Biden 2021 - A Mediocre Middle Ground

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1023

And from Queen Powell herself:

Facing more than $1.3 billion in liabilities over her post-election conspiracy theories, lawyer Sidney Powell told a judge that the defamation lawsuit Dominion Voting Systems filed against her earlier this year should be dismissed because “no reasonable person” would believe that her well-publicized comments about an international plot against former President Donald Trump were “statements of fact.”

This is what I want to know:

What the hell were her “massive fraud/stolen election” statements meant to be then?

1 Like
1024

Guns in N. America used to be necessary for survival and an integral part of many lives. But now, they really aren’t (yes there are exceptions). It’s harder and harder to justify such easy access to guns, and especially to guns specifically to kill humans, when you really only use them for hunting with buddies, shooting at the range, or kitting them out for IG likes. I don’t see the push for gun control across canuckistan or merica slowing anytime soon. But pushing it too fast is political suicide. It’s a political tightrope to walk.

1025

Yeah, but how low are the schools’ test scores?

1026
1027

I remember the initial talk before everyone realized it was going to go on for forever when the Trumpists talked about how court was going to go and all the ammunition of fraud that these lawyers had. All these people talking about fraud until they get in a court and then get asked if they are saying they have evidence of fraud…oh no we aren’t saying that

1028

Gun availability is certainly an issue with suicide rates. Most people who have suicidal thoughts don’t want to actually die. Firearm access makes it much more likely their attempt will be successful.

I’m not for banning guns. I am for discussions around having limits on them that make sense. Something like 90% of people supported universal background checks. It’s difficult to legally own and drive a car. You’ve got to take a lot of steps.

I’ve been around guns my whole life and places with very high rates. Personally I don’t see the argument behind having high amounts of guns or guns that can spit a bunch of ammo out quickly in mass quantities. Hunting and personal protection don’t require this.

We probably can’t stop mass shooters. But we also shouldn’t just pretend that we can’t do anything about it.

1029

The right to bear arms is a constitutional right. If you don’t want to have guns then don’t.
Just don’t expect others to give up their rights just because you do. The same goes for free speech.

1030

Do you think police should have access to guns that can spit a bunch of ammo out quickly, in mass quantities?

1031

I would prefer they didn’t. But it almost seems like a necessity since we have made it so prevalent. I don’t want 10 cops to roll up on one lunatic and be completely outmatched.

But why do we need so much of this shit in the first place? To me a huge gap exists in the way these debates typically goes. Either you think everyone should be able to have whatever weapons of death because that’s what the constitution says or you want no guns whatsoever take them all.

In reality a lot of middle ground exists on these issues for all but the biggest zealots on both sides.

1032

Okay, congratulations on being the first one to support part of Biden’s policy. Now let’s talk policy.

That 90 percent figure is a bit misleading, mostly because the concept wasn’t explained in the polls. Many Americans, including me, support background checks as they presently exist, but not the notion of universal background checks. The devil is in the details. I think you would get a much different response if you asked “Should a background check be required to loan a gun to your brother?”

Private sale is currently the only exception for background checks. Every gun sold by an FFL requires one and has for some time. This is how all new guns get introduced to market aside from home-made guns. The gun-show loophole is a myth, as the only exceptions exist for private sales, same as they do if you don’t buy at a gun show. If you think you’re going to go to a gun show and find many “private sale” vendors willing to sell to you without a background check, well, good luck with that. Try it and let us know how easy it was and how numerous the so-called “private sellers” are at any gun show in the USA. Even in the states that allow it, good luck finding a gun show organization that allows “private sales” under their banner.

That said, I wouldn’t have a problem if only FFL’s or private sellers willing to undergo background checks were allowed in gun shows. In principle I’m against it, but in practice it deviates very little from how most of these shows are run. But that’s not what this bill is about.

Now that we’ve addressed the “gun show loophole”, let’s talk regular private sale. If I want to sell one of my guns to my buddy Mike, I can and there is no need for a background check. I know Mike very well and I know he just passed a check for his new rifle. I wouldn’t sell a gun to his cousin Skeeter, who I also know well enough to know that he is a prohibited person.

I could sell to Mike and commit no crime. If I sold to Skeeter I’d be committing a crime, but I’d also know that already and not care one bit if I decided to sell to Skeeter. That’s how it is today. Requiring universal background checks would require that I drag Mike into the FFL to have a background check done on him before I sell him my gun if we’re both to remain legal eagle.

I’d technically have to do the same for his cousin Skeeter, making him take valuable time off from meth farming to go do a background check I know he would fail. If I’m going to commit the crime of unlawful transfer of firearms, why would I ask for permission from the government by getting a background check done on Skeeter?

This leaves only people who wish to conduct a private sale to an unknown person AND go along with the government requirement to get this background check done instead of just making the sale that can’t be tracked by the government in the first place. For whatever small minority of people who voluntarily engage in such practices, universal background checks might keep dozens of guns out of the hands of criminals.

Otherwise criminals will continue to do what they do today. Steal guns, get them on the black market and acquire them through straw purchasers (also part of the black market). Not a single one of them will be going down to their nearest FFL to ask the government’s permission and thus announce their intended crime.

2 Likes
1033

I would agree but I think the idea remains that limits on guns (though we may disagree with what that means) is pretty popular even in America.

Personally I would have no problem with a background check to loan a gun to your brother. You can loan a car to your brother. But he can’t drive it legally without taking certain steps. I fail to see a magical difference with guns.

This reads like you’re saying you don’t want the process to be inconvenient. Which btw I’m completely fine with that as an argument I just don’t think it’s particularly strong.

Yes people will find ways to break laws no matter what you do. You can make abortion illegal but you can’t stop it from happening in a back alley. Again I think really zero reason exists for private citizens to be able to purchase guns that can shoot quickly with large capacity to do so in a small amount of time. It ain’t to hunt. It ain’t for personal protection. Stop making the shit.

Criminals can get bad stuff isn’t a reason to manufacture or sell certain things.

1034

Can you explain a scenario where the concept of universal background checks prevents a crime from taking place? How does the former lead to the latter?

The inconvenience of it is a secondary concern to the ineffectiveness of it.

These are all vague terms with no real meaning. What’s “high capacity”? What’s “quickly”? Can you explain in clear terms a law that might put an end to “the shit”, to use your term?

2 Likes
1035

It very well may not. The goal should be to attempt to keep something dangerous somewhat regulated with common sense rules. Again I don’t think the debate has to be no guns vs no rules.

They are vague terms. I don’t know what they should be in concrete terms. I think that’s up for debate of course. Why do I need to have something that can shoot 50 bullets non stop? What for? Why do I need thirty guns? What for? Why do we sell them at shows? Why do we sell them privately?

It’s not for hunting. I’ve been hunting numerous times when I was younger. It’s not for personal protection unless you think every day is Red Dawn.

I feel like we’ve done the gun debate before and as I said I’m not for banning guns or making it illegal to use a gun. I don’t think people should be able to own nukes. I don’t think that’s what the founders would have wanted. I don’t know though. But like I said a lot of common ground I believe is somewhere between grab all the guns and do whatever the fuck you want with weapons.

I was thinking the same thing actually.

1036

Amen to that. Still waiting for the Georgia GOP to provide evidence that voter fraud is more likely on Sundays.

In all seriousness, the gun rights conversation is the mirror image of the voting rights conversation from earlier in the thread. I think people need to apply the “burden of proof” standard uniformly and not just demand it when their pet policy issue is threatened. Not calling you out, @twojarslave. Just piggybacking off your one-liner. What I’m saying applies to all of us.

2 Likes
1037

Designed to attempt to separate a lot of working class people from their money while wealthier people laughed behind their back. Just because an election was lost doesn’t mean the grift should end.

I mean they bought this old idea why wouldn’t they buy a stolen election? They already bought a billionaire who had spent his life conning people cared and represented the little guy.

image

1 Like
1038

This is a recurring issue with gun control advocates. That’s how “that thing that goes up” gets included in serious policy talk by lawmakers.

Bird hunting. Good luck hitting that grouse with a single pellet.

Shotgun Shells Explained - Types Of Ammo (Birdshot, Buckshot, Slugs) (rem870.com)

Yes it is, as I explained above.

This imparts no credibility on the subject. You don’t know what you’re talking about, yet you have a strong enough opinion about it to argue with someone who does.

This is a flawed comparison, and it is especially silly to compare it to voting rights once you remember what the left’s general position on voting rights is (we’ll get to that in a bit). Both of these rights have limitations on them. Can you show up to a voting booth at the end of your driveway to vote whenever suits you best, 24/7 for the entire election cycle? Oh, you can’t? Well then, that’s infringing on your right to vote just as much as eliminating the opportunity to vote on a couple of Sundays during early and absentee voting periods. What about the people working midnights who want to vote on their lunchbreak? Who’s looking after them?

Are you saying we have to show up to vote at particular times? Someone call Unicef or the ASPCA or something.

The notion that introducing additional travel and expense requirements on exercising a fundamental American right is “common sense” to many. Yet many of these people also say that expecting voters to present ID to prove both residency and citizenship is somehow racist because a trip to the DMV is somehow more difficult for minorities. How can these ideas possibly be congruent, unless you don’t want minorities to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights?

Anyway, good luck buying that gun without an ID. Try doing it with a utility bill and be sure to post it on youtube. There’s no background check to vote, good luck getting a gun without a background check. Throw a fit about racist practices at the gun store, we’d all like to see that on youtube as well.

Of course, all bets are off if you run across someone named Skeeter who wants to sell you a gun in a paper bag. I’m sure he’d bring you right down to the local gun store to run a background check to seal the deal up and keep everything legal eagle.

3 Likes
1039

I don’t pretend to think I know all the answers. Never have said I did. I said up for debate, worth discussing. I said that in my experience on t-nation in gun debates it becomes all or nothing. I don’t think that at all. I think the right to bear arms can exist with an individual doesn’t have a right to own a nuke.

I’m sure you know more than me about guns. But you don’t need 30 guns to protect yourself. You know that. You don’t need to be able to spit out huge quantities of bullets quickly to protect yourself. You know that. I’m not interested in weird hypotheticals or you saying what about this. I’m speaking in a general sense. We know that the commonly used reasons for owning firearms don’t fit into what we see in mass shootings. So why would we not attempt to have legislation which may make this more difficult? Do we not do that with a myriad of other potentially dangerous things?

You can have rules and still have something be a right.

I believe they should. I think voting and guns both should have rules around them. See like I said common ground.

1 Like
1040

Sure, of course. But don’t you think it is reasonable to expect clear terms for proposed legislation? Words have meanings and the vocabulary needed to describe firearms of all types is right in the dictionary and easily learned by educating yourself about the subject.

This is the closest thing to a clear policy you articulated in your post. I’m assuming you mean there should be a limit on the total number of guns someone should be able to own. Why do you find 30 to be too many? What’s the right number of guns and how did you arrive at that number?

What sort of risk do you believe is introduced when someone owns more than 30 guns, or whatever number you believe to be excessive?

Shotgun advocates, including myself, will strongly disagree. Show me the gunfight survivor who wished their gun didn’t spit out as many bullets as it happened to spit out. These are vague terms that are impossible to address in a policy discussion.

This is the problem. Policy requires specifics.

Many reasons, chief among which would be that no demonstrable good will come of it and it will potentially create a large class of criminals who weren’t criminals before that pen stroke. Again, I’ve invited everyone to make the case for efficacy. How does insert law/policy here lead to better outcomes?

There isn’t much of that in Biden’s proposal.

3 Likes
1041

I think you’re losing some objectivity, because you’re discussing an issue you’re passionate about. Maybe if we abstract away the specifics. Let’s look a generic right. It could be the right to free speech, the right to own a gun, the right to vote - whatever. On one end of the spectrum, there are no limits whatsoever to that right (e.g., voting booth at the end of your driveway). On the other, the right is completely eliminated (e.g., no guns for anyone). Regardless of which right we’re talking about, we’ve (lawmakers and by extension voters) agreed to draw the line at a specific place. If a group wants to move that line to towards the more restrictive end of the spectrum, they need to provide an evidence-based case for doing so.

We’re saying the same thing, you just said it more succinctly.

2 Likes
1042

I thought we were talking on an internet message board designed for lifting? Like I said my original intent (because I think this forum has done the gun debate 1,000 times already) was to say that legislation regarding guns is popular. The vast majority of Americans think we should have some gun laws. And I like I said I think these debates go towards no rules or take them all away. Which are both fine positions for debate but it leaves out the tons of things that could be done in the middle.

I’m not writing any laws tonight and I hadn’t even read Biden’s proposal. Honestly I find out about a lot of political stuff on here. Just got on after a long days work. Those were just the first things I replied about. And my comments weren’t even about anything he was proposing at the time as I hadn’t even read them. Though I’m going through now.