[POLL] U.S. Presidential Election 2016

[RevPokemon]

I agree with everything you just said, particularly when one looks at the current polling on gun regulation, but unfortunately, it has become a Democrat vs. Republican issue as far as elected officials are concerned. In addition to being an American safety issue, it's a liberal issue now.

It depends ultimately it regards America therefore it is an American safety issue
On the other hand it is only being supported by the left so in that sense it is a liberal issue. Only elected Republican who supports common sense gun control that i know of is Mark Kirk (who probably will lose the election which is sad) and Susan Collins.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Ah, Ronald, the conservative superhero. He's right, an AK-47 isn't a sporting gun and there are probably thousands of better guns for home defense. Thing is, I still want one, so don't tell me that I can't have one - it's none of your business.

Easy to say when someone hasn't tried to assianate you.

 

[Foxi4]

Easy to say when someone hasn't tried to assianate you.

It's easy to say in general. Even if someone did try to shoot me, my anecdotal evidence still wouldn't be representative of the whole nation. I can't tell, say, a thousand people that their AK-47's are now illegal and they need to hand them over because *1* of them attacked me - that's hardly fair. Now, instead of a thousand say 54.5 million, since we know that 41% of households own guns (there are around 133 million households in the U.S. each hosehold naturally consists of more than one person, but that's besides the point), and you get a better picture. You can't possibly push for legislature that limits the freedom of a 54.5 million people because *1* attacked you, that's asinine.

 

[Lacius]

Thing is, I still want one, so don't tell me that I can't have one - it's none of your business.

I don't care what you want. I don't think you have a right to a weapon that can cause massive loss of life.

If a specific kind of weapon is being used to kill lots of people again and again, restrictions are needed. This isn't an irrational fear of guns. Half my family is from rural Missouri, and I grew up around responsible gun owners. I'm not afraid of guns. I'm acknowledging a systemic problem that data shows should be easy to fix.

 

[Futurdreamz]

Boy, oh boy - if only individuals and corporations had as much power as people give them credit for, we wouldn't have half the problems we're dealing with everyday, and not just in the U.S. but globally as well.

Really? Try getting a decent Internet plan. Comcast is so horrible that municipalities have attempted to roll out their own Internet providers only for Comcast to force them to kill the service off.

 

[Lacius]

Please don't selectively pick what to quote from me. I also said: "As an external observer I honestly believe the states are heading down the path to a messy revolution. Trump could direct the revolution so it happens more graceful, but Clinton will let the problems and resentment build up until the call for blood rings loud and clear."

The American status quo is not a good status quo, and it is deteriorating quite badly. I'd rather not have to post yet another detailed and comprehensive wall of anti-American rant, but if you take a moment to compare your media and politics to other countries it can become quite clear that things aren't looking good; and seem to be getting worse at a steady pace. The whole constitution was formed around the idea of taking power away from a government that abuses it, but it had the effect of giving the power to corporations and individuals that abuse it even more.

I agreed with the first part of your post, not the second part. In my opinion, Secretary Clinton's policy positions are much better than Donald Trump's.

 

[Foxi4]

I don't care what you want. I don't think you have a right to a weapon that can cause massive loss of life.

If a specific kind of weapon is being used to kill lots of people again and again, restrictions are needed. This isn't an irrational fear of guns. Half my family is from rural Missouri, and I grew up around responsible gun owners. I'm not afraid of guns. I'm acknowledging a systemic problem that data shows should be easy to fix.

"I'm not racist, I have lots of friends who are muslims*." One person used a gun X during a mass shooting, thus let's regulate gun X. Makes sense.

Just to be clear, I'm all for *responsible* gun control. Background checks? Sure! Bans? Nah.

*Provided we pretend that muslims are a race, like you treat them.

Really? Try getting a decent Internet plan. Comcast is so horrible that municipalities have attempted to roll out their own Internet providers only for Comcast to force them to kill the service off.

Who's fault is it, Comcast's, or the corrupt government's which allowed this to happen despite billions of tax dollars in subsidies that were supposed to prevent this?

 

[Lacius]

"I'm not racist, I have lots of friends who are muslims." One person used a gun X during a mass shooting, thus let's regulate gun X. Makes sense.

Makes sense to me. Regulating guns doesn't infringe on the rights of responsible gun owners, not that I would care if it did, and I also don't believe the right to own guns without restrictions is an actual right people should have. I think minimizing mass shootings outweighs unrestricted gun access.

Edit: Also, your comparison is flawed when comparing gun access to immutable characteristics.

Edit x2: I'm not anti-gun. I'm anti-mass shooting.

 

[Foxi4]

Makes sense to me. Regulating guns doesn't infringe on the rights of responsible gun owners, not that I would care if it did, and I also don't believe the right to own guns without restrictions is an actual right people should have. I think minimizing mass shootings outweighs unrestricted gun access.

Edit: Also, your comparison is flawed when comparing gun access to immutable characteristics.

The mechanism is identical. You claim you're not afraid of something because you've been exposed to it - that's fallacious in nature. By the way, "muslim" is not an immutable characteristic, religion is a choice. I was in two minds whether to use "black" or "muslim" due to our previous conversation, but ended up with "muslim" since it resonates with you despite it not being a race or ethnicity.

 

[RevPokemon]

Regulating guns doesn't infringe on the rights of responsible gun owners, not that I would care if it did,

Although to be honest I do not know of any law proposal that hurt responsible gun owners as that would make no sense. A responsible gun owner follows the laws no matter what they are (checks, waiting periods, and so on) since they are the laws and going against them is illegal (the opposite of responsibility).

 

[Lacius]

The mechanism is identical. You claim you're not afraid of something because you've been exposed to it - that's fallacious in nature. By the way, "muslim" is not an immutable characteristic, religion is a choice.

I didn't say I'm not afraid of guns because I was exposed to them. I stated I was exposed to guns, and I stated I'm not afraid of them. There's no fallacy, even if I had stated a causal relationship. Had I said guns are safe because I grew up around them, that would have been fallacious.

Also, a person's sincerely held religious beliefs may or may not be a matter of choice. I'm an atheist, but choice has nothing to do with it. I cannot choose to believe something or not believe something. There's a difference between being convinced of something and choosing to believe something. That's why religion is on the list of protected classes.

Although to be honest I do not know of any law proposal that hurt responsible gun owners as that would make no sense. A responsible gun owner follows the laws no matter what they are (checks, waiting periods, and so on) since they are the laws and going against them is illegal (the opposite of responsibility).

One might argue that responsible gun owners are overly burdened by gun laws, but they're not. I don't acknowledge unrestricted gun access as a right they should have.

 

[RevPokemon]

One might argue that responsible gun owners are overly burdened by gun laws, but they're not. I don't acknowledge unrestricted gun access as a right they should have.

Well consider also consider that by and large we could always argue what is a "burden". But until they ban hunting rifles then i am personally ok with gun regulations as that is tge only time i think you would be going to far (although no one has suggested this).

 

[Foxi4]

I'm not anti-gun. I'm anti-mass shooting.

If that's the case, why not stress the root cause of mass shootings, which is a poor state if mental healthcare, rather than guns? If you want to restrict access to guns for healthy, legitimate gun owners, you're coming across as anti-gun because your actions and statements are anti-gun, plain and simple. You have zero authority regarding which guns are "okay to own" and which aren't. Most liberals are deathly afraid of guns like the AR-15 because it looks a certain way - it has a modular design popular in military applications. I'm sure they'd be more comfortable with only muskets that take 10 minutes to reload - that's irrational.

I didn't say I'm not afraid of guns because I was exposed to them. I stated I was exposed to guns, and I stated I'm not afraid of them. There's no fallacy, even if I had stated a causal relationship. Had I said guns are safe because I grew up around them, that would have been fallacious.

Also, a person's sincerely held religious beliefs may or may not be a matter of choice. I'm an atheist, but choice has nothing to do with it. I cannot choose to believe something or not believe something. There's a difference between being convinced of something and choosing to believe something.

Immutable means innate and unchangable. You're born black and that's your luck of the draw - technically you could bleach yourself somehow, but that's pushing the envelope, even in just the medical sense. You're not born religious - you become religious through exposure and you can lose faith at any time. Conversely, you can be an atheist and become religious through a process of spiritual development and soul searching - if it makes you happy, that's fine too. As such, religion is not an immutable characteristic, just like being a gun nut isn't.

One might argue that responsible gun owners are overly burdened by gun laws, but they're not. I don't acknowledge unrestricted gun access as a right they should have.

Define "unrestricted". Background checks are already a restriction. You're putting so much emphasis on mass shootings when drunk driving is killing thousands of people every year. Are you in a temperance league too? Access to alcohol is more or less unrestricted except Bumf*ck Nowhere states like Utah, what should we do about that?

Edit: As for "what rights you think people should have", let me quote someone...

I don't care what you want.

I don't care what you want either. The world doesn't revolve around you and nobody has any obligation to make you feel comfortable. If you're worried about people owning something, you're the problem, not them - you're the one with a mental block. Since neither of us cares about what the other wants, fair legislature should be based on whatever's left between our two viewpoints, something we can both agree on.

Edit 2: This keyboard makes me come across as a moron - I'm typing all this on a small touchscreen, so forgive the typos. I'm making a continuous effort to correct them.

 

[Lacius]

If that's the case, why not stress the root cause of mass shootings, which is a poor state if mental healthcare, rather than guns? If you want to restrict access to guns for healthy, legitimate gun owners, you're coming across as anti-gun because your actions and statements are anti-gun, plain and simple.

I can advocate for better mental health while also advocating for gun reform. In addition, we currently live in a time when ISIS explicitly advocates for domestic terrorists to take advantage of the lax gun laws of the United States to commit mass murder, so I'm not sure if mental health goes far enough. If our goal is to minimize mass shootings, gun restriction is a required part. If you care more about the freedom of unrestricted gun access than whether or not mass shootings occur, then fine.

I don't want to restrict access to reasonable gun ownership. I just don't care if legitimate gun owners have to jump through some extra hoops to get a gun, and I don't think mass shootings are worth people having certain types of guns that are only good for mass killing or being able to get guns without a background check.

You have zero authority regarding which guns are "okay to own" and which aren't. Most liberals are deathly afraid of guns like the AR-15 because it looks a certain way - it has a modular design popular in military applications. I'm sure they'd be more comfortable with only muskets that take 10 minutes to reload - that's irrational.

I can logically assess from the data what is conducive to mass shootings and whether or not it's worth citizens having certain types of guns. It's not that hard, and fear and looks have nothing to do with it.

Immutable means innatr and unchangable. You're born black and that's your luck of the draw - technically you could bleach yourself somehow, but that's pushing the envelope, even in just the medical sense. You're not born religious - you become religious through exposure and you can lose faith at any time. Conversely, you can be an atheist and become religious through a process of spiritual development and soul searching - if it makes you happy, that's fine too. As such, religion is not an immutable characteristic, just like being a gun nut isn't.

To avoid another conversation on semantics, let's say immutable means physically unchangeable. I'm not advocating that all guns be indiscriminately banned, so I'm not sure how your previous analogy works.

Define "unrestricted". Background checks are already a restriction. You're putting so much emphasis on mass shootings when drunk driving is killing thousands of people every year. Are you in a temperance league too? Access to alcohol is more or less unrestricted except Bumf*ck Nowhere states like Utah, what should we do about that?

I like your analogy here. We should put the same restrictions on guns that we have for automobiles. Licenses, proof of competence, registries, etc.

Edit: As for "what rights you think people should have", let me quote someone...

I don't care what you want either. The world doesn't revolve around you and nobody has any obligation to make you feel comfortable. If you're worried about people owning something, you're the problem, not them - you're the one with a mental block. Since neither of us cares about what the other wants, fair legislature should be based on whatever's left between our two viewpoints, something we can both agree on.

Unrestricted access to a weapon that can cause massive amounts of damage and loss of life is a legitimate concern. As I said before, if you don't care about minimizing mass shootings, or you just care more about unrestricted gun access, that's your prerogative I guess.

 

[RevPokemon]

I don't want to restrict access to reasonable gun ownership. I just don't care if legitimate gun owners have to jump through some extra hoops to get a gun, and I don't think mass shootings are worth people having certain types of guns that are only good for mass killing or being able to get guns without a background check.

A question what would your ideal system be?
Mine would be required classes, registration, background checks, a waiting period, and banning of non hunting/recreational guns.

 

[Lacius]

A question what would your ideal system be?
Mine would be required classes, registration, background checks, a waiting period, and banning of non hunting/recreational guns.

I like everything on that list. I'm not sure what my ideal system would be. Banning high-capacity magazines, etc. I would add to the list.

 

[Haloman800]

Nice to see Trump winning, despite being on a more liberal forum such as GBAtemp

Spoiler

:^)

 

[RevPokemon]

Nice to see Trump winning, despite being on a more liberal forum such as GBAtemp

Spoiler

:^)

Gbatemp really isn't a liberal website.

 

[Haloman800]

Gbatemp really isn't a liberal website.

Websites can't be liberal, but those who frequent them can be. Most members here are left leaning; based on the opinions (and backlash) I've seen over the past 7 years of frequenting here.

 

[RevPokemon]

Websites can't be liberal, but those who frequent them can be. Most members here are left leaning; based on the opinions (and backlash) I've seen over the past 7 years of frequenting here.

I was referring to the user group. Granted i have not been here that long but it seems pretty mixed (also consider it is international).

 

[Haloman800]

I was referring to the user group. Granted i have not been here that long but it seems pretty mixed (also consider it is international).

From past discussions, nearly 100% of the members support homosexual marriage, and a majority supports abortions. I also was banned temporarily for posting a thread in off topic about Muhammad. And I got a warning for making a German joke after someone posted about the "A9LH Master Race" (but the person who made the original post wasn't warned).

Maybe my perception is skewed by the fact that most of the mods I've encountered are themselves liberal, but the user base as a whole still seems to be left leaning.

Spoiler

I'm not going to discuss any of the above further as it's getting off-topic and I don't need another warning