Ideology

A Place to respectfully discuss those topics that you should never discuss.
post

Re: Ideology

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Thu Jan 05, 2017 3:05 pm

Brazen331 wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:There are more people attending San Diego State than living in my county. Almost 5 times as many.


I imagine Trump got at least 75 percent of the vote in that county.

77.07%
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 6471
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 64 times
Been thanked: 402 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Corsair » Thu Jan 05, 2017 4:27 pm

SDBucs wrote:The media is ALL over this... oh wait.

It appears they are.
Image
User avatar
Corsair
 
Posts: 4182
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:25 am
Has thanked: 134 times
Been thanked: 250 times

Re: Ideology

Postby SDBucs » Sat Jan 07, 2017 1:58 pm

Corsair wrote:
SDBucs wrote:The media is ALL over this... oh wait.

It appears they are.


Damn they picked it up and ran with it as THE story for <24 hours.

Lets go burn some buildings down and loot.
SDBucs
 
Posts: 1029
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 9:30 pm
Has thanked: 58 times
Been thanked: 25 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Corsair » Sat Jan 07, 2017 3:16 pm

SDBucs wrote:
Corsair wrote:It appears they are.


Damn they picked it up and ran with it as THE story for <24 hours.

What is the appropriate time to run a story?

Please cite some examples.
Image
User avatar
Corsair
 
Posts: 4182
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:25 am
Has thanked: 134 times
Been thanked: 250 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Buc2 » Fri Jan 27, 2017 2:07 pm

Not sure this can be considered an ideology, but this thread looks like the best place to put this.

While I haven't lost my political values like the writer of the below claims that he has, my attitude towards the left has become very left-like in regards to how I view them and want to see them treated. Is that petty of me? Probably. But I dgaf anymore. That's what the left has taught me. I also think there may be a lot of people on the right who would see a lot of this guy in them as well. Not necessarily 100%, but a goodly chunk at least. His view kinda even explains how Trump happened when you get right down to it. The left is now paying the Piper for years of abuse they piled onto the right. It's been kinda fun to watch so far. But Trump was a Democrat before he was a Republican! Don't care. But Trump lied about... Don't care. But Trump... Don't care. But... Don't care.

Anyway, without further ado, here's one conservative's, "Up yours!" to the left.

How Losing My Political Values Helped Me Gain My Freedom [Warden]

There's a frustrating game that the left plays with conservatives. It's an Alinksy tactic called, "Make them live up to their values." Now, living up to one's values isn't a bad thing, but setting high standards ultimately means that you'll sometimes fall short.

The left loves to exploit these shortcomings--every Christian who falls short of perfection is a hypocrite; the social values candidate you voted for just got arrested for drunk driving. Haha, everything you believe and advocate is now discredited.

They got away with it for years, waving away the lies, hypocrisy, indiscretions, and criminal behavior from their own politicians while beating the right mercilessly with the missteps of their own. It's effective because the right always maintains a baseline of integrity not displayed by the left, as evidenced by comparing what happens to Republican politicians when they're caught in criminal behavior with what happens to Democrats. Republican voters and politicians reluctantly dump the malefactor while Democrats defend their guy and launch an offensive against those who demand accountability.

And then along came Trump. A guy just ripe for demonization by the left. I think it's fair to say that even his early supporters worried that the Democrats would successfully make him toxic to the general voting public with his boorish behavior, vulgarity, multiple bankruptcies and very public divorces.

But something strange happened. Not only did Donald Trump not care about attacks on his character, neither did anyone else. We saw this new paradigm assert itself over and over during the primary throughout repeated media predictions that this time he's gone too far and he's cooked.

This same indifference that helped Trump carry the election has continued into the early days of his administration. With it comes a refreshingly freeing state of mind. Personally, I don't feel in any way responsible for Trump, nor do I feel compelled to defend him against attack.

Why? Because I voted for retribution.

"He's thin-skinned and petty!" shrieks the left. "He takes everything personally!"

Good, I say. I want him to take attacks personally and deal out payback. I know I won't be the target, you will be.

"He's unpresidential! He'll destroy the integrity of the office!"

No. That's already happened. Remember, you elected a shit-talking jackass who takes selfies at state funerals when he's not giving stealth middle fingers to his opponents during debates. There is no dignity of the office. Not after Clinton and Obama.

"He's a narcissist! He's got totalitarian impulses!"

Yes, he's basically a mirror version of Obama. Except now, he'll be working for what I want. The end justifies the means. You taught me that.

"A sitting president going after the media. OMG!"

Oh, like Obama trashing Rush Limbaugh and Fox News? How about when he sent his lackeys to berate news reporters for failure to flatter him at all times. Oh, and NSA spying on the press. That was pretty great too.

"He won't show his taxes!"

Don't care. Where are Obama's college transcripts, by the way?

"He's a bully! Is this what you want? Someone who uses his power to bully other people?!!!"

And this is where everything funnels down to the very nexus of my change in attitude from, "Do unto others," to, "I will do unto you what you do unto me."

It's two words: Memories Pizza.

It was that moment that everything changed for me--not only the harassment, fake Yelp reviews and the death threats that forced them to temporarily close up shop--oh, that was bad enough, but the most powerful man on Earth bullying a couple of small town pizza owners from Indiana simply for expressing an opinion on a hypothetical asked of them by a reporter with a malicious agenda? That was when I snapped.

Do you remember?

It's this that sent me to a place from which I'll never return. I literally don't care what Donald Trump does because nothing he can do is worse than what the left has already done.

Donald Trump isn't the bully; he only insults and abuses people in power who have attacked him. They're the ****ing bullies. The left, with their smears, their witch hunts, their slanders, their insults, their riots, their violence, and their weaponizing of the federal bureaucracy.

There aren't any rules anymore because the left only applies them one way. And in doing so, they've left what once was a civil compact between the two parties in smoldering ruins.

I have no personal investment in Donald Trump. He is a tool to punish the left and roll back their ill-gotten gains, no more and no less. If he succeeds even partially in those two things, then I'll consider his election a win.

Further, I no longer have any investment in any particular political values, save one: The rules created by the left will be applied to the left as equally and punitively as they have applied them to the right. And when they beg for mercy, I'll begin to reconsider. Or maybe not. Because, **** these people.

This new philosophy has freed me of more emotional angst that I can describe. Literally nothing the left says or does matters to me anymore. I don't care about their tantrums. I don't care about their accusations. I don't care if they say Trump is lying. I don't care if Trump is lying.

They created this Frankenstein. They own it. I am free of all obligation. I will never play defense again. I will attack, attack, attack, attack using their own tactics against them until they learn their lesson.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 5783
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 666 times
Been thanked: 187 times

Re: Ideology

Postby bucfanclw » Fri Jan 27, 2017 2:15 pm

So tl:dr synopsis

Rah rah! Go team! I hate the left as people so therefore I don't care how bad our country gets fucked up as long as we're stigginit to the libs!
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 2101
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 112 times

Re: Ideology

Postby NYBF » Fri Jan 27, 2017 2:19 pm

Frankenstein was the scientist.
Image
User avatar
NYBF
 
Posts: 2513
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:46 am
Has thanked: 99 times
Been thanked: 235 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Corsair » Fri Jan 27, 2017 2:24 pm

bucfanclw wrote:So tl:dr synopsis

Rah rah! Go team! I hate the left as people so therefore I don't care how bad our country gets fucked up as long as we're stigginit to the libs!


Pretty much how I assumed Buc2 to be. Thank god I figured it out before reading this article.
Image
User avatar
Corsair
 
Posts: 4182
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:25 am
Has thanked: 134 times
Been thanked: 250 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Buc2 » Fri Jan 27, 2017 2:29 pm

:lol:
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 5783
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 666 times
Been thanked: 187 times

Re: Ideology

Postby bucfanclw » Fri Jan 27, 2017 2:59 pm

NYBF wrote:Frankenstein was the scientist.

It's widely known that Frankenstein is the green guy with bolts in his neck. #alternativefacts
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 2101
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 112 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Ken Carson » Sat Jan 28, 2017 8:15 am

bucfanclw wrote:So tl:dr synopsis

Rah rah! Go team! I hate the left as people so therefore I don't care how bad our country gets fucked up as long as we're stigginit to the libs!

I stopped reading after the notion that the right maintains high standards of conduct or something, and as if they are alone in this regard. Give me a freaking break.
Image
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 1932
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 116 times

Re: Ideology

Postby deltbucs » Sat Jan 28, 2017 10:08 am

bucfanclw wrote:So tl:dr synopsis

Rah rah! Go team! I hate the left as people so therefore I don't care how bad our country gets fucked up as long as we're stigginit to the libs!

Yeah...pretty much.
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 2893
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 141 times
Been thanked: 215 times

Re: Ideology

Postby SDBucs » Tue Feb 21, 2017 8:43 pm

Image
SDBucs
 
Posts: 1029
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 9:30 pm
Has thanked: 58 times
Been thanked: 25 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Corsair » Tue Feb 21, 2017 9:07 pm

You are the guy at the party who says that BET is racist because there's no "White Entertainment Television", aren't you?

"Just imagine if WE tried that, we'd get crucified!!!"
Image
User avatar
Corsair
 
Posts: 4182
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:25 am
Has thanked: 134 times
Been thanked: 250 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Ken Carson » Tue Feb 21, 2017 9:41 pm

Corsair wrote:You are the guy at the party who says that BET is racist because there's no "White Entertainment Television", aren't you?

"Just imagine if WE tried that, we'd get crucified!!!"

I'm pretty sure everyone understands that HGTV is the tip of the WET spear.
Image
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 1932
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 116 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Babeinbucland » Tue Feb 21, 2017 10:35 pm

Ken Carson wrote:
bucfanclw wrote:So tl:dr synopsis

Rah rah! Go team! I hate the left as people so therefore I don't care how bad our country gets fucked up as long as we're stigginit to the libs!

I stopped reading after the notion that the right maintains high standards of conduct or something, and as if they are alone in this regard. Give me a freaking break.

"Alone" in this rearguard?? They are ABSENT is this regard :roll:
User avatar
Babeinbucland
 
Posts: 2949
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 9:24 pm
Has thanked: 87 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Ken Carson » Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:35 am

Babeinbucland wrote:
Ken Carson wrote:I stopped reading after the notion that the right maintains high standards of conduct or something, and as if they are alone in this regard. Give me a freaking break.

"Alone" in this rearguard?? They are ABSENT is this regard :roll:

You're really bad at self-awareness.
Image
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 1932
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 116 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:48 am

I find it interesting that folks like SD are still focused on people they hate and what they say and do.

I would think that now that thier God Emporer is in power, they would be focused on worship. But I can't help but notice that they still act as though they are out of power.

Odd.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 6471
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 64 times
Been thanked: 402 times

Re: Ideology

Postby mightyleemoon » Wed Feb 22, 2017 11:19 am

Everytime this thread might start to get a little interesting....SD comes in crying about how people don't like him for white supremacist views...and then this things gets derailed.

This thread would be a way better read if people just ignored his derailing attempts. (And probably Buc2's "**** Liberals" rants...)

This post seemed to get lost in the mix...

Mountaineer Buc wrote:SD bores me. Let's move on.

Populism

It fueled Bernie and it fueled Trump. Both parties are in the midst of some serious infighting as the populists from Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party have begun taking over and in the case of the GOP, have taken over.

I'll let one of you guys talk about the GOP, I'll talk about the DNC and what I see as going on over there.

Bernie's "Political Revolution" that he called for..(systematic takeover from city councils, to state legislatures, and up by progressives)..is beginning. The rank and file progressives want a complete overhaul of DNC leadership. Pelosi, The Clintons, The Obamas, all gone. They cite the loss of over 1,000 legislative seats since 2008 and a flawed strategy that leads from the top down and uses shame to influence policy. They want "identity politics" out the door as a campaign strategy and a greater focus on economic justice rather than social justice. The logic being you cannot have the latter without the former. I haven't seen any calls for a centrally planned economy, they want a market economy that works for them, not billionaires.

Gun control is out the door. The people don't want it. Gun crime is a symptom of a larger disease and that disease is poverty. There has been talk of reorienting the Federal Reserve to shift from "Unemployment" to "Poverty" as the basis for monetary policy. How that would work, I don't know.

They want money out of politics. They believe the money that finances campaigns gets between congress and the people that elected them. How they plan to do this, I don't know. But I assume getting rid of the citizens united ruling would be a big step in that direction.

As you can imagine, this irks the **** out of the establishment and they are already trying to stop Keith Ellison (Bernie's guy) from taking over the DNC. As they continue to caterwaul over the loss in Novermber, their ire is getting thrown on the "bernie bros" for costing Hillary the electoral college. As far as they are concerned, She won the popular vote and that in and of itself serves as proof that she was not a "flawed" candidate. I wanted to reach through my satellite radio and slap Mark Thompson in the head over that one last night.

So the DNC is in a battle, but its a battle between the rank and file and the very small remaining contingent of politicos still in Washington. The RNC fight is slam full of guys holding elected office. Are they going to get in line behind Trump and his populists or stay off his coattails expecting him to fail?


Gun Control is actually one of those things that I think both parties (in terms of population) are closer on than the lobbyist/elites let on. Very few people want to go door to door and get all the guns. And very few people think hand guns should be handed to everyone at their high school graduation. Somewhere in the middle, everyone is hanging out near some legislation that has enforceable laws with background checks and no loopholes. But, if you were to pay attention to the propaganda you would think it's Take the Guns vs Arm the Babies.

I would be willing to bet that most issues are similar to this. People in both parties are closer on issues than the propaganda suggests.
User avatar
mightyleemoon
 
Posts: 2734
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:35 pm
Has thanked: 17 times
Been thanked: 166 times

Re: Ideology

Postby DreadNaught » Wed Feb 22, 2017 11:42 am

mightyleemoon wrote:Gun Control is actually one of those things that I think both parties (in terms of population) are closer on than the lobbyist/elites let on. Very few people want to go door to door and get all the guns. And very few people think hand guns should be handed to everyone at their high school graduation. Somewhere in the middle, everyone is hanging out near some legislation that has enforceable laws with background checks and no loopholes. But, if you were to pay attention to the propaganda you would think it's Take the Guns vs Arm the Babies.

I would be willing to bet that most issues are similar to this. People in both parties are closer on issues than the propaganda suggests.


Agreed, unfortunately the extreme ends of the spectrum get the most print since they are the loudest in most cases.

I support improved gun control legislation as it relates to mental health and background checks. There are privacy and HIPAA laws that need to be figured out to accommodate that goal, but imho that is where the 'middle ground' can be found.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 6961
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 292 times
Been thanked: 293 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Zarniwoop » Wed Feb 22, 2017 11:44 am

I'd have no problem requiring new borns to demonstrate fire arms proficiency before being allowed to leave the hospital
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 1340
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 71 times
Been thanked: 110 times

Re: Ideology

Postby mightyleemoon » Wed Feb 22, 2017 11:59 am

Image
User avatar
mightyleemoon
 
Posts: 2734
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:35 pm
Has thanked: 17 times
Been thanked: 166 times

Re: Ideology

Postby bucfanclw » Wed Feb 22, 2017 12:03 pm

Gun wise I feel it is a person's right to own a gun, but for the safety of our citizens they should be able to safely operate it. That basically means no legal ownership for those with mental handicaps that would make them dangerous, and safety classes including a skills test (and some damn trigger discipline!) before obtaining a permit. If we require that to be able to drive I don't see why we can't require that to own a gun. I don't really see those as unreasonable requests but I've had a couple friends be offended at the very notion of any gun ownership regulation.
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 2101
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 112 times

Re: Ideology

Postby uscbucsfan » Wed Feb 22, 2017 12:38 pm

bucfanclw wrote:Gun wise I feel it is a person's right to own a gun, but for the safety of our citizens they should be able to safely operate it. That basically means no legal ownership for those with mental handicaps that would make them dangerous, and safety classes including a skills test (and some damn trigger discipline!) before obtaining a permit. If we require that to be able to drive I don't see why we can't require that to own a gun. I don't really see those as unreasonable requests but I've had a couple friends be offended at the very notion of any gun ownership regulation.


I don't believe that any sort of gun legislation will quell gun issues to any significant degree. Expanded background checks, wait times, etc. They won't do anything at all. It's completely fruitless, which is why so many gun owners are against it for fear of slippery slope. Their fears are, "well that didn't work, what next?".

In my opinion, which will likely not be popular among gun owners, the only real solution is to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Gun owners were getting sued so much in the 90s and early 2000s that this was enacted to provide gun manufacturers legal protections from actions caused by their products. The biggest catalyst for change in companies and products in the US is financials. This bill prevents gun manufacturers from self-regulation and safety enhancements, because they are protected from civil liabilities of their products. If gun companies were able to be sued for negligent practices and advertisement, this would eventually change their approach to the their products, creating safeguards to prevent stolen or illegal guns from being obtained through technology such as finger print scanner, gps chips, etc. Of course this would come at the cost of the consumer which would irritate gun owners, but some crazy number (between 89-93%) of gun crimes involve an illegal gun. This is something that we can use to the market to fix otherwise it is gun owners vs. anti-gun and neither have a valid solution with the culture we have built around guns.

Will this stop everything? Of course not...nothing in the realm of possibility will, but it would do a lot more than any sort of "gun control". I mean I guess stricter gun control will make some people feel better in a placebo sort of way, but do we really need government involvement for that purpose? And before the argument is presented about this not helping the billions of guns already in circulation...gun control, even bans on gun sales won't help that either.
Last edited by uscbucsfan on Wed Feb 22, 2017 12:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 1338
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 30 times
Been thanked: 43 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Buc2 » Wed Feb 22, 2017 12:39 pm

bucfanclw wrote:Gun wise I feel it is a person's right to own a gun, but for the safety of our citizens they should be able to safely operate it. That basically means no legal ownership for those with mental handicaps that would make them dangerous, and safety classes including a skills test (and some damn trigger discipline!) before obtaining a permit. If we require that to be able to drive I don't see why we can't require that to own a gun. I don't really see those as unreasonable requests but I've had a couple friends be offended at the very notion of any gun ownership regulation.

Right? Just look at what requiring tests has done to make driving safer.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 5783
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 666 times
Been thanked: 187 times

Re: Ideology

Postby beardmcdoug » Wed Feb 22, 2017 12:48 pm

uscbucsfan wrote:
bucfanclw wrote:Gun wise I feel it is a person's right to own a gun, but for the safety of our citizens they should be able to safely operate it. That basically means no legal ownership for those with mental handicaps that would make them dangerous, and safety classes including a skills test (and some damn trigger discipline!) before obtaining a permit. If we require that to be able to drive I don't see why we can't require that to own a gun. I don't really see those as unreasonable requests but I've had a couple friends be offended at the very notion of any gun ownership regulation.


I don't believe that any sort of gun legislation will quell gun issues to any significant degree. Expanded background checks, wait times, etc. They won't do anything at all. It's completely fruitless, which is why so many gun owners are against it for fear of slippery slope. Their fears are, "well that didn't work, what next?".

In my opinion, which will likely not be popular among gun owners, the only real solution is to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Gun owners were getting sued so much in the 90s and early 2000s that this was enacted to provide gun manufacturers legal protections from actions caused by their products. The biggest catalyst for change in companies and products in the US is financials. This bill prevents gun manufacturers from self-regulation and safety enhancements, because they are protection from civil liabilities of their products. If gun companies were able to be sued for negligent practices and advertisement, this would eventually change their approach to the their products, creating safeguards to prevent stolen or illegal guns from being obtained through technology such as finger print scanner, gps chips, etc. Of course this would come at the cost of the consumer which would irritate gun owners, but some crazy number (between 89-93%) of gun crimes involve an illegal gun. This is something that we can use to the market to fix otherwise it is gun owners vs. anti-gun and neither have a valid solution with the culture we have built around guns.

Will this stop everything? Of course not...nothing in the realm of possibility will, but it would do a lot more than any sort of "gun control". I mean I guess stricter gun control will make some people feel better in a placebo sort of way, but do we really need government involvement for that purpose? And before the argument is presented about this not helping the billions of guns already in circulation...gun control, even bans on gun sales won't help that either.


Interesting. Thanks for your take
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 649
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 55 times
Been thanked: 62 times

Re: Ideology

Postby uscbucsfan » Wed Feb 22, 2017 1:39 pm

beardmcdoug wrote:
uscbucsfan wrote:
I don't believe that any sort of gun legislation will quell gun issues to any significant degree. Expanded background checks, wait times, etc. They won't do anything at all. It's completely fruitless, which is why so many gun owners are against it for fear of slippery slope. Their fears are, "well that didn't work, what next?".

In my opinion, which will likely not be popular among gun owners, the only real solution is to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Gun owners were getting sued so much in the 90s and early 2000s that this was enacted to provide gun manufacturers legal protections from actions caused by their products. The biggest catalyst for change in companies and products in the US is financials. This bill prevents gun manufacturers from self-regulation and safety enhancements, because they are protection from civil liabilities of their products. If gun companies were able to be sued for negligent practices and advertisement, this would eventually change their approach to the their products, creating safeguards to prevent stolen or illegal guns from being obtained through technology such as finger print scanner, gps chips, etc. Of course this would come at the cost of the consumer which would irritate gun owners, but some crazy number (between 89-93%) of gun crimes involve an illegal gun. This is something that we can use to the market to fix otherwise it is gun owners vs. anti-gun and neither have a valid solution with the culture we have built around guns.

Will this stop everything? Of course not...nothing in the realm of possibility will, but it would do a lot more than any sort of "gun control". I mean I guess stricter gun control will make some people feel better in a placebo sort of way, but do we really need government involvement for that purpose? And before the argument is presented about this not helping the billions of guns already in circulation...gun control, even bans on gun sales won't help that either.


Interesting. Thanks for your take


If you recall, it's something that Hillary and Bernie disagreed about at first until Bernie changed his mind. It won't go down with the current regime.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 1338
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 30 times
Been thanked: 43 times

Re: Ideology

Postby mightyleemoon » Wed Feb 22, 2017 1:40 pm

uscbucsfan wrote:
bucfanclw wrote:Gun wise I feel it is a person's right to own a gun, but for the safety of our citizens they should be able to safely operate it. That basically means no legal ownership for those with mental handicaps that would make them dangerous, and safety classes including a skills test (and some damn trigger discipline!) before obtaining a permit. If we require that to be able to drive I don't see why we can't require that to own a gun. I don't really see those as unreasonable requests but I've had a couple friends be offended at the very notion of any gun ownership regulation.


I don't believe that any sort of gun legislation will quell gun issues to any significant degree. Expanded background checks, wait times, etc. They won't do anything at all. It's completely fruitless, which is why so many gun owners are against it for fear of slippery slope. Their fears are, "well that didn't work, what next?".

In my opinion, which will likely not be popular among gun owners, the only real solution is to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Gun owners were getting sued so much in the 90s and early 2000s that this was enacted to provide gun manufacturers legal protections from actions caused by their products. The biggest catalyst for change in companies and products in the US is financials. This bill prevents gun manufacturers from self-regulation and safety enhancements, because they are protected from civil liabilities of their products. If gun companies were able to be sued for negligent practices and advertisement, this would eventually change their approach to the their products, creating safeguards to prevent stolen or illegal guns from being obtained through technology such as finger print scanner, gps chips, etc. Of course this would come at the cost of the consumer which would irritate gun owners, but some crazy number (between 89-93%) of gun crimes involve an illegal gun. This is something that we can use to the market to fix otherwise it is gun owners vs. anti-gun and neither have a valid solution with the culture we have built around guns.

Will this stop everything? Of course not...nothing in the realm of possibility will, but it would do a lot more than any sort of "gun control". I mean I guess stricter gun control will make some people feel better in a placebo sort of way, but do we really need government involvement for that purpose? And before the argument is presented about this not helping the billions of guns already in circulation...gun control, even bans on gun sales won't help that either.


I think some regulation around the sale of firearms could absolutely help. Would it eliminate murder by gunshot? Absolutely not. Anyone looking for total abolishment is living in the land of hyperbole. But, if we had legislation that said, say, something like "No violent criminals may own a firearm. Everyone else can own whatever they want."...then I think that could do some good. Want a bazooka? Have at it. Want an M-167? It'll make for great front lawn security...it's in isle 12.

However, if you are ever convicted of any kind of violent crime (crime types are open for debate) then that right is eliminated. For good. If, after you're convicted, you're ever caught with a gun or are caught trying to purchase a gun? Up the river with you. For life for all I care. (we can make room for these people by getting stoners and most non-violent, petty offenders out of jail. Let's reserve jails only for people who harm others or steal enough money to build the Death Star)

Now, all firearm sales will have to go through a verification process. Our technology today is way too good to not put this in play. If you want to sell a firearm to your neighbor, then you'll be required to perform that background check. Sure, some people might want to go around the system when selling a gun. (Or lie to pass a background check) But, if they are caught skirting the system, they too will get a free ride up a river to a big house. Mandatory sentencing. And, if this sort of thing were enforced...very few non-criminals would ever attempt to sell something for fear of getting caught by an undercover agent. (I would want to flood the market with under cover agents looking for this sort of thing...but I'd probably get criticized for running a police state...but I don't care) Criminals would then be forced to deal with criminals in order to get a weapon. And, I don't have any stats on this, but my gut tells me a criminal is going to be just as likely (or nearly as likely) to get robbed trying to get a gun. But, who knows. Maybe there's some kind of honor system among criminals where they just aren't bad to one another.

Anyway, I think that simple system (Everyone can have a gun until they're a ****) would be enough to say "From a legislation perspective, we're doing our part." Couple that with actually addressing the underlying reasons why people point guns at other people's faces...and I think it would go a long way towards being better off as a society.
User avatar
mightyleemoon
 
Posts: 2734
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:35 pm
Has thanked: 17 times
Been thanked: 166 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:12 pm

It's not about protecting people from guns. It's about protecting guns from people. Particularly people who may use one to shoot up an elementary school.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 6471
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 64 times
Been thanked: 402 times

Re: Ideology

Postby Jonny » Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:23 pm

I love the second amendment for a bonus reason. When an ignorant leftist says Americans should have the right to healthcare, I bring up that as per our constitution we have the right to bear firearms. So you buy me an AR-15 and then we will discuss on implementing "right to healthcare" in the constitution.
Image
User avatar
Jonny
 
Posts: 610
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 6:01 pm
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 27 times

PreviousNext

post

Return to Politics and Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest