Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

No offense but that's very naive. Let's try this thought experiment:
Imagine that you are a Democratic congressman from, say, Dallas or Houston, and you think some large-scale grand bargain is possible involving requiring shorter wait times and lower taxes for NFA items in exchange for taxing high cap magazines under NFA and start pitching it to Democrats and Republicans, and you think you have some early support. 
What do you think happens next? This isn't hypothetical, BTW - I was told what happened next, but I'm curious what you think happened and why.
 

Again I’m not sure why we should have to exchange things at all. If people on both sides support these common sense measures then why are we bartering?

Edited by hobbes2702
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Again I’m not sure why we should have to exchange things at all. If people on both sides support these common sense measures then why are we bartering?

Because politics is not about the what, it's about the who. You aren't trying to bring human beings to agreement. You're trying to assemble a purpose built, one-off non-partisan majority for a moment in time so they can deliver victory to the people they need to stay elected.  

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Because politics is not about the what, it's about the who. You aren't trying to bring human beings to agreement. You're trying to assemble a purpose built, one-off non-partisan majority for a moment in time so they can deliver victory to the people they need to stay elected.  

That doesn’t really make sense. If everyone is so in favor of these measures, then we should be able to build a bill with those common sense measures. No dem is stopping a bill with those measures in it unless they are giving something up in return. So it comes down to the pubs not wanting the common sense measures. This isn’t a dem problem.

Maybe i’m misunderstanding your point or not explaining my question well. Either way appreciate your thoughts 

Edited by hobbes2702
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
I have never seen gun person come up with a reason they need a gun other than "because it's a right".  

The 2A doesn’t specify what those “arms” are. Fuck it. Ban everything but nunchucks and throwing stars.
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted

The other day, I asked one of our 2A stalwarts how their 2A rights would be infringed should we ban AR-15 guns and associated variants.

Crickets.

They know.  They know 2A isn't carte blanche for any and all weapons.  They just don't want to play along.  This is what Bozo misses -- it's not just the fetishes, it's the VAST MAJORITY of conservative gun owners.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
2 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

No offense but that's very naive. Let's try this thought experiment:
Imagine that you are a Democratic congressman from, say, Dallas or Houston, and you think some large-scale grand bargain is possible involving requiring shorter wait times and lower taxes for NFA items in exchange for taxing high cap magazines under NFA and start pitching it to Democrats and Republicans, and you think you have some early support. 
What do you think happens next? This isn't hypothetical, BTW - I was told what happened next, but I'm curious what you think happened and why.
 

The crazy prohibitionists show up and ruin the party? Why? Because Democrats are stopping sensible gun laws? What did I win?
 

 

Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

The crazy prohibitionists show up and ruin the party? Why? Because Democrats are stopping sensible gun laws? What did I win?

No. I mean, yes Democrats do not use an effective political strategy to pass gun laws*, bot no the "crazy prohibitionists" do not "show up and ruin the party."
Would you like to try again? 



* I don't see how the idea that Democrats strategy on gun violence has been counterproductive since the AWB expired is even controversial, but y'all do y'all.
 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
Posted
53 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

No. I mean, yes Democrats do not use an effective political strategy to pass gun laws*, bot no the "crazy prohibitionists" do not "show up and ruin the party."
Would you like to try again? 



* I don't see how the idea that Democrats strategy on gun violence has been counterproductive since the AWB expired is even controversial, but y'all do y'all.
 

It’s not controversial, it’s unproductive. It’s akin to stating that a woman being mouthy is counterproductive to her husband stopping hitting her in the face. So yes, while true, she is definitely not helping the situation, so the real focus of change should be one the abuser. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

It’s not controversial, it’s unproductive. It’s akin to stating that a woman being mouthy is counterproductive to her husband stopping hitting her in the face. So yes, while true, she is definitely not helping the situation, so the real focus of change should be one the abuser. 

Democrats are a political party with plenty of funding, widely popular positions on issues, a better governing record, etc. They have demographics moving their way, low unemployment, the presidency, one house of congress and the two largest states locked up. And they're ... victims?

OK, I stand corrected. Democrats are executing the optimal strategy and obviously have been for 30 years.   It's just this war and that lying bastard Johnson.
 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Haha 2
  • Fuck You 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Democrats could fuck up a ham sandwich, but they are not the obstacle to gun reform. It doesn’t matter how many times you repeat it. 

I said above they weren't the primary obstacle, but their coalition strategy on gun violence has been literally counter productive, meaning it has been a net negative. Not sure how that's controversial. 

Posted
1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I said above they weren't the primary obstacle, but their coalition strategy on gun violence has been literally counter productive, meaning it has been a net negative. Not sure how that's controversial. 

Dude.  Rs have shown they don't give a fuck about rules, decorum, logic, decency, or fucking children getting liquified.  THEY DO NOT CARE.  There is no win here.  You could give them full on guns being handed out to newborns in delivery rooms and they would still find something to bitch about with gun control.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Dude.  Rs have shown they don't give a fuck about rules, decorum, logic, decency, or fucking children getting liquified.  THEY DO NOT CARE.  There is no win here.  You could give them full on guns being handed out to newborns in delivery rooms and they would still find something to bitch about with gun control.

Because Democrats don't spend much or any time with the subject matter (no offense) you see a monolith. If you did, you would see and recognize a deeply fractured, fragile, aging (not to mention minority) coalition just barely holding it together.  It just seems resilient to you, because Democrats won't drive wedges, and choose instead to keep ramming away at literally the only thing they all agree on. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 1
Posted

Does everyone not see that y’all are making BC’s point for him? Dems have varied opinions on lots of things, and are ready to compromise on a lot. But the base won’t let their electeds do that on GC.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Because Democrats don't spend much or any time with the subject matter (no offense) you see a monolith. If you did, you would see and recognize a deeply fractured, fragile, aging (not to mention minority) coalition just barely holding it together.  It just seems resilient to you, because Democrats won't drive wedges, and choose instead to keep ramming away at literally the only thing they all agree on. 

Dude it is a monolith. This is ridiculous 

1 minute ago, softlynow said:

Does everyone not see that y’all are making BC’s point for him? Dems have varied opinions on lots of things, and are ready to compromise on a lot. But the base won’t let their electeds do that on GC.

Why would there be a compromise for things that are supposedly agreed on? If pubs need compromise to pass gun legislation then they don’t believe in the legislation. 

Posted
Obviously they aren’t primarily responsible, but the strident opposition to political gun realism among prohibitionists is a huge contributor to why Democrats can’t accomplish anything meaningful. 
Do you remember, for example, the way Bernie Sanders was excoriated for his position that rural areas in rural states could have different regulatory regimes than the largest cities in the bluest states?
I’ve talked to elected democrats about this stuff. They will get lit up if they give anything (like suppressors and SBRs) to get anything. There’s NO upside for them to pursue things that could actually pass, even though stuff is available.
Look at this thread. Now imagine you are a Democrat congressman. Would you put silencers on the table?
I don't know, maybe look at the overall political picture in this country over the last 5 years and Then consider compromise. The right has taken everything and conceded nothing. I was just in progressive ass Mexico where reproductive rights and lbgt rights are largely better than here. It's twisted.

One side wants to go back to the 50s
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Please show your work with this accusation 

Lol. The post above yours.

You know how we often complain that our various failed football coaches don’t effectively self-scout and shore up weaknesses? This is kinda like that.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, softlynow said:

Lol. The post above yours.

You know how we often complain that our various failed football coaches don’t effectively self-scout and shore up weaknesses? This is kinda like that.

No one is saying we can’t give them suppressors. I’m simply saying if they need to barter for gun reform of any kind, then they are against gun reform. There is no dem problem here. This is entirely a Republican problem fueled by their lobbies and their base.

The republicans do not compromise. They take and obfuscate and take more. What’s the last issue they gave any ground on?

Edited by hobbes2702
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
52 minutes ago, softlynow said:

Lol. The post above yours.

You know how we often complain that our various failed football coaches don’t effectively self-scout and shore up weaknesses? This is kinda like that.

Your evidence is a stranger posting on a message board? Do you think any “liberal” on this board gives a flying fuck if their Democratic representative spreads their cheeks wide and passes ANY limp dick gun reform crafted by Republicans? Please tell me your joking. 

In most Republicans viewpoint, I’m probably a social communist pinko devil, I would vote to repeal the 2nd Amendment, but I would triple my donation to any elected Democrat that agreed to Republican legislation that extended the waiting period from zero to 1 day. 

It’s a farce that people think that Democrats, Prohibitionist, or ANYONE other than Republicans are stopping gun control 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

Crazy pills.

Sure, the Dems are willing to compromise, but the Republicans won't, so it's the Dems' fault.

WTF?  This isn't Reagan era Washington DC where Tip O'Neill outsmarted seemingly slightly willing Republicans.  The modern Republicans WILL NOT COMPROMISE AND THAT IS NOT THE FAULT OF THE DEMOCRATS.

For fuck's sake, Bozo.  Move forward a few decades.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
4 hours ago, softlynow said:

Does everyone not see that y’all are making BC’s point for him? Dems have varied opinions on lots of things, and are ready to compromise on a lot. But the base won’t let their electeds do that on GC.

oprah.gif

  • Fuck You 1
Posted

I'm one of the crazy prohibitionists. Repeal the 2nd Amendment. Fuck guns. Save lives not political careers. Why is this even a debate? It's literally the worst thing about America and the only thing that exists only in this country.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 4
Posted
29 minutes ago, SilasCoade said:

I'm one of the crazy prohibitionists. Repeal the 2nd Amendment. Fuck guns. Save lives not political careers. Why is this even a debate? It's literally the worst thing about America and the only thing that exists only in this country.

This sounds like excellent strategy. When things stay the same or get even worse and gun fetishists accrue even more power it will definitely not be your fault and since your privilege protects you from gun violence you’ll get to say I told you so. 
Wont that be nice? 

Posted
3 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

This sounds like excellent strategy. When things stay the same or get even worse and gun fetishists accrue even more power it will definitely not be your fault and since your privilege protects you from gun violence you’ll get to say I told you so. 
Wont that be nice? 

Translation: I only hurt you because you hurt me first 

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

This sounds like excellent strategy. When things stay the same or get even worse and gun fetishists accrue even more power it will definitely not be your fault and since your privilege protects you from gun violence you’ll get to say I told you so. 
Wont that be nice? 

I'm not sure what you mean. I'm not suggesting a strategy. I'm suggesting an action. There is no amount of gun death that is acceptable.

Edited by SilasCoade
Posted
3 hours ago, SilasCoade said:

I'm one of the crazy prohibitionists. Repeal the 2nd Amendment. Fuck guns. Save lives not political careers. Why is this even a debate? It's literally the worst thing about America and the only thing that exists only in this country.

The Brits say our obsessed with guns is the second worst thing about America. Imposing Trump on an unsuspecting world is first.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
39 minutes ago, Satchel said:

The Brits say our obsessed with guns is the second worst thing about America.

They’re the fucking reason we have a second amendment.  

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Haha 1
Posted
6 hours ago, SilasCoade said:

I'm not sure what you mean. I'm not suggesting a strategy. I'm suggesting an action. The is no amount of gun death that is acceptable.

What action are you suggesting? Repealing the second amendment? There is no scenario where that’s possible in our lifetimes. None.
But any political capital deployed to that end makes passing red flag laws and regulations on high capacity magazines more difficult.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
On 9/2/2023 at 11:25 AM, CooterBrown said:


The 2A doesn’t specify what those “arms” are. Fuck it. Ban everything but nunchucks and throwing stars.

Not to mention the whole 'well armed militia' bit.  And that the 2a has been interpreted differently through out the years.  I'm for confiscating the guns myself.  Will never happen but I would not feel sorry for one hobbyist.  Let the dudes living in the wilds of Alaska keep what they need to surive.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
They’re the fucking reason we have a second amendment.  

And the third. Let’s not forget that one.
And hey, I’m all for shooting any redcoat who tries to stay in your house.
Follow Bruen to the letter: you can shoot any redcoat bastard using any firearm in common use in 1791. Deal? What’s that? No deal? Because Bruen is a lie and the dumbest fucking decision in SCOTUS history, because it fixes firearms regulation at 1791, but doesn’t fix firearms development at the same year? Golly jeepers, what a mess.
I’m still all for shooting redcoats, though.
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
4 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

What action are you suggesting? Repealing the second amendment? There is no scenario where that’s possible in our lifetimes. None.
But any political capital deployed to that end makes passing red flag laws and regulations on high capacity magazines more difficult.

Stop pretending message board rhetoric is the same as political capital. No one fucking believes it will ever be repealed. None. Yet you see it mentioned and focus on it. There is no political capital being deployed to repeal the second amendment. Even Newsom’s grandstanding someone pay attention to me 28th Amendment proposal does not suggest repealing the second amendment . The reality is the thought of losing your toys will forever keep sensible gun laws off the table. Period. 

There was finally SOME gun safety measures passed in 2022 thanks to Democrats once again giving up everything they wanted so the toy owners don’t get all upset 

The BiPartisan Safer Communities Act

- 750 million to states to implement Red Flag Laws

- Adds domestic abuser to NICS for 5 years 

- Enhanced review for under 21 buyers 

- 250 million for violence prevention initiatives 

- 1 billion for mental health programs in schools 

- 300 million for school hardening 

- Broadens definition of gun dealers

Only 14 Republicans in House voted yes. 15 in Senate 


Note, it doesn’t mandate Red Flag Laws, it just provides money to implement them if you want to.

This was the first gun control legislation in 30 years. It’s mostly toothless. It does stop convicted felon domestic abusers from buying a gun for 5 years, unless they buy it at a gun show of course, or from a friend. It does implement background checks on under 21 buyers with a 3 day waiting period, which of course wouldn’t have stopped the Columbine Shooters, the Uvalde Shooter, the Sandy Hook shooter, the Parkland shooter, 

Maybe a mental health program would 

 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Rage+1 1
Posted

A curious side-effect of this recently rebooted "mental health" debate from "BOTH SIDES!" seems to have two caselaw supported outcomes:

1.  You're clearly deranged.  You've been written up by counselors, social workers, et. al. to be a threat to yourself and others.  Usually you're an adult but still living with family, or a group home, or on the streets, or couch surfing.  You've exhibited, repeatedly, to be mentally unhinged, perhaps addiction issues, and while not incarcerated for any violent crimes yet-many experts and non-experts who know you personally feel it is only a matter of time before you fall off your meds/treatment/family support network and acquire a firearm with which to hurt people.  In this case, even the vast majority of 2A enthusiasts would agree, "That person should not be allowed to purchase a firearm."  Of course, after learning the intricacies of the person's background and mental issues.  And this is valid, I think we all agree, as a conclusion.

2.  Person leaves prison after physically harming loved ones, strangers, or associates.  Due to recent rulings, is allowed to acquire more firearms legally.  Vast majority of 2A enthusiasts, prima facia, agree "That person should be allowed to purchase a firearm in the spirit of the Constitution and freedoms!"  

Person #2 is the same person as Person #1.  I just conveniently omit their deeper background story as our system allows and then wait 6 months for trouble to hit the fan.  We don't want Person #1 to have a weapon.  We're okay now, as a country, with person #2 having it...even though it's just the same person just having waited a few months for another episodic event and legal gun purchase.  

Somebody's making money on this, America.  And I sure as shit assure you---it ain't you.

Posted
2 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

There was finally SOME gun safety measures passed in 2022 thanks to Democrats once again giving up everything they wanted so the toy owners don’t get all upset 

The BiPartisan Safer Communities Act

- 750 million to states to implement Red Flag Laws

- Adds domestic abuser to NICS for 5 years 

- Enhanced review for under 21 buyers 

- 250 million for violence prevention initiatives 

- 1 billion for mental health programs in schools 

- 300 million for school hardening 

- Broadens definition of gun dealers

Only 14 Republicans in House voted yes. 15 in Senate

So- something passed, you’re saying. Want more? Me too. Elect more Democrats.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
14 hours ago, Anastasis said:

They’re the fucking reason we have a second amendment.  

We have 26 other amendments but we don’t obsess over those. We have to dig deeper to determine why we’re so deeply dysfunctional when it comes to gun love. It’s not as simple as blaming the kind of carnage we choose to live with on mental illness. The recent murder of the TCU student demands a closer examination as to why a guy with a gun sets out to murder people he doesn’t know just because he can.

Posted
30 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

The Brits can go fuck themselves repeatedly. 

Apparently they have more common sense, logic and decency then many of us do, but then again, gun-worshiping right-wingers are opposed to such forward thinking.  

  • Fuck You 1
Posted
29 minutes ago, FartingDreamer said:

Apparently they have more common sense, logic and decency than many of us do, but then again, gun-worshiping right-wingers are opposed to such forward thinking.  

Amazing the humility that rises to the surface after your empire crumbles. We’ll have our moment too. 

Posted
1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

The Brits can go fuck themselves repeatedly. 

Your anger seems misplaced. The Brits correctly named our disorder.  We’re the only 1st world country with a macabre obsession with guns. There’s just no way to get around that fact.

  • Hook 'Em 2


×
×
  • Create New...