The American Politics Thread

Easy Money wrote: For many rural people in the US, guns are still a part of everyday life. In the south, people hunt deer for food, and in the west guns protect people and their livestock against coyotes, wolves, large cats, bears etc. Meanwhile, there is this other part of the population that seems to have a heavy attraction to guns for other reasons.

This is my understanding of the real life situation in the States, and for those people whose legitimate use of guns in their everyday lives, the ban 'em debate must be thoroughly tiresome.

Actually, there is a similar debate in the UK between rural people for whom hunting is not a sport, but an everyday reality, and the ban 'em brigade, for whom anything done to widdle animals is akin to the devil's work.

The difference here, of course, is that the ramifications on innocent people, especially children, is not there, whereas for you Amercans, those parts of the population who carry guns to do do harm to other people seems to me like something which is incapable of being resolved by legislature. Guns are banned in the UK, except under strict licensing laws. So, for that matter, are nasty knives. However, nasty people who want to use such weapons for nasty purposes still get hold of them, use them, and always will. It is simply impossible to police.

At the moment in London, especially, there is a load of liberal handwringing as to the explosion of knife crime, which invariably shies away from the fact that much of the background to it is that of grinding poverty, and, yes, specific social circumstances of specific racial minority groups.

I wish I had the answer, but it does seem to me that the debate over with you is, as with much else at the moment, ridiculously polarised, to the extent that any sensible debate is now out of the question.

^ Well said......and that sums it up nicely.

The Dark Elf wrote: Please, spare me the "I need guns because the black bears eating grubs and berries on my property represent an imminent danger" argument for unfettered gun ownership in the U.S. Percentage-wise, the population who can make such a claim is ridiculously low. And a shotgun that makes a loud bang is enough to scare off bears or coyotes in these cases. An AR-15 assault rifle with laser sighting and bump stock would not be needed even for a herd of ravenous berry-eating black bears. Gun-ownership is not really what is at issue in the U.S.; it is, however, the aggrandizement and mythological belief that the 2nd Amendment is integral in protecting the rights of modern, urban or suburban dwelling Americans living in cookie-cutter subdivisions or condominiums. Gun ownership has somehow transmogrified from settlers and cowboys fending for themselves out on the plains of 19th century Old West to modern-days Clint Eastwoods with concealed Sig-Sauers waiting for someone to try to pick a fight about a parking space at a Walmart. Gun ownership has been glamorized by Dillingers and Mafia Mustache Petes with their gats, or packing heaters under their trench coats. In the U.S. we have cities like Chicago, New York or Detroit where there are more gun deaths municipally-speaking on an annual basis than in the entirety of Canada. Or Australia. Pick a country. Any damn country. Proliferation of guns is completely out of hand, and unnecessary. And rational discourse in controlling the problem is impossible, given the rabid "if you take my gun, the deep state will come with their black helicopters and unlawfully take my parking space, which was allotted to me by the right hand of God and the 2nd Amendment." We need a national registry. No state laws that are less than a new federal minimum for who and when a gun can be purchased. No auction sales except for antique guns (if you're going to kill your wife with a blunderbuss, oh well, my bad), no gun ownership for those who have been found guilty of committing certain crimes (like domestic abuse), no guns for people adjudged with mental conditions, and at least a month waiting/cool down period so that a proper federal search of your information can be conducted. Canada has quite stringent gun laws, but if you are qualified you can still own your rifle to hunt deer. You just can't have a Uzi to spray down that poor bear minding it's business in your bushes.

amen sista! 

micky wrote: The Dark Elf wrote: Please, spare me the "I need guns because the black bears eating grubs and berries on my property represent an imminent danger" argument for unfettered gun ownership in the U.S. Percentage-wise, the population who can make such a claim is ridiculously low. And a shotgun that makes a loud bang is enough to scare off bears or coyotes in these cases. An AR-15 assault rifle with laser sighting and bump stock would not be needed even for a herd of ravenous berry-eating black bears. Gun-ownership is not really what is at issue in the U.S.; it is, however, the aggrandizement and mythological belief that the 2nd Amendment is integral in protecting the rights of modern, urban or suburban dwelling Americans living in cookie-cutter subdivisions or condominiums. Gun ownership has somehow transmogrified from settlers and cowboys fending for themselves out on the plains of 19th century Old West to modern-days Clint Eastwoods with concealed Sig-Sauers waiting for someone to try to pick a fight about a parking space at a Walmart. Gun ownership has been glamorized by Dillingers and Mafia Mustache Petes with their gats, or packing heaters under their trench coats. In the U.S. we have cities like Chicago, New York or Detroit where there are more gun deaths municipally-speaking on an annual basis than in the entirety of Canada. Or Australia. Pick a country. Any damn country. Proliferation of guns is completely out of hand, and unnecessary. And rational discourse in controlling the problem is impossible, given the rabid "if you take my gun, the deep state will come with their black helicopters and unlawfully take my parking space, which was allotted to me by the right hand of God and the 2nd Amendment." We need a national registry. No state laws that are less than a new federal minimum for who and when a gun can be purchased. No auction sales except for antique guns (if you're going to kill your wife with a blunderbuss, oh well, my bad), no gun ownership for those who have been found guilty of committing certain crimes (like domestic abuse), no guns for people adjudged with mental conditions, and at least a month waiting/cool down period so that a proper federal search of your information can be conducted. Canada has quite stringent gun laws, but if you are qualified you can still own your rifle to hunt deer. You just can't have a Uzi to spray down that poor bear minding it's business in your bushes. funny...  I learned at early age that peace signs and good will towards man won't protect your home from a grizzly bear. I saw what one can do to home when angry.. or hungry or whatever possessed it.  Nor will a .22..  perhaps that is why my father had a Browning .30 cal machine gun sitting up inside the front door hahah. Like many Greg I was raised with guns not for sh*ts and grins but for safety and necessity. In fact my first kill was a mountain lion that trying to get at our horse and got caught in the electric fence.  Wasn't my father's smartest idea and we soon did sell it. The Oregon wilderness is not the place for horses hahah Anyhow.. back on point   I agree with what you are saying there...  as I have harped many many times across many different subjects. Rights and liberties are not absolute. with them come responsibles and yes..  some inconviences. What you are calling for is what i consider the middle ground..  the problem is one side things it is just the first step to big brother coming for them and their guns.. the other side naively thinks that guns are the problem and the solution is removing them thus further stoking further distrust and fear of the slippery slope.  There is about zero nadda nil trust between either side to meet in teh middle and come up with common sense ideas to help with gun violence.  As I've said before..  the one real problem I do have with the Democratic Party is on guns.. they have lost the issue.. no way short of going full blown police state are guns going to stop being a part of America.  Guns and violence are as much a part of America and our culture as baseball, and hot dogs. Stop talking rubbish and start talking real..   go after the real problem with gun violence.. the socio-economic sink hole many find themselves in... and I think they might be..  indirectly..  perhaps or perhaps not even realizing that is exactly what they are doing by doing so.

So...riffing off what you said about the Democratic Party, they need candidates who can win the Rust Belt but such candidates are found not acceptable by California and New York. And I dare say voters in these states living outside the big cities might have a different take but their voices get drowned out. It was fine as long as Obama or Bill could find a way to unite both constituencies. Now comes the real test. Now those Rust Belt states lost to Trump have to be won back and that's a lot more tricky than coasting through, taking it for granted that Union Workers will toe the party line and not vote Republican even if the Democratic Party's agenda has nothing much to offer to them.

Ah so we could perhaps see the lower ranks of the GOP revolt and let Trump fail in 2020? Hopefully.

About that cobra, so basically any animal wandering into human habitation, be it a big cat or a venomous snake, is trapped and rescued by the forest dept or even hobbyists who catch snakes. This way, they are sent back to the wilderness. For one thing, hardly anybody has guns and if the forest dept is brought in, they will only rescue, not kill (except if it's a man eater). For another per se, Indians don't hunt. Even the maharajas only occasionally hunted.

I can't resist saying that I find 45 revolting.  

npjnpj wrote: Following the Michael Cohen testimony today, my thoughts were: here is this strong-arm man and nasty piece of work enforcer, whose testimony is worth nothing at all because he’s a convicted felon and liar, speaking to a body such as he’s already lied to, hoping to reduce his sentence by telling what everyone already knows anyway, and throwing a bone of one or two of dubious pieces of evidence to back up his claims. True or not, who cares? It’s Michael Cohen!

Edited by npjnpj - February 27 2019 at 18:36

Edited by npjnpj - February 27 2019 at 19:01