Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[unclevlad]

But it's also true that regulating something like that *is* the proper province of the legislative and regulatory functions.  That said, arguably...it didn't *need* to be said, so doing so is, as you note, leaving the back door open.

 

Oh, and BTW, NYT is reporting Thomas took 3 more undocumented trips, paid for by Harlan Crow.  Raise your hand if you're surprised.

[unclevlad]

Supreme Court, on its standard ideological split, tossed out the bump stock ban.  

 

ARGH!!!!!!

[Lord Liaden]

Although the bump stock ban was one more impediment, given that turning a semiautomatic gun to full auto isn't a major modification, that probably won't have much practical effect on people who are determined to use the weapon to cause harm. Symbolically, though, it's indicative of where the court is pointed on the ideology of gun control. More is probably coming.

[Pattern Ghost]

The problem with bump stocks is that they violate the spirit of the law, but not the letter of the law. The letter says one trigger pull per round fired, and what bump stocks do is make it easier to pull the trigger faster, essentially. This is a problem with legislating technical features -- technology will find a way around. If they're to be banned, that existing law needs to be modified, or a new law written. I'm fine with banning the things, but the legislative branch should be the one to do it, not the executive.

[Pattern Ghost]

TLDR: Trump backers are funding Kennedy's campaign:

 

 

[unclevlad]

While I agree with you on the gun issues, there's a counterpoint here, which you've already stated.  Legislating technical features is a bear.  Coverage is likely to be very narrow, at best.  The net result is...there *is* no effective solution on your basis.  Unfortunately, the history of gun control rather supports my position.

[tkdguy]

Here's a bit of good news for the President, with the caveat that it's not a done deal.

 

 

[Pattern Ghost]

5 hours ago, unclevlad said:

The net result is...there *is* no effective solution on your basis.

 

There are effective solutions, but none that won't be struck down by the current SCOTUS, even if they'd otherwise pass constitutional muster. If an AWB case makes it to the current SCOTUS, that will be pretty much the end of banning based on features or technical specs. 

 

The simplest solution I've thought of (on the gun side, which I consider the least important  aside from it being politically motivating and low hanging fruit) is this: Allow carry outside the home of handguns (proper handguns, not cut down rifles) up to normal service calibers only, outside of sporting uses. Create a fair standard of qualification for a national carry permit that ensures knowledge of safety, marksmanship to a reasonable standard and self defense laws. Inside the home, you can use your shotguns, ARs, or whatever for home defense. 

 

Simply limit long guns to the field or to the range outside of the home. Going hunting? No problem. Walking around town with your rifle and your Go Pro? Time to talk to Officer Friendly. 

 

Does it pass basic 2nd Amendment muster? Well, it's not quite "not infringed," but gun owners still have stronger protections at home than outside the home, as is the case with 4th amendment cases currently. It doesn't add restrictions to what you can own over what's currently legal. It ensures people who chose to leave home legally armed are less of a danger to the public. 

 

Will it stop mass shootings? Not so much. But will it give a tool to law enforcement (carrying a long gun becomes a reasonable suspicion for a police contact) that's useful.  Strengthening existing emergency involuntary mental health hold laws to allow for more interventions would be more useful in that regard.

 

Of course, there's no political will to get either of these things done, IMO.

 

 

[Cygnia]

Donald Trump has senile meltdown about taking a dementia test, gives away that he didn't pass it

Quote

During his failed attempt at a speech, which also saw him freezing up at one point, and claiming that no one has ever heard of Kellyanne Conway at another point, Trump also told the story of his cognitive exam. He admitted that the test was administered by Ronny Jackson, the same clown who once claimed that Trump only weighed 239 points. Trump also admitted today that the final three-quarters of the cognitive exam was too hard for him

 

[Lord Liaden]

8 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

There are effective solutions, but none that won't be struck down by the current SCOTUS, even if they'd otherwise pass constitutional muster. If an AWB case makes it to the current SCOTUS, that will be pretty much the end of banning based on features or technical specs. 

 

 

The effective solutions aren't based on features or technical specs, but on the background and mental state of individuals who want to own and carry guns. The majority of Americans favor restrictions for such "red flags," but the minority who oppose them for dogmatic and emotional reasons are organized, vocal, and have bought many politicians.

[Pattern Ghost]

6 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

The effective solutions aren't based on features or technical specs, but on the background and mental state of individuals who want to own and carry guns. The majority of Americans favor restrictions for such "red flags," but the minority who oppose them for dogmatic and emotional reasons are organized, vocal, and have bought many politicians.

 

Can you clarify? The first sentence seems to be talking about pre-purchase screening measures, which I understand is a thing in Canada, especially from the state of mind/mental health standpoint (references, neighbor interviews, psych evals sorts of things), but the second is talking about red flags, which makes me think of our red flag laws in the U.S., which allow removal of firearms from persons who may be unstable based on reporting, usually by a relative or someone else with a relationship to the individual (depends on how the law is written in different areas). I'm not sure which you're referencing, or if you meant to reference both.

[Lord Liaden]

Well, when I used the term "red flags," I intended it the way it's commonly applied, to refer to warning signs of potential unpleasantness. I wasn't specifically referencing red flag laws, although those could be considered a logical extension for taking action when danger appears likely and imminent. I'm echoing a common proposal, background screenings of someone looking to purchase a gun, for criminal record, history of violence, threatening social media postings, diagnosis of dangerous mental issues, and so on. Not to the point of violating a person's right to privacy, but notation to the effect that such concerns exist. Ideally, where concerns over mental issues or social stressors do exist, directing the person at risk to resources to help them before they go too far.

 

Since this is the politics thread, I might as well add that Republicans for decades have insisted that gun violence is a matter of mental health rather than lax gun regulations; but have consistently voted against expansion of access to mental health care.

Edited June 16 by Lord Liaden

[Lectryk]

4 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

Well, when I used the term "red flags," I intended it the way it's commonly applied, to refer to warning signs of potential unpleasantness. I wasn't specifically referencing red flag laws, although those could be considered a logical extension for taking action when danger appears likely and imminent. I'm echoing a common proposal, background screenings of someone looking to purchase a gun, for criminal record, history of violence, threatening social media postings, diagnosis of dangerous mental issues, and so on. Not to the point of violating a person's right to privacy, but notation to the effect that such concerns exist. Ideally, where concerns over mental issues or social stressors do exist, directing the person at risk to resources to help them before they go to far.

 

Since this is the politics thread, I might as well add that Republicans for decades have insisted that gun violence is a matter of mental health rather than lax gun regulations; but have consistently voted against expansion of access to mental health care.

 

There are already several questions on the form required by the ATF for licensed dealers to use - the background screening customers have to go through - related to red flags.  A buyer has to provide his demographics (name, sex, dob, soc, etc) , they have to attest that they are the actual buyer, they have not been Indicted (or convicted) of a felony, they are not an unlawful user of controlled substances, they are mentally competent/have not been confined for mental issues, they are not under court order for the safety of others (stalking/harassing), they have not been judged to be a domestic abuser, they are not illegally or unlawfully in the US, and a couple more that aren't specifically germane to illegal activity.  

 

A problem is, the answers are all self reporting - witness the recent Hunter Biden conviction for (among others) falsifying his purchase form.  That self reporting makes it moot, unless you've got a Federal reason to bar you, and that reason is in the ATF's database.  With limits placed on legally sharing the information via computer placed on the ATF by congress, not at all effective in limiting access to firearms.  I'm sorry to repeat an often used speaking point for the gun lobby - 'We have enough laws, apply them!'.  We do have enough laws but of course the ILA (the NRA lobbying arm) that beats that drum never mentions how much they spend (in money and time) to stop effective implementation of the registries that would be required for nation wide reporting of relevant information.

 

An effective solution is certainly limiting sales or access to certain types or classes of firearms or accessories, but as pg says, nothing that comes in front of the current court will survive.  

 

 

 

[Old Man]

1 hour ago, Lord Liaden said:

Since this is the politics thread, I might as well add that Republicans for decades have insisted that gun violence is a matter of mental health rather than lax gun regulations; but have consistently voted against expansion of access to mental health care.

 

They also tend to vote against restricting access to guns for mental health reasons, anyway.

[Lord Liaden]

2 hours ago, Lectryk said:

 

An effective solution is certainly limiting sales or access to certain types or classes of firearms or accessories, but as pg says, nothing that comes in front of the current court will survive.  

 

 

I have to respectfully disagree. Per ATF statistics, most gun crime is committed with handguns. That includes the majority of "mass shootings," i.e. where more than one person is injured or killed. Limiting certain classes of firearms might have some salutary effect on the spectacular multi-homicide events that draw so much media attention, but statistically those horrendous events are a tiny fraction of gun crimes committed in America.

 

What the current SCOTUS will or won't do isn't the point. Courts are not immune to the will of the people, not in the long run. Not if the people don't give up. Over my lifetime I've lost count of all the things so many people said couldn't be done, until enough people decided that they could, and that they wanted them to happen. You have to keep pushing, keep up the fight for progress. Even if you don't see the end of the fight, you'll inspire others to succeed you.

 

Over a long enough time line, progress always wins.

[Pattern Ghost]

4 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

I have to respectfully disagree. Per ATF statistics, most gun crime is committed with handguns. That includes the majority of "mass shootings," i.e. where more than one person is injured or killed. Limiting certain classes of firearms might have some salutary effect on the spectacular multi-homicide events that draw so much media attention, but statistically those horrendous events are a tiny fraction of gun crimes committed in America.

 

Limiting tools used by criminals will not have as much impact as addressing the root causes of the crimes. If we want real solutions to murders with guns, we need to quit lumping them into "gun crime" as a category and address root causes. If the amount of money spent on lobbying for gun control was spent on increasing economic opportunities for disadvantaged populations, gang diversion and intervention (i.e., coaxing/teaching gangs into not shooting each other as their go to conflict resolution), resources for domestic abuse, rebuilding our mental healthcare system (so reporting can be done effectively for pre-purchase background checks, resources are available for interventions when someone is publicly plotting a mass murder, etc.), or on oversight of the scores of corporate abuses that are concentrating wealth to a very small portion of the population . . . well. But all of that is a much harder sell than encapsulating everything into a tidy package of fear called "gun crime."

 

Gun control to the extent that it has an actual impact on crime is a very long term project. We're talking about a) a cultural shift, b) the physical elimination of guns held by the criminals (confiscated or no longer functional, but guns tend to take decades to wear out), and c) doing something about that pesky 2nd Amendment (do you trust a modern US legislature to hold a Constitutional Convention, and start over from scratch?). I'd personally rather see a lot more money spent on pragmatic crime prevention.

 

As an aside, here's a good example of the ineffectiveness of legislation, re: the earlier discussion about bump stocks: The National Firearms Act was passed in 1934, requiring an enhanced background check, a (at the time cost-prohibitive) tax stamp purchase, and a few other rules to follow, to own a fully-automatic weapon (and some other categories of weapon). Newly manufactured full auto weapons were banned in 1986. So, even if you jump through the hoops, you have to find one of a (somewhat) limited supply of pre-1986 full auto weapons. Now, go on YouTube and enter "Glock switch" as your search term. Idiots actually put videos of themselves using these illegal modifications to make their Glocks full auto. Many of them.

[Starlord]

Trump Confuses Doctor's Name While Challenging Biden to Cognitive Test

[Cygnia]

CEOs at Trump meeting: Ex-president ‘meandering’ and ‘doesn’t know what he’s talking about’

[Dr. MID-Nite]

11 hours ago, Cygnia said:

CEOs at Trump meeting: Ex-president ‘meandering’ and ‘doesn’t know what he’s talking about’

 

This is probably a plus for them....

[Lord Liaden]

I have to disagree. Business people like stability, predictability. Trump is chaos, more so now than ever before. They can't even be sure he'll follow the same policies if he returns to office. Note that he recently said he favored getting rid of all income tax and replacing it with tariffs on all imported goods.   Just the rumor of such a move can hamstring an economy.

Edited June 18 by Lord Liaden

[DShomshak]

A leader article in the latest Economist said much the same thing. Apparently many of America's billionaires have started kissing up to Trump, and those who criticized him have gone silent. Perhaps they think they can get more tax cuts from him and the Pubs in a second term; perhaps they merely seek to avert his vengeance against those who did not support him. The Economist argues it's a bad choice either way. His announced policies would be economically disastrous. Cronyism, vindictiveness, and general chaos are bad, too. Mere commonsensical self-interest says America's tycoons should be working to keep him out of the White House.

 

Unfortunately for this rational argument, billionaires are not always rational. Quite a few of them hold Evangelical social views, or other views on the further fringe of conservatism, and they might imagine the economic damage is worth it to deal with The Gay, crush the unions, protect the fossil fuel industry, or own the libs. Cronyism is also the most profitable of all economic systems if you can be one of the cronies... and stay one. I mean, look at Russia's oligarchs, they've found Putin's rule flipping *wonderful.* (Just stay away from high windows.)

 

Dean Shomshak

[Old Man]

4 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

I have to disagree. Business people like stability, predictability. Trump is chaos, more so now than ever before. They can't even be sure he'll follow the same policies if he returns to office. Note that he recently said he favored getting rid of all income tax and replacing it with tariffs on all imported goods.   Just the rumor of such a move can hamstring an economy.

 

...It depends.  Businesspeople like stability, but they also like deregulation, especially towards the wealthier end of the spectrum.  If you already run a quasi-monopoly, you may well believe you're better off with regulatory Calvinball. 

 

And then as DShomshak points out, billionaires get all kinds of weird ideas.  Many started out with sociopathic tendencies to begin with, sociopathy being a useful quality to have when profiting from the labor of others.  If not, once they start hanging out with the billionaire class, they get exposed to the taxation-is-theft and society-requires-a-hierarchy philosophical types.

[DShomshak]

Society-requires-a-hierarchy seeming especially plausible and attractive when you're at the top of the hierarchy.

 

(I know, obvious and trite, merely added for the sake of completeness.)

 

Dean Shomshak

[Lord Liaden]

I considered putting this in Funny Pics, but this thread seemed safer. And those of us who follow it could probably use a chuckle.

 

[Cygnia]

https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2024-06-19/this-gop-leaning-polling-firm-has-turned-into-a-purveyor-of-anti-vaccine-propaganda

Quote

Rasmussen Reports used to be a fairly creditable and credible political polling organization, good enough to be included among the pollsters relied on by services such as FiveThirtyEight to give a broad-spectrum gauge of voter sentiment in the run-up to state and federal elections.

It’s true that Rasmussen had a detectable pro-Republican “house effect,” in polling parlance — but one that was consistent enough to compensate for in published polling averages.

But something has happened to Rasmussen in recent years. Not only have its results become more sharply partisan, favoring Republican and conservative politicians, but it also has increasingly promoted right-wing conspiracy theories on topics such as race relations, election results and — perhaps most troubling — COVID vaccines and COVID origins.

Earlier this month, Rasmussen tweeted the results of polls it conducted in June 2023 and last month, claiming to find that 1 in 5 Americans believe they know someone who died from a COVID vaccine.

There are many reasons to disregard any such poll asking people what they think about a scientifically validated fact — in this case, that the record shows overwhelmingly that the COVID vaccines widely used in the U.S. are safe and effective.

But Rasmussen has doubled down on its findings. In a series of tweets on June 9, it declared, first: “If the numbers implied by our COVID polling are correct, the vaccines killed more people worldwide than Jews killed in the Holocaust.”

Then it tweeted: “China lied. Fauci lied. People died.” And followed that with: “The government take over of medicine was as deadly as always predicted.”

In other words, Rassmussen has morphed from a quantifier of public opinion into a participant in the spread of noxious propaganda. It still tries to validate its results by claiming that they’re “relevant, timely and accurate,” citing its “track record.”