Current Events > Has your old friends changed politically?

(+) Yeah! (+)

winstonthewhite posted...

Thank you for this. We were given an example of a fairly normal sounding guy with no harmful views in the words of his best friend. And in this scenario he would now be pushed aside by his best friend if he were to vote the opposite way to him.

Everyone else in this topic in true American political talk fashion has gone to the extremes by rambling about nazis etc, but this is the kind of example of a person I was talking about.

Apathy towards discrimination victims isn't something to pat one's self on the back over though.

Brushing it off as respecting different opinion means to suggest that bigotry is just like having a preference of food, beverage, entertainment and so on. In that bigotry is basically a trivial concern, and thus the victims aren't worth such concern.

winstonthewhite posted...

Thank you for this. We were given an example of a fairly normal sounding guy with no harmful views in the words of his best friend. And in this scenario he would now be pushed aside by his best friend if he were to vote the opposite way to him.

Everyone else in this topic in true American political talk fashion has gone to the extremes by rambling about nazis etc, but this is the kind of example of a person I was talking about.

It is genuinely pathetic if anyone ends a relationship over voting with someone who has "stubborn conservative views but thankfully all the truly harmful ones are long gone"

"Rambling about nazis" are you actually trying to pretend the GOP is not currently the party of Nazis?

Why lie and pretend this isn't a thing that's happened, besides to sealion?

Also still trying to downplay it as voting differently.

This schtick is fucking ass and you should shut the fuck up and educate yourself.

Murphiroth posted...

"Rambling about nazis" are you actually trying to pretend the GOP is not currently the party of Nazis?

Why lie and pretend this isn't a thing that's happened, besides to sealion?

Also still trying to downplay it as voting differently.

This schtick is fucking ass and you should shut the fuck up and educate yourself.

This. And thing is, Republicans tend to pride themselves as the intellectual superiors of debate/politics.

So if the only ways to interpret their choices is willful malice or stupidity, they earn what view the others have against them.

I never knew any of my friend's political inclinations back home, and I don't have people I do things with over here.

A childhood friend has become a Trumper. He had a rough upbringing (mom tried to kill him), but was basically born on second base. Due to inheritance and crazy California real estate, he's on third base now, and wants to kick the ladder for everyone else.

winstonthewhite posted...

Predictable responses, but nothing about your friend trying to murder you though by their differing politics so thats progress for this board I think

See? The mask came off earlier in the thread. Who's alt?

MAGA movement has been predatory with those who were not very well off mentally from the beginning. A friend of mine went off the deep end and once his girlfriend left him for another woman he went even deeper down the rabbit hole with anti semitism, racism and anti LGBTQ.

At first it was just the economy then it became a downward spiral.

TMOG posted...

Jesus Christ, do you deliberately ignore all the context of a post, or is it an accidental thing?

I disagree with you completely, that is the thing you just have to accept. I do not agree with deserting friends and family who do not express extreme views, like your friend. There is no context for me to understand. You are all just weird overreacting Americans to me. The ones you annoyingly see everywhere on Twitter, and CE is flooded with you too.

Two turned into conservatives and borderline trumpets. Kinda ironic since they are undocumented.

winstonthewhite posted...

I disagree with you completely, that is the thing you just have to accept. I do not agree with deserting friends and family who do not express extreme views, like your friend. There is no context for me to understand. You are all just weird overreacting Americans to me. The ones you annoyingly see everywhere on Twitter, and CE is flooded with you too.

You're again conveniently ignoring the fact that the Republican party is now the party of extreme views.

Why? Is it your lack of backbone?

"No context for you to understand" nah you just don't want to understand.

Poll: Will Winston get kicked off CE before or after he reaches the "Your votes don't really matter so stay home" stage?

Wow Winston really put this topic through the ringer. Woof.

Whatever, useful to tag him now.

winstonthewhite posted...

They typically don't actively support bigotry though. They'll just vote for someone and you'll get an A brained person find out they voted "the wrong way" and overreact and start shouting about how their long time friend/family member is trying to murder them and needs to be pushed out of their life. While assuming that the candidate they like is going to fix all the problems in their life.

If you take an action that helps a bigot get in power, at best you don't see their bigotry as a problem and at worst agree with said bigotry. If you support a candidate that has actively said he wants to remove rights from certain minorities, at best you don't care that he wants to strip rights from them.

If you're in said minority who will be actively facing discrimination and the removal of rights, do you not understand why this act of support may be seen as a little more than a difference of opinion? Would you be so cordial to someone who is taking action to discriminate against you?

BDSMKane posted...

I dont mean to be rude, but Im trying not to open myself up so easily to people trolling, and those questions are incredibly broad. Maybe narrow down and I can answer?

I think anyone that makes broad statements of small/big government is good/bad to be unserious at best. There are some things such as national defense and civil rights that I absolutely think the Feds should be managing. Things like public transport and zoning should generally be up to the states or lower, although there should be a little bit of oversight. Things like reproductive rights should have no government interference at any level beyond "This must be up to the woman and her doctor".

What things do you think the feds should involve themselves in? For the issues you think they should keep out of, which ones do you think should be totally unregulated vs which ones should be regulated by the states? Obviously I don't expect an exhaustive list, but there must be some notable items.

Cemith posted...

Wow Winston really put this topic through the ringer. Woof.

Whatever, useful to tag him now.

Tag me as someone who doesnt abandon their friends over poitics please.

winstonthewhite posted...

Tag me as someone who doesnt abandon their friends over poitics please.

Still downplaying it as just politics and still lacking a spine to actually address the posts calling you out.

Typical enlightened centrist drivel.

It's like watching a dog try to eat a doorknob.

winstonthewhite posted...

People calling me out are just using extreme types of people who arent anywhere near a majority and acting like they are, whereas Ive always been taling about regular guys like that guys friend for eg. So there isnt anything to really address when people are going all typical extreme American with their responses rather than focusing on what Ive been talking about all along. But its to be expected on the board that is essentially what politics on Twitter is like

They're not extreme types, they're the norm and are in fact the majority of the GOP at this point in time. This has been explained to you multiple times and you refuse to listen.

You don't even fuckin' live here and you have the gall to pretend you know what you're talking about.

Shut the fuck up.

winstonthewhite posted...

Its been expalined by overly dramatic Americans who probably hate follow accounts on Twitter to get themselves riled up, so forgive me for not listening to you in a serious way

I am none of those things (other than American but not dramatic), and I would have a seriously difficult time staying friends with someone who supports a party that is actively trying to destroy many of my other friends. And once again, the LGBTQ community includes my wife.

Best friend in highschool apparently went full blown QAnon. Makes me wonder if things would have been different if I stayed in touch.

I wonder if the people who buy these accounts to shitpost on CE feel like they get their money's worth before they get banned

winstonthewhite posted...

Its been expalined by overly dramatic Americans who probably hate follow accounts on Twitter to get themselves riled up, so forgive me for not listening to you in a serious way

It's very nice of you to further confirm that you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about and should not be taken seriously.

What a joke.

I know one guy who turned super conservative. He is in the LGBT community and relies on government benefits, yet he somehow thinks the republicans are going to fix things. It makes no sense to me, but I have established that I dont want to discuss politics and I think hes moving back towards the center.

I know a few people who were mildly conservative who have become mildly liberal because they honestly just want their rights. College age people are choosing to study at universities in blue states because they dont want to be harassed over marijuana, birth control, or porn.

@winstonthewhite

I disagree with you completely, that is the thing you just have to accept. I do not agree with deserting friends and family who do not express extreme views, like your friend. There is no context for me to understand. You are all just weird overreacting Americans to me. The ones you annoyingly see everywhere on Twitter, and CE is flooded with you too.

So you think bigotry is no more serious than disliking certain shows, movies, books, video games, food, beverages or so on?

So you don't live in America.

You are ignorant to how the parties are in America.

Yet you not only have strong opinions regarding us and how we view our own parties, but you're very pointedly assuming any American in this topic trying to correct you is "Overly dramatic".

Sounds like you've made up your mind about something that you're uneducated about, and plugging your ears to anyone contradicting you.

Huh. I thought that was our stereotype.

winstonthewhite posted...

Tag me as someone who doesnt abandon their friends over poitics please.

Actually I think I'll tag you as someone that's complicit in the apathy and persecution of my friends and family who are and will continuously be explicitly targeted by the alt right for just being who they are.

But that's a mouthful so I'll probably just go with something simpler.

The fact that you do not understand, or choose not to understand, the threat the alt right proudly embraces themselves as tells me all I'd ever need to know.

It's not "just politics" because even politics is not "just politics" it is people's LIVES. Living, breathing human beings are being persecuted by these monsters and you want to bloviate about your supposed moral high ground because you proudly rub shoulders with bigots?

You should be ashamed.

Fluttershy posted...

you need to do the hard thing and actually engage and discuss with them.

You can only engage with someone who's willing to engage back in good faith.

This fellow was responding to a friend who posted a political cartoon of Lady Justice and Lady Liberty holding a ladder for Kamala and telling Trump he can go away.

This guy will never have a good faith discussion. He is beyond reaching, and there is no point engaging with closed minds like his. (I fear for whatever he taught his students, and wonder why his teaching certificate wasn't ever revoked...)

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/9/9647ead0.jpg

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/a/a94f289c.jpg

RasterGraphic posted...

There is very little difference between a true leftist and a true libertarian.

Going to put a pin in this and come back to see what kind of discussion you're led through over the next hundred posts...

reincarnator07 posted...

That kinda is what's happening, that's the problem. A vote for the GOP at this point requires supporting the stripping of rights from women, non Christians and several racial minorities, not to mention the explicit persecution of the LGBT community.

Ding ding.

A vote for Republicans at this point is a vote for women bleeding to death in their cars outside hospitals and dead trans kids beaten near to death by their classmates while the school watches. Or all the way to death depending on which faculty sees the assault first.

Corbenik posted...

too many bros did nothing but watch online streams

Kinda. YouTube fed people a direct pipeline to radicalized right thought that's led to political violence and backwards policy positions that have harmed the environment and minorities to start, and gotten worse from there.

A shame YouTube can't be held responsible for pushing content like that on people.

Corbenik posted...

Covid was a mistake

But I'd really love to hear you expand on whatever this means.

DnDer posted...

But I'd really love to hear you expand on whatever this means.

I believe they're just saying lockdown lead to a lot of idiotic conspiracy theories and people stewing in them for a couple of months.

reincarnator07 posted...

I think anyone that makes broad statements of small/big government is good/bad to be unserious at best.

Really? Its a fairly commonly recognized aspect of any political scale. The left/right x axis mentality I believe is largely an American concept since were essentially forced into a two party system. So choosing between parties that are at very similar points on the x axis but have differences on the y axis isnt a reality we face.

There are some things such as national defense and civil rights that I absolutely think the Feds should be managing.

I think the Amendment system should ideally cover basic civil rights. It doesnt do it effectively, but that would be my ideal. As for national defense, I do believe it should be directed by the federal government, but Im not sure how much it should be funded or organized by the federal government. Thats an issue where I waver on a broad spectrum between thoughts, because I firmly believe our current approach is flawed, but Im not sure if a 50 state military cooperative would work well either.

Things like public transport and zoning should generally be up to the states or lower, although there should be a little bit of oversight.

Agreed, thats basically how we operate currently.

Things like reproductive rights should have no government interference at any level beyond "This must be up to the woman and her doctor".

Also agreed.

Im just waking up, so my mind isnt fully up to the rest of your post yet. But since you offered up examples in the first part, it was easy enough for me to tell you how I felt using the same examples. I might come back to the rest later if I remember.

winstonthewhite posted...

I do not agree with deserting friends and family who do not express extreme views, like your friend.

People have dragged you this entire topic over your opinions.

This right here? Shows why and how you're deliberately provoking that response and trolling.

In 2024, voting for Trump and supporting the republican party platforms is an extreme and extremist view to express. The man is going to use the military to put undesirables in train cars and send them to detention camps. Now, can you remember any historical examples at all of a government having the military put people on trains and sending them to camps?

The only part of the policy Trump hasn't offered is saying he'd build "showers" for the immigrants.

That's just the biggest example he's currently campaigning on.

Voting for Trump and the Republicans is voting for extremism. If someone is willfully supporting that platform in 2024, there should be zero moral questions regarding cutting them out of your life. Suggesting otherwise is just blatant trolling at this point.

DrizztLink posted...

I believe they're just saying lockdown lead to a lot of idiotic conspiracy theories and people stewing in them for a couple of months.

Kind of makes sense. I gave him a very right-wing tag some time ago with a question mark on the end. Have to dig out my screenshots to remember why.

So, saying, "My friend follows this leftist YouTube personality," and follow it up with something that sounds vaguely anti-covid...

Left me guessing and wanting clarification.

reincarnator07 posted...

What things do you think the feds should involve themselves in? For the issues you think they should keep out of, which ones do you think should be totally unregulated vs which ones should be regulated by the states? Obviously I don't expect an exhaustive list, but there must be some notable items.

So I was thinking about agencies, and that might be a good place to go.

I think the FBI for example is a useful agency in its modern iteration, as it compiles information from localities and maintains databases for use by all states. The CIA on the other hand is a bit more sketchy, as its primarily an intelligence agency used for clandestine or foreign operations.

USDA and FDA are other useful organizations for their regulations on food and medicine. But the FDA has frequently been riddled by corruption and bias, and Im not sure how to remedy that.

Ive heard a comparison before about the US being similar to the EU, and the states to the countries. It makes some sense regarding landmass and population, but Im not sure if 50 states (plus territories) is too many to work under that system. Plus, I know incredibly little about the EU, so there could be huge flaws in that comparison.

Generally speaking though, I believe the people should be empowered and responsible for how their localities progress. I believe government bodies would exist better as informative resources to better educate communities and individuals in the choices they make. But thats idealistic because most people are ignorant, frequently willfully so. But most political goals are idealism.

... Did Winston get something like 10+ moderations without any repercussions or did they really just go through and delete 10+ of their posts?

BDSMKane posted...

Really? Its a fairly commonly recognized aspect of any political scale. The left/right x axis mentality I believe is largely an American concept since were essentially forced into a two party system. So choosing between parties that are at very similar points on the x axis but have differences on the y axis isnt a reality we face.

IMO it's as flawed as defining an entire platform as left or right wing. One's political views are almost never so neat.

I think the Amendment system should ideally cover basic civil rights. It doesnt do it effectively, but that would be my ideal. As for national defense, I do believe it should be directed by the federal government, but Im not sure how much it should be funded or organized by the federal government. Thats an issue where I waver on a broad spectrum between thoughts, because I firmly believe our current approach is flawed, but Im not sure if a 50 state military cooperative would work well either.

The problem with amendments is they require a government (and country!) willing to compromise and reach across the aisle. Democrats (mostly) are willing to move a bit, but the GOP absolutely refuses to work with Democrats even on policies they claim to agree with. On top of that, it's very difficult to adjust down the line due to the near reverence that Americans have for the constitution. While the Founding Fathers envisaged this evolving document, it absolutely didn't turn out that way.

BDSMKane posted...

Ive heard a comparison before about the US being similar to the EU, and the states to the countries. It makes some sense regarding landmass and population, but Im not sure if 50 states (plus territories) is too many to work under that system. Plus, I know incredibly little about the EU, so there could be huge flaws in that comparison.

It's not a bad comparison. Some of the good faith disagreement at Brexit was on the EU becoming too much like the US federal government and overstepping their bounds. There are a lot more differences between EU nations than US states though, which is why I don't think the US approach would work over in the EU.

Generally speaking though, I believe the people should be empowered and responsible for how their localities progress. I believe government bodies would exist better as informative resources to better educate communities and individuals in the choices they make. But thats idealistic because most people are ignorant, frequently willfully so. But most political goals are idealism.

I generally agree with this, but the issue is sometimes you need to be a bit firmer. A great example is US zoning and urban design. Without some better oversight, you end up with the terrible low density zoning urban sprawl everywhere. I appreciate that the greater good is very subjective

@reincarnator07
I know that we cant get to what I would want from where were at. We would need to tear down and rebuild, because our system is so horrendously flawed and bloated. But I have a deep disdain for our political reality, and I have to believe the people will eventually have the control and the chance to make something better. It just may not happen in my lifetime.

But I also dont really try to apply my ideals to modern politics either. Some things can be changed for the better, but others were stuck with. Neither of the two prominent parties is small government, for example, so thats irrelevant to reality. Only one of the two runs on a platform of making basic rights for all fundamental policy.

Other than the usual big government corruption, my only routine flaw with Democrat politicians is they dont go far enough where it matters, and they want to go too far on firearms (Im against any further firearm bans). However, the modern Republican politicians have the same big government corruption, and have made a platform of denying basic rights to people, so theyre unelectable in my eyes.

BDSMKane posted...

@reincarnator07
I know that we cant get to what I would want from where were at. We would need to tear down and rebuild, because our system is so horrendously flawed and bloated. But I have a deep disdain for our political reality, and I have to believe the people will eventually have the control and the chance to make something better. It just may not happen in my lifetime.

But I also dont really try to apply my ideals to modern politics either. Some things can be changed for the better, but others were stuck with. Neither of the two prominent parties is small government, for example, so thats irrelevant to reality. Only one of the two runs on a platform of making basic rights for all fundamental policy.

I agree that neither party is the party of small government, but I don't think they have no differences here. I think you're also right that the 2 party system basically dooms nearly any attempt at systemic change.

Other than the usual big government corruption, my only routine flaw with Democrat politicians is they dont go far enough where it matters, and they want to go too far on firearms (Im against any further firearm bans). However, the modern Republican politicians have the same big government corruption, and have made a platform of denying basic rights to people, so theyre unelectable in my eyes.

I think saying they have the same big government corruption is imprecise to the point of being wrong. They have quite different goals with what they'd use federal power for. In general, the GOP has been trying to strip rights and permissions while the Dems have overall been far more permissive. They are both the party of big businesses, but the GOP is far more willing to crush the little guy in this pursuit.

I do agree that the Dems often don't go far enough, but I don't think they're campaigning on gun bans specifically. Beto tried that (in Texas of all places >_>) and crashed and burned because of it. I'm not aware of any politicians or candidates at this point running on anything more than Australian style gun control at most, and I think they fall short of this too.

reincarnator07 posted...

I agree that neither party is the party of small government, but I don't think they have no differences here. I think you're also right that the 2 party system basically dooms nearly any attempt at systemic change.

Of course not, I even pointed out a big one in that section; basic rights.

I think saying they have the same big government corruption is imprecise to the point of being wrong. They have quite different goals with what they'd use federal power for. In general, the GOP has been trying to strip rights and permissions while the Dems have overall been far more permissive. They are both the party of big businesses, but the GOP is far more willing to crush the little guy in this pursuit.

I do agree that the Dems often don't go far enough, but I don't think they're campaigning on gun bans specifically. Beto tried that (in Texas of all places >_>) and crashed and burned because of it. I'm not aware of any politicians or candidates at this point running on anything more than Australian style gun control at most, and I think they fall short of this too.

Damn. See, thats an example of why Im hesitant to reply to things.

Youre right, they dont have the same corruption issues, but they both have corruption issues. I didnt mean same as in identical, I meant it as in they also have corruption issues. It was a poor word choice that gave a completely improper impression of what I was trying to say. I apologize for that, and it was not intentional.

Anyway, as for the firearm thing, an assault weapons ban is one of the issues thats been floated and that needs to be clarified by Harris.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/gun-violence-top-issues-dnc-platform/story?id=112955833

According to the platform, the party also wants a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines

Dont think so, never heard much political talk with friends and its stayed the same.

BDSMKane posted...

Of course not, I even pointed out a big one in that section; basic rights.

Apologies, I didn't mean you specifically thought both sides were the same here.

Damn. See, thats an example of why Im hesitant to reply to things.

Youre right, they dont have the same corruption issues, but they both have corruption issues. I didnt mean same as in identical, I meant it as in they also have corruption issues. It was a poor word choice that gave a completely improper impression of what I was trying to say. I apologize for that, and it was not intentional.

No worries, but the unsaid part of "they both have corruption issues" is often "and therefore they're both the same", as well as often being the thing taken away from such a statement even if it's not the original intention, as has been demonstrated here by myself. It's an issue with generalisations.

Anyway, as for the firearm thing, an assault weapons ban is one of the issues thats been floated and that needs to be clarified by Harris.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/gun-violence-top-issues-dnc-platform/story?id=112955833

Fair enough, I actually agree with you that they need to clarify what they mean here. I would consider myself strongly anti gun, but I wouldn't campaign on such a strong stance in the USA. IIRC the definition during the previous was a semi automatic rifle with detachable magazines and at least 2 of: pistol grip, grenade launcher, bayonet attachment, flash suppressor or a threaded barrel, or a folding/telescoping stock. I don't personally have an issue with that definition, but I also question how much effect such a ban would have considering it's not difficult to build an AR-15 that would get around this definition.

A lot of other commonly floated measures like closing the private sales loophole and waiting periods would imo be more effective while also being easier to pass, since they'd actually have very little effect on safe gun owners.

reincarnator07 posted...

Apologies, I didn't mean you specifically thought both sides were the same here.

No worries, but the unsaid part of "they both have corruption issues" is often "and therefore they're both the same", as well as often being the thing taken away from such a statement even if it's not the original intention, as has been demonstrated here by myself. It's an issue with generalisations.

All good, thank you for the amicable reply.

Fair enough, I actually agree with you that they need to clarify what they mean here. I would consider myself strongly anti gun, but I wouldn't campaign on such a strong stance in the USA. IIRC the definition during the previous was a semi automatic rifle with detachable magazines and at least 2 of: pistol grip, grenade launcher, bayonet attachment, flash suppressor or a threaded barrel, or a folding/telescoping stock.

There are three major issues with that definition. The first is that grenade launcher is thrown in as basically a scary strawman, since grenade launchers are already regulated under existing laws. Second is that every semiautomatic rifle has detachable magazines unless specifically made or modified to get around laws; so its making it sound like its describing something specific when its basically describing everything. Third is that the standard semiautomatic rifle is sold with a threaded barrel, and on that barrel is most commonly a flash suppressor. So while the whole description makes it sound like theyre specifically narrowing down the type of rifle and getting rid of the scariest item, theyre basically saying all semiautomatics and portraying them as actually being capable of having grenade launchers without going through existing laws.

Theres also a problem I think with how absurd those criteria are. Ill grudgingly give them pistol grip, because I acknowledge that its easier for an amateur to pick up and use. But the only benefit to telescoping stocks is so the weapon can properly fit the length of pull of most shooters. They provide no tactical or dangerous benefit. Flash suppressors are a meme in the firearms community, because some states actually really care about them, and no one can figure out why. Their purpose is to reduce or completely mitigate the possibility of a what literally looks like a small fireball when firing. They protect eyesight and reduce general safety hazards. They also do literally nothing to mitigate sound, so its not like someone can snipe with one and not be found. Speaking ofliteral suppressors are legal with a tax stamp, which suppress sound and flash. Threads? Used for a variety of muzzle devices. Usually a brake or compensator is ideal unless you have the money for a suppressor. Flash suppressors and linear compensators are less effective but still exist. But again, only the pistol grip is really making a tactical difference unless you get a real suppressor, but those require a full ATF+FBI+local CLEO approval and an extra $200 on top of the normally high price.

Slightly off topic but still relevant, bayonets and bayonet lugs are also already regulated. I dont know why, and Ive met very few people concerned about them. But they are for some reason, so they fit into the grenade launcher category.

I don't personally have an issue with that definition, but I also question how much effect such a ban would have considering it's not difficult to build an AR-15 that would get around this definition.

Technically true, but it would require a lot of people changing out their barrels and stocks. The A1 style fixed stock has long since been replaced by adjustable stocks because they provide the proper length of pull for most shooters. Also, like I said, barrels are usually threaded and most commonly have flash suppressors. A lot of people will change out the flash suppressor for something more effective, but the barrel is still threaded and the grip is still a pistol style.

A lot of other commonly floated measures like closing the private sales loophole and waiting periods would imo be more effective while also being easier to pass, since they'd actually have very little effect on safe gun owners.

Private sales ending I wouldnt mind so much if dealers had to run the background check paid for by taxes instead of the individual. The most common private gun transfers are gifts and inheritance, with shady activities being a distant third. But if my Mother died for example, I would have to cough up hundreds just to inherit her firearms if background checks are required on all firearm transfers.

I dont think waiting periods will have as big of an impact as people hope. Even in the most lax state, unless you have a carry license (meaning enhanced background check) or youre LEO, buying a firearm still typically takes at least an hour for the whole shopping process. Considering the fact thats enough time for someone to calm or change their mind, not to mention travel time, it seems like the impulse buy to hurt people is already unlikely. If I get pissed off, drive to the store, buy a gun, and drive backits reasonable to say 2+ hours have passed. If my mind hasnt changed in 2 hours, it wont change in 2 weeks. Its a harmless change so Im not really against it, I just dont think it will help.

I do think raising the minimum age to buy or use semiautomatics to 25 would help though. Pass that law with a 7 year addition that its illegal for anyone under 25 to use them (so current 18 year olds arent arrested). Then no one under 25 should be able to get or use them, and thats a significant portion of all murders committed by semiautomatics.

Its also worth noting that 80%+ of all homicides by firearm use handgunsI think 87%or 83. Its high, better to check yourself, my memory isnt the best these days. Rifles arent even close to the biggest issue, theyre just the most high profile in big mass shootings, so theyre the focus.

ellis123 posted...

... Did Winston get something like 10+ moderations without any repercussions or did they really just go through and delete 10+ of their posts?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-_hJthMgtM

BDSMKane posted...

There are three major issues with that definition. The first is that grenade launcher is thrown in as basically a scary strawman, since grenade launchers are already regulated under existing laws. Second is that every semiautomatic rifle has detachable magazines unless specifically made or modified to get around laws; so its making it sound like its describing something specific when its basically describing everything. Third is that the standard semiautomatic rifle is sold with a threaded barrel, and on that barrel is most commonly a flash suppressor. So while the whole description makes it sound like theyre specifically narrowing down the type of rifle and getting rid of the scariest item, theyre basically saying all semiautomatics and portraying them as actually being capable of having grenade launchers without going through existing laws.

Yeah, I'd actually agree with the definition being a bit silly mostly for the reasons you've stated. The only correction I'd add is that there are semi auto rifles without detachable magazines, albeit they're generally older weapons like an SKS or something in that vein. I'm not aware of there being many shootings involving such weapons, but I thought it should be mentioned.

Theres also a problem I think with how absurd those criteria are. Ill grudgingly give them pistol grip, because I acknowledge that its easier for an amateur to pick up and use. But the only benefit to telescoping stocks is so the weapon can properly fit the length of pull of most shooters. They provide no tactical or dangerous benefit. Flash suppressors are a meme in the firearms community, because some states actually really care about them, and no one can figure out why. Their purpose is to reduce or completely mitigate the possibility of a what literally looks like a small fireball when firing. They protect eyesight and reduce general safety hazards. They also do literally nothing to mitigate sound, so its not like someone can snipe with one and not be found. Speaking ofliteral suppressors are legal with a tax stamp, which suppress sound and flash. Threads? Used for a variety of muzzle devices. Usually a brake or compensator is ideal unless you have the money for a suppressor. Flash suppressors and linear compensators are less effective but still exist. But again, only the pistol grip is really making a tactical difference unless you get a real suppressor, but those require a full ATF+FBI+local CLEO approval and an extra $200 on top of the normally high price.

I'm only recalling what the requirements are. I don't recall why some of the requirements are the way they are. Even suppressors can only do so much, you're not gonna be doing John Wick style fights in public.

Private sales ending I wouldnt mind so much if dealers had to run the background check paid for by taxes instead of the individual. The most common private gun transfers are gifts and inheritance, with shady activities being a distant third. But if my Mother died for example, I would have to cough up hundreds just to inherit her firearms if background checks are required on all firearm transfers.

That's a reasonable compromise. If the goal is to rein in the proliferation of guns while still allowing the public at large to own them, it shouldn't place an unreasonable burden on said gun owners.

I dont think waiting periods will have as big of an impact as people hope. Even in the most lax state, unless you have a carry license (meaning enhanced background check) or youre LEO, buying a firearm still typically takes at least an hour for the whole shopping process. Considering the fact thats enough time for someone to calm or change their mind, not to mention travel time, it seems like the impulse buy to hurt people is already unlikely. If I get pissed off, drive to the store, buy a gun, and drive backits reasonable to say 2+ hours have passed. If my mind hasnt changed in 2 hours, it wont change in 2 weeks. Its a harmless change so Im not really against it, I just dont think it will help.

That's not there to stop people shooting others, but to stop them shooting themselves. Unaliving one's self is usually a snap decision, forcing someone to wait enough time to cool off has been shown to reduce self harm rates. Considering the majority of gun violence is inflicted upon the user, this would help a lot.

Its also worth noting that 80%+ of all homicides by firearm use handgunsI think 87%or 83. Its high, better to check yourself, my memory isnt the best these days. Rifles arent even close to the biggest issue, theyre just the most high profile in big mass shootings, so theyre the focus.

This has been very effective in places like Canada and the UK. The majority of homicides aren't mass shootings, they're isolated incidents. However, I'm certain I remember SCOTUS striking down a handgun ban fairly recently, so I don't know if it's feasible to focus on handguns.

Cemith posted...

Actually I think I'll tag you as someone that's complicit in the apathy and persecution of my friends and family who are and will continuously be explicitly targeted by the alt right for just being who they are.

Yep and additionally, people going this route have only themselves to blame for blowback.

If you care about being praised, you show compassion and concern for others.

If you want to keep to yourself, then you need to make peace with any possible backlash you will receive.

Problem is the majority of people playing apathy is demanding the best of both choices. Demonstrated especially when they claim they don't engage in discriminate and thus don't deserve to be preached at.

reincarnator07 posted...

Yeah, I'd actually agree with the definition being a bit silly mostly for the reasons you've stated. The only correction I'd add is that there are semi auto rifles without detachable magazines, albeit they're generally older weapons like an SKS or something in that vein. I'm not aware of there being many shootings involving such weapons, but I thought it should be mentioned.

Thank you! Im actually only a bit knowledgeable on the original style firearms and more modern. So the details of those older style ones escape me, and theyre always interesting to hear.

I'm only recalling what the requirements are. I don't recall why some of the requirements are the way they are. Even suppressors can only do so much, you're not gonna be doing John Wick style fights in public.

While a really cool movie scene; yeah, the Hollywood suppressor is also a fairly infamous meme.

That's a reasonable compromise. If the goal is to rein in the proliferation of guns while still allowing the public at large to own them, it shouldn't place an unreasonable burden on said gun owners.

I try to aim for such things, and Im glad we can agree.

That's not there to stop people shooting others, but to stop them shooting themselves. Unaliving one's self is usually a snap decision, forcing someone to wait enough time to cool off has been shown to reduce self harm rates. Considering the majority of gun violence is inflicted upon the user, this would help a lot.

Thatis going to have to be an agree to disagree issue, I think. Until the US adopts something like Canadian MAID, at least.

This has been very effective in places like Canada and the UK. The majority of homicides aren't mass shootings, they're isolated incidents. However, I'm certain I remember SCOTUS striking down a handgun ban fairly recently, so I don't know if it's feasible to focus on handguns.

Unfortunately, youre probably correct. Its easier to rally the troops behind a big scary black rifle ban than a ban on that thing you see every cop carrying and might even have in case of home invasion. But thats an issue of optics versus reality, and goes back to why I simply cant support any form of further weapons ban.

Many talk about common sense gun control ignoring (or unaware) that weve actually passed a lot of gun control laws. Machine guns used to be fairly common and legal for any person to own. Even in my life, my first few years of gun store experiences saw machine guns on the wallgranted, the price of a cheap car back then. Now theyre much more rare, and the price of a mid range car or higher. But they were grandfathered in after the machine gun ban, requiring the extra steps similar to suppressors to purchase. Oddly only a $5 tax stamp instead of $200 though; inflation.

Anyway, this has been a nice conversation, Im glad you followed up despite my hesitation.

Antiyonder posted...

Problem is the majority of people playing apathy is demanding the best of both choices. Demonstrated especially when they claim they don't engage in discriminate and thus don't deserve to be preached at.

I.e., they want praise for publicly announcing they are fence-sitting assholes. As if.

BDSMKane posted...

Thank you! Im actually only a bit knowledgeable on the original style firearms and more modern. So the details of those older style ones escape me, and theyre always interesting to hear.

Honestly, the idea of an assault rifle is still pretty new. What we think of as an assault rifle only really emerged at the end of WW2. That's still in living memory! Even after that, it still took some years before the AK and AR15 platforms proliferated and even longer before they entered the civilian market. Rifles with integral magazines aren't exactly common today, something with detachable magazines is way quicker to reload while a shotgun gives you far more versatility, but they still exist.

BDSMKane posted...

Thatis going to have to be an agree to disagree issue, I think. Until the US adopts something like Canadian MAID, at least.

With respect, this one isn't my opinion. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36519906/. It's certainly not a magic bullet (heh) for this issue, but it's a step in the right direction. Obviously it's vital to tackle why people are unaliving themselves.

Unfortunately, youre probably correct. Its easier to rally the troops behind a big scary black rifle ban than a ban on that thing you see every cop carrying and might even have in case of home invasion. But thats an issue of optics versus reality, and goes back to why I simply cant support any form of further weapons ban.

There's a little bit of optics, but I think it's also not worth the political capital to only go half way when the courts are gonna strike it down anyway.

Many talk about common sense gun control ignoring (or unaware) that weve actually passed a lot of gun control laws. Machine guns used to be fairly common and legal for any person to own. Even in my life, my first few years of gun store experiences saw machine guns on the wallgranted, the price of a cheap car back then. Now theyre much more rare, and the price of a mid range car or higher. But they were grandfathered in after the machine gun ban, requiring the extra steps similar to suppressors to purchase. Oddly only a $5 tax stamp instead of $200 though; inflation.

Do you know what sort of gun control measures were implemented in Australia after the Port Arthur massacre? I don't mean that as an attack, but they were quite mild but quite effective, especially in a country so large with some good justifications for private weapons.

Anyway, this has been a nice conversation, Im glad you followed up despite my hesitation.

I can't convince anyone if I don't try! On top of that, I think your reluctance was based on a misinterpretation of what I said, which means the solution was for me to be more clear.

Nah, Ive pretty discerning with my long time friends.

Acquaintances, not so lucky.