What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

5mn_Major said:
Rove is nearly always the smartest guy in the room he's standing in...and he's 100% correct on this one also. Guns enable.
Click to expand...

Your statement is a relative comparison. Just sayin'.

Oh, and the country with the highest instances of gun violence per capita? Norway. Why's that? Scale.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

FlagDUDE08 said:
Your statement is a relative comparison. Just sayin'.

Oh, and the country with the highest instances of gun violence per capita? Norway. Why's that? Scale.
Click to expand...

Used to be Greenland. Also the highest per capita alcoholism, by an enormous amount (at one point, ten times the runner-up). Same reason. Well, that and the climate.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

5mn_Major said:
Point is...even Rove doesn't blindly choose policies based on his party.

By statistics, Alaska typically is considered our most dangerous state. I think you can guess what kind of gun laws it has. In fact, gun ownership highly correlates to gun deaths per capita by state:

http://fusion.net/story/42487/the-more-guns-your-state-has-the-more-gun-deaths-it-has/
Click to expand...

Are we really sucking up to Rove now? The man is drip slime.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

I only find it fascinating that a guy who was involved in so much carnage is right on the money on this issue.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

This nails it.

The attachment on the right to the Duggar family told us a lot about how right-wing tribalism works even before the revelations of Josh Duggar’s past of child molestation came out. The Duggars are not exactly in step with the lives of regular conservatives, being adherents to a fringe form of fundamentalism often called Christian patriarchy. Most conservatives aren’t shunning contraception or premarital sex, and they sure as hell aren’t teaching their kids that kissing before marriage is wrong. Rates of divorce and teen pregnancy tend to be higher in more conservative parts of the country. The sex and family lives of your average conservatives look way more like those of liberals than they do of the Duggars. If people like the Duggars got their way and were able to impose their “family values” on the rest of us by law, conservatives would be getting screwed over just as much as liberals.

It goes to show that conservative identity politics are deeply irrational, with aesthetics frequently overwhelming basic common sense. You saw the same thing going on with the Duck Dynasty brouhaha. Phil Robertson, the patriarch on that show, is a moral monster whose beliefs are so odious that no amount of religious window dressing can make them look better. It’s telling that most of his conservative defenders elide discussing what he actually says in public, trying to focus their defenses on his right to free speech, which has never actually been threatened. Robertson, along with his grossly homophobic statements, endorsed the era of segregation and suggested the ideal time for girls to marry—and he means girls—is 15. I highly doubt that most of Robertson’s fan base and supporters would like it very much if he came over to their houses, offering to pull their girls out of high school so they can be married off to grown men. But he’s a white guy who says he’s Christian and conservative, so he gets these defenses, whereas liberals who aren’t gunning for your teenage daughters are treated like some kind of deviants.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
5mn_Major said:
Point is...even Rove doesn't blindly choose policies based on his party.

By statistics, Alaska typically is considered our most dangerous state. I think you can guess what kind of gun laws it has. In fact, gun ownership highly correlates to gun deaths per capita by state:

http://fusion.net/story/42487/the-more-guns-your-state-has-the-more-gun-deaths-it-has/
Click to expand...
And you'll never get a hint of any kind of gun ownership restrictions up here because anybody who dares suggest it will never get elected, ever.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

5mn_Major said:
Point is...even Rove doesn't blindly choose policies based on his party.

By statistics, Alaska typically is considered our most dangerous state. I think you can guess what kind of gun laws it has. In fact, gun ownership highly correlates to gun deaths per capita by state:

http://fusion.net/story/42487/the-more-guns-your-state-has-the-more-gun-deaths-it-has/
Click to expand...

I don't know as that Rove was endorsing the idea of repealing the Second, just stating that a repeal is what it would take. And in that regard, I tend to agree, even though I would not support a complete repeal. I would consider supporting a rewording of it so that the language makes it easier to restrict access to certain classes of firearms that the Founders couldn't have imagined in 1789. You don't need an M249, AK-47, or AR-15 for self-defense, nor are you going to singlehandedly stop the invading PLA with them like some real-world Rambo fantasy.

Regardless, I remain skeptical that an outright ban on entire classes of firearms will have much of an effect on gun violence. If it starts the ball rolling in what I feel is the correct direction (a serious discussion about the state of mental healthcare), then I'm willing to go there.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
I don't know as that Rove was endorsing the idea of repealing the Second, just stating that a repeal is what it would take. And in that regard, I tend to agree, even though I would not support a complete repeal. I would consider supporting a rewording of it so that the language makes it easier to restrict access to certain classes of firearms that the Founders couldn't have imagined in 1789. You don't need an M249, AK-47, or AR-15 for self-defense, nor are you going to singlehandedly stop the invading PLA with them like some real-world Rambo fantasy.

Regardless, I remain skeptical that an outright ban on entire classes of firearms will have much of an effect on gun violence. If it starts the ball rolling in what I feel is the correct direction (a serious discussion about the state of mental healthcare), then I'm willing to go there.
Click to expand...
Well said. There is reasonable middle ground on guns that could protect basic gun rights but still provide some protections against them easily falling into the wrong hands and protect against having heavy weaponry that there really is no reason to have. That said, this issue, as so many others, will largely be played for partisan gain whenever possible, rather than achieving a middle ground resolution.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
I don't know as that Rove was endorsing the idea of repealing the Second, just stating that a repeal is what it would take. And in that regard, I tend to agree, even though I would not support a complete repeal. I would consider supporting a rewording of it so that the language makes it easier to restrict access to certain classes of firearms that the Founders couldn't have imagined in 1789. You don't need an M249, AK-47, or AR-15 for self-defense, nor are you going to singlehandedly stop the invading PLA with them like some real-world Rambo fantasy.

Regardless, I remain skeptical that an outright ban on entire classes of firearms will have much of an effect on gun violence. If it starts the ball rolling in what I feel is the correct direction (a serious discussion about the state of mental healthcare), then I'm willing to go there.
Click to expand...

Banning of certain weapons is still a ban, and eventually the "you don't need" will whittle down to only needing karate for self-defence. Does responsibility still need to be taken into account? Yes. However, as the second amendment is written, given I am in the reserve militia because I am male (hence why Selective Service is constitutional), if I feel a bazooka keeps my property safe, I will have it.

Weapon bans, regardless of the velocity of occurrence, is exactly how Hitler gained power. It must remain as is. No re-wording, no word mincing, keep a gun behind every blade of grass. That is why our enemies do not attack on land.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

FlagDUDE08 said:
Banning of certain weapons is still a ban, and eventually the "you don't need" will whittle down to only needing karate for self-defence. Does responsibility still need to be taken into account? Yes. However, as the second amendment is written, given I am in the reserve militia because I am male (hence why Selective Service is constitutional), if I feel a bazooka keeps my property safe, I will have it.

Weapon bans, regardless of the velocity of occurrence, is exactly how Hitler gained power. It must remain as is. No re-wording, no word mincing, keep a gun behind every blade of grass. That is why our enemies do not attack on land.
Click to expand...
Whittling down is a reasonable concern. The lack of the ability (for various reasons people can argue about) to trust the other side in the future to stick to a middle ground deal that could be struck now is a great example of how so many issues are paralyzed, particularly at the federal level.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
I don't know as that Rove was endorsing the idea of repealing the Second, just stating that a repeal is what it would take.
Click to expand...

I assume this is Rove's usual act. He thinks he is influential, so he's trying to play Inception, introducing "repeal the Second" into the left's bloodstream so we'll overreach and drive another generation of herpa-derps ignoring their economic interests to vote GOP to protect their guns.

The only thing this tells me is some of the Frank Luntz types have been doing internal polling and are starting to get a little scared by what they're seeing (increased concern about inequality among even conservative voters). They need to change the subject, and that means find a new wedge issue (whatever happened to Ebola?) and/or turn up the burners on the ones they always use.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

FlagDUDE08 said:
Weapon bans, regardless of the velocity of occurrence, is exactly how Hitler gained power. It must remain as is. No re-wording, no word mincing, keep a gun behind every blade of grass. That is why our enemies do not attack on land.
Click to expand...

Our enemies "don't attack on land" in the traditional sense (One can argue 9/11 was, in part, a ground invasion) because the US has air, naval, and nuclear superiority. Not because Joe Citizen owns a couple of boomsticks, open carries his S&W .44 Mag, and can generally poke a hole in a deer at 100 yards.

Kepler said:
I assume this is Rove's usual act. He thinks he is influential, so he's trying to play Inception, introducing "repeal the Second" into the left's bloodstream so we'll overreach and drive another generation of herpa-derps ignoring their economic interests to vote GOP to protect their guns.
Click to expand...

I think you're being just a bit paranoid there. :p
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top