US Politics

[TheMightyEthan]

I still don't think much tops the 2011 poll showing Congress being less popular than the US switching to communism.

 

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/11/congress-less-popular-than-communism-bp-during-spill-nixon-during-watergate-or-king-george-during-american-revolution.html

 

It especially cracks me up that Congress is approximately half as popular as King George was during the American Revolution.

[deanb]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/08/aig-considers-suing-government-for-bailing-it-out-world-implodes-in-on-itself/

 

AIG might sue the US gov't for the US gov't bailing them out.

[TheMightyEthan]

I can't imagine they could win anything in that kind of suit. If they think the deal was shittier than going bankrupt they shouldn't have taken it, it was their own fault. If they say that it was better than going bankrupt then their investors weren't harmed by them taking it and they have no damages.

[Mister Jack]

http://www.washingto...s-in-on-itself/

 

AIG might sue the US gov't for the US gov't bailing them out.

 

[madbassman39]

I laugh at this. The top dawgs can't stand the idea of bankruptcy, then when they willing accept a shitty deal, decide they are owed better and want to sue. How many people did AIG screw over in the last 5 years? I bet you the fella's who are upset now were laughing all the way to the bank before 2008 when they thought they were pulling one over on all the people.

 

I'm really not about distribution of wealth, but I do believe in human decency. Rich people hardly have any of that, and because of that I like to see them un-happy.

[Mal]

Geez, almost makes the idea of pulling off a French-styled revolution sound nice. Still more popular than Congress though.

[Mister Jack]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-january-8-2013/scapegoat-hunter---gun-control

[TheFlyingGerbil]

Is this true?

 

"The last time a Republican was elected president without a Nixon or Bush on the ticket was 1928."

 

I didn't know there were more than one Nixon or two Bushes. Or does it just mean there have mostly been democrat presidents.

[Hot Heart]

I think it means that whenever the election has taken place, that a Bush or Nixon has either been the Republican candidate or their VP.

 

So, there have been Republican presidents in the meantime, obviously. But they probably had Nixon as a VP going far enough back.

Edited January 13, 2013 by Hot Heart

[TheMightyEthan]

Yeah. Richard Nixon was Eisenhower's VP, before Eisenhower there were 20 years of Democrat presidents. Then Nixon was elected as president. Ford took over after Nixon and wasn't ever actually elected. Then when Reagan was elected George Bush Sr. was his VP. Then George Bush Sr. and then George Bush Jr. were elected, and then we're to the present. There were various Democrats scattered through there, but that's not what we're talking about so I left them out.

 

*Edit* - Basically, the statement is true but it's fairly meaningless.

Edited January 13, 2013 by TheMightyEthan

[Mister Jack]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/15/new-york-state-gun-laws-first-united-states-newtown-sandy-hook-shooting_n_2478418.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmaing6%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D257635

 

 

New York just passed some pretty tough gun control measures.

[Mal]

I think they're taking it a bit far with the 10 to 7 round limit (Or any ban on a form or accessory for that matter). Assault rifles I can understand though.

Flagging people for buying too much ammunition is also very odd. Ammunition can cost quite a bit and if there is a sale, you bet people are going to stockpile cheap ammo. For a shooting, do you really think it matter if a person 100 rounds since in my view this system failed when he fire even one shot at a human being. There really needs to be a much more robust mental health care side to this bill.

[Thursday Next]

Given that most of the NRA are Republicans and they HATE mandatory healthcare, I can't see them jumping at the idea of mental heathcare as a condition of gun ownership.

 

Personally I would love to see everyone who wants to own a gun forced to have an extensive and expensive regime of psych tests. These should be conducted at the expense of the purchaser and should be retaken every time the person makes a purchase of a gun, accessory or any ammo more lethal than a plastic BB pellet. There should also be mandatory 6 month retests.

 

If it turns out that you are mad enough to pay for and subject yourself to that much testing in order to get your hands on a gun then you are automatically declared too bat-shit crazy to own a gun.

[Mister Jack]

Speaking of the NRA, they've put out an ad now calling Obama an elitist hypocrite for having armed bodyguards for his daughters.

 

Because apparently they shouldn't have any.

[TheMightyEthan]

http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-truth-about-guns-video-games/

 

Interesting perspective on the issue.

[madbassman39]

Speaking of the NRA, they've put out an ad now calling Obama an elitist hypocrite for having armed bodyguards for his daughters.

 

Because apparently they shouldn't have any.

 

A lot of my pro-gun friends have made this argument, which I think is just a silly argument. Of course the first family needs armed guards, they are automatically a target because they are the first family. The Obama girls are more likely to be kidnapped, held for ransom and killed than 99% of America, just because they are the president's daughters.

[TheRevanchist]

That sounds a lot like Senator Feinstein. She pushed to get banned "carry concealed weapons" permit in the state of California. Then, she wants to get one for herself.

 

No one gives a fuck about her old ugly ass. If anyone needs a concealed weapons permit, it's the celebrities and CEOs and shit that live in California and/or their respective bodyguards. But, I guess it's okay for old bitches who look like they have one foot in the ground already, and not for people who have legitimate death threats and crazy stalkers.

Edited January 16, 2013 by TheRevanchist

[TheMightyEthan]

Wait, I'm confused, are you saying you agree that it's hypocritical of Obama to want him and his family to have guards, or are you just saying that Feinstein is a hypocrite?

[TheRevanchist]

Both. You know Blue Ivy is a target just as much as the Obama girls. So is Suri Cruz.

 

There is nothing wrong with having armed guards or arming yourself, but don't say it's only exclusive to 'me and not you, because you aren't shit and I'm the fucking boss, bitch'.

[TheMightyEthan]

You think Suri Cruise is just as much a target for assassination as the first family? Right...

 

I agree Feinstein's point is hypocritical. But to say that it's hypocritical for the president to have highly trained, extensively background-checked Secret Service agents guarding him just because he doesn't think every random person out there should be able to legally and easily access high-powered, fully automatic rifles is asinine. That's not even a little bit the same thing.

[FredEffinChopin]

I don't think the NY restrictions are being given enough credit by either side of the discourse. The way I see it though, it's fairly harmless to gun legit owners/purchasers, and has potential to corral some of the loosely regulated areas of the trade that have created giant loopholes for people to exploit.

 

The ammo thing is the easiest to poke at for being ineffective, and for serving as more of a superficial pacifier than an effective change, but I think it can make a small difference. The theory is that having to reload more can prevent one from going on as bad of a spree, and can be the opportunity for someone else to intervene and stop one. An argument can easily be made that it's very rarely going to come into play and make a real difference, but I think that works both ways; It's not really harming anyone who uses weapons recreationally or for self-defense.

 

The ban list of people with certain conditions/history is a given in my opinion, and is overdue. I also think it's reasonable to have background checks for people who are buying ammo, as is keeping tabs on people who are buying crazy amounts of it. Honestly, when you compare guns to cars (since the comparison is used in defense of guns so often), it's FAR easier to buy a firearm illegally than it is a car, and it's because guns sales haven't been as heavily regulated as car sales. That is silly to me. Hell, if I want to sell a game at Gamestop I have to provide ID, divulge my SSID, blood type (and a sample), and next of kin. Not really, but still. It's ridiculous to me that if one takes the right drive to the right spot, they can get a gun without giving up as much info as a Radio Shack customer does for marketing purposes.

 

Given that most of the NRA are Republicans and they HATE mandatory healthcare, I can't see them jumping at the idea of mental heathcare as a condition of gun ownership.

 

This is the exact way I see it. You can't even mention helping anyone out in this country nowadays (unless we're talking about banks) without being called a Marxist, liberty-hating, Muslim/Maoist. It's terribly ironic that the people who are being dragged kicking & screaming to accommodate "Obamacare" (when they aren't outright saying "No fucking way") are suggesting public health measures be taken on a federal level to curb the problem of gun violence in America. I have zero problem with the idea of a growing awareness of the needs of people who suffer from any one of the many varieties of mental illness, but it's mostly being brought up as a diversion in this discussion of how we've managed to arm the country (citizen and criminal alike) to the teeth. Nobody gave a rat's ass about them until gun trade/regulation came under heavy scrutiny enough times. Ironically, those same NRA supporters might happily point out to you that much of the gun violence in America is a result of inner-city criminal activity; yet never turn the conversation never turns towards improving those environments. Mental illness is the choice scapegoat because it speaks to the events that have angered the American public to the point of action, and have turned the discussion towards guns. By action, I'm referring to voicing their opinions, which has been a far more effective weapon against our own government than firearms have ever been. So yeah, mental health is something to be given attention to, but it's a public health issue, and only tangentially related to how freely we've been handing out weapons to the country. That (ugly) public health conversation is separate, and in a way has been going on for a while.

[TheRevanchist]

Mental health is really the issue. Most of you are probably too young to remember Rebecca Schaeffer. I'm sure you remember John Lennon. (Rebecca's murder was what triggered a book in the bodyguard industry.) These events happened because of people who are mentally unstable.

 

Edit: Not saying all people that have emotional issues are to blame. But, there does need to be a system of checks and balances.

Edited January 16, 2013 by TheRevanchist

[TheMightyEthan]

Totally agree that access to guns is not the main problem, it's more of a facilitator. Like suspending the driver's license of an alcoholic who drives drunk, it addresses one of the issues but not the root cause. We need better programs to treat people with mental illnesses, and to fight poverty, etc.

[FredEffinChopin]

there does need to be a system of checks and balances.

 

That's what's going on right now, and I approve of it. As I said, it's long overdue.

 

I was careful to make the distinction in my post though (between mental health issues and the issue of firearms in America), because I think one is being used to muddle the other. We can chase kids with Asperger's around all we want, but they aren't a threat if we maybe put a leash on how freely we let guns go into circulation in the country. "IT" is not an issue of mental health when we're talking about gun violence in America. Mental Health can enter this conversation on some level in the case of mass-killings, and certain single murders, but it speaks nothing for the (how many is anyone's guess) many neighborhoods that are overwhelmed by the criminal element who use them as playground with the assistance of good ol' US steel. It's easy to talk about them as a reason for people to stay armed, but I think it's more relevant to talk about HOW they got that way, and maybe put a stop to it. Mental health also doesn't address the many other situations where guns come into play, or how often they are misused either intentionally, or in the heat of some sort of moment. I think Duke had posted an informative link somewhere in here (I could be mistaken) regarding some of those statistics. The gun conversation is much larger than Sandy Hook, Aurora, and Columbine. Those are only the tip of the iceberg in this unique predicament of ours.

 

What I find most discouraging about how frequently mental illness is thrown in the face of gun-control talk is that there are rarely any comprehensive suggestions on how to pursue that problem (which I feel to be only a part of it, as I said) in regards to gun violence. The blame is just deflected, and the response is "Well, until we figure out how to help the situation on a mental health level, we'd like to just keep selling guns the way we always have in the meantime." It makes it seem a lot like heart of those arguments is rooted in "I want my guns." That's obviously not true for everybody who holds that point of view on the topic (I have friend who don't own or plan to own guns that don't think guns need to be touched), but it's hard for me not to start constructing a stereotype after a while. In any news site I've been to since Sandy Hook that has a lively comment section, any individual I've seen expressing a deep concern for mental health, regardless of whether the article being commented on was gun-related or not, has ended up having a comment history full of apologies for guns. It's a nice concern, and I agree with it. It doesn't mean guns should be absolved of their involvement (in gun violence) completely though, and I certainly don't think it means they should be immune from any kind of regulation whatsoever.

[TheMightyEthan]

As far as single murders go, I really do agree with the "you can just as easily kill someone with a knife" argument. If there's a specific person you want dead that's easy enough to accomplish, with or without guns. Where guns come into play is in the mass killings. Killing 30 people in a crowd with a knife is not as easy as doing it with an assault rifle. Sure you can just use a homemade bomb instead, but even that is a hell of a lot more difficult than a gun.