume their influence would lean Republican this year?
[editline]25th December 2017[/editline]
As in, Russia backing Dems this year could cause way more political polarisation than backing the Republicans again.
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;53004537]
Why is it even a issue for most Democrats?[/QUOTE]
Because there are only two ideologies in America, which means it's a either-or package deal, and you have to get all or nothing. So if you think health care should be accessible and effective for everyone, you subscribe to the ideology that also believes in heavily restricting gun ownership. There's no third or fourth option, you can't pick and choose what you actually support. It's either one package or the other. Sure, you can [I]believe[/I] in both strong gun rights and strong health care, but nobody is representing that.
[editline]25th December 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=SataniX;53004546]Theoretical question: it's fairly established Russia exerted Pro-Trump influence last year, is that going to be a thing in '18?
I mean isn't Russia' s geopolitical aim assumed to be more chaos than support of a particular party, meaning we shouldn't assume their influence would lean Republican this year?
[editline]25th December 2017[/editline]
As in, Russia backing Dems this year could cause way more political polarisation than backing the Republicans again.[/QUOTE]
Russia does not want chaos, they support their own interests. Republicans currently serve those interests. A democrat victory in 2018 would be directly opposed to any interest they have, and any influence exerted on the US actually being effective.
[QUOTE=SataniX;53004546]Theoretical question: it's fairly established Russia exerted Pro-Trump influence last year, is that going to be a thing in '18?
I mean isn't Russia' s geopolitical aim assumed to be more chaos than support of a particular party, meaning we shouldn't assume their influence would lean Republican this year?
[editline]25th December 2017[/editline]
As in, Russia backing Dems this year could cause way more political polarisation than backing the Republicans again.[/QUOTE]
yes and no. polarization and chaos helps Russia but only as far as it can get incompetents elected. if it just pushes moderates to uniformly vote Democrat then it backfires spectacularly
[QUOTE=Riller;53004588]Because there are only two ideologies in America, which means it's a either-or package deal, and you have to get all or nothing. So if you think health care should be accessible and effective for everyone, you subscribe to the ideology that also believes in heavily restricting gun ownership. There's no third or fourth option, you can't pick and choose what you actually support. It's either one package or the other. Sure, you can [I]believe[/I] in both strong gun rights and strong health care, but nobody is representing that.[/QUOTE]
Pretty much. And like I said earlier, you have to prioritize - lose your AR, or lose affordable healthcare, labor rights, social safety nets, see the LGBT community lose a ton of rights (possibly up to the right to live openly and unharassed), watch immigrants lives get a lot more difficult (something the current administration has been particularly bad about, I might add), see women lose the right to control over their own bodies and so on. Oh, and don't forget the existential threat presented by climate change.
Don't get me wrong. I'm the kind of guy who wants the Hughes Amendment repealed, silencers taken off the NFA, assault weapon bans/magazine restrictions thrown out the window and so on. However, even with full Republican control of the federal government, all of that remains a pipe-dream while at least some of the aforementioned problems are very real. The Republicans just aren't worth the trouble they bring, and I think the they've demonstrated quite well that they only care about the average gun owner up to the moment they get their vote. The Republicans are friends only to themselves and whoever pays them, and until they change their ways, I'm not voting for them.
I'll remove the firing pins on all my rifles if it means I can get some god damn coverage.
[editline]25th December 2017[/editline]
And a decent paycheck.
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;53004537]On the topic of guns, why do gun owners have to give them up just to get the social healthcare and other benefits we need?
Why is it even a issue for most Democrats?[/QUOTE]
Probably because they're basing their political ideals off countries that already implement what they want to implement. Countries that already offer universal healthcare, better worker's rights, ect... Tend to also be countries where gun laws are more strict. A lot of people believe there's a correlation there.
Also, there's the sad fact that more guns = more gun violence. That's just basic maths. Most democrats launch their campaign on the idea that reducing gun violence is a good thing, and the most simple, straightforward way to do that is to make the guns themselves less prevalent. I mean, sure, you [I]could[/I] invest time, money and energy into improving the cultural attitude towards guns, improving gun safety education, cracking down on illegal firearms trade, ect... But why bother doing all that stuff when you can just attack the very "core" of the issue itself? Fixing people is a lot harder than fixing some words on a sheet of paper.
Also, there's the whole "us or them" mentality. A lot of Republicans are pro-gun, so a lot of Democrats see that as a sign that they [I]have[/I] to be anti-gun. It's the same stupid mindset that thinks anything that makes the opposing political party angry is somehow a good thing, even if it's actually awful. Like all those diehard far-right folks who applauded the Net Neutrality repeal, not because they actually [I]wanted[/I] it to happen, but because it was a "Win" for the Republicans against the Democrats. Same ideals there for gun regulations. Anything that gives people more access to guns is seen as Republican "victory", so some Democrats feel they [I]need[/I] to attack gun rights just out of principle.
TL;DR: Politics are stupid and a lot of people place political "wins" and "losses" over actual reality.
[QUOTE=Ona;53004823]Also, there's the whole "us or them" mentality. A lot of Republicans are pro-gun, so a lot of Democrats see that as a sign that they [I]have[/I] to be anti-gun. It's the same stupid mindset that thinks anything that makes the opposing political party angry is somehow a good thing, even if it's actually awful. Like all those diehard far-right folks who applauded the Net Neutrality repeal, not because they actually [I]wanted[/I] it to happen, but because it was a "Win" for the Republicans against the Democrats. Same ideals there for gun regulations. Anything that gives people more access to guns is seen as Republican "victory", so some Democrats feel they [I]need[/I] to attack gun rights just out of principle.[/QUOTE]
I've seen this attitude plenty on the Republican side but I've never seen it on the Democrat side. I've never seen anyone happy about gun bans because "this will make those Republicans so triggered"
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.