2020 Election Thoughts

[Balta1701]

24 minutes ago, Danny Dravot said:

Disagree with you on guns. Also disagree with Wayne LaPierre on guns, FWIW. Disagree with you on the Iraq War. I agree with Tony Blinken on Iraq (good idea, mostly bad strategic execution).

Referencing the bolded, that is also what Bill Pascrell’s idea is. You don’t like Crenshaw, I don’t like Tlaib, but the congressmen from our respective districts don’t get to team up and kick them out of the house. Pascrell doesn’t get to decide that the people of TX-2 don’t get representation this year or the next.

Referencing the italics, something I would be OK with would be to deny these reps any committee assignments. Like the GOP did with Steve King. The people of TX-2 get a representative, but nothing says it must be a powerful representative. Turn them into the ultimate backbenchers and let their constituents decide if they like their officials neutered.

Gerrymandering is a bipartisan sin, BTW. Given the nature of this board, I’ll assume you live somewhat close to IL-4. Republicans have a lot to be sorry for these days, but gerrymandering is not something they bear sole responsibility for. Either way, nobody will fix it because both sides benefit from it.

I would be very surprised and impressed if something like what you said happened to these 126 reps, and fully endorse that as a compromise. 

All I ask is...what do you do when none of that happens and they get off 100% Scot free? I can confidently say I won’t be voting for a GOP representative next election, but will you be? 

 

Also, I was a lot closer to Crenshaws district in the past election than to any in IL. 

[southsider2k5]

It is interesting to know that the Senate actually expelled members who supported the Confederacy,  even if they were in states that didn't leave the union, because of their support of the illegitimate and treasonous government of the Confederacy. 

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/expulsion_cases/CivilWar_Expulsion.htm

[Chicago White Sox]

6 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Im too mean to gun fetishists so we can’t have gun laws. Somehow I don’t think this is actually my fault. 

You’re the big bad liberal who wants to take away everyone’s guns, so we can’t have basic laws & regulations such as bans for assault weapons, extended magazines, and bump stocks.  As a result, my kids are less safe on a daily basis because people like you are unable to agree to a middle position and that fucking sucks.

[Balta1701]

5 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

You’re the big bad liberal who wants to take away everyone’s guns, so we can’t have basic laws & regulations such as bans for assault weapons, extended magazines, and bump stocks.  As a result, my kids are less safe on a daily basis because people like you are unable to agree to a middle position and that fucking sucks.

I never said I wouldn’t agree to a middle position. I would fully support one. I have zero issues with compromise and believe it’s a good thing when we find compromises that help people. “Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good” is a strong motto in politics. Does not change my feelings about the gun culture in this country. Does not have to.

[southsider2k5]

7 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

You’re the big bad liberal who wants to take away everyone’s guns, so we can’t have basic laws & regulations such as bans for assault weapons, extended magazines, and bump stocks.  As a result, my kids are less safe on a daily basis because people like you are unable to agree to a middle position and that fucking sucks.

Yes, because the GOP is perfectly willing to adopt a compromise position on gun rights.

[Chicago White Sox]

3 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

I never said I wouldn’t agree to a middle position. I would fully support one. I have zero issues with compromise and believe it’s a good thing when we find compromises that help people. “Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good” is a strong motto in politics. Does not change my feelings about the gun culture in this country. Does not have to.

Your missing the point.  You acknowledging you’d love to get rid of all guns is what every gun zeolet wants to hear so they never have to cede an inch.  The sooner we all accept guys are a part of this country the sooner we can put basic regulations in place that would keep people so much safer.

[Chicago White Sox]

1 minute ago, southsider2k5 said:

Yes, because the GOP is perfectly willing to adopt a compromise position on gun rights.

Just out of curiosity, but when did you become a liberal?

[Soxbadger]

18 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Your missing the point.  You acknowledging you’d love to get rid of all guns is what every gun zeolet wants to hear so they never have to cede an inch.  The sooner we all accept guys are a part of this country the sooner we can put basic regulations in place that would keep people so much safer.

People are entitled to their opinion. I dont think Balta should have to fake an opinion just because some other side is going to use it to be unreasonable.

 

[southsider2k5]

23 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Just out of curiosity, but when did you become a liberal?

It's not about a political position.  It is about the topic at hand. What has the GOP done to tell you they would accept any kind of a gun compromise at all? 

[Chicago White Sox]

2 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

People are entitled to their opinion. I dont think Balta should have to fake an opinion just because some other side is going to use it to be unreasonable.

 

He doesn’t have to fake anything, but as a result of those voiced opinions we’ll never have basic gun regulations in this country.

[Danny Dravot]

1 minute ago, Chicago White Sox said:

He doesn’t have to fake anything, but as a result of those voiced opinions we’ll never have basic gun regulations in this country.

I’m somewhat in your corner on this one. I’m pro-2A and don’t think the goofy comma placement in that amendment really changes the founders’ intent, which is that people get to have guns. On this and most other issues, I think federalism is great. The federal government doesn’t have to address every topic, California and Kentucky can handle things in different ways and that’s fine. No gun should be sold without a background check, and registration makes me a little queasy but thinking the gub’mint will ship me off to a concentration camp as soon as they know what’s in my personal vault is a goofy conspiracy theory. So I could roll with it (FWIW, all military personnel at my first duty location had to register personally owned firearms with the base provost marshal so it’s not new ground for me). “Assault weapon” is a dumb, meaningless term and I’d be willing to bet if I showed @Balta1701 a picture of two different rifles, he’d prefer banning the less dangerous one. I’d be OK with requiring greater requirements to acquire assault weapons (with a definition written by people who actually understand guns), which is what we already have with suppressors. I have a military style rifle (SIG 556) because my job (infantry officer) sort of requires that I’m handy with one, and I don’t at all think that right should be taken from most people and especially those with my job description and overall qualifications. I think all of this is reasonable and represents a fair amount of compromise.

That said, if the choices are between what we have now and Balta’s “no guns” position, I’ll 100% sit on my hands. Feel free to meet me in the middle.

[Danny Dravot]

58 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

I would be very surprised and impressed if something like what you said happened to these 126 reps, and fully endorse that as a compromise. 

All I ask is...what do you do when none of that happens and they get off 100% Scot free? I can confidently say I won’t be voting for a GOP representative next election, but will you be? 

 

Also, I was a lot closer to Crenshaws district in the past election than to any in IL. 

I scanned the list for my very boring GOP congresswoman whom I very much support, and she wasn’t on there. I’ll vote for her again if she runs.

[Vulture]

7 hours ago, Danny Dravot said:

What do you think of faithless electors?

There were people in 2016 who were encouraging faithless electors to throw the election to someone else. And some of those ceremonial bureaucrats did go rogue, although obviously the end goal failed. Was that seditious?

For what it’s worth, even though such electors decided on their own to disregard their voters and ignore their duty, I’d say no. It’s idiotic and it should be scorned, but it’s not sedition. Neither are ridiculous court filings. The amount of people who want to punish speech is a bit creepy if I’m being honest.

In the vast majority of states it is a felony for electoral college voters to cast a vote in defiance of the electorate. The few exceptions are republican states like Texas

[Balta1701]

46 minutes ago, Danny Dravot said:

I’m somewhat in your corner on this one. I’m pro-2A and don’t think the goofy comma placement in that amendment really changes the founders’ intent, which is that people get to have guns. On this and most other issues, I think federalism is great. The federal government doesn’t have to address every topic, California and Kentucky can handle things in different ways and that’s fine. No gun should be sold without a background check, and registration makes me a little queasy but thinking the gub’mint will ship me off to a concentration camp as soon as they know what’s in my personal vault is a goofy conspiracy theory. So I could roll with it (FWIW, all military personnel at my first duty location had to register personally owned firearms with the base provost marshal so it’s not new ground for me). “Assault weapon” is a dumb, meaningless term and I’d be willing to bet if I showed @Balta1701 a picture of two different rifles, he’d prefer banning the less dangerous one. I’d be OK with requiring greater requirements to acquire assault weapons (with a definition written by people who actually understand guns), which is what we already have with suppressors. I have a military style rifle (SIG 556) because my job (infantry officer) sort of requires that I’m handy with one, and I don’t at all think that right should be taken from most people and especially those with my job description and overall qualifications. I think all of this is reasonable and represents a fair amount of compromise.

That said, if the choices are between what we have now and Balta’s “no guns” position, I’ll 100% sit on my hands. Feel free to meet me in the middle.

Thanks for stereotyping.

[Soxbadger]

56 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

He doesn’t have to fake anything, but as a result of those voiced opinions we’ll never have basic gun regulations in this country.

No it's because of the people who fight basic gun regulations and because the gun lobby pays a lot if money.

We went down this road with prohibition and found out it doesn't have to be all or nothing.

[Balta1701]

1 hour ago, Chicago White Sox said:

He doesn’t have to fake anything, but as a result of those voiced opinions we’ll never have basic gun regulations in this country.

No, it’s not because I don’t trust gun fetishists that 2 years from now gun laws will be weaker than they are today.

[Danny Dravot]

2 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Thanks for stereotyping.

No problem.

In seriousness, sorry if you took offense, but a big problem with the 1994 AWB (and every attempt I see at a new one) is that it attacks meaningless aesthetics. A .22 LR with a detachable mag, a telescoping stock, and a pistol grip is good for shooting squirrels and for being easily handed off to my much shorter wife. But it’s all black and looks scary, so BANNED. On the other hand, an M1 Garand chambered for .30-06 and having no more features than my grandpa had at the Bulge could do way more damage but it looks like an antique so it’s allowed.

I’d support a ban on neither, but if you look at pictures and nix the former but tolerate the latter, you really don’t know what you’re doing. Maybe that doesn’t apply to you, but it certainly does to the people who wrote those laws.

[Balta1701]

2 minutes ago, Danny Dravot said:

No problem.

In seriousness, sorry if you took offense, but a big problem with the 1994 AWB (and every attempt I see at a new one) is that it attacks meaningless aesthetics. A .22 LR with a detachable mag, a telescoping stock, and a pistol grip is good for shooting squirrels and for being easily handed off to my much shorter wife. But it’s all black and looks scary, so BANNED. On the other hand, an M1 Garand chambered for .30-06 and having no more features than my grandpa had at the Bulge could do way more damage but it looks like an antique so it’s allowed.

I’d support a ban on neither, but if you look at pictures and nix the former but tolerate the latter, you really don’t know what you’re doing. Maybe that doesn’t apply to you, but it certainly does to the people who wrote those laws.

I mean a .30-06 (and tbh no I didn’t know how to type that only how to say it) is a huge bullet with killing power at long distances, but it’s not the kind of carnage weapon where you walk into a school and kill 20+ kids, those bullets would fly right through them. The trick with a .223 is that once it enters a body the bullet doesn’t fly in a straight line, it tumbles over dumping far more energy into the flesh of the 10 year old victim as it tears apart their insides. That’s why it’s an excellent design for a military field rifle because you hit your target at a reasonable range and they’re down, but your average school isn’t the place those were built for, just a perfect spot for them.

[Soxbadger]

14 minutes ago, Danny Dravot said:

No problem.

In seriousness, sorry if you took offense, but a big problem with the 1994 AWB (and every attempt I see at a new one) is that it attacks meaningless aesthetics. A .22 LR with a detachable mag, a telescoping stock, and a pistol grip is good for shooting squirrels and for being easily handed off to my much shorter wife. But it’s all black and looks scary, so BANNED. On the other hand, an M1 Garand chambered for .30-06 and having no more features than my grandpa had at the Bulge could do way more damage but it looks like an antique so it’s allowed.

I’d support a ban on neither, but if you look at pictures and nix the former but tolerate the latter, you really don’t know what you’re doing. Maybe that doesn’t apply to you, but it certainly does to the people who wrote those laws.

Many laws are stupid, that is why we should strive to make better ones. 

Start small, there should be a minimum nationwide standard test and proficiency to own a gun.

If you break those rules there is at minimum jail time.

The biggest issue is the interpretation of right v privilege. I think 2A is misinterpreted and the word "militia" has meaning. I presume you may disagree, but as you have a lot of experience with weapons probably also understand why we shouldn't let an untrained 15 year old buy a rocket launcher.

Which is why 2A is outdated, they never could have imagined nuclear weapons. So in essence we almost all agree the right to "bear arms" is limited. 

Edited December 13, 2020 by Soxbadger

[Danny Dravot]

14 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

I mean a .30-06 (and tbh no I didn’t know how to type that only how to say it) is a huge bullet with killing power at long distances, but it’s not the kind of carnage weapon where you walk into a school and kill 20+ kids, those bullets would fly right through them. The trick with a .223 is that once it enters a body the bullet doesn’t fly in a straight line, it tumbles over dumping far more energy into the flesh of the 10 year old victim as it tears apart their insides. That’s why it’s an excellent design for a military field rifle because you hit your target at a reasonable range and they’re down, but your average school isn’t the place those were built for, just a perfect spot for them.

I never mentioned .223. I mentioned .22 LR. So this kind of proves my point. I do understand ballistics, but I’d rather eat my own foot than ever see a kid with a wound from a .30-06. Lots of Germans who were down range from my grandpa and his friends seventy years ago who desperately wished they never knew what a .30-06 was too. .223 isn’t used in military rifles (5.56 is and it’s a slightly different round). Either way, an AWB should focus on semiautomatics of certain calibers rather than stupid cosmetic features like bayonet mounts.

[Balta1701]

8 minutes ago, Danny Dravot said:

I never mentioned .223. I mentioned .22 LR. So this kind of proves my point. I do understand ballistics, but I’d rather eat my own foot than ever see a kid with a wound from a .30-06. Lots of Germans who were down range from my grandpa and his friends seventy years ago who desperately wished they never knew what a .30-06 was too. .223 isn’t used in military rifles (5.56 is and it’s a slightly different round). Either way, an AWB should focus on semiautomatics of certain calibers rather than stupid cosmetic features like bayonet mounts.

No, but a .223 was used to murder 27 schoolkids in Newtown and 17 at Stoneman-Douglas high school, and you didn't bother bringing that one up. Which pretty much proves my point too.

[Danny Dravot]

15 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

Many laws are stupid, that is why we should strive to make better ones. 

Start small, there should be a minimum nationwide standard test and proficiency to own a gun.

If you break those rules there is at minimum jail time.

The biggest issue is the interpretation of right v privilege. I think 2A is misinterpreted and the word "militia" has meaning. I presume you may disagree, but as you have a lot of experience with weapons probably also understand why we shouldn't let an untrained 15 year old buy a rocket launcher.

Which is why 2A is outdated, they never could have imagined nuclear weapons. So in essence we almost all agree the right to "bear arms" is limited. 

I’m fine with those ideas. Although we already don’t allow anyone to buy rocket launchers, so that and the nuke talk is a bit hyperbolic.

I’m also fine with jail time for violators, but is your nerve going to hold up when that burden falls heavily on poor and minority people in troubled neighborhoods? You pass this law and I’ll pay whatever it takes to be certified and good to go the next day. My life will go on uninterrupted. But a guy who has no job, no money, and lives in a nasty apartment in a high crime neighborhood, he honestly NEEDS his gun more than I do. But there’s probably a few reasons he’ll skip on your requirement. You gonna send him to the hoosegow?

Personally, I don’t care what his race or SES is; apply the law as written and apply it fairly to all. But I suspect it would hit certain demographics harder than others, and I have to wonder if you’d be OK with the end result of what you asked for.

[Soxbadger]

4 minutes ago, Danny Dravot said:

I never mentioned .223. I mentioned .22 LR. So this kind of proves my point. I do understand ballistics, but I’d rather eat my own foot than ever see a kid with a wound from a .30-06. Lots of Germans who were down range from my grandpa and his friends seventy years ago who desperately wished they never knew what a .30-06 was too. .223 isn’t used in military rifles (5.56 is and it’s a slightly different round). Either way, an AWB should focus on semiautomatics of certain calibers rather than stupid cosmetic features like bayonet mounts.

Again doesnt this come down to trying to make better laws. That we start with something agreeable like "certain weapons are too dangerous and do not have serve a legitimate purpose for the civilian population."

We are long past the idea that armed civilians could stand up to the tyranny of the US govt. Which was really the point of 2A (imo of course).

[Danny Dravot]

7 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

No, but a .223 was used to murder 27 schoolkids in Newtown and 17 at Stoneman-Douglas high school, and you didn't bother bringing that one up. Which pretty much proves my point too.

No, it doesn’t. A .223 and .22 LR are entirely different. Zero similarity. A law that freaks out about .22 LR weapons with funny exterior features that have zilch to do with functionality but does nothing about plain Jane weapons chambered in .308 or .30-06 or 5.56/.223 is a dumb law, and that’s exactly what the 1994 law did and what all of its descendants have proposed. That’s the problem.

[Soxbadger]

1 minute ago, Danny Dravot said:

I’m fine with those ideas. Although we already don’t allow anyone to buy rocket launchers, so that and the nuke talk is a bit hyperbolic.

I’m also fine with jail time for violators, but is your nerve going to hold up when that burden falls heavily on poor and minority people in troubled neighborhoods? You pass this law and I’ll pay whatever it takes to be certified and good to go the next day. My life will go on uninterrupted. But a guy who has no job, no money, and lives in a nasty apartment in a high crime neighborhood, he honestly NEEDS his gun more than I do. But there’s probably a few reasons he’ll skip on your requirement. You gonna send him to the hoosegow?

Personally, I don’t care what his race or SES is; apply the law as written and apply it fairly to all. But I suspect it would hit certain demographics harder than others, and I have to wonder if you’d be OK with the end result of what you asked for.

Im fine with a fee waiver if you can show hardship. I want safety not for it to be a punishment.