Discussion: The DEMOCRATIC P - Part 3

Doomsday said:
You're right, it doesn't make him wrong. When he and people like him say that the NRA is a terrorist organization, that we should ban semi-automatic weapons and that Marco Rubio is the same as the school shooter, that's what makes them wrong.
Click to expand...

I don't think he ever said that Marco Rubio is the same as the shooter. He might say something like Marco Rubio's toothless stance on gun regulation makes these shooters possible, and that's true. It's also true that we should ban semi-automatic weapons. And NRA's definition is debatable... at very best, they're enabling thousands of gun deaths a year. Call them what you will for that.... crime profiteers? Instigators? Provocateurs?

Doomsday said:
But that's the beautiful thing, you can educate yourself. Anyone wishing to vote could and should be able to pass a simple civics test and if they can't they can educate themselves so they can. See how amazing it is??
Click to expand...

Hmm, okay... well you go tell the single mother of 2 that she has to take time off of work, because now on top of feeding her children and working hard for their future every day.. she has to self study for an exam in order for her congressmen or congresswomen to listen to her. Just because someone is uneducated, doesn't mean their views don't matter. The opposite is true.. we've failed her and we need to hear what she has to say.

Don't blame her for our mistakes to educate her, or to support her children, etc. She's just trying to get by, and she's an American born citizen by right - she deserves a vote.
The same is true for Trump supporters by the way. Yeah, I think they are misinformed... but they are vocalizing an anger that the world is leaving them behind. And they're right about that... they're just trying to tell us how they feel, because they don't think anyone is listening. They may be wrong about their policy views, but it's not their fault that they're angry after the world left them behind... its our fault for not appreciating how worried they are up until now. The Democrats should have paid more attention to the rust belt, policy wise and campaign wise. The answer isn't to listen to them less, it's to listen to them more.
 
MaceB said:
I don't think he ever said that Marco Rubio is the same as the shooter. He might say something like Marco Rubio's toothless stance on gun regulation makes these shooters possible, and that's true.
Click to expand...

It was said at the town hall where he was speaking. That's why I was referring to David Hogg and people like him who try to say provocative things which only turns people in the other direction. Democrats are in a no-win situation when it comes to gun laws. They say 'We don't want to ban guns, we love the second amendment' only everybody knows that's not true. You said below that you think we should ban semi-automatic weapons. That's why whenever people talk about gun regulations two things happen; one is that gun sales skyrocket, well done, the second is that Republican approval ratings go up and Democrat approval ratings go down.

Let me put it to you this way. Are you pro-choice? Why are so many people up in arms anytime any legislation comes along that might limit abortions or make them harder to obtain? Because pro-choice people know the end game is banning all abortions. That's why even laws that make sense like having a minor notify their parents is met with pushback from the pro-choice movement. The same goes with guns. Nobody believes that Democrats DON'T want to repeal the second amendment.

MaceB said:
It's also true that we should ban semi-automatic weapons.
Click to expand...

I don't think you know what a semi-automatic weapon is, otherwise you wouldn't think we should ban them.

MaceB said:
at very best, they're enabling thousands of gun deaths a year.
Click to expand...

How? If we've learned anything from this recent rash of shootings it's that the shooters had their guns in spite of the laws, not due to the lack of them.
 
I'll first say that there is a gun thread, and if you want to continue this conversation over there, I'd be happy to.

Doomsday said:
It was said at the town hall where he was speaking. That's why I was referring to David Hogg and people like him who try to say provocative things which only turns people in the other direction.
Click to expand...
Like I said, I doubt that he actually said that Marco Rubio was as bad as the killer himself, only that he enabled him. But also, that's correct. That's a 100% correct thing to believe... Marco Rubio does have blood on his hands, and we have to say that because it's the right thing to do. He takes money from the gun lobby and refuses to support gun legislation because of it. That's faire game to mention.

Doomsday said:
Democrats are in a no-win situation when it comes to gun laws. They say 'We don't want to ban guns, we love the second amendment' only everybody knows that's not true. You said below that you think we should ban semi-automatic weapons. That's why whenever people talk about gun regulations two things happen; one is that gun sales skyrocket, well done, the second is that Republican approval ratings go up and Democrat approval ratings go down.
Click to expand...

First, I'd argue that some things are worth the fight... and our absurd guns laws are something that Democrats should be willing to take a bruising over. It's worth it.
Second, this will not be a battle won over night, but not saying anything about these absurdly dangerous and unnecessary weapons is dereliction of duty, IMO. I'd argue that congressmen and congresswomen are duty bound to fight for stronger gun regulations at this point. And we take baby steps in the right direction.

Doomsday said:
Let me put it to you this way. Are you pro-choice? Why are so many people up in arms anytime any legislation comes along that might limit abortions or make them harder to obtain? Because pro-choice people know the end game is banning all abortions. That's why even laws that make sense like having a minor notify their parents is met with pushback from the pro-choice movement. The same goes with guns. Nobody believes that Democrats DON'T want to repeal the second amendment.
Click to expand...
I understand the emotional resonance that that this issue has for ammophiles across the country; your comparison is apt in that way. Yes, the fight is hard... but we have military grade weapons for sale to the general public. That's an absurd idea in this day and age. I am more than willing to keep the 2nd amendment if the Courts would rule that the first portion of the amendment, "a well regulated militia" actually assumes a reasonable degree of gun control. You don't have bazookas. You can't buy a armor piercing rounds. There are already limits on the 2nd amendment, and the 1st amendment. It's good that our beliefs evolve as our society changes.


Doomsday said:
I don't think you know what a semi-automatic weapon is, otherwise you wouldn't think we should ban them.
Click to expand...

We can continue this more in the gun thread if you want to debate about the definition. I'm aware that it's a wide category unfortunately. I'll tell you that I'm more inclined to take out the questionable ones than not. You don't need a round per second to hunt elk. And to protect your home, such a thing is actually impractical because it's more likely to have civilian casualties. The AR-15 was designed and suited for warfare combat; that's its only use. Civilians simply do not need them, regardless of how cool they are to shoot.


Doomsday said:
How? If we've learned anything from this recent rash of shootings it's that the shooters had their guns in spite of the laws, not due to the lack of them.
Click to expand...

Because we shouldn't make the perfect the enemy of the good. The idea that some people are going to be able to get these terrible weapons in no way contradicts the fact that taking them away DOES reduce gun violence. The semiautomatic weapons ban did it before, it's done it in other countries.. the data is in. You're making a logical fallacy here, in that because we can't solve all the mass shootings, we shouldn't create any laws that make it harder to do so. That's flawed logic.
The NRA shares this false belief that you're espousing. Because we can't solve 100% of the problem, we should allow everyone to have carte blanch. The only thing that solves a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun. That belief is not only misguided... but it kills people.
 
Last edited:
MaceB said:
I don't think he ever said that Marco Rubio is the same as the shooter. He might say something like Marco Rubio's toothless stance on gun regulation makes these shooters possible, and that's true. It's also true that we should ban semi-automatic weapons. And NRA's definition is debatable... at very best, they're enabling thousands of gun deaths a year. Call them what you will for that.... crime profiteers? Instigators? Provocateurs?



Hmm, okay... well you go tell the single mother of 2 that she has to take time off of work, because now on top of feeding her children and working hard for their future every day.. she has to self study for an exam in order for her congressmen or congresswomen to listen to her. Just because someone is uneducated, doesn't mean their views don't matter. The opposite is true.. we've failed her and we need to hear what she has to say.

Don't blame her for our mistakes to educate her, or to support her children, etc. She's just trying to get by, and she's an American born citizen by right - she deserves a vote.
The same is true for Trump supporters by the way. Yeah, I think they are misinformed... but they are vocalizing an anger that the world is leaving them behind. And they're right about that... they're just trying to tell us how they feel, because they don't think anyone is listening. They may be wrong about their policy views, but it's not their fault that they're angry after the world left them behind... its our fault for not appreciating how worried they are up until now. The Democrats should have paid more attention to the rust belt, policy wise and campaign wise. The answer isn't to listen to them less, it's to listen to them more.
Click to expand...

Semi auto firearms use the force of recoil or gas to eject the empty case and load a fresh cartridge into the firing chamber for the next shot and they only fire one bullet per trigger pull. A semi auto gun cant fire another bullet until the trigger is reset. It's a technology that has existed and been legal for over 100 years.

Banning all semi auto weapons wouldnt just ban modern rifles. It would also ban most pistols, and all shotguns that arent pump action. Not to mention it would probably bankrupt or severely harm a lot of international and American businesses. Glock would lose all of its American business. Sig would lose all but one or two of their pistol designs. Same for Ruger and Smith and Wesson and most other current handgun and shotgun manufacturers. That's way too broad and completely impractical.
 
Last edited:
Marvolo said:
Semi auto firearms use the force of recoil or gas to eject the empty case and load a fresh cartridge into the firing chamber for the next shot and they only fire one bullet per trigger pull. A semi auto gun cant fire another bullet until the trigger is reset.

Banning all semi auto weapons wouldnt just ban modern rifles. It would also ban most pistols, and all shotguns that arent pump action. Not to mention it would probably bankrupt or severely harm a lot of international and American businesses. Glock would lose all of its American business. Sig would lose all but one or two of their pistol designs. Same for Ruger and Smith and Wesson and most other current handgun and shotgun manufacturers. We'd be left with revolvers and bolt action and lever action rifles. That's way too broad and completely impractical.
Click to expand...

I was just telling Doomsday that I'm aware that there is a wide category. And yes, it looks like there'd have to be some discretion about which guns to ban and which not, but I think the previous Assault Weapons ban did a good job, as it's done in other countries. I'm sorry - that might be the term that's more appropriate. Assault weapons. I'd be more inclined to ban more semiautomatic weapons than not though. Things like detachable magazines, etc. The DOJ defined it in the 90s, ""In general, assault weapons are semiautomatic firearms with a large magazine of ammunition that were designed and configured for rapid fire and combat use." Those should be gone - no brainer.
 
Last edited:
MaceB said:
Like I said, I doubt that he actually said that Marco Rubio was as bad as the killer himself, only that he enabled him. But also, that's correct. That's a 100% correct thing to believe... Marco Rubio does have blood on his hands, and we have to say that because it's the right thing to do. He takes money from the gun lobby and refuses to support gun legislation because of it. That's faire game to mention.
Click to expand...

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/n...its-back-student-equates-rubio-school-shooter

So you think that Marco Rubio is equally responsible for the deaths of 17 people? That's a 100% correct thing to believe?


Okay.
 
MaceB said:
I was just telling Doomsday that I'm aware that there is a wide category. And yes, it looks like there'd have to be some discretion about which guns to ban and which not, but I think the previous Assault Weapons ban did a good job, as it's done in other countries. I'm sorry - that might be the term that's more appropriate. Assault weapons. I'd be more inclined to ban more semiautomatic weapons than not though. Things like detachable magazines, etc. The DOJ defined it in the 90s, ""In general, assault weapons are semiautomatic firearms with a large magazine of ammunition that were designed and configured for rapid fire and combat use." Those should be gone - no brainer.
Click to expand...

But here's the rub, you just demonstrated something important. I get it that confusing assault weapons and semi-automatic weapons might be easy if you don't know much about guns but it's demonstrates one of the main gripes that gun rights advocates have when it comes to this entire debate. When we have Bernie Sanders saying brain-dead statements like 'we need to ban automatic weapons' the only thing we want to ask is 'Would it kill you to learn something, anything about guns before forming an opinion?' To say that assault weapons are interchangeable with semi-automatic weapons is like saying motorcycles are the same as cars. Ya know, they're kinda different but more or less the same. Gun rights activists aren't going to be convinced or moved or forced to answer tough questions until the gun confiscation folks learn something, anything about guns.
 
Doomsday said:
But here's the rub, you just demonstrated something important. I get it that confusing assault weapons and semi-automatic weapons might be easy if you don't know much about guns but it's demonstrates one of the main gripes that gun rights advocates have when it comes to this entire debate. When we have Bernie Sanders saying brain-dead statements like 'we need to ban automatic weapons' the only thing we want to ask is 'Would it kill you to learn something, anything about guns before forming an opinion?' To say that assault weapons are interchangeable with semi-automatic weapons is like saying motorcycles are the same as cars. Ya know, they're kinda different but more or less the same. Gun rights activists aren't going to be convinced or moved or forced to answer tough questions until the gun confiscation folks learn something, anything about guns.
Click to expand...

So I have to learn everything about your hobby, just to argue that weapons designed for military warfare shouldn't be offered to civilians? Really? Look, I'm sure that semi-automatic weapons are technically the same as handguns, for example.
But if that's the case, have you ever considered using the common man's definition? Is there any regular person who thinks semiautomatic weapons... oh yeah, that's a handgun. Fine, whatever.... there has to be discretion sure. The spirit of my argument is still very much correct. There are weapons that are far too deadly, like the AR-15, that have no place in people's homes.

Sigh, I go to the guns thread to talk about guns. I go to the Democrats thread to talk about Democratic stuff. Arguing guns is so exhausting. The old Republican guard was all about family values and guns. The modern Republic voter... now younger... is taking the purist libertarian stance, and gun rights are like the primordial example of a personal freedom under attack.. even though the 2nd amendment mentions regulation... fine. But the 1st amendment has limits on it? Ugh, it's exhausting. It shouldn't be so hard to tell people that you don't need to shoot a round a second if you aren't in a shooting range or a field of war.
 
MaceB said:
So I have to learn everything about your hobby, just to argue that weapons designed for military warfare shouldn't be offered to civilians? Really? Look, I'm sure that semi-automatic weapons are technically the same as handguns, for example.
But if that's the case, have you ever considered using the common man's definition? Is there any regular person who thinks semiautomatic weapons... oh yeah, that's a handgun. Fine, whatever.... there has to be discretion sure. The spirit of my argument is still very much correct. There are weapons that are far too deadly, like the AR-15, that have no place in people's homes.

Sigh, I go to the guns thread to talk about guns. I go to the Democrats thread to talk about Democratic stuff. Arguing guns is so exhausting. The old Republican guard was all about family values and guns. The modern Republic voter... now younger... is taking the purist libertarian stance, and gun rights are like the primordial example of a personal freedom under attack.. even though the 2nd amendment mentions regulation... fine. But the 1st amendment has limits on it? Ugh, it's exhausting. It shouldn't be so hard to tell people that you don't need to shoot a round a second if you aren't in a shooting range or a field of war.
Click to expand...

But it is a big deal, it's a very important distinction. Imagine if I were teaching a history class and said 'World War II started when Mexico invaded Poland. Wait it wasn't Mexico? It was Germany? Oh whatever it's the same thing.' You wouldn't take anything I said seriously. Yes, there are handguns that are semi-automatic, there are others that aren't. There are shotguns that are semi-automatic, there are others that aren't. In no way are they comparable to so-called assault weapons (another set of weapons whose only real standard for most people is that they're 'scary looking'). If there's one thing liberals need to do to get any ground on this debate whatsoever it's to learn what these guns are and what they do.
 
Doomsday said:
But it is a big deal, it's a very important distinction. Imagine if I were teaching a history class and said 'World War II started when Mexico invaded Poland. Wait it wasn't Mexico? It was Germany? Oh whatever it's the same thing.' You wouldn't take anything I said seriously. Yes, there are handguns that are semi-automatic, there are others that aren't. There are shotguns that are semi-automatic, there are others that aren't. In no way are they comparable to so-called assault weapons (another set of weapons whose only real standard for most people is that they're 'scary looking'). If there's one thing liberals need to do to get any ground on this debate whatsoever it's to learn what these guns are and what they do.
Click to expand...

It's not really an important distinction, given that I've clarified I'm for the Assault Rifles ban and I've mentioned many times the AR-15. Are you done slapping my wrist, and do you actually want to debate the merits of those weapons now? This is why Marco Rubio has blood on this hands. Because he'd rather debate technicalities than whether it's good to have military grade weapons in our homes.

... which it obviously isn't.
 
MaceB said:
It's not really an important distinction, given that I've clarified I'm for the Assault Rifles ban and I've mentioned many times the AR-15. Are you done slapping my wrist, and do you actually want to debate the merits of those weapons now? This is why Marco Rubio has blood on this hands. Because he'd rather debate technicalities than whether it's good to have military grade weapons in our homes.

... which it obviously isn't.
Click to expand...

All civillian weapons have been "military grade" at one time. Muskets, shotguns (pump and semi), revolvers, lever, bolt, semi- auto, double action, single action, single action/double action etc.

And the technicalities are important. It's the difference between outlawing one particular weapon type and outlawing many weapon types because people don't understand what semi-auto means.
 
Last edited:
The democrats in my state circled the wagons around formerly indicted Senator Bob Menendez and he seems to be the shoe in winner in today's Democratic Primary. Most of the other candidates have stated they couldn't raise the capital to run against him.

Almost seems like the whole Clinton thing again.
 
So far, their messaging after the sham of an Executive Order he did today luckily shows they are still aware of the reality.
 
The Dems need to do a hell of a lot better and need to get more aggressive in calling out the racial bigotry of this White House and the Tea Party caucus in particular. There's no more excuses left. I don't give a damn about "the center" anymore. working class/poorer People are being screwed over constantly.

Jason Johnson from www.theroot.com

https://www.theroot.com/i-finally-see-it-democrats-don-t-hate-trump-as-much-as-1826986900

When Obama got elected, Republicans promised to make him a one-term president; when Trump got elected, Democrats said they’d “work with him.” Republicans stopped over 100 of Obama’s judicial appointments; Democrats have voted for dozens of problematic Trump appointees.

The Trump administration has acted like Albanian terrorists from a Taken movie, holding children, or child-serving policies, hostage to achieve its goals—whether those hostages are the Children’s Health Insurance Program or the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy—or offering to end child separation at the border if Democrats fund that border “wall” (which apparently is no longer on Mexico’s bill). The Trump administration has literally and symbolically taken more kids against their will than R. Kelly with a fleet of minivans, and what have Democrats done in response to his latest violations? Did they shut down the government? Refuse to vote on any legislation? Grind D.C. to a halt? Nope.

For two weeks they went on CNN and waved their fingers and sent a magic school bus of congresspeople to the border camps until Trump’s own team came up with an executive order that’s still terrible. Why the lack of aggressive resistance? Too many Democratic leaders live with the privilege of white supremacist thinking—that fundamentally, since they’re white and Trump is white, everything will eventually be all right. That white power, even when abused, is still the natural order of things. For them.

Republicans saw Obama as “black power” in office, and in the lizard brains of House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a black man in power must come at the expense of white supremacy. They were willing to sacrifice the whole country as long as that meant that Obama was stopped. Most white Democrats think Trump is bad, but most of them don’t hate him; they don’t fear his power as an absolute check on theirs. They’re still betting on whiteness; they’re still banking that all of these racist nationalist policies won’t touch the hems of their garments, even if they occasionally nibble at the corners of their consciences.

Imagine that 500 Scandinavian refugees were found on a boat trying to sneak into Miami, and all of those Swiss Miss-looking women were separated from their children, and the kids were then put into cages with gym mats and metallic, life-size Hot Pockets for blankets. Democrats would block every policy, every bill and every statute in Washington, D.C., until the policy was changed.
Click to expand...
 
Very encouraging! I've been skeptical about this so called "blue wave," but this is the clearest sign yet that progressives are getting out to vote.

Now, will the Dems take the hint and stop running away from their progressive base? Not likely. You know because...socialism... boogity boogity.... and all that.
 
Well, Trump is going to be giving Dems plenty of things to run on.
 
mclay18 said:
Progressive Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez beats Joe Crowley in NY Democratic primary

https://www.thedailybeast.com/young...rowley-in-democratic-primary-shocker?ref=home

Ocasio-Cortez is a Democratic Socialist who was an organizer for Bernie Sanders' campaign in 2016 -- and overthrew her well-funded opponent (he outraised her by a 10:1 margin).

This is very encouraging in light of recent news.
Click to expand...


Progressive outlets have been ecstatic over this result. So, will Cynthia Nixon be next to come up with a win over Andrew Cuomo?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
Discussion: The DEMOCRATIC P - Part 2
39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
135K
Thread Manager
T
T
  • Locked
Discussion: Racism - Part 3
39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
85K
Thread Manager
T
T
The Clinton Thread II - Part 3
15 16 17
Replies
401
Views
50K
MagnarTheGreat
MagnarTheGreat
T
  • Poll
Discussion: The REPUBLICAN Party - - - - - Part 20
505 506 507
Replies
13K
Views
430K
blueharvest
blueharvest
T
  • Locked
  • Poll
Discussion: The REPUBLICAN Party - - - - Part 19
39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
77K
Thread Manager
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 5 (members: 0, guests: 5)

Staff online

Members online

Total: 1,370 (members: 26, guests: 1,344)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,574
Messages
21,763,973
Members
45,596
Latest member
iamjonahlobe

Share this page

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"