Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Old Man]

4 hours ago, archer said:

 

I notice this a lot when there's a mass shooting then lawmakers in response rush to introduce gun restriction bills which would have had no effect on the shooter's ability to get a gun if the bill had already been law. The goal of the legislation obviously wasn't to stop that kind of shooting from ever happening again because the law would have had zero effect on that kind of shooting.

 

Certainly legislators' lack of technical knowledge hampers effective legislation for gun control, but that hardly means effective legislation is impossible.  There have been numerous discussions in this thread that have gone over where we'd draw the line.  I personally favor magazine restrictions as a means of reducing the body count in mass shootings, though opinions vary.  Interestingly, hardly anyone here advocates the outright banning or seizing of semiautomatic weapons.

[Old Man]

4 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

 

Stocks/Arm Braces: Short Barreled Rifles (SBR; barrels under 16"/overall length  under 26") are regulated by the NFA. ... So, the "brace" is functionally a stock, but not technically a stock. So, at the moment, you can have a SBR without ponying up the tax stamp money or waiting nearly a year for approval. Until one's used in a mass murder, then you can expect the ruling to change.

 

Agreed--"arm braces" are a dodge to get around NFA restrictions.  (I'd be more than happy to give a pass to actual amputees who really need an arm brace.)

 

4 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

Sawed off Shotgun is a "Firearm." This is the same thing as the SBR/Brace deal. Due to the way things are measured, if you have a shotgun with a certain style of grip (not a pistol grip), and it has a certain overall length, then it's not a Short-Barreled Shotgun, it's just a "weapon" as far as NFA regs/ATF is concerned. These are basically novelties.

 

Agreed--there's no real reason to own a "weapon" as opposed to a more conventional gun that adheres to the spirit of the law.  Unless someone "needs" to have a shotgun that can be concealed in a jacket.

 

 

4 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

EDIT: I should add that there's another perceived advantage to Braced Pistols: Legally, they're pistols. In many states, the concealed carry permit allows you to carry a loaded pistol in your car. A loaded rifle is pretty much a non-starter in most states I think. (Likely an anti-poaching measure more than public safety one.) So, a braced pistol lets you functionally have a loaded rifle ready for deployment in your vehicle with a concealed carry license.

 

 

Agreed--another end run around concealed carry and NFA restrictions.

 

[Ranxerox]

29 minutes ago, Old Man said:

 

 Interestingly, hardly anyone here advocates the outright banning or seizing of semiautomatic weapons.

 

I totally would were it feasible, but it is unconstitutional and politically dead in the water even if SCOTUS miraculously ruled it constitutional.  I don't believe in wasting time, money or effort on legislation that makes the base happy but has no chance of becoming reality. 

[Pattern Ghost]

30 minutes ago, Old Man said:

(I'd be more than happy to give a pass to actual amputees who really need an arm brace.) 

 

The thing that I wonder with this is how the heck you can manipulate AR controls with one hand, when the hand's in a brace. I mean, you can get a mod that lets you use the bolt release with your trigger finger, but charging the weapon? I don't see it being practical for its intended use. I guess it'd be somewhat OK for range use, but not for practical use.

 

32 minutes ago, Old Man said:

Agreed--there's no real reason to own a "weapon" as opposed to a more conventional gun that adheres to the spirit of the law.  Unless someone "needs" to have a shotgun that can be concealed in a jacket.

 

I don't really see a reason to ban them, either. Other than safety concerns. It's not like most mass shooters care much about concealability, or that those who do can't just grab a hacksaw. Not like a shotgun barrel has to be nicely finished or anything.

[Pattern Ghost]

12 minutes ago, Ranxerox said:

I totally would were it feasible, but it is unconstitutional and politically dead in the water even if SCOTUS miraculously ruled it constitutional.  I don't believe in wasting time, money or effort on legislation that makes the base happy but has no chance of becoming reality. 

 

I wouldn't say it's politically dead in the water. I remember a discussion on here years ago, where someone was saying how the Democrats had abandoned gun control because of the AWB push back, but they've had it front and center of the platform the last couple of elections.

 

There was a law pushed through our initiative system here in WA that classifies any semiautomatic rifle as an assault weapon, and places restrictions on them. So, the idea of banning or at least regulating anything that's semiautomatic is, I think, gaining traction among the private anti-gun activist groups. Frankly, the law is stupid and ineffectual, and was passed illegally on multiple counts, but the main thing it accomplished was that wording turning all semiauto rifles into assault weapons. That wording will be used again by the same crowd, I'm sure.

[Pattern Ghost]

11 hours ago, Old Man said:

Agreed--another end run around concealed carry and NFA restrictions.

 

Now, I don't have a problem with "braces" on pistols. I think the NFA restriction on SBRs is stupid to begin with. However, the whole concept of "I need a rifle's firepower readily available in my vehicle in case something happens during muh commute," is a mindset I don't get. A good example of someone with this mindset -- I'm not saying this is typical, but I think this sort of person is pretty common -- is a YouTube video I was watching when researching pistol "braces."

 

This video is super short. It's showing off this goober's AR pistol that has not only a pistol brace, but a folding buffer tube and a removable barrel. Which is kind of neat stuff, in the sense of being clever gadgets. So, the video consists of the guy pulling the folded up gun out of the center console of his pickup truck, assembling it, then sweeping both of his femoral arteries and his man bits with the barrel as he jumps dramatically out of the truck and engages what I hope is an actual target. End video. I mean, I'm sure he'll eventually remove himself from the gene pool, but we do have quite a few people with Walter Mitty fantasies running around out there.

 

On the other hand, a short-barreled rifle or braced pistol is a really good length weapon for home defense, especially if you live in a smaller space. You gain the advantage of stability of a rifle while avoiding some of the awkwardness of moving around with one. Military and LE use short-barreled rifles for the same reason. Firing a rifle caliber from a barrel half of the length it was designed for is going to cause some unpleasant sensory feedback, though. On the other hand, step back to a pistol caliber, and you have the advantages of a stable platform with less muzzle blast and a little added terminal energy.

 

 

[Lucius]

4 hours ago, Badger said:

 

Don't know about exact denominations, but I think there were a couple of Christians in his government.

 

If I recall, Tariq Aziz was one of Saddam Hussein's more trusted confederates, and was Christian.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Neither the palindromedary nor I remember the denomination exactly....

[Ranxerox]

2 minutes ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

I wouldn't say it's politically dead in the water. I remember a discussion on here years ago, where someone was saying how the Democrats had abandoned gun control because of the AWB push back, but they've had it front and center of the platform the last couple of elections.

 

There was a law pushed through our initiative system here in WA that classifies any semiautomatic rifle as an assault weapon, and places restrictions on them. So, the idea of banning or at least regulating anything that's semiautomatic is, I think, gaining traction among the private anti-gun activist groups. Frankly, the law is stupid and ineffectual, and was passed illegally on multiple counts, but the main thing it accomplished was that wording turning all semiauto rifles into assault weapons. That wording will be used again by the same crowd, I'm sure.

 

My mom was and is pro gun control, and consequently, I have been watching the fate of gun control legislation since I was a child.  It is a sad activity.

 

The only gun control control legislation that both become law and survive court challenges are those that are stupid and ineffectual ones.  This is not because gun control advocates are stupid, though of course some are, but because the gun lobby and the NRA play excellent defense both in the legislature and the courts.  

Example, back when I was a kid, here in California gun control was popular and gun control measure were passable.  So California would pass laws using standard industry term, and they would go to the courts and the industry lawyers would say that they didn't know what these terms meant and maybe they meant this and maybe they meant that, and ultimately the the judge would throw out the law as being to vague unenforceable.  So the legislature responded by getting very specific in their terms, and the gun lobby loved this because it allowed them to redesign their products and by making small modifications they could make them legal and force there customer base to buy the modified version of the gun and thus increase their profits.

 

So, WA passing a stupid and ineffectual law that goes well short of banning and seizing all semiautomatic weapons, and will probably die in the courts anyway,iti does little convince me that tough, large scale gun control is politically feasible.

 

 

 

    

[Pariah]

What the actual Hell, Senator Lee?

 

Sen. Mike Lee's Green New Deal speech

[Pattern Ghost]

1 hour ago, Ranxerox said:

So, WA passing a stupid and ineffectual law that goes well short of banning and seizing all semiautomatic weapons, and will probably die in the courts anyway,iti does little convince me that tough, large scale gun control is politically feasible.

 

Thanks. I think I get what you meant. I thought you meant politically feasible in terms of getting people behind the idea, but it seems you meant it more in terms of actually getting something done.

 

1 hour ago, Ranxerox said:

This is not because gun control advocates are stupid, though of course some are, but because the gun lobby and the NRA play excellent defense both in the legislature and the courts.  

 

I tend to think of it as a little bit of both. I also pay attention to gun control efforts (though perhaps for the opposite reason), and a lot of what I see is knee jerk reactions, stupidly banning features, and failure to address root causes. I also see plenty of lies, damned lies and statistics from each side, and that's for the same reason: Most people make decisions based on emotions, so emotional arguments carry more weight.

 

I mean, here's an example of the features nonsense from our state's AG, who seems to think he works for the Legislative branch. Some highlights:

 

On page 2, there's a picture of an AR15 titled "Anatomy of an Assault Weapon." It calls attention to the following features (direct quotes, but I'm not going to wrap them in a /quote tag) My comments in parenthesis:

 

Telescoping stock: more compact for better maneuverability (You can gain more here by simply buying a short barreled upper, but no mass shooters have to date done so, nor shown any concern for maneuverability. This feature does make it easier to fit the gun to smaller statured shooters, enabling them to have an effective tool for self defense. So, it's a feature that's more useful for law abiding citizens.)

 

Pistol Grip: Provides greater control during rapid fire. (Not really. Total nonsense. A traditional stock is just as controllable.)

 

Detachable High Capacity Magazine: Allows rapid reloading for sustained fire. (Winner winner, chicken dinner. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then. THIS is the main feature that makes a weapon useful for mass shootings.)

 

Forward Grip: Provides greater control over recoil for rapid fire. (Again, not really true.)

 

Combination Flash Suppressor and Muzzle Brake: Reduces muzzle climb and preserves shooter’s eyesight (These are two different items. A flash suppressor doesn't do much for muzzle climb, and a muzzle break doesn't do much for flash.)

 

Here's a quote from a trauma surgeon, from page 1:

 

“I am a trauma surgeon, and I’ve seen what AR-15s can do... a typical 9mm handgun wound to the liver will produce a pathway of tissue destruction in the order of 1-2 inches. In comparison, an AR-15 round to the liver will literally pulverize it, much like dropping a watermelon onto concrete results in the destruction of the watermelon.”

 

This is true of ANY handgun round compared to ANY rifle round. The quote is from a legitimate expert on trauma, and it's entirely true, but it doesn't change the fact that this is also a very useful trait in a defensive weapon. If it takes less shots fired to down an attacker, then there's a lower risk of collateral damage to the general public, and better odds for a positive outcome for the defender. This may not seem important if you believe that home invasions with violent intent aren't very common, but they're far more common than mass shootings.

 

If you wanted to do something practical to lower deaths in mass shootings, you'd simply ban rifle caliber rifles with detachable box magazines over some arbitrary capacity limit. That's the one thing on the hardware side that would slow mass shooters down, regardless of caliber or action type. But you'd still need to address the contagious nature of mass shootings somehow, improve police response and tactics, improve reporting of disqualified people to the FBI background check database, and improve interventions on potential shooters.

 

Anyway, the entire flier is a symptom of what's wrong with politics. The AG here is constantly trying to put himself in the limelight with the left-leaning base here. He's not out to solve a problem, but to advance his career by scoring points with his political base.

 

 

 

 

[Old Man]

3 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

If you wanted to do something practical to lower deaths in mass shootings, you'd simply ban rifle caliber rifles with detachable box magazines over some arbitrary capacity limit. That's the one thing on the hardware side that would slow mass shooters down, regardless of caliber or action type. But you'd still need to address the contagious nature of mass shootings somehow, improve police response and tactics, improve reporting of disqualified people to the FBI background check database, and improve interventions on potential shooters.

 

I believe that restricting the cosmetic features you list above would actually help deter mass shootings, because a huge part of mass shootings is the cosplay.  Seriously.  These weak minded individuals want to look scary and feel badass, and so they dress up in head to toe 5.11 tacticool operator gear with Punisher masks and some AR15 variant with all the trimmings.  And they take photos or videos of themselves pretending to be badass while they work up the "courage" to take down a pizza parlor or a first grade classroom.  And so I am totally okay with restricting pistol grips and vertical foregrips and collapsible stocks, because no civilian needs any of that and it just emboldens the bad guys. 

 

I agree that restricting magazine capacity is the most effective option, though.

 

Anyway, the entire flier is a symptom of what's wrong with politics. The AG here is constantly trying to put himself in the limelight with the left-leaning base here. He's not out to solve a problem, but to advance his career by scoring points with his political base.

 

Isn't a politician supposed to enact the policies his constituents want him to enact? 

[Starlord]

10 hours ago, Badger said:

 

Don't know about exact denominations, but I think there were a couple of Christians in his government.

 

Hmm, it seems Chaldean Catholics numbered a couple hundred thousand in Iraq at the time, so I suppose it's possible. 

[Starlord]

5 hours ago, Pariah said:

What the actual Hell, Senator Lee?

 

Sen. Mike Lee's Green New Deal speech

 

Ok.

 

Note to self:  Try to ignore everything that guy ever says or does in the future.

[Starlord]

On 3/26/2019 at 6:47 PM, wcw43921 said:

Meet Pete Buttigieg

 

I saw his town hall and he was extremely impressive.  Fluent in 7 languages - not a big factor in who I vote for but it's 7 more languages than the current President.

[Pattern Ghost]

4 hours ago, Old Man said:

I believe that restricting the cosmetic features you list above would actually help deter mass shootings, because a huge part of mass shootings is the cosplay.

 

You're probably right.

 

4 hours ago, Old Man said:

Isn't a politician supposed to enact the policies his constituents want him to enact?  

 

I don't think we want to divert the thread into local politics, but this AG is hugely biased and is constantly show boating. I'll just leave it at that. I don't like the way he does -- or doesn't do -- his job.

[Pattern Ghost]

1 hour ago, Starlord said:

I saw his town hall and he was extremely impressive.  Fluent in 7 languages - not a big factor in who I vote for but it's 7 more languages than the current Prrsident. 

 

I saw a piece on him last night. Seems extremely intelligent and personable. So, he naturally has zero chance at getting elected.

[Toxxus]

4 hours ago, Old Man said:

Isn't a politician supposed to enact the policies his constituents want him to enact? 

 

Based on what I've seen in the news the last few years I'd swear their job is to pretend to be happy with a poorly paying government job while finding ways to steal millions of dollars from their campaign funds and pay-to-play deals.

 

Congressional approval ratings of late are on par with root canals and malaria.

[Pariah]

At least malaria can be fixed with quinine, and root canals don't last for two to six years at a time.

[Doc Democracy]

7 hours ago, Old Man said:

Isn't a politician supposed to enact the policies his constituents want him to enact? 

 

To me, a politician is supposed to go to wherever politicians in the country go, participate, become involved and vote in ways that his or her conscience says are the right ways.

 

Now, if he or she consistently does things his or her constituents do not like, then we might expect to see a change in representation at some point in the future but that can depend on the local political context...

 

Doc

[Pattern Ghost]

The problem in McKenna's case is that the duties of an AG should be executed impartially, not as a dog and pony show for the constituents.

[Badger]

15 hours ago, Pariah said:

What the actual Hell, Senator Lee?

 

Sen. Mike Lee's Green New Deal speech

 

Well, the Green New Deal is not a good idea.  Not saying we shouldn't do something,  but it is a one way trip to bankruptcy.  (and no not buying the GOP talking points.  I am not as skeptical as many conservatives are with green energy.  But, at the same time, not fooling myself that switching nearly all energy from one type to another type wouldn't cost an ridiculous crapload of money. 

 

  

[archer]

11 hours ago, Old Man said:

Isn't a politician supposed to enact the policies his constituents want him to enact? 

 

 

The short answer is "no". The long answer, not surprisingly, is more nuanced.

 

1) A Congressman or Senator takes an oath of office "that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion."

 

So her first duty is to the Constitution even if her constituents might want her to enact policies which would go against that.

 

2) The politician is also supposed to tell her constituents what she believes and what she wants to do once she's in office so that the voters are presented a clear choice between her and her opponent. Getting elected to office to a certain extent is the voters saying they support that candidate's agenda so it is certainly appropriate for the candidate to pursue that agenda once she gets into office.

 

3) Now going back to the founding of the nation, commentary on the proposed Constitution which was eventually adopted made it clear that national lawmakers were to be selected to use their own judgement to evaluate the issues of the day and apply that judgement to proposed legislation.

 

Now what the constituents want the lawmakers to do on various issues after she's elected to office is certainly important as part of the process of the lawmaker gathering information on those issues so she can make a wise decision. But she's not there to rubber stamp whatever whims might be foremost in the public's mind at any point in time.

 

If the public feels that her ultimate decision on various issues aren't reflecting their desires closely enough, that's what the next election is for.

[Sociotard]

I kind of get the feeling that the "Green New Deal" was akin to the Obamacare repeals back when Obama was in office; Congresspeople could say they voted for a thing without worrying it would actually become law. They could tell constituents "hey we voted for that thing you wanted", without practical consequences. And even after controlling House, Senate, and Presidency for two years, they left most of it intact.

 

So, if 2020 comes and the Dems retake control of all three (big if), I'd imagine we will see big environmental and infrastructure bills, but they will be substantially more pragmatic, because then they can't just virtue-signal.

[archer]

16 hours ago, Pariah said:

What the actual Hell, Senator Lee?

 

Sen. Mike Lee's Green New Deal speech

 

That looks like the speech itself must have been hilarious. I'll have to try to find the whole thing on YouTube.

[Pariah]

3 hours ago, archer said:

That looks like the speech itself must have been hilarious. I'll have to try to find the whole thing on YouTube.

 

It probably was hilarious. And if Mike Lee wants to be a stand-up comic, more power to him.

 

But if he wants to be a united States Senator--and based on the amount of money he spent on the last election, I assume that's what he wants--then he needs to be a Senator, not a clown. This kind of 'discourse' isn't solving any problems. Ultimately, that's what I want my elected Representatives to do: Solve problems.

 

It's a pipe dream, I know, but that's what I expect.