[POLL] U.S. Presidential Election 2016

[RevPokemon]

From past discussions, nearly 100% of the members support homosexual marriage,

There are notable conservative/Libertarians/limited gov people who support same sex marriage (Rob Portman, Mark Kirk, GOProud, Berry Goldwater, and so on)

majority supports abortions

I am an adoptee and a bit unsure on abortion but again many Libertarians/Limited gov people support the right to abortion.

I also was banned temporarily for posting a thread in off topic about Muhammad

There are rules regarding how to talk about religion, maybe you broke one?

Maybe my perception is skewed by the fact that most of the mods I've encountered are themselves liberal

They Might be (i have no clue) but if they were it is not affecting there job or duty (which they are doing a great job at).

 

[barronwaffles]

I'm sure they'd be more comfortable with only muskets that take 10 minutes to reload - that's irrational.

To be fair I do find black powder muzzleloaders to be an incredibly involving hobby + some of the most fun you can have involving firearms.

Not really much preventing someone from killing/maiming large numbers with one either.

BAN EVERYTHING EXCEPT NON-FIRING HANDGONNES

 

[Futurdreamz]

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?

Comcast. It spent billions lobbying for the regulations it wants. The government does not have the authority to resist lobbying. And even if it did, you have just admitted the government is corrupt. That circles back to my point that your government is not functioning properly.

 

[Foxi4]

Comcast. It spent billions lobbying for the regulations it wants. The government does not have the authority to resist lobbying. And even if it did, you have just admitted the government is corrupt. That circles back to my point that your government is not functioning properly.

Excuse me? The government doesn't have the power to resist lobbying? Who votes those regulations in again? Oh, right, the government. What they should do is start hanging people who try to bribe them, alongside government officials who take bribes, which should be considered the worst crime a government official can commit (choosing money over the good of the electorate is pretty offensive), but unfortunately they like money more than they like order. Whenever someone starts talking about how evil corporations are taking over, I smell the smell of patchouli and hear the sound of shitty acoustic guitars and drums - filthy hippies. Corporations aren't evil - they're a legal entity. They're neither good nor bad, they have no moral compass. They're not "people", and only people have the capacity to wrong you in some way or do you harm. Corporations are made out of people - people are to blame. It's not the corporations that are the problem - corporations provide us with every single convenience in life, including the ability to have this conversation. The problem are crooked people who will sacrifice your freedom for personal gain, chiefly government officials who will sign any bill in as long as their campaign gets a hefty "donation". Prisons should be bursting with those guys, and it's a shame that they aren't.

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.

The right to own whatever you want as long as you're not causing anyone any harm is more important to me, yes. We could minimize violence to zero percent by just shackling our wrists behind our backs, but freedom is more important than that.

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.

I'm okay with reasonable hoops, sure. I'm not okay with dividing guns into "better" and "worse" ones.

Like I said earlier, just because you can't think of a good use for a certain gun besides a mass shooting doesn't mean that I can't. Maybe I like diving into the air while holding two Uzi's and yelling "Aaahhh!" like I'm Antonio Sabato Junior in my backyard, it's none of your business.

To find a middle ground, we could divide guns into groups with different requirements. Say, you start with a handgun, after a few years of responsible ownership you can apply for a rifle, after a couple more years you can apply for a higher caliber allowance etc. - it can be a gradual process as long as nothing is outright banned. I'm not okay with the government assuming the citizens will start killing each other all of a sudden just because their magazines have 15 bullets instead of 10 - that's not how it works.

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.

There's nothing logical about it as you're dealing with things that have no set value, like life, freedom etc. - if you can't put a price on something, your assesment is subjective.

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.

Fair enough, some common ground.

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

I'm okay with all those systems, most of which are already implemented. They're not necessarily effective since we still have to deal with shitty drivers getting in wrecks all the time, but I'm fine with that kind of regulation. What I'm not okay with is you suggesting that some kinds of cars are innately more dangerous than others and thus should be banned. That, to me, is a leap in logic - you're just glossing over the actual relevant issue, the issue being shitty drivers.

Let's say that statistically sports cars get wrecked more often than any other car type - should we ban them? What about maximum speed? Should we speed-lock cars so that they cannot go faster than 40mph, just to be on the safe side, like we've done with automatic guns? Or maybe we should make the tanks smaller so that you need to stop at gas stations more often and thus get off the road, like we have with guns by limiting magazine capacity?

Can you see how regulating the cars is not a fair solution when the shitty drivers are the problem, not the cars? You're imposing completely arbitrary limitations rather than addressing the root of the problem - the shooters.

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.

It's a phobia, not a concern. I'm no more or less likely to shoot you depending on whether I own a handgun or a rifle - I'm only likely to shoot you if I'm screwed in the head. I don't want to be preemptively punished for a crime I might commit - I haven't done anything wrong. I'm not for unrestricted access, I just have a different definition of what "reasonable gun control" means.

 

[Lacius]

The right to own whatever you want as long as you're not causing anyone any harm is more important to me, yes. We could minimize violence to zero percent by just shackling our wrists behind our backs, but freedom is more important than that.

Then we're at an impasse, because I think it's worth creating what in most cases would be minor inconveniences for responsible gun owners in order to minimize gun violence.

 

[Foxi4]

Then we're at an impasse, because I think it's worth creating what in most cases would be minor inconveniences for responsible gun owners in order to minimize gun violence.

Banning something outright is not a "minor inconvenience", a minor inconvenience is an obstacle you can get around with a small investment of time and dedication. I've proposed a system in which getting your hands on progressively "lethal" weapons would require progressively higher qualifications, but you refuse to even consider that as an option. I said it at the beginning of this conversation and I'll repeat it now - every single liberal I've ever talked about this with, including yourself, resorts to using vague terminology with no real solution in mind and when the time comes to discuss the specifics, we reach an "impasse", the "impasse" being "I don't think you need guns like that, you can only have the guns that I think are okay", and the brakes are being pulled sharper and sharper with each passing year. You don't even want to consider the fact that someone might just like collecting guns - there's no shortage of people who do so as a hobby and have multiple firearms in their possession, including ones that you arbitrarily consider too dangerous for civilian use. Here comes Lacius on an ideological horse, ramming his ideas down people's throats for the nebulous "greater good", keeping everyone safe from themselves for no reason, telling everyone which guns are okay and which aren't, as if you're qualified to make that assessment for anyone but yourself. Nobody's saying that buying a gun should be equivalent to buying a carton of milk, but to say that some guns shouldn't be on the market at all regardless of the level of experience of the potential buyer is asinine to me. It's selective attention - you're basically saying that it's okay for me to own a private jet if I'm rich, but I can't own a machine gun, even though ramming my jet into a skyscraper would kill thousands of people compared to the handful I'd kill with a gun. I could buy a bunch of poison and throw it into a small town's water supply, but god forbid that my rifle has more than 10 bullets in it. I could ram a truck into a parade and kill or injure dozens of people, but guns are the issue. I could think of so many ways to use off-the-shelf items to cause mass damage, but we're focusing on guns, not the mentality of a psychopath who would do any of those things - that's crazy to me. My expectations are not unreasonable - I want sensible regulation. I would like the system to be able to provide whatever people want it to provide via legal means as long as they meet a set number of requirements - there's no talk of that though. The talk we're having is "guns are bad, m'kay?" - that's why we're not on the same page.

 

[Lacius]

Banning something outright is not a "minor inconvenience", a minor inconvenience is an obstacle you can get around with a small investment of time and dedication. I've proposed a system in which getting your hands on progressively "lethal" weapons would require progressively higher qualifications, but you refuse to even consider that as an option. I said it at the beginning of this conversation and I'll repeat it now - every single liberal I've ever talked about this with, including yourself, resorts to using vague terminology with no real solution in mind and when the time comes to discuss the specifics, we reach an "impasse", the "impasse" being "I don't think you need guns like that, you can only have the guns that I think are okay", and the brakes are being pulled sharper and sharper with each passing year. You don't even want to consider the fact that someone might just like collecting guns - there's no shortage of people who do so as a hobby and have multiple firearms in their possession, including ones that you arbitrarily consider too dangerous for civilian use. Here comes Lacius on an ideological horse telling everyone which guns are okay and which aren't, as if you're qualified to make that assessment for anyone but yourself. Nobody's saying that buying a gun should be equivalent to buying a carton of milk, but to say that some guns shouldn't be on the market at all regardless of the level of experience of the potential buyer is asinine to me. It's selective attention - you're basically saying that it's okay for me to own a private jet if I'm rich, but I can't own a machine gun even though ramming my jet into a sky scrapper would kill thousands of people compared to the handful I'd kill with a gun. I could buy a bunch of poison and throw it into the town's water supply, but god forbid that my rifle has more than 10 bullets in it. I could ram a truck into a parade and kill or injure dozens of people, but guns are the issue, not the mentality of a psychopath who would do any of those things.

We know the repercussions of allowing citizens to have certain types of guns, so I'm perfectly fine with making assessments about which guns are or are not okay. You keep mentioning that it's my opinion like that somehow invalidates my argument. My opinion isn't arbitrary. You also keep making comparisons to other potential instruments of death, but most of them are not consistent nor systemic problems. They're irrelevant to the conversation.

I don't care about a person's gun hobby when compared to problem of gun violence in this country. I like Pokémon. If Pokémon suddenly became real creatures that could effect our shared environment, and a few people regularly used Pokémon to cause massive amounts of death on a regular basis, I would favor restricted access to Pokémon. If a Pokémon hobbyist valued his or her unrestricted access to Pokémon over minimizing death, I would call that person's views infantile.

The government has a vested interest in restricting access to particular kinds of weapons, and it already does this.

 

[Foxi4]

We know the repercussions of allowing citizens to have certain types of guns, so I'm perfectly fine with making assessments about which guns are or are not okay. You keep mentioning that it's my opinion like that somehow invalidates my argument. My opinion isn't arbitrary. You also keep making comparisons to other potential instruments of death, but most of them are not consistent nor systemic problems. They're irrelevant to the conversation.

I don't care about a person's gun hobby when compared to problem of gun violence in this country. I like Pokémon. If Pokémon suddenly became real creatures that could effect our shared environment, and a few people regularly used Pokémon to cause massive amounts of death on a regular basis, I would favor restricted access to Pokémon. If a Pokémon hobbyist valued his or her unrestricted access to Pokémon over minimizing death, I would call that person's views infantile.

The government has a vested interest in restricting access to particular kinds of weapons, and it already does this.

Oh yeah - here we can agree. The government *definitely* has a vested interest in restricting access to guns - that's precisely why the 2nd ammendment exists and that's the exact reason why everyone should either own them or be familiar with them.

Your point of view is arbitrary and I've already explained why - you have "potential casualties" on one side and "liberty" on the other. The outcome of the assessment thus depends on how highly you value those things - that's what makes it arbitrary and specific to you.

I mention different instruments of causing mass damage in society because our initial conversation pertained to mass shootings - those are perpetrated by people with mental issues who just want to kill a bunch of people for whatever reason. If they won't be able to shoot them, they'll bomb them like the Boston bomber. An unstable killer will find a way, thus you're not penalizing the guilty party. If you want to extend this to gun violence as a whole, you've moved the goal posts on me.

You don't need to use an example as infantile as Pokemon - you can just say "dogs". You can legally own a dog and train it if you feel like it. Hundreds of people are injured and some maimed to death by dogs every year, but I don't see anyone calling for dog ownership licenses to become a thing. At present there is no federal law banning any breed. There are some restrictions, but no bans, even concerning breeds explicitly bred for combat - killer dogs that are banned in many other countries.

The difference between you and me and the point of contention is that you're willing to sacrifice the rights of an individual in order to provide some greater good to the country at large. I'm not - I treat the freedom of an individual to be absolutely paramount, and while I'm okay with minor inconvenience, I'm not okay with limiting personal freedoms outright. You can extend the road until you find the level of dedication sufficient to grant something, but you can't put up a road block on a path someone feels like taking.

 

[RevPokemon]

At present there is no federal law banning any breed. There are some restrictions, but no bans, even concerning breeds explicitly bred for combat - killer dogs that are banned in many other countries.

Although in America many areas do ban certain breeds of dogs deemed as fighting dogs and generally do not have much controversy.

 

[Foxi4]

Although in America many areas do ban certain breeds of dogs deemed as fighting dogs and generally do not have much controversy.

That's a local government issue, it's not regulated by federal government, so it's irrelevant. Utah regulates alcohol consumption locally with their "zion curtain" nonsense (look it up, it's ridiculous), but legislation like that is not imposed on the whole nation.

 

[RevPokemon]

That's a local government issue, it's not regulated by federal government, so it's irrelevant. Utah regulates alcohol consumption locally with their "zion curtain" nonsense (look it up, it's ridiculous), but legislation like that is not imposed on the whole nation.

I do know about the Zion curtain.
But it does not matter if it is state or local laws really sense the issue is about the measures and regulations not who implemented them.

 

[Lacius]

Oh yeah - here we can agree. The government *definitely* has a vested interest in restricting access to guns - that's precisely why the 2nd ammendment exists and that's the exact reason why everyone should either own them or be familiar with them.

The Second Amendment doesn't guarantee unrestricted access to all forms of guns.

Your point of view is arbitrary and I've already explained why - you have "potential casualties" on one side and "liberty" on the other. The outcome of the assessment thus depends on how highly you value those things - that's what makes it arbitrary and specific to you.

We're not dealing with potentials. Mass shootings are regularly happening.

I mention different instruments of causing mass damage in society because our initial conversation pertains to mass shootings - those are perpetrated by people with mental issues who just want to kill a bunch of people for whatever reason. If they won't be able to shoot them, they'll bomb them like the Boston bomber. An unstable killer will find a way, thus you're not penalizing the guilty party. If you want to extend this to gun violence as a whole, you've moved the goal posts on me.

We can limit this conversation to mass shootings. Everything I've said still applies. It's also just as inaccurate to paint this as a purely mental health issue as it is to paint this as a solely guns issue. Focusing on mental health reduces mass shootings, but it doesn't minimize it. Not all mass shootings are committed by people with mental health issues, and people with mental health issues are likely to fall through the cracks. When the aforementioned people try to get a gun, I want it to be difficult if not impossible to get a gun, especially one that can cause mass death.

You don't need to use an example as infantile as Pokemon - you can just say "dogs". You can legally own a dog and train it if you feel like it. Hundreds of people are injured and some maimed to death by dogs every year, but I don't see anyone calling for dog ownership licenses to become a thing. At present there is no federal law banning any breed. There are some restrictions, but no bans, even concerning breeds explicitly bred for combat - killer dogs that are banned in many other countries.

Dogs aren't typically weapons of mass destruction wielded by people with an intent to do harm. I picked Pokemon because of their phenomenal cosmic powers and their use as tools, as well as to compare the infantile nature of putting narrow aspects of a hobby before people's lives.

 

[Foxi4]

I do know about the Zion curtain.
But it does not matter if it is state or local laws really sense the issue is about the measures and regulations not who implemented them.

It absolutely does. On a city or state level the input of constituents is felt strongly, that is not the case on a national level. In Utah, legislating alcohol consumption is relatively easy because the population is mostly stringent Christians of the LDS variety - you wouldn't be able to get that consensus nationally. A local government adjusts the law specifically for their local constituents, law nationally is supposed to be more broad. I also never said that I agree with those bans.

 

[RevPokemon]

It absolutely does. On a city or state level the input of constituents is felt strongly, that is not the case on a national level. In Utah, legislating alcohol consumption is relatively easy because the population is mostly stringent Christians of the LDS variety - you wouldn't be able to get that consensus nationally. A local government adjusts the law specifically for their local constituents, law nationally is supposed to be more broad. I also never said that I agree with those bans.

What i meant was arguably implementation of laws,standards, and regulations are different from the laws themselves in terms of effectiveness.

 

[Foxi4]

@Lacius, I have to disagree with you on a very fundamental thing you've said. To me, all mass shooters have mental health issues, and the only evidence I need to make that assessment is the fact that they've committed a mass shooting. I don't need any experts to weigh in on this - if you've gotten yourself into the mental state in which you consider killing a bunch of completely random, innocent people, for whatever cause, as acceptable, you have mentally snapped. Continuing this conversation from this point would be completely fruitless to either of us as we disagree on the fundamentals. If you're trying to say that guns make unstable people more dangerous, I'll gladly agree - guns are dangerous, I just think that there are more important things at stake here and I would rather make sure that we reduce the number of psychopaths out there by promoting better awareness of mental health issues than protect people from themselves.

 

[Lacius]

@Lacius, I have to disagree with you on a very fundamental thing you've said. To me, all mass shooters have mental health issues, and the only evidence I need to make that assessment is the fact that they've committed a mass shooting.

I agree with you, but when we talk about mental health issues that are clinically symptomatic before a mass shooting, that's not going to apply to every mass shooter.

 

[RevPokemon]

I agree with you, but when we talk about mental health issues that are clinically symptomatic before a mass shooting, that's not going to apply to every mass shooter.

Such as Omar Mateen did

 

[Foxi4]

I agree with you, but when we talk about mental health issues that are clinically symptomatic before a mass shooting, that's not going to apply to every mass shooter.

Explain to me one thing - what do you think is the root cause of, say, school shootings? What's at fault more, the ubiquitous nature of guns in the U.S. or the overall American lifestyle? Clinically observable or not, don't you think that what's pushing people to commit these atrocities is not so much the presence of guns, rather the way in which your society functions? Because this is almost uniquely an American problem. Japan has a whole different problem with adolescents - suicide pacts. When Japanese children snap, they don't shoot, they convince each other to jump on railroad tracks. They have whole clubs dedicated to just ending lives, mass suicide is a huge issue, and it has everything to do with the pressure to perform. Don't you think that this is a desprate cry for help more than anything else? That school shootings occur because the life pressures on teens regarding education and social status are too much for many to handle, and guns are just a mechanism of release, not the root cause? Because I do think so - I think the problem is running deeper than just access to guns, and without addressing that, no restrictions will ever resolve the problem. I think that whether people realize that they're on the way to snapping or not, a better approach to mental health would aleviate a lot of the stress, and thus reduce mass shootings by extention.

 

[Lacius]

Explain to me one thing - what do you think is the root cause of, say, school shootings? What's at fault more, the ubiquitous nature of guns in the U.S. or the overall American lifestyle? Clinically observable or not, don't you think that what's pushing people to commit these atrocities is not so much the presence of guns, rather the way in which your society functions? Because this is almost uniquely an American problem. Japan has a whole different problem with adolescents - suicide pacts. When Japanese children snap, they don't shoot, they convince each other to jump on railroad tracks. They have whole clubs dedicated to just ending lives, mass suicide is a huge issue, and it has everything to do with the pressure to perform. Don't you think that this is a desprate cry for help more than anything else? That school shootings occur because the life pressures on teens regarding education and social status are too much for many to handle, and guns are just a mechanism of release, not the root cause? Because I do think so - I think the problem is running deeper than just access to guns, and without addressing that, no restrictions will ever resolve the problem. I think that whether people realize that they're on the way to snapping or not, a better approach to mental health would aleviate a lot of the stress, and thus reduce mass shootings by extention.

There are a lot of societal factors, including mental health, bullying, and other causes of adolescent stress. Access to guns is a also significant factor.

 

[Foxi4]

Such as Omar Mateen did

Omar Mateen is exactly the case I'm talking about - a likely homosexual man in internal conflict over his sexuality due to societal pressure and his islamic upbringing. He snapped and blamed all homosexuals for his own mental state, he was venting. Access to guns wasn't what caused him to shoot - he snapped because of internal struggle to conform, or at least that's the prevailing theory. He fashioned himself into a martyr because he desperately wanted attention, he was seeking acceptance.

There are a lot of societal factors, including mental health, bullying, and other causes of adolescent stress. Access to guns is a also significant factor.

I disagree. Guns are just tools, not the root cause. Gun mentality, perhaps, but not guns themselves. I can see some common ground though, so that's good enough for me.