Gun Legislation, Crime, and Events

[Motor City Sonics]

4 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

Wasn't there an armed guard at the supermarket in Buffalo?

There were several armed personnel at Fort Hood........during TWO mass shooting events where 13 and 4 people were killed.   And many of the folks killed were armed and trained for combat (some were unarmed office workers).    

This "arm everybody" narrative doesn't take into account that it's probably gonna take a few seconds to realize what's going on, try to protect students,  find the firearm (teachers with hip holsters is so disturbing) and actually try to mentally process what needs to be done.........and then to expect a regular person to be as calm as a professionally trained SWAT member is asking a lot.   Even cops get rattled in extreme situations and it's what they train for.  

 

When Sully had to land that plane in the Hudson, at first they tried to make it look like he failed to get the plane to a nearby  airport because when they ran simulations they immediately decided to turn for an airport as soon as the birds hit the plane.  They did not take into account that it took some time to assess how serious the bird strike was before deciding to take the plane down.   

You have to factor in human emotion, panic and the variable of hundreds of other people acting in an unpredictable way.  This ain't a video game. 

[1776]

33 minutes ago, Motor City Sonics said:

The senate needs to be based on population.  California has roughly 80 times the population of Wyoming.  California should have 6 senators, Wyoming should have 1.    Not every California senator would be a Democrat.   Even 6 to 1 wouldn't be fair.   DC gets no representation in the Senate, which is ridiculous since they have a bigger population than Wyoming.  

Disagree entirely on the above comment. Read Catherine Drinker Brown’s book, ‘Miracle at Philadelphia.’ The book details the arguments laid out during the making of the U.S. Constitution. To this day I am in awe of how these men foresaw what they did in 1787, drawing from historical precedents, good and bad, to bring our constitution to realization. 
Franklin’s words become more prescient by the day regarding our republic. 

[Motor City Sonics]

1 minute ago, pfife said:

my favorite part about the tyrannical government argument is that the same people who make that argument also tried to overthrow the elected government in favor of the unelected.

DING !

[Motor City Sonics]

1 minute ago, 1776 said:

Disagree entirely on the above comment. Read Catherine Drinker Brown’s book, ‘Miracle at Philadelphia.’ The book details the arguments laid out during the making of the U.S. Constitution. To this day I am in awe of how these men foresaw what they did in 1787, drawing from historical precedents, good and bad, to bring our constitution to realization. 
Franklin’s words become more prescient by the day regarding our republic. 

Our republic is a sham. 

[Motown Bombers]

2 minutes ago, 1776 said:

Disagree entirely on the above comment. Read Catherine Drinker Brown’s book, ‘Miracle at Philadelphia.’ The book details the arguments laid out during the making of the U.S. Constitution. To this day I am in awe of how these men foresaw what they did in 1787, drawing from historical precedents, good and bad, to bring our constitution to realization. 
Franklin’s words become more prescient by the day regarding our republic. 

When the constitution was written, was the largest state 68 times larger than the smallest state? What good reason is there that 578,000 people in Wyoming have the same 2% representation in the senate as 40 million in California? 

[Motor City Sonics]

Our republic is great if you're a wealthy white landowner.     For everyone else, they are marginalized. 

[gehringer_2]

20 minutes ago, 1776 said:

Disagree entirely on the above comment. Read Catherine Drinker Brown’s book, ‘Miracle at Philadelphia.’ The book details the arguments laid out during the making of the U.S. Constitution. To this day I am in awe of how these men foresaw what they did in 1787, drawing from historical precedents, good and bad, to bring our constitution to realization. 
Franklin’s words become more prescient by the day regarding our republic. 

and excess hero worship of people who simply did the best they did to hammer a bunch of compromises to meet the conditions of the time is a factor that keeps us of blind to the fact that these were practical men, who if they looked at the loss of democratic character of this country would certainly be in the forefront of trying to do something about it.

The truth is that the Civil War invalidated the major premise of the Founders that the US would be collection of states. The Civil War made this a single unitary nation, and the nature of the current world demands we remain one,  but it's  one left with a Constitution ill suited to the that changed reality. Constitutionally, the disconnect between the Founders' vision and the actual nation has been growing since 1865 and will only continue to get worse - especially if American's don't open their eyes to the fact that a modern nation that will not practice democracy is bound to descend into something much worse.

Edited May 25, 2022 by gehringer_2

[Mr.TaterSalad]

20 minutes ago, pfife said:

my favorite part about the tyrannical government argument is that the same people who make that argument also tried to overthrow the elected government in favor of the unelected.

My favorite part is the same people who have thin blue line flags at their house and stickers on the back of their cars/trucks would apparently start shooting law enforcement officials were they tyrannical in their minds.

[mtutiger]

Just now, Mr.TaterSalad said:

My favorite part is the same people who have thin blue line flags at their house and stickers on the back of their cars/trucks would apparently start shooting law enforcement officials were they tyrannical in their minds.

Guns are actually a case where law enforcement largely falls along the standard liberal position.

But, paraphrasing Meat Loaf, "we'll do anything for law enforcement, but we won't do that" lol

[Motown Bombers]

 

[mtutiger]

30 minutes...

Edited May 25, 2022 by mtutiger

[Tigerbomb13]

15 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

 

The price of freedom

[Motown Bombers]

I imagine that caravan is heading to the Texas border right about now. 

[Motown Bombers]

 

[Tigerbomb13]

5 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

 

Right on brand, without skipping a beat. 

[antrat]

Nothing will change in this country until the working class wake up and realize that Republicans are their enemies.

Not illegal immigrants or people of color or poor people.

[1776]

41 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

When the constitution was written, was the largest state 68 times larger than the smallest state? What good reason is there that 578,000 people in Wyoming have the same 2% representation in the senate as 40 million in California? 

Populations varied from state to state in 1787 as well. The population apportionment of representation is through the House of Representatives. The founding fathers purposely intended for the Senate to be represented evenly by the states. The purpose of the Senate is, in large part, to check the whims and shenanigans of the House. The Senate was in intended to be a check point on extreme ideas and legislation coming from the lower House. As much as I abhor politics in general these days, I believe the Senate is satisfying that expectation to a degree. The idea of six year terms with 1/3 of the Senate facing the voters every two years is intended to maintain a degree of stability in that chamber. 
If the Senate is determined by population per state, there will be under representation in the Senate by smaller states. The argument that the Senate should be determined by population undermines the intent of the founders. The government in general was in need of a mechanism to guard against powerful majorities, not endorse them. The separation of powers, though muddied and skirted by today’s self serving politicians, was designed to make it difficult for significant change without strenuous debate and compromise. It would be a mistake to determine Senatorial representation by state population. 
A Congress (Senate & House) based solely on populations would literally deny smaller states a voice in Washington. 
 

[gehringer_2]

3 minutes ago, 1776 said:

A Congress (Senate & House) based solely on populations would literally deny smaller states a voice in Washington. 
 

this is a cannard. You are either a democracy or you are not. If you want to have a chamber that is more deliberative, give them single 10 yr terms, don't elect them non-democratically. Non-democratic election doesn't insulate them from political whims, it just makes them subject to the whims of a tiny minority - not helpful in any scheme.

Tiny states should have tiny voices, they represent a tiny number of people. We call that 'democracy'

Edited May 25, 2022 by gehringer_2

[Tigerbomb13]

5 minutes ago, 1776 said:

Populations varied from state to state in 1787 as well. The population apportionment of representation is through the House of Representatives. The founding fathers purposely intended for the Senate to be represented evenly by the states. The purpose of the Senate is, in large part, to check the whims and shenanigans of the House. The Senate was in intended to be a check point on extreme ideas and legislation coming from the lower House. As much as I abhor politics in general these days, I believe the Senate is satisfying that expectation to a degree. The idea of six year terms with 1/3 of the Senate facing the voters every two years is intended to maintain a degree of stability in that chamber. 
If the Senate is determined by population per state, there will be under representation in the Senate by smaller states. The argument that the Senate should be determined by population undermines the intent of the founders. The government in general was in need of a mechanism to guard against powerful majorities, not endorse them. The separation of powers, though muddied and skirted by today’s self serving politicians, was designed to make it difficult for significant change without strenuous debate and compromise. 
 

And it’s clearly not working. 

[Mr.TaterSalad]

57 minutes ago, Tigerbomb13 said:

The price of freedom

Don't worry, someone will surly salute their flag draped coffins at their funeral.

Edited May 25, 2022 by Mr.TaterSalad

[Mr.TaterSalad]

14 hours ago, pfife said:

Sandy Hook was the event that impacted me most psychology besides maybe 9/11. 

Now we're here again.

Can you imagine if Al Gore had been President on 9/11 how the Republicans would have responded. That's the kind of response we need from the Democrats on gun violence and mass shootings in America.

[Motor City Sonics]

9 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

Can you imagine if Al Gore had been President on 9/11 how the Republicans would have responded. That's the kind of response we need from the Democrats on gun violence and mass shootings in America.

No, I can't imagine because this "Democracy" of ours put the guy in office that got fewer votes.   

[1776]

1 hour ago, Motor City Sonics said:

Our republic is a sham. 

Political figures have, for the most part, evolved into self serving beings. They themselves are placing themselves above law. 
That the choice between Trump or Biden for the top office in the land is on us, the voters. Incumbents win the overwhelming majority of races. Politicians insulate themselves from accountability in numerous ways. An article in WSJ reported the other day that only 22% of the population can name only ONE branch of government! We have an ignorant and uninformed voting base that is terribly uninformed and under educated. 
I’ll bet as much as 75% of voters in this country can’t name their U.S. House representative. 
There is so much wrong in this country now it is shameful. 
Why don’t voters remove these cons from public offices? A population willing to accommodate poor character in leadership won’t improve any government or country. 
 

[1776]

20 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

this is a cannard. You are either a democracy or you are not. If you want to have a chamber that is more deliberative, give them single 10 yr terms, don't elect them non-democratically. Non-democratic election doesn't insulate them from political whims, it just makes them subject to the whims of a tiny minority - not helpful in any scheme.

Tiny states should have tiny voices, they represent a tiny number of people. We call that 'democracy'

Are you suggesting the elimination of states as we know them today?

[ben9753]

22 minutes ago, 1776 said:

Populations varied from state to state in 1787 as well. The population apportionment of representation is through the House of Representatives. The founding fathers purposely intended for the Senate to be represented evenly by the states. The purpose of the Senate is, in large part, to check the whims and shenanigans of the House. The Senate was in intended to be a check point on extreme ideas and legislation coming from the lower House. As much as I abhor politics in general these days, I believe the Senate is satisfying that expectation to a degree. The idea of six year terms with 1/3 of the Senate facing the voters every two years is intended to maintain a degree of stability in that chamber. 
If the Senate is determined by population per state, there will be under representation in the Senate by smaller states. The argument that the Senate should be determined by population undermines the intent of the founders. The government in general was in need of a mechanism to guard against powerful majorities, not endorse them. The separation of powers, though muddied and skirted by today’s self serving politicians, was designed to make it difficult for significant change without strenuous debate and compromise. It would be a mistake to determine Senatorial representation by state population. 
A Congress (Senate & House) based solely on populations would literally deny smaller states a voice in Washington. 
 

We guard against the powerful majorities by creating powerful minorities? Explain how that’s logical and democratic?