What specific gun control measures would you support?

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderators: Global Moderators, Discussions Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

What proposed gun control measures do you support?

None of These
7
5%
Prosecute People Who Lie on Felony-Record Background Checks
38
27%
Add the Names of the Known Mentally Disturbed to Background Check Database, in Addition to Felons
30
21%
Create a Registry of Who Owns What Firearms
14
10%
Require a Government-Issued License to Purchase
18
13%
Reinstate the Assault Weapons Ban
22
15%
Require Firearms be Stored at a Gun Range or in a Government-Inspected Vault in the Home
10
7%
Ban all Firearms
3
2%
 
Total votes : 142

Re: What specific gun control measures would you support?

Postby thegreekdog on Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:35 am

Juan_Bottom wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:The fact you want to be part of a winning team so badly that you will support candidates, positions and groups that are working against your best interests doesn't define your beliefs. It defines your lack of self-esteem.

Ummm.... ya, no.
I'm an Atheist. And I'm a Social Democrat. One of the few ultra-far-left people on this website. It aint so easy to accuse me of being a sell-out when I'm so consistently sticking to my principles and annoying the f*ck out of everyone here.
You don't seem to understand just how massively big the United States is, and I don't blame you. It's hard to understand how freaking huge this place is. It's so big we've got different dialects and accents. Hundreds of languages even. So what I'm driving at is this; we are a fucking huge country with a shitload of different opinions. I'm not selling out by supporting Obama, I'm making a compromise, and the whole goddamn country does the same for their presidential choice.
It's not always so black and white to say that if any American believes in their president then they're a bad guy too. It's easy for judgmental-you to say that "Obama's drones never sleep and they shoot kids. So supporting him is evil." And you're right, on some levels, but not on one of practicality. I can support him for the job while also saying that I don't agree with every policy. They put a band-aid on the issue by sending checks to the victims families, and that's not even reasonable imho. But you don't get to judge me and say I'm a sell-out because I'm not an Anarchist and because I support my president on whatever issue.
In giant-f*cking America we have two choices for president each four years. No, there are no viable third party candidates... and I don't see you starting a people's revolution. If you vote third party then you take a vote away from the candidate who's views are closer to your own, and the other person is one vote closer to victory. Vote for Romney, Vote for Obama, either way the drones will fly. Elect Obama and you get Nationalized Corporate-sponsored free healthcare, vote for Romney and Gays can't get married. The best choice is what it is, so I vote for Obama while calling for an end to the war on terror.
So if you know soooo much more about how this issue is all black and white; Who was your candidate again? I mean, last time I checked you're so old you're always rambling about the good ole days with Ralph Nader..... Ralph-f*cking-Nader... when did he have a shot, a kajillion years ago? Does he go into bars and drink himself silly talking about that one glory year he had? Do you?
Ralph Nader is just fine I suppose in 2012 if you live in a fantasy world where you're a 9000 -year-old West German playboy. But in the real world real people have to make tough decisions and they have to vote. Obama may not be the best person for the job in your opinion, but I've told you who I supported, and you've stayed mum about your own support so I can't mock you back. And you bully me personally for it. THAT speaks to your lack of self-esteem.


There is a rather large difference between "I'm voting for Obama/Democrats, the lesser of two evils" and consistently making posts about how great the Democratic Party is compared to the Republican Party. In the post above, you apparently think you do the former. In the past six months, you've done nothing but the latter. I think in the name 5 differences between Romney and Obama you named three. That should really tell you all you need to know about putting the Democrats on a pedestal.
Image
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 6217
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia
Medals: 38
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (2) General Contribution (2)

Re: What specific gun control measures would you support?

Postby thegreekdog on Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:03 am

Juan_Bottom wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:The question with respect to Walmart is this - do gun control advocates need Walmart to advance their agenda? If the answer is yes, then Walmart will come to the table and receive something in return. This is how government works. Compromise is great. Dealing with Walmart is not compromise so much as "hey, we need Walmart on our side on this one, because we need their money and clout and in return we'll give them more money and clout, such as tax incentives and competition incentives."

What did Biden offer Wal*Mart other than the chance to be heard? Do we know that he said anything to them except "come here or you'll regret it?"


I've read (in the link provided in that other thread on gun control) that Walmart was offered certain business incentives associated with the deal. But let's say we haven't heard anything at all. If the vice president calls one of the biggest gun retailers in the United States in to discuss gun control and wants Walmart to stop stocking its shelves with an item that makes loads of money, do you think the vice president is going to say "We're going to f*ck your shit up if you don't come" and do you think that would even be effective? And even if the vice president said "We're going to f*ck your shit up if you don't come," that's also a form of rent-seeking. It intimates that the government has the power to take things away from Walmart that the company has received in the past. I know you're not that naive.

Juan_Bottom wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:A compromise would pit gun control advocates and anti-gun control advocates against each other to hammer out a sensible law that would deal with potential new Sandy Hook problems.

Wal*Mart makes money off of these guns. They've run out of stock three times since the shooting. They are making money, and that profit is being pitted against gun control advocates. There's no reason for a corporation to want to cleft their cash flow.


The aftermath of the Sandy Hook massacre is the perfect time to get an effective gun control law through Congress. If Walmart said or did anything, they would look like shitheads (like how the NRA looks like shitheads).


Juan_Bottom wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:You seem to have a lot more pluses in your Democratic Party column and that's great, but please don't make the mistake of thinking that the Democratic Party, on an issue by issue basis, is not controlled by big companies and rich people in the same way the Republican Party is controlled by big companies and rich people.

I don't believe that either party is controlled by big corporations.
I believe that members in each party typically believe exactly what they say, and that they often prove it with their actions. There are elements within each party that are less sincere, and they surround themselves with aides and lobbyist. They take minor or important roles on all types of congressional committees. Mitch McConnell is my favorite example of this. He's an insincere douche bag, and powerful, but I don't believe that he's unpatriotic or that he is lying when he espouses his beliefs in Jesus and trickle-down economics. To many politicians the ends justify the means.
And yes, all politicians will make alliances with various businesses and corporations during their careers, but that does not make them sell-outs either.


Controlled is not the right word, I agree. Heavily influenced is the right phrase. I also agree that members of each party believe what they say, but only sometimes. As I indicated up to the 2012 election, I could only judge the president and Mitt Romeny by their actions. They were not very different from one another. For example, Romney clearly thought that state-paid-for health insurance was a good idea. He also did nothing in his state to restrict abortion and had commented in the past that he was pro-choice. And yet right before and right after his nomination he was in favor of repealing the Affordable Care Act and pro-life. Why do you think these types of things happen on a fairly regular basis?

And if we ignore those things and take at face value that what a candidate says and does is what he or she believes, then we can also conclude that the candidates are picked precisely for their beliefs. In other words, a corporate-influenced, special interest-influenced political party is going to help pick a candidate whose beliefs align with those entities' beliefs.

Juan_Bottom wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:The Democrats have no interest in overturning Citizen's United.

Government moves very slowly, and it always has. We had an Army in the Field fighting England before we declared war. Overturning Citizen's United is also going to take a long time. But Why don't you believe that the Democratic Party has any interest in overturning Citizen's United? I can name 5 Dems who have said that they support overturning it, and that's not including Obama, who said it should be a long-term goal for this term.


Because I don't think it's in the Democratic Party's best interest to end issue advertisements and other soft money from liberal-minded donors. You've pointed out on numerous occasions that the Republicans got a lot of leverage out of the Citizens United decision (and rightfully so). You've neglected to point out how much the Democrats got out of Citizens United. I've read reports that the Democrats raised more money from millionaires and billionaires than Republicans in the last election. Why would the Democrats want to change that?

Juan_Bottom wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:I am disagreeing with you. I'm disagreeing with your characterization of the issue. You characterize the NRA and gun supporters as being puppets of gun manufacturers. And that's fine to say that, but it's also hypocritical. Why do you not characterize the president as being a puppet of health insurance providers or Hollywood or Apple? The answer is because you agree with his stance on issues influenced by those groups (for the most part). Because you are a gun control supporter, you feel the need to denigrate the NRA and gun-supporters, who tend to be Republican, under a corporate cronyism argument. So, aren't you making the ad-hominem attack? If you wanted to talk about the issue of gun control, and not the issues of corporate croynism/rent-seeking/public choice theory, then you would post and continue to post stastics showing the Assault Weapons Ban, a similar proposal, or a new proposal, would work.


You're expanding too far and have forgotten my original remark, which was:
"It's not even the NRA, per say, they're some kind of shell for the Gun Manufacturers. The NRA has only 4 million members, but American gun manufacturers donate millions of dollars to the NRA every year to keep it highly influential."
Most of what you just said was you expanding my argument into areas you might have though I would take it, but they're not. The members of the NRA do support their club, and they do believe in what their club is promoting, or they'd leave their club. I can show you web story's from a few who have left the NRA over their refusal to cooperate with sensible gun control legislation. But the NRA gets it's major funding not from it's members, but from the American Gun Manufacturer's. It's a symbiotic relationship where everyone involved gets exactly what they want. You probably remember that in the 90's the American gun manufacturers funneled a lot of money to the NRA so that they could lobby Congress to outlaw class-action lawsuits against Gun Manufacturers. This is what I meant by shell, they pump money into the NRA instead of into their own lobbyists, and get the same result with less exposure. All of this influx of money makes the NRA more influential than it would be otherwise, but our American gun manufacturers don't control the NRA at all because they don't have to.
I agree that I used questionable language, but I always like to.

I support ObamaCare because it's far closer to what I want than the current system, and because it will do more good than harm. That's a compromise.


The NRA is only as influential as its message. The NRA is not a politician, although it can donate to politicians and run issue ads. The members of Congress and the president are the people that can control gun control (ew). And as I indicated previously, now is the best time, publicly, to get more effective gun control passed. Instead I'm looking at Assault Weapons Ban Version 2.0 that was largely ineffective at solving any gun violence problems. Instead I'm looking at total ignorance with respect to the real gun killer, illegal hand guns, that are by-and-large the biggest source of violence against blacks in this country. Is this the NRA? I would say no. The NRA (and its corporate donors) are concerned with the assault weapons ban because it means the gun manufacturers have to find new ways to make money by remodeling the same guns. There are no serious Democrats talking about handgun control, even though the NRA doesn't influence Democrats (for the most part) and certainly doesn't influence the president. So why?

I don't agree that the Affordable Care Act will do more good than harm, but that's not the debate. The debate is whether there was a compromise in the first place. When the Affordable Care Act was passed, the Democrats controlled Congress and the presidency. For the most part, up until that point, the Democratic Party favored government-run healthcare. Instead we got government paid-for health insurance. Why the change? Why did a whole swath of Democrats, including the president, change their minds? Compromise? I don't think so. Campaign donations and soft money? Yes.

Juan_Bottom wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:I'm undecided, for the most part, with respect to gun control. The reason I'm undecided is because there is a conflict in my mind between wanting to make the US safe and the facts of gun control. When the Assault Weapons Ban was passed, gun homicides were not reduced. Handguns are, by far, the most used weapon in homicides. The Assault Weapons Ban did not solve that problem. Furthermore, the Assault Weapons Ban would not have banned the AR-15 that was used in the Sandy Hook shootings, or, if it did, the gun manufacturers would have built a similar weapon that had a different look and name, and which was suddenly not banned. This is fairly simple factual stuff that I've yet to see you address. Intsead, you've concentrated on ad hominem attacks against gun owners, gun owner supporters, the NRA, and gun manufacturers. And that's fine if you want to do that, but then I should be free to label you a hypocrit for not making those same attacks on supporters of issues you are in favor of.

You miss my reasoning TGD!!!! I'm in favor of a hand-gun ban. In threads that you've participated in I've said that I'd like to negotiate over what we can do to about assault rifles, because they're not typically used. And that it's hand guns I'm after. But all that we can get from our countrymen is an assault rifle ban. It's hand guns we need to be headstrong over, not assault rifles. We need those enthusiasts to address the facts in the world we live in, and not the ones in their fantasies. And to help us to make America safer. Nobody is getting what they want because they live in that dark Fantasia land where Obama is Hitler and there are roving bands of Burgle-Rapists everywhere. Until today, we've had no idea what the executive branch was planning to do about gun violence, so I couldn't attack them for only asking for an Assault-Rifle ban.

When I joined CC I was on the other side of the debate, but I've learned and I've changed my mind about gun control. You should be on my side here, as we're thinking the same.


I don't disagree that the conservative side on this issue has been completely absurd and alarmist for no reason. And I'm on your side to the extent that we need effective gun control laws. It has become clear to me over the last month that no one in Congress and no one in the White House is interested in more effective gun control laws. And I'm not talking about banning guns. I'm talking about better enforcement of the laws already on the books, which could be effective if we enforced them better. People committing crimes with guns tend to have acquired the guns illegally. Excuse my tangent, but if the buglary rate was up in a particular area, no one would say "we need to pass a law to ban burglary." People would say "we need to have better enforcement." I think we need to have better enforcement. I don't think we need another Assault Weapons Ban. I've never been on the other side of the debate (if there is another side). But banning all guns so that we can ban the illegal use of guns is something I'm not willing to support. I am willing to support more enforcement and, importantly for me, more money for enforcement.

So the issue between you and I becomes one of reality, I think. Right now, there is no one discussing handgun control or better enforcement. Everyone is discussing an Assault Weapons Ban. Is this a compromise or something else? I don't think it's a compromise.
Image
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 6217
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia
Medals: 38
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (2) General Contribution (2)

Re: What specific gun control measures would you support?

Postby saxitoxin on Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:59 am

Juan_Bottom wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:The fact you want to be part of a winning team so badly that you will support candidates, positions and groups that are working against your best interests doesn't define your beliefs. It defines your lack of self-esteem.

Ummm.... ya, no.
I'm an Atheist. And I'm a Social Democrat. One of the few ultra-far-left people on this website. It aint so easy to accuse me of being a sell-out when I'm so consistently sticking to my principles and annoying the f*ck out of everyone here.
You don't seem to understand just how massively big the United States is, and I don't blame you. It's hard to understand how freaking huge this place is. It's so big we've got different dialects and accents. Hundreds of languages even. So what I'm driving at is this; we are a fucking huge country with a shitload of different opinions. I'm not selling out by supporting Obama, I'm making a compromise, and the whole goddamn country does the same for their presidential choice.
It's not always so black and white to say that if any American believes in their president then they're a bad guy too. It's easy for judgmental-you to say that "Obama's drones never sleep and they shoot kids. So supporting him is evil." And you're right, on some levels, but not on one of practicality. I can support him for the job while also saying that I don't agree with every policy. They put a band-aid on the issue by sending checks to the victims families, and that's not even reasonable imho. But you don't get to judge me and say I'm a sell-out because I'm not an Anarchist and because I support my president on whatever issue.
In giant-f*cking America we have two choices for president each four years. No, there are no viable third party candidates... and I don't see you starting a people's revolution. If you vote third party then you take a vote away from the candidate who's views are closer to your own, and the other person is one vote closer to victory. Vote for Romney, Vote for Obama, either way the drones will fly. Elect Obama and you get Nationalized Corporate-sponsored free healthcare, vote for Romney and Gays can't get married. The best choice is what it is, so I vote for Obama while calling for an end to the war on terror.
So if you know soooo much more about how this issue is all black and white; Who was your candidate again? I mean, last time I checked you're so old you're always rambling about the good ole days with Ralph Nader..... Ralph-f*cking-Nader... when did he have a shot, a kajillion years ago? Does he go into bars and drink himself silly talking about that one glory year he had? Do you?
Ralph Nader is just fine I suppose in 2012 if you live in a fantasy world where you're a 9000 -year-old West German playboy. But in the real world real people have to make tough decisions and they have to vote. Obama may not be the best person for the job in your opinion, but I've told you who I supported, and you've stayed mum about your own support so I can't mock you back. And you bully me personally for it. THAT speaks to your lack of self-esteem.


Again, you are under the misperception you are supporting a system of belief.

When you have a system of belief, your selection of candidates change to remain consistent with your beliefs.

    Example: I was previously very complimentary about Rand Paul. I have also indicated I am opposed to U.S. anti-Arab Islamophobia. After Rand Paul's pro-Israel statements of two weeks ago, I now hope Rand Paul fades into obscurity. I belong to a system of belief.

When you have a personality cult, your beliefs change to remain consistent with your selection of candidates.

    Example: Juan was previously very complimentary about Barack Obama. Juan also indicated he was opposed to corporate manipulation of public policy. After Obama's decision - this month - to accept unlimited funding of his 5-star, luxury inaugural party by AT&T (as FISA is coming up for renewal), Microsoft (as they're pushing for new DOJ regs against Google) and Centene (as they're requesting Obamacare waivers so they don't have to cover anything worse than a common cold), Juan remained a cheering cheerleader for the regime. Juan belongs to a personality cult.

There's not a single example in history of a personality cult attracting the intellectual crème de la crème. Personality cults always build their base with the base. This is the scientific consensus. It's not an ad hom attack for me to make observations about science.

thegreekdog wrote:There is a rather large difference between "I'm voting for Obama/Democrats, the lesser of two evils" and consistently making posts about how great the Democratic Party is compared to the Republican Party.


Correct. Juan is not simply a sad soul who feels the need to commiserate with the side that will execute him a little slower. Juan has presented himself as an active and enthusiastic cheerleader for the regime and an apologist for its excesses. It's, therefore, completely acceptable to pass judgment on him as one of the regime's Fellow Travelers and not an innocent caught up in the clockwork of a machine he knows he can't stop.

    If Bradley Manning escaped his torture chamber and Juan heard from a friend where he was hiding, would Juan call and snitch to the FBI to have him picked up? That's a reasonable conclusion. If one of the G20 protestors who burned Obama in effigy were wanted by the police and Juan saw him on the street, would he tail him until he could flag down a police officer? That's a likely scenario.

    Image
patches70 wrote:The only real difference between Saxi and The Fed is that for one to get Saxbucks one must amuse or otherwise impress Saxi in some way, shape or form.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class saxitoxin
 
Posts: 1335
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:01 am
Location: the American Riviera
Medals: 12
Standard Achievement (3) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (3) Cross-Map Achievement (1)
Ratings Achievement (2)

Re: What specific gun control measures would you support?

Postby saxitoxin on Thu Jan 17, 2013 10:35 am

ITT -

Juan_Bottom wrote:It's not even the NRA, per say, they're some kind of shell for the Gun Manufacturers. The NRA has only 4 million members, but American gun manufacturers donate millions of dollars to the NRA every year to keep it highly influential. But don't you DARE criticize me for supporting the same kind of front groups. That is off limits, man! I'm just trying to make the best of a bad situation! It's the other guys who have to be ethically pure, not me!
patches70 wrote:The only real difference between Saxi and The Fed is that for one to get Saxbucks one must amuse or otherwise impress Saxi in some way, shape or form.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class saxitoxin
 
Posts: 1335
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:01 am
Location: the American Riviera
Medals: 12
Standard Achievement (3) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (3) Cross-Map Achievement (1)
Ratings Achievement (2)

Re: What specific gun control measures would you support?

Postby BigBallinStalin on Thu Jan 17, 2013 11:34 am

saxitoxin wrote:ITT -

Juan_Bottom wrote:It's not even the NRA, per say, they're some kind of shell for the Gun Manufacturers. The NRA has only 4 million members, but American gun manufacturers donate millions of dollars to the NRA every year to keep it highly influential. But don't you DARE criticize me for supporting the same kind of front groups. That is off limits, man! I'm just trying to make the best of a bad situation! It's the other guys who have to be ethically pure, not me!


If the claim was "JB is a hypocrite," then the evidence has been overwhelming.

I've wondered how I would react if I was in JB's situation. Either I would re-evaluate my stance by educating myself more extensively, or I could take the lower-priced route: deny, deny, deny. But it's difficult to blame those in denial because for such a long time their perceived reality seemed so real. Actually, it's not that difficult. Shame on JB, the crony capitalist of the Democratic persuasion.
User avatar
Colonel BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 3584
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham
Medals: 48
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (5) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (10)

Re: What specific gun control measures would you support?

Postby saxitoxin on Thu Jan 17, 2013 1:32 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:ITT -

Juan_Bottom wrote:It's not even the NRA, per say, they're some kind of shell for the Gun Manufacturers. The NRA has only 4 million members, but American gun manufacturers donate millions of dollars to the NRA every year to keep it highly influential. But don't you DARE criticize me for supporting the same kind of front groups. That is off limits, man! I'm just trying to make the best of a bad situation! It's the other guys who have to be ethically pure, not me!


If the claim was "JB is a hypocrite," then the evidence has been overwhelming.

I've wondered how I would react if I was in JB's situation. Either I would re-evaluate my stance by educating myself more extensively, or I could take the lower-priced route: deny, deny, deny. But it's difficult to blame those in denial because for such a long time their perceived reality seemed so real. Actually, it's not that difficult. Shame on JB, the crony capitalist of the Democratic persuasion.


In the process of engineering consent, Janis & Feshback concluded - while researching a pro-toothbrushing ad campaign - that low-fear messages were more effective than high-fear messages.

However, high-fear messages - when accompanied by specific actions the recipient of the message could take - were most effective of all.

    Citizen's United, for instance, is not an effective high-fear message. Citizen's United - coupled with an action the receptor can take to avoid being victimized, such as elect AT&T's Democrats instead of AT&T's Republicans - is an effective high-fear message:

    Juan_Bottom wrote:And I would note, further, the Democrats are also our best bet to repeal Citizen's United. That'll f*ck some sh*t up for some big-ass Corporations.

    The fact that Democrats benefit equally from Citizen's United, that Republicans swept almost every election in the 9 years that McCain-Feingold was fully in effect, or that Democrats held the presidency and majorities in both houses of Congress after the C/U decision and didn't do anything are not relevant to the receptor of the message (the vast, unwashed, media consuming public).
patches70 wrote:The only real difference between Saxi and The Fed is that for one to get Saxbucks one must amuse or otherwise impress Saxi in some way, shape or form.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class saxitoxin
 
Posts: 1335
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:01 am
Location: the American Riviera
Medals: 12
Standard Achievement (3) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (3) Cross-Map Achievement (1)
Ratings Achievement (2)

Re: What specific gun control measures would you support?

Postby BigBallinStalin on Thu Jan 17, 2013 2:11 pm

saxitoxin wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:ITT -

Juan_Bottom wrote:It's not even the NRA, per say, they're some kind of shell for the Gun Manufacturers. The NRA has only 4 million members, but American gun manufacturers donate millions of dollars to the NRA every year to keep it highly influential. But don't you DARE criticize me for supporting the same kind of front groups. That is off limits, man! I'm just trying to make the best of a bad situation! It's the other guys who have to be ethically pure, not me!


If the claim was "JB is a hypocrite," then the evidence has been overwhelming.

I've wondered how I would react if I was in JB's situation. Either I would re-evaluate my stance by educating myself more extensively, or I could take the lower-priced route: deny, deny, deny. But it's difficult to blame those in denial because for such a long time their perceived reality seemed so real. Actually, it's not that difficult. Shame on JB, the crony capitalist of the Democratic persuasion.


In the process of engineering consent, Janis & Feshback concluded - while researching a pro-toothbrushing ad campaign - that low-fear messages were more effective than high-fear messages.

However, high-fear messages - when accompanied by specific actions the recipient of the message could take - were most effective of all.

    Citizen's United, for instance, is not an effective high-fear message. Citizen's United - coupled with an action the receptor can take to avoid being victimized, such as elect AT&T's Democrats instead of AT&T's Republicans - is an effective high-fear message:

    Juan_Bottom wrote:And I would note, further, the Democrats are also our best bet to repeal Citizen's United. That'll f*ck some sh*t up for some big-ass Corporations.

    The fact that Democrats benefit equally from Citizen's United, that Republicans swept almost every election in the 9 years that McCain-Feingold was fully in effect, or that Democrats held the presidency and majorities in both houses of Congress after the C/U decision and didn't do anything are not relevant to the receptor of the message (the vast, unwashed, media consuming public).



Image

(pretty much sums up the positions of politicians from FDR to Obama).
User avatar
Colonel BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 3584
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham
Medals: 48
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (5) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (10)

Re: What specific gun control measures would you support?

Postby Juan_Bottom on Fri Jan 18, 2013 6:13 am

thegreekdog wrote:There is a rather large difference between "I'm voting for Obama/Democrats, the lesser of two evils" and consistently making posts about how great the Democratic Party is compared to the Republican Party. In the post above, you apparently think you do the former. In the past six months, you've done nothing but the latter. I think in the name 5 differences between Romney and Obama you named three. That should really tell you all you need to know about putting the Democrats on a pedestal.


Whoa, yeah that happened, but that's because in the last cycle of elections the Democrats were on the pedestal. Elizabeth Warren, Tammy Duckworth, etc....! The Repubs were the party of obstructionism and libertarianism. On this very site, in the past, I have espoused strong support for individual Republicans, and I even said I believed that Paul Ryan was an honest politician before he was named as Mitt Romney's running mate(I'm embarrassed). The deal is, if you want me to bitch and rant about a Democrat, then you're going to have to give me a reason to. And in the past several months, it's the Republicans who have been the party of Abortion Laws, Classroom Jesus, Gay-repellant chicken, and class warfare. The dems have only had to stand off to the side while the Repubs gave themselves bad press. Saxi couldn't understand because he's a senile person reading our posts in a second language, but that pew poll showed that most Americans use negative words to describe the Republican party while a new poll shows that 63% of Republicans polled believe that Republicans in Congress are out of touch. This is the current state of conservatism in this country, and it ain't my fault.


thegreekdog wrote:I've read (in the link provided in that other thread on gun control) that Walmart was offered certain business incentives associated with the deal. But let's say we haven't heard anything at all. If the vice president calls one of the biggest gun retailers in the United States in to discuss gun control and wants Walmart to stop stocking its shelves with an item that makes loads of money, do you think the vice president is going to say "We're going to f*ck your shit up if you don't come" and do you think that would even be effective? And even if the vice president said "We're going to f*ck your shit up if you don't come," that's also a form of rent-seeking. It intimates that the government has the power to take things away from Walmart that the company has received in the past. I know you're not that naive.

The government does have the power to take things away from Wal*Mart. If Obama wanted to he could send the National Guard to occupy Wal*Mart. But that would be extremely expensive and damaging to the country.

And even allowing that Wal*Mart will get "business incentives" (which is very vague) that still sounds like a compromise was reached to me. Each side got something in return.

thegreekdog wrote:Controlled is not the right word, I agree. Heavily influenced is the right phrase. I also agree that members of each party believe what they say, but only sometimes. As I indicated up to the 2012 election, I could only judge the president and Mitt Romeny by their actions. They were not very different from one another. For example, Romney clearly thought that state-paid-for health insurance was a good idea. He also did nothing in his state to restrict abortion and had commented in the past that he was pro-choice. And yet right before and right after his nomination he was in favor of repealing the Affordable Care Act and pro-life. Why do you think these types of things happen on a fairly regular basis?


I don't believe that they are regular, except in the highest offices. In this example Romney was trying to appeal to the batsh*t -crazy conservative base. But my understanding is that he didn't write the legislation form his state, rather that Democrats did that. If that's the case then even if he vetoed the bill, it would have been passed over his veto. So why not sign it and get some credit?
But you'll note that other Republican candidates like Herman Cain, Ron Paul, Rick Santorum stuck to their guns. Though obviously politicians are only people, and people can change their minds. Even Reagan raised taxes before he left office.

thegreekdog wrote:Because I don't think it's in the Democratic Party's best interest to end issue advertisements and other soft money from liberal-minded donors. You've pointed out on numerous occasions that the Republicans got a lot of leverage out of the Citizens United decision (and rightfully so). You've neglected to point out how much the Democrats got out of Citizens United. I've read reports that the Democrats raised more money from millionaires and billionaires than Republicans in the last election. Why would the Democrats want to change that?

Maybe individual Democrats did, I don't know. I do know that most of the money that Obama raised came from individual donors, while more of Romney money came from wealthy donors. The numbers were something like 55% small donations vs 25% small donations. But the answer is that not every politician is morally corrupt just because they are a politician. And there is also lot of pressure from registered Democrats to end it.
Now if we flip back to the individual donors, as you government-haters would, you'll see clearly that if citizen's united was repealed before the last election, that would have helped the Democrats more than it would have hurt them.

thegreekdog wrote:The NRA is only as influential as its message. The NRA is not a politician, although it can donate to politicians and run issue ads. The members of Congress and the president are the people that can control gun control (ew). And as I indicated previously, now is the best time, publicly, to get more effective gun control passed. Instead I'm looking at Assault Weapons Ban Version 2.0 that was largely ineffective at solving any gun violence problems. Instead I'm looking at total ignorance with respect to the real gun killer, illegal hand guns, that are by-and-large the biggest source of violence against blacks in this country. Is this the NRA? I would say no. The NRA (and its corporate donors) are concerned with the assault weapons ban because it means the gun manufacturers have to find new ways to make money by remodeling the same guns. There are no serious Democrats talking about handgun control, even though the NRA doesn't influence Democrats (for the most part) and certainly doesn't influence the president. So why?

I'm not sure, and I can't tell you how disappointing this is. I think that the Administration believes that their executive orders for requiring all gun sales to be recorded and for mandatory background checks 100% of the time is going to negate the need to ban new manufacture of hand guns. But this is only a hypothesis because I've found no statements to that effect. It does follow logic though, even if I'm not convinced. The new Assault Rifle Ban is looking stupid, I agree, but lets not forget the Executive Orders that come with it.

thegreekdog wrote:I don't agree that the Affordable Care Act will do more good than harm, but that's not the debate. The debate is whether there was a compromise in the first place. When the Affordable Care Act was passed, the Democrats controlled Congress and the presidency. For the most part, up until that point, the Democratic Party favored government-run healthcare. Instead we got government paid-for health insurance. Why the change? Why did a whole swath of Democrats, including the president, change their minds? Compromise? I don't think so. Campaign donations and soft money? Yes.

That's a conspiracy theory. Politics are actually more complicated than that.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/83153 ... ikely-dead
& also Jan Schakowsky has kept the discussion of the public option alive in the Democratic Party.


thegreekdog wrote:So the issue between you and I becomes one of reality, I think.

I dunno why you think we were on different sides there, or what "reality" meant when the president's actual gun plan hadn't even been released yet. Now that it has been released, I'm lukewarm to it. It could work, but I dunno.
And you saw the Jon Stewart video, Congress has been right-steadily eroding the Executive's power since the 1970s, by adding little rules into the back of unrelated laws. Like the one that says "ATF cannot track firearms." Because of all this unconstitutional bullsh*t, the president had to write new Executive Orders to enforce the laws that were already on the books. It's stupid and silly. But I also realize that there will always be this power struggle. That's the way our government was designed. That's reality to me.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Juan_Bottom
 
Posts: 1103
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!
Medals: 21
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (2)
Clan Achievement (3)

Re: What specific gun control measures would you support?

Postby Juan_Bottom on Fri Jan 18, 2013 6:28 am

saxitoxin wrote:Again, you are under the misperception you are supporting a system of belief.

When you have a system of belief, your selection of candidates change to remain consistent with your beliefs.

Example: I was previously very complimentary about Rand Paul. I have also indicated I am opposed to U.S. anti-Arab Islamophobia. After Rand Paul's pro-Israel statements of two weeks ago, I now hope Rand Paul fades into obscurity. I belong to a system of belief.


When you have a personality cult, your beliefs change to remain consistent with your selection of candidates.

Example: Juan was previously very complimentary about Barack Obama. Juan also indicated he was opposed to corporate manipulation of public policy. After Obama's decision - this month - to accept unlimited funding of his 5-star, luxury inaugural party by AT&T (as FISA is coming up for renewal), Microsoft (as they're pushing for new DOJ regs against Google) and Centene (as they're requesting Obamacare waivers so they don't have to cover anything worse than a common cold), Juan remained a cheering cheerleader for the regime. Juan belongs to a personality cult.


There's not a single example in history of a personality cult attracting the intellectual crème de la crème. Personality cults always build their base with the base. This is the scientific consensus. It's not an ad hom attack for me to make observations about science.


Sorry Grandpa Graph, you're losing your shit to Alzheimer. If you were a Dachshund we'd have to put you down. We've never had discussions about those topics here on CC, at least, we've had none that I participated in. It's too bad those "science observations" that you've been making weren't ones about medical science, maybe you could get some pills to stave off the memory loss.

saxitoxin wrote:Correct. Juan is not simply a sad soul who feels the need to commiserate with the side that will execute him a little slower. Juan has presented himself as an active and enthusiastic cheerleader for the regime and an apologist for its excesses. It's, therefore, completely acceptable to pass judgment on him as one of the regime's Fellow Travelers and not an innocent caught up in the clockwork of a machine he knows he can't stop.

Look, ya'll can sit around hating all politicians, listening to Rage Against the Machine, and discussing how everyone in the world is a sheep but you. But you and I both know you're doing nothing to change anything. Real radicals join the system. They buy nice shoes, they get a job, and they change the system from within.

saxitoxin wrote: If Bradley Manning escaped his torture chamber and Juan heard from a friend where he was hiding, would Juan call and snitch to the FBI to have him picked up? That's a reasonable conclusion. If one of the G20 protestors who burned Obama in effigy were wanted by the police and Juan saw him on the street, would he tail him until he could flag down a police officer? That's a likely scenario.


Bradley Manning: Traitor?
Juan_Bottom Votes: "Hero"



saxitoxin wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:ITT -

Juan_Bottom wrote:It's not even the NRA, per say, they're some kind of shell for the Gun Manufacturers. The NRA has only 4 million members, but American gun manufacturers donate millions of dollars to the NRA every year to keep it highly influential. But don't you DARE criticize me for supporting the same kind of front groups. That is off limits, man! I'm just trying to make the best of a bad situation! It's the other guys who have to be ethically pure, not me!


If the claim was "JB is a hypocrite," then the evidence has been overwhelming.

I've wondered how I would react if I was in JB's situation. Either I would re-evaluate my stance by educating myself more extensively, or I could take the lower-priced route: deny, deny, deny. But it's difficult to blame those in denial because for such a long time their perceived reality seemed so real. Actually, it's not that difficult. Shame on JB, the crony capitalist of the Democratic persuasion.


In the process of engineering consent, Janis & Feshback concluded - while researching a pro-toothbrushing ad campaign - that low-fear messages were more effective than high-fear messages.

However, high-fear messages - when accompanied by specific actions the recipient of the message could take - were most effective of all.

    Citizen's United, for instance, is not an effective high-fear message. Citizen's United - coupled with an action the receptor can take to avoid being victimized, such as elect AT&T's Democrats instead of AT&T's Republicans - is an effective high-fear message:

    Juan_Bottom wrote:And I would note, further, the Democrats are also our best bet to repeal Citizen's United. That'll f*ck some sh*t up for some big-ass Corporations.

    The fact that Democrats benefit equally from Citizen's United, that Republicans swept almost every election in the 9 years that McCain-Feingold was fully in effect, or that Democrats held the presidency and majorities in both houses of Congress after the C/U decision and didn't do anything are not relevant to the receptor of the message (the vast, unwashed, media consuming public).


I was gonna reply to this but then I remembered that I don't care. I'm sorry, but it's stupid.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Juan_Bottom
 
Posts: 1103
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!
Medals: 21
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (2)
Clan Achievement (3)

Re: What specific gun control measures would you support?

Postby Juan_Bottom on Fri Jan 18, 2013 6:32 am

thegreekdog wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:
Symmetry wrote:Ah another Saxitoxin, BBS, TGD trifecta attack.


this is how this thread went down ...



you can all fill in who is which character yourselves


I chose one of the Baldwin brothers.


I don't know why you guys made me Ari, merely because I'm a lawyer.


Ari is the name of a Biologist who contributes to my page on a semi-regular basis.

Juan_Bottom wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:Annnnywho ... now is probably the point you should send one of your Astronomer or Molecular Biologist friends to this thread to tag in for you.

Did you fan me? 011045? Ari will do just as well with you calling her a dipshit stupid drone as I will. Seems dumb to waste anyone else's time when you don't debate any facts, you only debate people.


I hate to sound like a paranoid nutter, but WTF? There is no way he could know my secret identity. No flippin' way.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Juan_Bottom
 
Posts: 1103
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!
Medals: 21
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (2)
Clan Achievement (3)

Re: What specific gun control measures would you support?

Postby thegreekdog on Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:35 am

Juan_Bottom wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:There is a rather large difference between "I'm voting for Obama/Democrats, the lesser of two evils" and consistently making posts about how great the Democratic Party is compared to the Republican Party. In the post above, you apparently think you do the former. In the past six months, you've done nothing but the latter. I think in the name 5 differences between Romney and Obama you named three. That should really tell you all you need to know about putting the Democrats on a pedestal.


Whoa, yeah that happened, but that's because in the last cycle of elections the Democrats were on the pedestal. Elizabeth Warren, Tammy Duckworth, etc....! The Repubs were the party of obstructionism and libertarianism. On this very site, in the past, I have espoused strong support for individual Republicans, and I even said I believed that Paul Ryan was an honest politician before he was named as Mitt Romney's running mate(I'm embarrassed). The deal is, if you want me to bitch and rant about a Democrat, then you're going to have to give me a reason to. And in the past several months, it's the Republicans who have been the party of Abortion Laws, Classroom Jesus, Gay-repellant chicken, and class warfare. The dems have only had to stand off to the side while the Repubs gave themselves bad press. Saxi couldn't understand because he's a senile person reading our posts in a second language, but that pew poll showed that most Americans use negative words to describe the Republican party while a new poll shows that 63% of Republicans polled believe that Republicans in Congress are out of touch. This is the current state of conservatism in this country, and it ain't my fault.


thegreekdog wrote:I've read (in the link provided in that other thread on gun control) that Walmart was offered certain business incentives associated with the deal. But let's say we haven't heard anything at all. If the vice president calls one of the biggest gun retailers in the United States in to discuss gun control and wants Walmart to stop stocking its shelves with an item that makes loads of money, do you think the vice president is going to say "We're going to f*ck your shit up if you don't come" and do you think that would even be effective? And even if the vice president said "We're going to f*ck your shit up if you don't come," that's also a form of rent-seeking. It intimates that the government has the power to take things away from Walmart that the company has received in the past. I know you're not that naive.

The government does have the power to take things away from Wal*Mart. If Obama wanted to he could send the National Guard to occupy Wal*Mart. But that would be extremely expensive and damaging to the country.

And even allowing that Wal*Mart will get "business incentives" (which is very vague) that still sounds like a compromise was reached to me. Each side got something in return.

thegreekdog wrote:Controlled is not the right word, I agree. Heavily influenced is the right phrase. I also agree that members of each party believe what they say, but only sometimes. As I indicated up to the 2012 election, I could only judge the president and Mitt Romeny by their actions. They were not very different from one another. For example, Romney clearly thought that state-paid-for health insurance was a good idea. He also did nothing in his state to restrict abortion and had commented in the past that he was pro-choice. And yet right before and right after his nomination he was in favor of repealing the Affordable Care Act and pro-life. Why do you think these types of things happen on a fairly regular basis?


I don't believe that they are regular, except in the highest offices. In this example Romney was trying to appeal to the batsh*t -crazy conservative base. But my understanding is that he didn't write the legislation form his state, rather that Democrats did that. If that's the case then even if he vetoed the bill, it would have been passed over his veto. So why not sign it and get some credit?
But you'll note that other Republican candidates like Herman Cain, Ron Paul, Rick Santorum stuck to their guns. Though obviously politicians are only people, and people can change their minds. Even Reagan raised taxes before he left office.

thegreekdog wrote:Because I don't think it's in the Democratic Party's best interest to end issue advertisements and other soft money from liberal-minded donors. You've pointed out on numerous occasions that the Republicans got a lot of leverage out of the Citizens United decision (and rightfully so). You've neglected to point out how much the Democrats got out of Citizens United. I've read reports that the Democrats raised more money from millionaires and billionaires than Republicans in the last election. Why would the Democrats want to change that?

Maybe individual Democrats did, I don't know. I do know that most of the money that Obama raised came from individual donors, while more of Romney money came from wealthy donors. The numbers were something like 55% small donations vs 25% small donations. But the answer is that not every politician is morally corrupt just because they are a politician. And there is also lot of pressure from registered Democrats to end it.
Now if we flip back to the individual donors, as you government-haters would, you'll see clearly that if citizen's united was repealed before the last election, that would have helped the Democrats more than it would have hurt them.

thegreekdog wrote:The NRA is only as influential as its message. The NRA is not a politician, although it can donate to politicians and run issue ads. The members of Congress and the president are the people that can control gun control (ew). And as I indicated previously, now is the best time, publicly, to get more effective gun control passed. Instead I'm looking at Assault Weapons Ban Version 2.0 that was largely ineffective at solving any gun violence problems. Instead I'm looking at total ignorance with respect to the real gun killer, illegal hand guns, that are by-and-large the biggest source of violence against blacks in this country. Is this the NRA? I would say no. The NRA (and its corporate donors) are concerned with the assault weapons ban because it means the gun manufacturers have to find new ways to make money by remodeling the same guns. There are no serious Democrats talking about handgun control, even though the NRA doesn't influence Democrats (for the most part) and certainly doesn't influence the president. So why?

I'm not sure, and I can't tell you how disappointing this is. I think that the Administration believes that their executive orders for requiring all gun sales to be recorded and for mandatory background checks 100% of the time is going to negate the need to ban new manufacture of hand guns. But this is only a hypothesis because I've found no statements to that effect. It does follow logic though, even if I'm not convinced. The new Assault Rifle Ban is looking stupid, I agree, but lets not forget the Executive Orders that come with it.

thegreekdog wrote:I don't agree that the Affordable Care Act will do more good than harm, but that's not the debate. The debate is whether there was a compromise in the first place. When the Affordable Care Act was passed, the Democrats controlled Congress and the presidency. For the most part, up until that point, the Democratic Party favored government-run healthcare. Instead we got government paid-for health insurance. Why the change? Why did a whole swath of Democrats, including the president, change their minds? Compromise? I don't think so. Campaign donations and soft money? Yes.

That's a conspiracy theory. Politics are actually more complicated than that.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/83153 ... ikely-dead
& also Jan Schakowsky has kept the discussion of the public option alive in the Democratic Party.


thegreekdog wrote:So the issue between you and I becomes one of reality, I think.

I dunno why you think we were on different sides there, or what "reality" meant when the president's actual gun plan hadn't even been released yet. Now that it has been released, I'm lukewarm to it. It could work, but I dunno.
And you saw the Jon Stewart video, Congress has been right-steadily eroding the Executive's power since the 1970s, by adding little rules into the back of unrelated laws. Like the one that says "ATF cannot track firearms." Because of all this unconstitutional bullsh*t, the president had to write new Executive Orders to enforce the laws that were already on the books. It's stupid and silly. But I also realize that there will always be this power struggle. That's the way our government was designed. That's reality to me.


I'm sure you already know this, but this entire post of yours is pretty clear evidence that you are an in-the-bag-completely Democratic Party supporter, no matter the issue. Let's just take one example: class warfare. Which group of politicians and pundits most disgust you? Group A says that taxes should be raised on the rich and then goes about passing a law which raises taxes on the poor, middle class, and upper middle class, but does not actually raise a significant amount of taxes on the uber rich. Group B says taxes should not be raised at all on anyone. If you want to consider the statements made by politicians compared to the laws passed or supported by said politicians, I call you naive or willfully ignorant. I think it's the latter.

As for the pew poll... why does that make a difference? It just supports your narrative that the Republican Party is bad and therefore the Democratic Party must be good, which, in turn, supports your overall blind love for the Democratic Party.

Citizen's United - Let's make a friendly bet. I'm so confident that the Democrats have no interest in overturning Citizen's United, Obama's state of the union rhetoric can safely be ignored, that I will make a wager.

The reason we're on different sides of this gun control measure is that you are in the bag for Democrats. Don't you think that's why we're having this discussion? You have this delusion that because Democrats, including the president, say they want stricter gun control, that they are actually going to push for stricter gun control. And that means that you're all in on the Democrats. Which, frankly, is dumb. The Democratic Party jetisoned their two best and brightest Congressmen recently, the biggest one being Dennis Kucinich. Your response might be that the Democrats are moving to the center; my response is that they are moving farther to the right. Do you ever think about why the Republicans are accused of moving to the far right or why 1980s and early 1990s Republican ideas are being co-opted by Democrats? The Affordable Care Act is basically Newt Gingrich's plan, for example.
Image
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 6217
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia
Medals: 38
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (2) General Contribution (2)

Re: What specific gun control measures would you support?

Postby Neoteny on Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:54 am

Kucinich!
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
User avatar
Lieutenant Neoteny
 
Posts: 2470
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:24 pm
Location: Tampa, Florida
Medals: 29
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (2)
Clan Achievement (2)

Re: What specific gun control measures would you support?

Postby saxitoxin on Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:07 pm

Juan_Bottom wrote:Bradley Manning: Traitor?
Juan_Bottom Votes: "Hero"


LMAO.

    "Manning is a hero for exposing the crimes of Obama and being tortured on Obama's orders, therefore, we must honor his sacrifice by supporting Obama!"
Doublethink, a word coined by George Orwell in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, describes the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct.

Juan_Bottom wrote:they change the system from within


I know, I know, you and Scott think you're changing the world, etc. etc. The slogans, speeches and logos will keep your enthusiasm up for awhile, you'll become a precinct captain, work your way up into a minor position on some ward canvassing panel - maybe a shop steward - then get close enough to realize that you're just here to lift the heavy boxes and drop out. Then there'll be another wave of Juan Bottoms and PhatScotty's to take your place.

Listen Juan, you're a nice guy. I know you don't understand I'm not saying this as some idle message board commenter and you won't trust when I tell you that your naïveté is limitless. That's fine. In a way it's charming there are yokels out there living this fantasy.

Juan_Bottom wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:
In the process of engineering consent, Janis & Feshback concluded - while researching a pro-toothbrushing ad campaign - that low-fear messages were more effective than high-fear messages.

However, high-fear messages - when accompanied by specific actions the recipient of the message could take - were most effective of all.

    Citizen's United, for instance, is not an effective high-fear message. Citizen's United - coupled with an action the receptor can take to avoid being victimized, such as elect AT&T's Democrats instead of AT&T's Republicans - is an effective high-fear message:

    Juan_Bottom wrote:And I would note, further, the Democrats are also our best bet to repeal Citizen's United. That'll f*ck some sh*t up for some big-ass Corporations.

    The fact that Democrats benefit equally from Citizen's United, that Republicans swept almost every election in the 9 years that McCain-Feingold was fully in effect, or that Democrats held the presidency and majorities in both houses of Congress after the C/U decision and didn't do anything are not relevant to the receptor of the message [/b][/u](the vast, unwashed, media consuming public).
[/list]


I was gonna reply to this but then I remembered that I don't care.


yep, that's what Jimmy is counting on and that's why you don't worry Jimmy one iota

Jimmy is going to live out his days a fabulously wealthy man, Juan ... time to grow-up and deal with the fact that there are no white knights coming to whisk you off your feet and make love to you on a bed of rose petals (or, as you say, "f*ck some sh*t up for some big-ass Corporations").
patches70 wrote:The only real difference between Saxi and The Fed is that for one to get Saxbucks one must amuse or otherwise impress Saxi in some way, shape or form.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class saxitoxin
 
Posts: 1335
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:01 am
Location: the American Riviera
Medals: 12
Standard Achievement (3) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (3) Cross-Map Achievement (1)
Ratings Achievement (2)

Re: What specific gun control measures would you support?

Postby Juan_Bottom on Fri Jan 18, 2013 6:38 pm

thegreekdog wrote:I'm sure you already know this, but this entire post of yours is pretty clear evidence that you are an in-the-bag-completely Democratic Party supporter, no matter the issue. Let's just take one example: class warfare. Which group of politicians and pundits most disgust you? Group A says that taxes should be raised on the rich and then goes about passing a law which raises taxes on the poor, middle class, and upper middle class, but does not actually raise a significant amount of taxes on the uber rich. Group B says taxes should not be raised at all on anyone. If you want to consider the statements made by politicians compared to the laws passed or supported by said politicians, I call you naive or willfully ignorant. I think it's the latter.

As for the pew poll... why does that make a difference? It just supports your narrative that the Republican Party is bad and therefore the Democratic Party must be good, which, in turn, supports your overall blind love for the Democratic Party.

Citizen's United - Let's make a friendly bet. I'm so confident that the Democrats have no interest in overturning Citizen's United, Obama's state of the union rhetoric can safely be ignored, that I will make a wager.

The reason we're on different sides of this gun control measure is that you are in the bag for Democrats. Don't you think that's why we're having this discussion? You have this delusion that because Democrats, including the president, say they want stricter gun control, that they are actually going to push for stricter gun control. And that means that you're all in on the Democrats. Which, frankly, is dumb. The Democratic Party jetisoned their two best and brightest Congressmen recently, the biggest one being Dennis Kucinich. Your response might be that the Democrats are moving to the center; my response is that they are moving farther to the right. Do you ever think about why the Republicans are accused of moving to the far right or why 1980s and early 1990s Republican ideas are being co-opted by Democrats? The Affordable Care Act is basically Newt Gingrich's plan, for example.


I think that your deal is that you hate government, and you want to believe that our government is all corrupt and every politician is the same. It's not true. And there is a current of anti-intellectualism in that argument. You have no appreciation for the massive size of our government, or the scale of time that it takes to change anything. Small countries like Switzerland took less than a decade to turn full-Socialist, but our country is going to take several hundred. As a historian, do you think that our government moves any differently than it did in 1786 or 1910? It doesn't, yet look how far we've come as a nation!!!
Everything is "sell-outs, conspiracy, bad people, liars, rhetoric, corporate patsys, DTA, politicians SUCK" - with you. You make me sad.


Dennis Kucinich was gerrymandered out of his chair, and then chose not to run for office in Washington. That was his decision and not the President's or his party's. Yes, he was opposed by the local branch of the Democratic party. That is understandable. He still could have chose to run. That doesn't mean that the Democratic party itself is an evil entity full of dark conspiracies. Sherman Tank is from Ohio, and we had a fun conversation about Kucinich. I think he's a cool guy and I would have like to see him continue his political career.

I have said on this website that the Republican party has moved hard right, and the Democratic party as gently moved to the right as well, stealing those independent votes and isolating the Republicans to the hard right. The positions of each party on the right or left is irrelevant to me. My favorite politicians right now are Bernie Sandors and Elizabeth Warren. Both are far left, I think. One isn't a Democrat.

IMHO you made claims to knowledge about what the president was doing about gun control before the president made a statement about what he was going to do about gun control. A few people here did, but I give you all the benefit of the doubt. There was a lot of talk going around. But anyway I wasn't willing to make any special claims. And I just told you that I was lukewarm to the new plan, so how the hell do you get from "lukewarm support" to "you're in the bag for the Democrats?" Dafuq
We were of similar thought about responsible gun control until the new plan was announced, I think. So until Wednesday's announcement came I have no idea why you would consider me a bad guy. And now I'm only lukewarm and you still want to hate me for that?
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Juan_Bottom
 
Posts: 1103
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!
Medals: 21
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (2)
Clan Achievement (3)

Re: What specific gun control measures would you support?

Postby stahrgazer on Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:14 am

Juan_Bottom wrote:IMHO you made claims to knowledge about what the president was doing about gun control before the president made a statement about what he was going to do about gun control. A few people here did, but I give you all the benefit of the doubt.


I admit it! I'm one of the folks who indicated what they'd do about gun control, albeit not in this thread.

I said, they'd say that, while "gun control" may not solve the problem of maniacs gone violent, they couldn't do absolutely nothing in the wake of Sandy Hook... and guess what? The President and VP came out and said pretty much that: that their proposals may not fix the problems, but they couldn't "do nothing."

However, no one... NO ONE who's analyzed Sandy Hook believes that any of the measures they proposed to "do something rather than do nothing," would've prevented Sandy Hook.

Those analysts also indicate that a loophole in the existing laws, if closed, would possibly have prevented Aurora, and could be done without curtailing the freedoms and rights of law abiding citizens. Neither the law abiding citizens, nor the guns themselves, did any of the nastiness that is resulting in the crazed kneejerks that are proposed.

About the only measure I would support, that the president proposed, is the need for background checks at gun shows as well as at regular dealers; but doing that will require the feds to beef up their systems so that background checks can be run on weekends, rather than their websites flooding out/freezing up because so many people are trying to pull background checks (which is what currently happens to many dealers who try to do the bg checks at gun shows.)

The idea of hiring resource officers for each school sounds nice, but I don't want to pay for it. I'd prefer citizen volunteer militia to take care of that, including teachers, administrators, and folks in the neighborhood (like a citizens watch - only, trained and armed as they choose.)
Image
User avatar
Captain stahrgazer
 
Posts: 1362
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:59 am
Location: Figment of the Imagination...
Medals: 52
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (4) Clan Achievement (6) Tournament Contribution (1)
General Contribution (7)

PreviousNext

Return to Whose Forum is It Anyway?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: jonesthecurl and 4 guests

Login