~*Official Thread of America's Return to Thoughts & Prayers Normalcy*~

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

57 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

The defeatist attitudes of this board are often perplexing to me. I get the annoyance at the pre-negotiating down aspect of Biden’s comments, but an increase to age 21 nationally is still a better position than where we sit today 

 

This reminds me of those on the most extreme anti-abortion side, the self titled “abortion abolitionists”, who hate the “pro life” people because they are practicing incrementalism. Turns out the pro lifers won with this approach.

 

In any scenario where the odds are against you, taking small wins here and there is the sensible path until the fundamentals of the situation change in your favor.

For all of Joes faults gun control is not one area he is bad on

 

the senate is dumb as shit though so it’s all for naught

[Fizzzzle]

Everything sucks and nothing matters. There's your defeatist attitude.

[skillzdadirecta]

1 hour ago, sblfilms said:

 

In any scenario where the odds are against you, taking small wins here and there is the sensible path until the fundamentals of the situation change in your favor.

This has been a problem with "progressives" or "The Left" or whatever you want to call them FOR YEARS. While "the other side" has been playing the long game and racking up small victories at the state and local level for decades, significant portions of those on the left get mad, frustrated and disengage when they don't get EVEERYTHING they want. It's how things have gotten progressively worse over the last 25 years or so despite the country claiming to want to move in a different direction. It's both infuriating and fascinating to watch.

[Fizzzzle]

The problem is that Republicans are unified in what they want, but Democrats are not and haven't been since the 1840's. Take my dad, for example. He has voted Democrat for the last 15 years or so because he's very socially liberal, but he's very much a neo-liberal. He doesn't believe in social welfare because *some* people *might* take advantage of the system, and he's a total NIMBY when it comes to housing. He's a limousine liberal despite not being rich.

 

Republicans do not have that kind of nuance in their goals. Guns, Jesus, free market (when it suits you)

 

Obama often talks about how the problem with the Democrat party is that it's the party of "everybody else." Republicans are a political party, Democrats are a coalition.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Fizzzzle said:

The problem is that Republicans are unified in what they want, but Democrats are not and haven't been since the 1840's.

But this is NOT true on the issue of gun control! You don’t have to agree on everything all the time, but when you do find areas of mass agreement you take the wins every single time.

[Fizzzzle]

Just now, sblfilms said:

But this is NOT true on the issue of gun control! You don’t have to agree on everything all the time, but when you do find areas of mass agreement you take the wins every single time.

... Aaaaand they don't want to do that. Why?

 

Shit, something like 75% of Americans think weed should be legal and they can't even get that done.

 

It's "tit-for-tat" politics. Democrats argue within themselves about all kinds of shit, and Republicans don't. 

[Kal-El814]

I lol’d.

 

 

[skillzdadirecta]

1 minute ago, Fizzzzle said:

Shit, something like 75% of Americans think weed should be legal and they can't even get that done.

This is a prime example of not taking small victories and playing the long game. Weed used to be illegal period. Full stop. Now in 27 states it's decriminalized meaning you will no longer go to jail for possessing or using it. 18 states have legalized it for recreational use and 38 states and DC have legalized it for medicinal purposes. THAT'S PROGRESS. Is it COMPLETELY legal in the whole country like Alchohol and cigarettes? No. A large part of why it isn't is because those two industries are spending a LOT of money to slow down legalized weed because it is a direct competitor to their products. I can have weed delivered to my HOUSE and not get worried about getting arrested. Again, progress. But all we can focus on is that it isn't "completely" legal yet?  Sorry bro but you kinda just proved my point.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Fizzzzle said:

... Aaaaand they don't want to do that. Why?

 

Shit, something like 75% of Americans think weed should be legal and they can't even get that done.

 

It's "tit-for-tat" politics. Democrats argue within themselves about all kinds of shit, and Republicans don't. 

I don’t know why they don’t, but they should stop it when they have the sorts of issues where there is broad consensus inside their party about what to do. There are some times conflations made about exactly how broad the overall support of gun control is (it breaks down significantly depending on what the measures are), but not so within the Democratic Party.
 

Besides dreams like repealing the second, limits on magazine capacities, higher minimum ages, cooling off periods, universal background checks/FFL transfers for private sales, and more are indeed overwhelmingly popular within the Democratic Party and some parts of that even have a decent spillover into an other wise completely obstinate GOP on guns.

 

Take the wins, however small, and build on them.

[Fizzzzle]

See, this is the problem, though. Everything is "tit-for-tat." AOC and like Jeff Merkley or whoever can both agree that they want weed legalized, but both of them want to tie weed legalization to some other thing they want on their agenda that they don't agree on, so the bill dies.

 

Democrats have disagreements on policy, republicans don't. That's why democrats can never unify, even in circumstances where they all agree on something, because all politicians have an "everything or nothing" stance. It just so happens that Republicans can agree on the "everything," which is why they win.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

I hate to rain on the “make incremental progress in states parade” which I do fully agree with but we’ve yet to really get and grapple with the buzzsaw of the nakedly political and activist extreme right wing court that will 100% gut it all and then some. Hell they’re about to slice through NY state conceal carry laws and that opinion is coming in days. It takes 4 justices to grant cert to a case, what are the odds they can get one more to overturn the century old law?

 

all roads that don’t involve neutering this specific right wing of the Supreme Court are for naught, but putting something for them to overturn on their plate is necessary. It’s what conservatives had done with abortion!

[Ghost_MH]

30 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

I don’t know why they don’t, but they should stop it when they have the sorts of issues where there is broad consensus inside their party about what to do. There are some times conflations made about exactly how broad the overall support of gun control is (it breaks down significantly depending on what the measures are), but not so within the Democratic Party.
 

Besides dreams like repealing the second, limits on magazine capacities, higher minimum ages, cooling off periods, universal background checks/FFL transfers for private sales, and more are indeed overwhelmingly popular within the Democratic Party and some parts of that even have a decent spillover into an other wise completely obstinate GOP on guns.

 

Take the wins, however small, and build on them.

 

And those items will pass in the House and die in the Senate. The problem is Democratic leadership desperately trying to keep the current, more conservative members electable. Those kinds of gun control laws are only overwhelming popular within the party. That means it's not unanimous, which means it's not passing, which means they just publicly had one of their own look bad by having them vote against a gun control bill they were already sure would fail.

 

I say fuck those guys and out them all on record, but Dem leadership cares way too much on appeasing the moderates and conservatives within the party.

[silentbob]

The best part comes near the end where NO ONE can state the full line for the 2nd Amendment 

 

 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, silentbob said:

The best part comes near the end where NO ONE can state the full line for the 2nd Amendment 

 

 

To be as fair as deserved to these dunces, I doubt many Americans can quote any of the bill of rights, including ones people think they know like the 1st or 5th.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

17 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

To be as fair as deserved to these dunces, I doubt many Americans can quote any of the bill of rights, including ones people think they know like the 1st or 5th.

It actually doesn’t matter if they can recite the right words

[Guest]

Just now, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

It actually doesn’t matter if they can recite the right words

Correct. It is simply amusing that people are so fervent about something like the 2A and can’t actually quote it. “Man on the street” interviews are the lowest hanging fruit of these types of shows on literally any topic.

[Ghost_MH]

 

One thing this video makes really clear is that there's at least one simple fix that possibly could pass in the Senate, even if it would also likely piss off police unions across the country. Pass a law that says the state enters a custodial arrangement and must provide protection for children that attend publicly financed schools. There shouldn't be a need to elaborate further than that.

 

Seems that some would be enough to force police to act in active shooter situations at public and charter schools. There's likely nothing that can be done for private schools, but those also aren't really the schools getting shot up.

 

It wouldn't help everytime, but it'll certainly push LARPer cops to actually be useful.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

One thing this video makes really clear is that there's at least one simple fix that possibly could pass in the Senate, even if it would also likely piss off police unions across the country. Pass a law that says the state enters a custodial arrangement and must provide protection for children that attend publicly financed schools. There shouldn't be a need to elaborate further than that.

 

Seems that some would be enough to force police to act in active shooter situations at public and charter schools. There's likely nothing that can be done for private schools, but those also aren't really the schools getting shot up.

 

It wouldn't help everytime, but it'll certainly push LARPer cops to actually be useful.

Watching the video right now.

 

This custodial notion is especially true given that truancy laws are a thing. In most areas, parents are legally obligated to educate their children with the default being public schools. So if you are threatening parents with fines for not sending their children to school, you better do what it takes to ensure their safety

[Ghost_MH]

36 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Watching the video right now.

 

This custodial notion is especially true given that truancy laws are a thing. In most areas, parents are legally obligated to educate their children with the default being public schools. So if you are threatening parents with fines for not sending their children to school, you better do what it takes to ensure their safety

 

That's something he touches on in the video. As is current law, the state doesn't claim custody of a child while they are in school on the grounds that it is an optional arrangement. That is, even if you're compelled to school your child, you can still opt to homeschool or send them to a private school. Does that ignore the actual real life facts? Yes, because not everyone can homeschool and not everyone can afford private schooling.

 

That being said, changing the law here to say that the state is gaining temporary custody of a child while on school grounds and be protected shouldn't be controversial. If I trust my kids to a school for 7-9 hours a day, the state should be compelled to say least attempt to keep them safe. Right now, there's no such guarantee.

 

On an unrelated end, this would also likely put more pressure on schools to clamp down on bullying and I see no downside there.

[silentbob]

28 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

That's something he touches on in the video. As is current law, the state doesn't claim custody of a child while they are in school on the grounds that it is an optional arrangement. That is, even if you're compelled to school your child, you can still opt to homeschool or send them to a private school. Does that ignore the actual real life facts? Yes, because not everyone can homeschool and not everyone can afford private schooling.

 

That being said, changing the law here to say that the state is gaining temporary custody of a child while on school grounds and be protected shouldn't be controversial. If I trust my kids to a school for 7-9 hours a day, the state should be compelled to say least attempt to keep them safe. Right now, there's no such guarantee.

 

On an unrelated end, this would also likely put more pressure on schools to clamp down on bullying and I see no downside there.

If they get this “temporary custody” state wise, I do have my worries. My big worry is seeing some state like Texas using/twisting this temporary custody law, and somehow holding trans/gay kids hostage from their family. So gotta be careful with the wording, it’s all I’m saying

[Jason]

 

[Jason]

 

[Jason]

Also how are you on probation for a fucking decade?

[Ghost_MH]

7 minutes ago, Jason said:

Also how are you on probation for a fucking decade?

 

Doesn't necessarily mean a decade of probation. She could have been in prison 8 years and came out with 2 years probation. She says the charges are from a decade ago, so that could mean anything from 9.5 years in prison and 6 months probation to, yeah, 10 years of probation.

[Guest]

Just now, Ghost_MH said:

 

Doesn't necessarily mean a decade of probation. She could have been in prison 8 years and came out with 2 years probation. She says the charges are from a decade ago, so that could mean anything from 9.5 years in prison and 6 months probation to, yeah, 10 years of probation.

Tons of felonies for first time offenders get lengthy probation instead of prison. The husband of my friend got 8 years probation for child porn possession.

[GeneticBlueprint]

9 hours ago, sblfilms said:

Correct. It is simply amusing that people are so fervent about something like the 2A and can’t actually quote it. “Man on the street” interviews are the lowest hanging fruit of these types of shows on literally any topic.

 

9 hours ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

It actually doesn’t matter if they can recite the right words

 

10 hours ago, sblfilms said:

To be as fair as deserved to these dunces, I doubt many Americans can quote any of the bill of rights, including ones people think they know like the 1st or 5th.

I don’t know I feel like if my entire personality revolves around one sentence I could at least take the effort to memorize it.

[silentbob]

4 minutes ago, GeneticBlueprint said:

 

 

I don’t know I feel like if my entire personality revolves around one sentence I could at least take the effort to memorize it.

they just like avoiding the “regulated” part at the end of their precious beloved right.

[GeneticBlueprint]

1 minute ago, silentbob said:

they just like avoiding the “regulated” part at the end of their precious beloved right.

That part is actually right at the beginning :P

[silentbob]

2 minutes ago, GeneticBlueprint said:

That part is actually right at the beginning :P

AH FUCK! Well I don’t have a 2nd amendment right for worrying/get pissed off about up here. Still I knew that part unlike the NRA nuts

[CitizenVectron]

Canada's 2nd amendment is much more boring:

 

Rupert's Land Act 1868 - Wikipedia

EN.M.WIKIPEDIA.ORG

 

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, silentbob said:

they just like avoiding the “regulated” part at the end of their precious beloved right.

(it doesn’t mean regulations)

[Keyser_Soze]

19 minutes ago, GeneticBlueprint said:

I don’t know I feel like if my entire personality revolves around one sentence I could at least take the effort to memorize it.

 

Agreed it's pretty easy. I can even remember yours

 

"Fleshgod Apocalypse is better than Septicflesh"

 

 

[silentbob]

17 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

(it doesn’t mean regulations)

. . . but it should

 

 

20 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

Canada's 2nd amendment is much more boring:

 

Rupert's Land Act 1868 - Wikipedia

EN.M.WIKIPEDIA.ORG

 

I meant gun wise to Americans. I should of been a little more specific but hey it’s almost 1am.

[Air_Delivery]

The problem with the second amendment is its terribly written and based on shit that doesn't exist anymore.

 

If there is no well regulated milita do people still have the right to bear arms? Its an amendment should have been done away in the 1800s or at least at the minimum rewritten to clarify things. If I have the right to bear arms and the government can restrict them to what degree do they have that right? Its whatever you want it to be. There is no reason why I can't own a nuclear bomb but I can own an AR-15 other than BS jusifications. Its backward reasoning where you decide what you want the result to be and then make up some shit to get there. 
 

[GeneticBlueprint]

I actually agree with 2A stans’ interpretation of the 2A. All it says is that preserving a free nation will require an armed populace. Therefore people should be able to have all the guns they want. Which is why it needs to go.