Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2022 MidTerms & State races- who ya got?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ScoobyDoo
    replied
    And that is irrelevant. I've got shoot ups all over the United States using military style weapons that were banned until gun owners decided they needed them.

    Ban them all.

    Leave a comment:


  • walrus
    replied
    Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View Post
    "A few ammosexuals"?

    You can try and downplay the issue if you want but all the evidence is on my side, not yours.
    What evidence do you have that I have broken any laws when it comes to guns?

    Leave a comment:


  • RaceBoarder
    replied
    Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View Post
    "A few ammosexuals"?

    You can try and downplay the issue if you want but all the evidence is on my side, not yours.
    29% of gun owners own 5 or more firearms. So that 30% dictates everything?

    Leave a comment:


  • ScoobyDoo
    replied
    "A few ammosexuals"?

    You can try and downplay the issue if you want but all the evidence is on my side, not yours.

    Leave a comment:


  • RaceBoarder
    replied
    Originally posted by psych View Post

    I'm one of the "ban guns" people. In my ideal world, we'd ban 95% of the guns in this country tomorrow, or make ammunition so expensive that Chris Rock's bit comes into play. That doesn't mean you, I'm assuming a responsible enough gun owner, are banned from owning one for your hunting needs. Nowhere, not even Japan, is devoid of guns. It's possible to acknowledge that the only way to really make a huge dent in gun violence in this country would be utilizing one or both of the aforementioned solutions, while accepting that this will not currently happen in the United States' political environment, so you take what you can get. Any reduction in gun violence, while potentially not statistically significant, is better than the insanely high rates we currently possess compared to other developed countries.
    See, this POV seems like you are open to (reasonable) negotiation. For example, I am more than willing to concede a hard capacity limit of 5+1 for long guns and 9+1 on handguns.

    Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View Post
    I was all for hunters and their guns. But, given their complete dereliction of duty and continued support of a criminal organization that poses as a political party and a criminal organization that poses as a gun safety organization I have changed my mind.

    You don't deserve your guns. None of you do.
    But then you have this. This is what I'm talking about. Scooby wants to burn everything down just to get his way. There are Millions of responsible gun owners in this country. But you let a few Ammosexuals dictate stuff for everyone.

    This is where conservatism (as a concept) has it's place.

    Leave a comment:


  • ScoobyDoo
    replied
    I was all for hunters and their guns. But, given their complete dereliction of duty and continued support of a criminal organization that poses as a political party and a criminal organization that poses as a gun safety organization I have changed my mind.

    You don't deserve your guns. None of you do.

    Leave a comment:


  • psych
    replied
    Originally posted by RaceBoarder View Post

    Not from the sampling on this board. DGF, MichVandal, and others have basically said "No Exceptions, PERIOD!". A gun is a gun. Ban them all. Too bad, so sad on your "traditions". Use a bow.

    I've been attacked on this multiple times. I also see this reaction outside the board as well.
    I'm one of the "ban guns" people. In my ideal world, we'd ban 95% of the guns in this country tomorrow, or make ammunition so expensive that Chris Rock's bit comes into play. That doesn't mean you, I'm assuming a responsible enough gun owner, are banned from owning one for your hunting needs. Nowhere, not even Japan, is devoid of guns. It's possible to acknowledge that the only way to really make a huge dent in gun violence in this country would be utilizing one or both of the aforementioned solutions, while accepting that this will not currently happen in the United States' political environment, so you take what you can get. Any reduction in gun violence, while potentially not statistically significant, is better than the insanely high rates we currently possess compared to other developed countries.

    Leave a comment:


  • RaceBoarder
    replied
    Originally posted by Handyman View Post

    Uh, most people on The Left have zero issue with people having guns for hunting. The issue is the type of gun. The VAST majority of Democrats want nothing to do with banning guns it is a very very very very small and loud minority.
    Not from the sampling on this board. DGF, MichVandal, and others have basically said "No Exceptions, PERIOD!". A gun is a gun. Ban them all. Too bad, so sad on your "traditions". Use a bow.

    I've been attacked on this multiple times. I also see this reaction outside the board as well.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kepler
    replied
    Originally posted by RaceBoarder View Post
    The right isn't useless.

    Like Kepler said, by it's nature, it keeps stuff in check. By themselves, having a position with a POV from the "right" isn't something that is super toxic. My POV on how we should approach trans athletes at the high school level is one that comes to mind from the board here. Sometimes progress needs to be slightly delayed in order to make sure all the bases are covered.
    Although the point is that attitude is primarily borne of fear. I hope you realize that 75 years ago you would be having the same considered, conservative response to mixing the races in the locker room.

    Moral panic is what occurs when old prejudices and taboos are eroded by the healthy effect of heterogeneity infiltrating a previously closed society. The traditional Muslim world reacts with terror and anger to women's rights. Conservatism, when useful, takes that terror and channels it into mostly harmless reactionary politics which slows down the adoption of inclusive mores in places where the old are deeply scared by it until they die off. Then their children tut tut about how hidebound their ancestors were... and do the same thing with the next moral panic.

    Without a reasonable, watered-down conservative excuse for opposing liberation, backwards societies will become vicious and violent. This is what happened with the CSA, the Wahhabists, the Fascists, the Nazis, and now with the Dumpies. When you push animals into a corner they bare their teeth and come for your throat.

    We need the GOP as a lullaby to allow these people to cling to their guns and Bibles until enough time passes, and enough demography runs down the drain, that the remaining population is much less homophobic, misogynist, racist, trans-phobic. In a word, less religious. The function of conservatism is to allow the worst people an assisted living facility to live out their last days in a fantasy world, so they don't bother the rest of us.
    Last edited by Kepler; 08-11-2022, 01:42 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Handyman
    replied
    Originally posted by RaceBoarder View Post

    I get lumped into the current iteration of the "Right" because I lean towards allowing guns to exist (hunting, protection, etc. but need reform from the status quo.). But almost everyone who has left leaning tendencies basically says "fuck your guns" and refuses to acknowledge the depth hunting has as a cultural tradition in this country. That is kind of where I was going with this.

    The polarization works on both ends. There is almost no more middle ground to be had and shared with things.
    Uh, most people on The Left have zero issue with people having guns for hunting. The issue is the type of gun. The VAST majority of Democrats want nothing to do with banning guns it is a very very very very small and loud minority.

    Leave a comment:


  • Handyman
    replied
    Conservatism is needed...there hasn't been a true conservative party for most of my lifetime. What The Right has been since Reagan is a power hungry, government expanding, rights denying group that tells everyone what to do and how to do it. That is not what conservatism is all about.

    If you talk to a real conservative, you will find their beliefs mirror many of ours. They don't want religion in schools, they don't want religion in government. They dont care if Gays get married or if Black People are cast as James Bond. They just want to be left alone and they will in turn do the same. The differences lie in that they want small government and we want a strong federal government. They believe in baby steps and we believe in big leaps. Those are differences that can be handled quite easily.

    The problem is The Right is now in league with a lot of people who hated Republicans as much as they hated Democrats. The Right is beholden to a large group of antiestablishment, antigovernment, anti law terrorists because that is the only way they can make up for the fact that they have no ideas people actually want to elect them on. They are also beholden to Christian Fascists who have a lot of donatable money and and righteous indignation for days.

    In my father's lifetime the conservative movement went from "less power, less spending, less government in your lives" to "do what we say, our way is the only way". That is why America is failing.

    Leave a comment:


  • RaceBoarder
    replied
    Originally posted by dxmnkd316 View Post
    I guess I'm struggling to see right vs. left in the current context. It's been 50 years since the right employed facts. 70 since they weren't felons.

    Conservatism has been dead for a long time. At least in this country. I don't know how it revives itself short of war where (lowercase) liberalism prevails. You can still work with people like Scarborough, Steele, Nicole Wallace, etc. But they haven't been in power for 10+ years.
    I get lumped into the current iteration of the "Right" because I lean towards allowing guns to exist (hunting, protection, etc. but need reform from the status quo.). But almost everyone who has left leaning tendencies basically says "fuck your guns" and refuses to acknowledge the depth hunting has as a cultural tradition in this country. That is kind of where I was going with this.

    The polarization works on both ends. There is almost no more middle ground to be had and shared with things.

    Leave a comment:


  • dxmnkd316
    replied
    I guess I'm struggling to see right vs. left in the current context. It's been 50 years since the right employed facts. 70 since they weren't felons.

    Conservatism has been dead for a long time. At least in this country. I don't know how it revives itself short of war where (lowercase) liberalism prevails. You can still work with people like Scarborough, Steele, Nicole Wallace, etc. But they haven't been in power for 10+ years.
    Last edited by dxmnkd316; 08-11-2022, 01:22 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • RaceBoarder
    replied
    The right isn't useless.

    Like Kepler said, by it's nature, it keeps stuff in check. By themselves, having a position with a POV from the "right" isn't something that is super toxic. My POV on how we should approach trans athletes at the high school level is one that comes to mind from the board here. Sometimes progress needs to be slightly delayed in order to make sure all the bases are covered.

    Leave a comment:


  • Swansong
    replied
    I think having a democracy-loving conservative bloc is incredibly important. Society progresses, but having a group of people committed to society but that take a "hey now, one moment here..." approach is good. Not all progressive ideas are good, and having the sort of devil's advocate is valuable.


    Agree, though, that what passes for modern conservatism is merely "I WANT MY RIGHTS TO BE ABLE TO SUPPRESS YOURS!"

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X