UK Leaves EU

[Dinh AaronMk]

To be honest terror gonna terror. But really it's such a rare occurrence in the first place it may actually be worse off to give such a shit as we do to freeze our political situation and allow the terror groups - or any individual - have such command of society by a gruesome act or even shift the focus of the discussion to something irrelevant. I'm not saying to be entirely dismissive of it, but from a statistical stand-point mass-shootings like at Orlando (if we're allowing ourselves to derail the thread to that by proxy) is a very, very rare occurrence; floating at just about 1%.

You could try to clamp down on gun traffic, but if a terrorist was determined they'd still get armed. It's all really a delaying tactic that'll slow them down. And if the authorities are going to be as cautiously disinterested in actively catching suspects before they act as they were with the Orlando shooting: then the longer window it'll take for a terrorist or a determinedly psychologically broken individual to get armed may not be acted on all the same.

That said, that 1% or less than 1% has somehow shifted the focus of the discussion to that far greater issue, and taking away guns is really not going to be the best way to handle that to be honest. It's an easy solution that allow politicians - if they get it to happen - to claim a victory to their name so they can try to passingly claim immortality as a "great legislator" who brought "sweeping change". We really need to be looking into the cause of violence in general, not the tool. Take away the tool, someone else will just use something else. Because, do we really need this when it's all said and done?

[scribz]

<Snipped quote by scribz>

1. It being a stupid idea is totally non-partisan.

2. The list itself, and the authority governing it, should certainly be looked at.

3. Freedom to travel through the sky in a recliner is not an inalienable right. The NFL is an administrative policy, legally made and specifically focused towards a single lawful purpose. Recklessly extending it beyond its scope, especially as a litmus test by which to deny ANYBODY his or her constitutional rights, is fucking ridiculous.

4. Sure. We're a representative democracy. The reason we have a house and a senate in the first place, rather than being governed by polls, is so that they can stop the frightened masses from overreacting in the moment. They're doing exactly their job, and yes, their job is 'undemocratic' at the moment. That's a loaded word and a dirty question, but the answer is yes, they're SUPPOSED TO. We set it up that way because occasionally pure democracy gets behind stupid ideas like this one.

@mdk

So you're against the will of the people then?

Speaking of the house doing their job, the bill was fast-tracked when the democrats within the house wanted to debate the issue. Do you believe the house was doing it's job then too?

What do you feel about the majority of conservatives in support of the small measures of gun regulation?

[mdk]

<Snipped quote by mdk>

So you're against the will of the people then?

Speaking of the house doing their job, the bill was fast-tracked when the democrats within the house wanted to debate the issue. Do you believe the house was doing it's job then too?

What do you feel about the majority of conservatives in support of the small measures of gun regulation?

@scribz

1. The fuck are you on about? I think this is a stupid bill. It doesn't matter who or how many people think otherwise. What kind of semantic bullshittery is this? Are you an anarchist? You know, because you're against the government? Fuck off.

2. Yep. And it was still a stupid idea at that point, too.

3. The same thing I feel about anybody else in support of this particular instance of gun regulation. It's a stupid idea they're getting behind.

[Dinh AaronMk]

I think we should move all known gun-related criminals to Kansas, fence them into the entire state, and set up cameras to live-stream the action.

We'll also arm them with small-arms.

[Vilageidiotx]

The way Brownback runnin it Kansas will go full Mad Max on its own, no need to butt in

[ClocktowerEchos]

I think we should move all known gun-related criminals to Kansas, fence them into the entire state, and set up cameras to live-stream the action.

We'll also arm them with small-arms.

@Dinh AaronMk

Or we could just make them all join a penal legion

[scribz]

@mdk Just curious to your rationale.

[Vilageidiotx]

@mdk Just curious to your rationale.

@scribz

He doesn't believe in it. The United States doesn't work as a hive-mind where once something becomes popular you have to agree with it or else. He doesn't see it as constitutional, and he made a fair argument as to why he thinks that. Like, if you wanna follow this track then argue the merits of the bill, not the merits of disagreeing with congress. Disagreeing with congress is part of what makes us Americans anyway, it's our national heritage.

[scribz]

<Snipped quote by scribz>

He doesn't believe in it. The United States doesn't work as a hive-mind where once something becomes popular you have to agree with it or else. He doesn't see it as constitutional, and he made a fair argument as to why he thinks that. Like, if you wanna follow this track then argue the merits of the bill, not the merits of disagreeing with congress. Disagreeing with congress is part of what makes us Americans anyway, it's our national heritage.

@Vilageidiotx

Woah, no. I'm under no obligation to do anything. I'm asking political questions to someone who historically on this website wants to engage in political issues. I've not seen him deviate from the views of the republican party once in the 7 years I've been here (unless the democrats are also guilty, then the problem can be addressed) when I've changed my views countless times. I wanted to see if that applies even when a majority of conservative voters are for the bill and so it runs clearly against democracy, and political process. It does, and he doesn't appreciate me asking those questions.

I voted to remain in the UK. But I the recognize the decision to leave as the valid one.

[mdk]

<Snipped quote by Vilageidiotx>

Woah, no. I'm under no obligation to do anything. I'm asking political questions to someone who historically on this website wants to engage in political issues. I've not seen him deviate from the views of the republican party once in the 7 years I've been here (unless the democrats are also guilty, then the problem can be addressed) when I've changed my views countless times. I wanted to see if that applies even when a majority of conservative voters are for the bill and so it runs clearly against democracy, and political process. It does, and he doesn't appreciate me asking those questions.

I voted to remain in the UK. But I the recognize the decision to leave as the valid one.

@scribz

Hmm? I'm routinely opposed to the republican party. Pro-choice (for governmental purposes at least), pro-marriage-equality, disliked pretty much all of the presidential candidates I've ever seen... Though I'll probably wind up voting for this one, if only as an anti-clinton vote. Nearest you can label me is libertarian, but with realist foreign policy (which necessitates some domestic compromise).

But it's interesting.... That analysis you gave of me is sort of exactly what the spin-doctors want you to perceive. A story pops up in the press and gets written as 'GOP wants to throw all abortion-havers into a dungeon forever,' and I'll go in and read the actual bill and post what the bill actually says (like, idunno, 7-year-old boys who want an abortion need a note from their mother), and why I don't think that's such a bad idea. But that only registers as "Look at MDK, defending the GOP again, what a tool."

Mind you, that's a brilliant play by the architects of spin, and I can appreciate that. But it is a bit frustrating to have my intellectual contributions over a seven-year period of observation reduced to a single inaccurate bullet point.

now then

Brexit and nfl-guncontrol are two very different beasts. The EU referendum was a popular vote, but congressional voting in the US is not. (Nor, I believe, are parliamentary proceedings in the UK). We are a representative democracy; our duly elected representatives in congress are tasked not with precisely mirroring the momentary and fluctuating will of the people (else ACA would be long dead), but rather with representing the best interests of the constituency. Usually when 'the will of the people' conflicts with the representative's notion of 'their best interest,' that congressman will abstain from the vote. In this case, operating procedures are being utilized to prevent a vote altogether, on the grounds that political pressure from constituents of all affiliations would compel the congress to pass a bad bill. This is the best example in recent memory of why we are a representative democracy in the first place, rather than pure democracy. The stupid bill will not pass, because it will not come to a vote. It should never have been proposed in the first place, but here we are, and thank god someone had the good sense to step on its throat and kill it.