All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!

[worstblogever]

But WBE! Democrats are the real racists! The Republicans freed the slaves and the Democrats were the party of Jim Crow!!!!11111111

LOL. I just want to note that this is the fourth Republican I've profiled who in the past two years has used the racially insensitive term "tar baby", and acted surprised when people told them of its racist connotation. I mean, the first one to do it? Maybe you get a mulligan. The second? Well, maybe after that, you didn't hear about the first two people. But the third and fourth... come on, people. Does no one send out memos to you about ways to avoid controversial remarks?

Then again, given how many Republicans spent 2012 talking about rape before they had to all had to get an e-mail from Reince Priebus, maybe I shouldn't be surprised.

[Tendrin]

LOL. I just want to note that this is the fourth Republican I've profiled who in the past two years has used the racially insensitive term "tar baby", and acted surprised when people told them of its racist connotation. I mean, the first one to do it? Maybe you get a mulligan. The second? Well, maybe after that, you didn't hear about the first two people. But the third and fourth... come on, people. Does no one send out memos to you about ways to avoid controversial remarks?

Then again, given how many Republicans spent 2012 talking about rape before they had to all had to get an e-mail from Reince Priebus, maybe I shouldn't be surprised.

You just don't want black people off the democratic plantation.

YOU RACIST.

/snark

[WestPhillyPunisher]

LOL. I just want to note that this is the fourth Republican I've profiled who in the past two years has used the racially insensitive term "tar baby", and acted surprised when people told them of its racist connotation. I mean, the first one to do it? Maybe you get a mulligan. The second? Well, maybe after that, you didn't hear about the first two people. But the third and fourth... come on, people. Does no one send out memos to you about ways to avoid controversial remarks?

Then again, given how many Republicans spent 2012 talking about rape before they had to all had to get an e-mail from Reince Priebus, maybe I shouldn't be surprised.

It's like I've been saying here for longer than I care to think about, having a black man in the Oval Office drove Republicans batshit insane while bringing out their inner racist. I suspect they just can't help themselves when it comes to foot-in-mouth disease.

[CSTowle]

NH is pretty conservative outside of Dartmouth and Exeter.

Dartmouth is pretty conservative (I live down the road, literally, they may promote liberal causes and have the sort of atmosphere you would expect at a typical New England college but in the day to day dealings and especially with the locals they're not so much) , and the rest of the state is best described as "purple". We go back and forth Democrat to Republican both on state and national elections.

[Double 0]

I know this is another "Double 0 is delusion-ally left/bleeding heart on this topic" moment, but I think all of the excuses for anti-gun control do not justify the amount of deaths in the US due to guns. Whether they are accidents, murders, or extra-judicial killings/murders.

I just don't see how you can hear about so many people dying, and think, "well, these laws still need to exist in their current form".

It's a problem. A very American problem. To think otherwise takes an amount of apathy I can't muster.

[lancerman]

I know this is another "Double 0 is delusion-ally left/bleeding heart on this topic" moment, but I think all of the excuses for anti-gun control do not justify the amount of deaths in the US due to guns. Whether they are accidents, murders, or extra-judicial killings/murders.

I just don't see how you can hear about so many people dying, and think, "well, these laws still need to exist in their current form".

It's a problem. A very American problem. To think otherwise takes an amount of apathy I can't muster.

I agree I just don't think anythings going to happen because of gun culture and the NRA already having bought Congress.

[JediMindTrick]

The whole problem with the whole ban all guns arguments are that the only people who will obey them are the responsible gun owners like me - I own two handguns and an AR15. The people who are out there killing people with guns show they don't care about the law by killing people. Do you really think a law against guns is going to mean anything when they clearly have no problem crossing the murder divide? If you could magically poof all guns out of existence then gun control might work but there are millions and millions of guns out there. Not to mention we are within 5-10 years of fully functional 3D printed guns, as compared to the only sorta work one shot ones now, being able to be produced at home. There just is no way to get rid of all guns so gun control is meaningless except to take guns out of responsible hands.

Now all that said, don't mistake me for a rabid gun owner. The NRA is a stupid lobbying organization. I have no problem with reasonable things like background checks and waiting periods. I just realize how pointless talking about banning all guns is except for a sound byte.

Whats also funny on aside is that no doubt on this board I'm going to get painted as a flaming conservative for this view but on another board I post on I'm painted as a flaming liberal for the same view.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

The whole problem with the whole ban all guns arguments are that the only people who will obey them are the responsible gun owners like me - I own two handguns and an AR15. The people who are out there killing people with guns show they don't care about the law by killing people. Do you really think a law against guns is going to mean anything when they clearly have no problem crossing the murder divide? If you could magically poof all guns out of existence then gun control might work but there are millions and millions of guns out there. Not to mention we are within 5-10 years of fully functional 3D printed guns, as compared to the only sorta work one shot ones now, being able to be produced at home. There just is no way to get rid of all guns so gun control is meaningless except to take guns out of responsible hands.

Now all that said, don't mistake me for a rabid gun owner. The NRA is a stupid lobbying organization. I have no problem with reasonable things like background checks and waiting periods. I just realize how pointless talking about banning all guns is except for a sound byte.

Whats also funny on aside is that no doubt on this board I'm going to get painted as a flaming conservative for this view but on another board I post on I'm painted as a flaming liberal for the same view.

I beg to differ. Everything you said made perfect sense. I'm no flaming anti-gun nut, far from it, while I've never understood this country's insane passion for guns and will never embrace this crazy culture, I wouldn't insult gun owners or want to see their Second Amendment rights trampled. Like you, I also want reasonable controls put in place to protect the public, including a law stating that lost or stolen guns have to be reported to the police, but even modest restrictions such as those are forbidden in the world of the NRA who want guns in the hands of anyone and everyone, whether they're law abiding or not, and damn the consequences. THAT is what I'm against.

[Malvolio]

I haven't heard anyone with any political power arguing for the banning of all guns. However, the argument that only law-abiding citizens will obey the law is a poor argument for not implementing a law.

What I find funny is that conservatives who often use that argument for being against gun control often have no problem advocating for anti-abortion laws which they know damn well would only force abortions into back alleys and the like.

[Double 0]

I have a problem with two other arguments: the idea that the responsible gun owners don't do anything illegal and/or don't make mistakes, and that the criminals seem to have all the ways to escape arrest/confiscation as a default. They're both very one dimensional.

Criminals not caring about laws doesn't mean that obtaining a gun will be get as easy while new laws are in play, and there are usually responsible gun owners that will keep a gun that may not be legal due to some sort of personal value. Or will for unforeseen circumstances make a major oversight. Both claims were part of the creeping normality that has led to the US to be in their current situation.

[JediMindTrick]

I have a problem with two other arguments: the idea that the responsible gun owners don't do anything illegal and/or don't make mistakes, and that the criminals seem to have all the ways to escape arrest/confiscation as a default. They're both very one dimensional.

Sure some up til then responsible gun owners do bad things with guns. So do many up til then responsible car owners but we aren't banning cars even though irresponsible drivers kill far far far more people each year than guns. In fact society goes out of their way to give licences back to bad drivers (drunks and repeat speeders as speeders kill far more people every year than drunks) and when cops try to enforce traffic laws suddenly cops are the bad guys just trying to be revenue raisers and punishing the poor and minorities as evidenced by many posts in this very thread.

There are basically two kinds of gun deaths that matter when it comes to what everyone means when people are talking about gun deaths: 1) Guns used by gangs and such in violence and 2) Guns used by people who snap and kill someone in a domestic or mass shooting. No amount of gun control in the world will ever stop the first because the gangs could not care one bit about the laws and nearly all the guns they obtain are obtained illegally either through stealing them or the black market. Waiting periods sound great for the second but in many cases where someone did one of these they already had a gun by the time they snapped. . . rare are the cases where someone buys a gun and then immediately goes out and kills someone . . . yes it has happened but its the exception. And then even if you could poof out all guns these people who snap clearly aren't in their right minds and will just find other ways to kill be it strangling, knives, hammers, poison, cars, fire, etc. The gun is just a means for them and taking it away doesn't take away the underlying psychopathy that is driving them to murder and blaming the gun is about as dumb as blaming the car for the drunk driver or speeding driver. Or to make my point - O.J. Simpson. . .he committed a domestic murder with a knife and his fists because he snapped . . if he'd had a gun he probably would have used it but it wasn't necessary and he just used other items at his disposal.

[Pinsir]

I have a problem with two other arguments: the idea that the responsible gun owners don't do anything illegal and/or don't make mistakes, and that the criminals seem to have all the ways to escape arrest/confiscation as a default. They're both very one dimensional.

Criminals not caring about laws doesn't mean that obtaining a gun will be get as easy while new laws are in play, and there are usually responsible gun owners that will keep a gun that may not be legal due to some sort of personal value. Or will for unforeseen circumstances make a major oversight. Both claims were part of the creeping normality that has led to the US to be in their current situation.

There is a trend in the US of polarization. Often when I see the left in power (the actual left, not Obama) in the US they do crazy things. In schools they ban all mention of guns and expel you if you bite your poptart in the shape of a gun, in university there really are a bunch of commies teaching and in cities, they do overstep their boundaries as we have seen in Austin.

Most Democrat politicians do not want to take your guns or even put in place serious gun control laws (even after one of their own was shot), but I do get the feeling a lot of lefties do want this.

[JediMindTrick]

There is a trend in the US of polarization. Often when I see the left in power (the actual left, not Obama) in the US they do crazy things. In schools they ban all mention of guns and expel you if you bite your poptart in the shape of a gun, in university there really are a bunch of commies teaching and in cities, they do overstep their boundaries as we have seen in Austin.

Most Democrat politicians do not want to take your guns or even put in place serious gun control laws (even after one of their own was shot), but I do get the feeling a lot of lefties do want this.

Yep, both sides have examples of utter and extreme idiocy while blasting the other for doing something equally idiotic. Its why I have no use for either party, especially since I don't fit easily into either party as I have extreme disagreements with both on many issues. Its largely whats led me to start drifting libertarian though I have issues with them too as the most vocal voices in the libertarian camp are extreme nutjobs.

[Surtur]

Oh brother. If only she was a grieving white father. Then people'd be all 'Well, these people are profiting off his son's death! I'd be angry too!!!'.

Well, I think anyone would be angry. Though I don't know if behaving specifically the way they did was the correct way to go, mostly because of people being able to use this as an excuse to say "oh he came from a violent home" and stuff.

It's an embarrassing thing, but I can't see any way that's relevant to anything to do with the legal merits of the Mike Brown case.

Also, the way the article slants story is disingenuous. She was mad about people profiting off her son's death, but that makes it look like she's some kind of randomly violent thug (in the right wing sense that's synonymous with the n-word). Looking around at some of the other articles and the comments about how she should be murdered, it's pretty clear it's a right-wing, racist site. Please use more reputable sources in the future.

Here's the original article with primary sources.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documen...e-brawl-687543

I use the links I come across, people are free to search for other articles about the same thing if they don't like the source, but that is on them to do. Ignoring the fact I see some pretty messed up and racist comments in your "original article" link as well. In fact, given this specific story has race tied to it to such a degree..you can see disturbing and racist comments in the comments section of most places that have articles with anything to do with the case.

[Double 0]

I'll try not to take up too much time on this, but.

Sure some up til then responsible gun owners do bad things with guns. So do many up til then responsible car owners but we aren't banning cars even though irresponsible drivers kill far far far more people each year than guns. In fact society goes out of their way to give licences back to bad drivers (drunks and repeat speeders as speeders kill far more people every year than drunks) and when cops try to enforce traffic laws suddenly cops are the bad guys just trying to be revenue raisers and punishing the poor and minorities as evidenced by many posts in this very thread.

The car thing. I get that this is a long running argument, but cars aren't built to "protect" (or kill) like guns are. They are traveling devices, and for many it's needed for survival (as in, going to work, getting food and other resources, etc.). Exponentially more than those who need guns for survival.

And if you think that's what people are saying about the poor and minorities in this thread, I... Well, I'm actually not surprised you brought it up in that light. It's consistent.

There are basically two kinds of gun deaths that matter when it comes to what everyone means when people are talking about gun deaths: 1) Guns used by gangs and such in violence and 2) Guns used by people who snap and kill someone in a domestic or mass shooting.

Who are you to decide that?

No amount of gun control in the world will ever stop the first because the gangs could not care one bit about the laws and nearly all the guns they obtain are obtained illegally either through stealing them or the black market. Waiting periods sound great for the second but in many cases where someone did one of these they already had a gun by the time they snapped. . . rare are the cases where someone buys a gun and then immediately goes out and kills someone . . . yes it has happened but its the exception.

I'm hearing a lot of hypothetical here. What makes any of this immune to law enforcement? (you know, if the law actually allowed them to enforce it)

What makes America so different? Besides a piece of paper that many have confused as biblical text that cannot be changed.

And then even if you could poof out all guns these people who snap clearly aren't in their right minds and will just find other ways to kill be it strangling, knives, hammers, poison, cars, fire, etc.

Going to skip the rest of this. None of those examples you brought up are as easy, quick, and risky as a guns. Those other tools are either less viable, easier to stop, take more time/cost to set up and execute, and are harder to do without getting caught.

Guns are more efficient.