Gun control, which side wins?

[Phi for All]

3 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

P1: May I have a campfire if I'm careful and the risk of forest fire is low. 

P2: What are you? Some kind of arsonist? Do you have any idea of the costs of forest fires? Forest fires kill people, and unlike me, you are responsible for the many deaths!

You suck at this. That makes zero sense.

If you seriously think conservatives in the US are claiming to be careful with their guns and that the risk of death is low, I think you need to get off your weird stance on conservatism. I get the feeling you've always identified that way, and refuse to see that the definition has moved on and probably doesn't describe you much anymore.

I'll say it again. Conservatives in the US are supporting the right to shoot schoolchildren (especially schoolchildren of color), and are basically approving the way the Uvalde shooter was able to arm himself. Up until he opens fire on innocent people, he was acting within rights these asshole conservatives are STILL defending. Please continue to defend conservatism, it lets me know you're no ally.

[MigL]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

I guess I don’t see after all. 

I would guess the same.

While your joke is certainly funny, it is in no way indicative of the situation.
How many days till the next mass shooting ?
Do you not realize that your house is already on fire ?
The 'compromise' is which rooms are you going to try to extinguish.
You start with one and then try for more, but at least you're doing something and moving forward.
Yet you guys ( democrats ) are just standing around, pointing at the republicans who brought the gasoline into the house, and saying it's their fault ( see Phi's post above, which I won't address as he'll just accuse me of being conservative , or a trumpet; he likes labels )

18 hours ago, TheVat said:

I don't think our Molson's chugging friends to the north quite realize that our Democratic Party is, by the standards of pretty much every other democratic nation on Earth, quite moderate. 

Don't drink Molson's, although it is much better than Shlitz lite.
And I don't think our frends to the south realize that by the standards of pretty much every other democratic nation on Earth, you cannot be taken seriously.
It is not simply the fact that in 2016 you elected Bozo the Clown as President, but the fact that he continues  to have great influence over nearly half of your electorate.
You can choose to dismiss the Republican party as right wing extremist nut jobs who cannot be worked with, but what do you do with the nearly half of your population who mistakenly see him as the saviour of your country ?
Do you dismss them also, and exactly how do you do that and get anything done ?

We Canadians have our problems, but during the pandemic, provincial Conservatives worked together with federal Liberals; where did that happen in the US ?
You guys are deep in this gun violence shit, and you take offense to 'outsiders' ( Canadians, who are basically just like you, but much nicer and more willing to compromise ) who might view the situation much more clearly, giving their opinion of a way forward. If I could reference another thread, this goes to prove that Jordan Peterson is right about a few things.
Ideas 'offend' people, as exemplified by your reactions.

Edited June 11, 2022 by MigL

[iNow]

19 minutes ago, MigL said:

While your joke is certainly funny, it is in no way indicative of the situation.

You’re of course correct. It wasn’t MY house they tried to burn down. It was the PEOPLEs house they tried to burn down.

Big difference, we agree.

It was no joke, either. They marched on the US Capitol armed for war. Beat, trampled, and killed police after breaking through their barriers. They sought to murder legislators and hang the Vice President from a gallows, and they did all of this while LITERALLY burning parchments and other pieces of our country’s history that were kept in our house… the peoples House. 

And now…. Now? Now those trying to defend that House are being berated for being to stern in also supporting universal healthcare, and action on climate change, and policies to curb the murder of children in schools every other fucking day bc of guns… pushing to hard for basic human decency?

If THOSE are the people refusing to compromise, then I say, GOOD! Sadly, those people are the ONLY ones compromising right now and they have decades of practice doing it.

 

19 minutes ago, MigL said:

Don't drink Molson's, although it is much better than Shlitz lite.

So’s moose piss. That’s not exactly a high bar. 

Edited June 11, 2022 by iNow

[MigL]

14 minutes ago, iNow said:

If THOSE are the people refusing to compromise, then I say, GOOD! Sadly, those people are the ONLY ones compromising right now and they have decades of practice doing it.

I await your proposed solution.
As the current stance, pointing at the other guy and assigning blame to the other half of the electorate, guarantees that exactly nothing will be done.

I'm not American, but you have a choice.
Baby steps towards a solution, or nothing.

If you decide to be firm ( stubborn ) like the other side,and choose nothing, eventually a Jan 6 event will succed, and you can kiss the 'united' part of USA goodbye.

[iNow]

25 minutes ago, MigL said:

I'm not American, but you have a choice.

And I exercise that choice in each and every election I can, even though most of the time it’s a “choice” between a taco of turds and a sandwich of shit. 

You and our friend JCM keep blathering on from on high up in the north suggesting that if only we Americans would moderate our tone and learn to compromise then we might hope to achieve your own country’s high standards and move past the toxic oppressive political impasse in which we currently exist. 

But each time I ask either of you for specifics… what more should I and my fellow citizens… citizens posting here who are ALREADY far more thoughtful and active and conscientious than most others with whom you’ll ever engage… each time I ask what more can we do SPECIFICALLY that we’re not already doing… It’s met with…

 

Silence.  Platitudes. The type of wisdom you get from the underside of a Snapple bottle cap.

Harsh? Maybe, but it sure sounds to me like you’re telling us all that we would be better off if we just formed a drum circle and shared a meal… and not to pop your pollyannish balloon or anything… but newsflash, sir. That isn’t gonna cut it. 

You're correct. The current path isn’t working for us. It’s unsustainable, but we’re certainly never going to move beyond it with more condescension or empty judgmental platitudes like “just try harder to be nice!” 

The GOP wins bc they know this is all about power. Who has it and who grows it, and our districts and electoral process are so sliced up and subdivided right now that moderation isn’t what wins the most power. This is a game of Go, not chess. 

Edited June 11, 2022 by iNow

[MigL]

13 minutes ago, iNow said:

This is a game of Go, not chess. 

This isn't a game at all; people and kids, are dying.

And, I don't know, the time for being 'nice' may be over, and if it is, I don't like the future outlook for my many friends in the US.
But what if, instead of vilifying past Republican Presidential hopefuls, like J McCain or M Romney, you had attempted to work with them ?
But they were vilified, and everyone now says what they didn't say then; those Republicans that you could work with, are gone.
Would that have prevented the rise of D Trump and his ignorant followers ?
I guess we'll never know.
Is it just a case of they want 100 % their way while you want 100 % your way ?
Nobody is winning and getting their way right now.

[iNow]

26 minutes ago, MigL said:

But what if, instead of vilifying past Republican Presidential hopefuls, like J McCain or M Romney, you had attempted to work with them ?

I neither vilified them nor refuse to work them (although, McCain is dead so I guess I can’t even if I wanted to). 

You’re burning down me of straw. Caricatures. 

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

The GOP wins bc they know this is all about power. Who has it and who grows it, and our districts and electoral process are so sliced up and subdivided right now that moderation isn’t what wins the most power.

Also, because they have discarded all niceties, like truth and couth. We watched them roll over the moderate conservatives, one by one, policy by policy, bedfellow by bedfellow, for the last 40 years. That ball picks up speed, once it's in motion. Since Bush II, we've known every egregious thing they were planning to do, because that's what they invariably accused the Democrats of doing. You can't compromise with them anymore; can't reason or bargain with them. All the reasonable ones are either gone or fighting a desperate rearguard action against the Trumpeters. And though there are some bright, tough young left-leaning Democrats in the foreground now, the mass of the party is still trying to hold the middle ground, the moderate, reasoned, measured approach in a world shifting rightward. 

What a lot of Canadians don't seem to realize is that the same tide is pulling us rightward. Our conservatives are daily less moderate and reasonable; our erstwhile socialist party is now straddling the median, with nothing but a few pathetic little greens tugging on their tunic from the left.  And the extreme right fringes are a whole lot crazier, angrier, more determined, morenumerous, less particular about their methods or the collateral damage, and heavily supported as well as influenced by their southern cousins. A lot of Canadians are unaware or skeptical of the danger we're in. Where the US goes, Canada follows. At a discreet distance and more modestly dressed, but it follows.

The gun issue is a symptom of systemic political malaise, like the red blush of lupus. It can't be resolved without treating the whole patient.

40 minutes ago, MigL said:

But what if, instead of vilifying past Republican Presidential hopefuls, like J McCain or M Romney, you had attempted to work with them ?
But they were vilified, and everyone now says what they didn't say then; those Republicans that you could work with, are gone.

Who did the vilifying and what form did it take? Anything close to what was said about their Democratic counterparts by FOX et al?

They are not gone because of anything the Democrats did. They are gone because they [some] outlived their era and the party had no use for another generation of mamby-pamby reachers across the aisle. 

40 minutes ago, MigL said:

Would that have prevented the rise of D Trump and his ignorant followers ?

No. Things devolved as they had to, from Nixon onward. Cometh the hour, cometh the beast, lurching.

Edited June 11, 2022 by Peterkin

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

You suck at this.

I realize that Phi. You however are very good at it, much better than I ever hope to become.

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

If you seriously think conservatives in the US are claiming to be careful with their guns.

Not only are they all claiming it, many are actually doing it

Are you careful with yours? (I don't own one)

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

and that the risk of death is low

Sometimes it is. I hope that's the case for your ownership of one.(no pun intended)

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I think you need to get off your weird stance on conservatism.

I do have this weird idea that there is good and bad on all parts of the political spectrum, and often feel that the baby needs protection, even if the bathwater stinks.

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I get the feeling you've always identified that way, and refuse to see that the definition has moved on and probably doesn't describe you much anymore.

I do admit to struggling to keep up with all the politically motivated Orwellian shifts in language.

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I'll say it again. Conservatives in the US are supporting the right to shoot schoolchildren (especially schoolchildren of color), and are basically approving the way the Uvalde shooter was able to arm himself. Up until he opens fire on innocent people, he was acting within rights these asshole conservatives are STILL defending. 

The NRA would be more than pleased to quote you on that...

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Please continue to defend conservatism, it lets me know you're no ally.

For your politics? Or for gun control?

[TheVat]

Some seem to want simple answers that satisfy their poutine-addled minds.  So, here is one, the one that Bernie Sanders (the candidate I didn't have to hold my nose while voting for) offered: electoral reform.   

A completely level electoral process where every vote in every state has exactly the same influence, and everyone has easy access to the polls, no matter their income, location or work schedule, voting for candidates who rise or fall on their policies and ability to answer sharp questions and not on how deep their pockets are.

Oddly, the (name deleted to spare the delicate feelings of those who hate partisan strife) Party had no interest in that.  Could it be that when the majority know your policies stink, they won't vote for you? Could that be why only 26% of registered voters cast a vote for TFG?

Maybe failure mode is needed. Let the (name deleted again, because I'm almost as nice as a Canadian) Party burn down at least part of the house, so that people will finally realize they aren't very good housekeepers.  We may all end up sleeping on that hideabed in the basement that has a painful lumbar ridge, breathing ash, but at least we will know something!

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

And I exercise that choice in each and every election I can, even though most of the time it’s a “choice” between a taco of turds and a sandwich of shit. ...

But each time I ask either of you for specifics… what more should I and my fellow citizens… citizens posting here who are ALREADY far more thoughtful and active and conscientious than most others with whom you’ll ever engage… each time I ask what more can we do SPECIFICALLY that we’re not already doing… It’s met with…

 

https://www.forwardparty.com/

Talk with these guys. You don't even need to burn your Democrat membership to do so, or even to join. Does Yang have all the answers? Certainly not...but he's not the same old taco turd or shit sandwich...maybe even better than poutine with apple pie for dessert. 

[iNow]

Yes, I’ve listened to Yang across multiple podcasts and read him in multiple articles and spoken face to face with many of his most passionate supporters at the Iowa caucuses and events leading up to them. Hell, I even got to speak with one of his competitors that’s rather famous in her own right.

What again though… and I keep asking this… are you telling me specifically, as iNow… the person to whom you’re directing your post and recommendations… to do that will get the US more broadly beyond the current morass?

[J.C.MacSwell]

 

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

Yes, I’ve listened to Yang across multiple podcasts and read him in multiple articles and spoken face to face with many of his most passionate supporters at the Iowa caucuses and events leading up to them. Hell, I even got to speak with one of his competitors that’s rather famous in her own right.

What again though… and I keep asking this… are you telling me specifically, as iNow… the person to whom you’re directing your post and recommendations… to do that will get the US more broadly beyond the current morass?

Stop accepting the short term expedience of polarization. Even if you favour one side over the other, if you find yourself always on your Party's side of the argument you might ask yourself why.

Talk to your potential allies from the other side. Pretend to be interested in their point of view.

If your party rejects you for it be open to a new moderate one with balanced views.

Eventually of course if they (new party) get in power they will become corrupt as well and need given the boot, but real progress can be made in the interim and/or the current parties will shift toward the middle and perhaps do the same.

 

21 minutes ago, iNow said:

Hell, I even got to speak with one of his competitors that’s rather famous in her own right.

 E. Warren has many reasonable views. To bad about the political expedience fail.

I wonder how she would talk if there was a moderate third party (or better yet hoping to head it)

[iNow]

34 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Talk to your potential allies from the other side. Pretend to be interested in their point of view.

I do that already, and I do more than pretend. Yet again, you’re directing your feedback to the wrong audience. 

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

Some seem to want simple answers that satisfy their poutine-addled minds.  So, here is one, the one that Bernie Sanders (the candidate I didn't have to hold my nose while voting for) offered: electoral reform.   

Only about 160 years overdue ... amendment after amendment to the constitution did nothing to address states' power over the electoral process, or money's power over governments. Maybe every constitution should come with a warranty clause: invalid unless regular maintenance schedule is adhered-to. 

We have that issue come around again and again: here, the central question is proportional representation. People petition for it, journalists write about it, politicians campaign on it, but somehow, when one of the two major parties gets into power, it's pushed aside as 'not popular enough', 'impractical' 'too expensive to implement major change' or the good old familiar standby: "Now is not the time." 

[J.C.MacSwell]

15 minutes ago, iNow said:

I do that already, and I do more than pretend. Yet again, you’re directing your feedback to the wrong audience. 

What would be the right audience?

You see yourself as someone trying to break the political polarization?

[CharonY]

4 hours ago, MigL said:

We Canadians have our problems, but during the pandemic, provincial Conservatives worked together with federal Liberals; where did that happen in the US ?

Eh, there have been a lot of issues in Canada, too and at multiple points the conservatives did object a fair bit with regard to things like vaccination mandates and certain provinces (especially conservative ones) had big clashes with their health authorities regarding health messaging (or lack thereof). 

While in Canada the overall situation is still saner, I am not entirely convinced that it is not only starting to move on that trajectory. The politicians are less pants-on-crazy (yet) but there are definitely fan clubs springing up who are hot for the type of stupid found south of the border. The question is only whether the parties are willing to cash in on that.

In the US after the last president left, there were movements in getting some things done and I believe that for some measures there were bipartisan votes. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Eh, there have been a lot of issues in Canada, too and at multiple points the conservatives did object a fair bit with regard to things like vaccination mandates and certain provinces (especially conservative ones) had big clashes with their health authorities regarding health messaging (or lack thereof). 

While in Canada the overall situation is still saner, I am not entirely convinced that it is not only starting to move on that trajectory. The politicians are less pants-on-crazy (yet) but there are definitely fan clubs springing up who are hot for the type of stupid found south of the border. The question is only whether the parties are willing to cash in on that.

In the US after the last president left, there were movements in getting some things done and I believe that for some measures there were bipartisan votes. 

With just 11% of your population were also bound to have less examples of pants-on-crazy.

And while we do have the advantage of more than 2 parties, a party can be elected by majority without even a plurality of votes.

But I do think we have better control of election spending and political lobbying.

And we let those with criminal records vote, even those currently incarcerated.

On topic. Our gun laws still need work, but at least they are comparatively reasonable.

[MigL]

We all have ideological agendas.
Mine being the desire to see Russia humiliated militarily, no matter what the cost in Ukrainian lives.
But I don't pretend to tell the Ukrainians they should give up their lives for freedom ( and Russian humiliation ); that is their choice to make.

Similarly, the US has two ideologically opposed ( political ) agendas, and you can claim yours is the sane one all you want; it is not to them.
I am suggesting that stubbornly sticking to those ideological agendas, on both sides, is being paid for by the lives of your children. About a dozen per one school, every few weeks.
JC, Peterkin and I are 'outsiders', we can only point out what we see.
The choice is yours to make.

Edited June 12, 2022 by MigL

[iNow]

21 minutes ago, MigL said:

I am suggesting that stubbornly sticking to those ideological agendas, on both sides, is being paid for by the lives of your children.

Who… specifically… contributing here in this thread is doing that?

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

What would be the right audience?

Those who are unwilling to compromise, even better if they happen to hold any power.

That isn’t an accurate descriptor of the folks with whom you’re engaging here. 

Edited June 12, 2022 by iNow

[MigL]

This is an extremely serious subject, which needs to be dealt with.

But this discussion needs some humor ...

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

LOL. Seems we all agree with "Meathead"...we just don't agree on the best way to get there.

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

The choice is yours to make.

It isn't. Most American votes count about as much as mine does here. That's the simple, central problem.  That's hat they're having those hearings for. "The Choice" has been methodically, shamelessly taken away from the people who ought to be making it, and the advocates of the people are trying, within the legitimate protocols, to take it back - at least some of it. (I don't think they'll succeed this time. I don't think the legitimate protocols work anymore. But I'd be much relieved to to proven wrong.)  

Their electoral system* was set up by men who all understood one another, even when they disagreed, and could not envision a future in which corruption and madness would dominate the process. They put in political safeguards, checks and balances, division of powers, etc. - against machinations by men like themselves. They could not imagine a Mitch McConnell in their government, let alone a D.J. Trump. 

*Ours, too, and they were less honest about their objectives.

[TheVat]

Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist Paper, no. 22:

To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision), is, in its tendency, to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser.… The necessity of unanimity in public bodies, or of something approaching towards it, has been founded upon a supposition that it would contribute to security. But its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of the government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority. In those emergencies of a nation, in which the goodness or badness, the weakness or strength of its government, is of the greatest importance, there is commonly a necessity for action. The public business must, in some way or other, go forward. If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater, and give a tone to the national proceedings. Hence, tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good. And yet, in such a system, it is even happy when such compromises can take place: for upon some occasions things will not admit of accommodation; and then the measures of government must be injuriously suspended, or fatally defeated. It is often, by the impracticability of obtaining the concurrence of the necessary number of votes, kept in a state of inaction. Its situation must always savor of weakness, sometimes border upon anarchy.

(1787)

[iNow]

Yesterday in Idaho, 31 people with long guns, high capacity magazines, shields, shin guards, and related tactical gear were arrested for attempting to execute their operational plan to create a riot and cause violence toward people participating in a gay pride parade. They showed up the site with balaclava face masks bundled together in the back of a UHaul moving truck.  

As I’m sure is clear to all of us, it’s obvious this would never have happened if progressive voters who desire reasonable policies around gun owner responsibility were only a bit nicer to them in their dealings online. Will progressives never learn?!?

Edited June 12, 2022 by iNow