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.

Campaign 2016 Part XXV: Fin

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXV: Fin

GrinCDXX said:
Let's put it this way. Did you notice that when you get repeating that over and over again before the election, that nobody was disagreeing with you?
Click to expand...

Yup. And your HS BB coach told you to work on your free throws every practice. (Yes, large assumptions there by me. :) )

We humans, we're really good at forgetting the fundamentals. :)
 
The Sicatoka said:
You mean like Roe v. Wade is going anywhere?

Both are talismans waived to rally the masses.
Click to expand...

One is easier than the other, though both are currently unlikely. The second amendment is specifically enumerated. The right to an abortion is found in the implicit right to privacy. There's a reason we refer to it as Roe and not the Xth Amendment right to an abortion.

I'd also argue that the anti abortion states seem to be more willing to spend vast sums of money pushing the envelope than anti-gun states do. That could be bias on my part, but it certainly feels like I read about 2 or 3 abortion cases for every gun case from the higher courts.
 
Last edited:
dxmnkd316 said:
This is balderdash. I passed a background check in minutes at Cabelas. Honest question, what regulations do you think jam up the consumer?
Click to expand...

If question 3 passed in Maine you would have gone to jail if you borrowed a gun from someone or let someone borrow a gun and didn't spend money for background checks. How passing this would have been in the interests of gun owners is completely beyond me. I doubt in 100 years this would have saved one life too.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXV: Fin

Drew S. said:
I'm in the same boat as Shawn. Regardless of other factors I could never imagine voting for a candidate who is anti-gun. I think gun control is the single biggest issue holding democrats back. The ratio of people who strongly care about gun rights to those who strongly care about gun control is probably 10 or 20 to 1.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with you.

A decade ago I said we should trade guns for gays. We got gays so we should pick something else now. Trade guns for Single Payer. Or a 100% estate tax above $5M. Or both.

The other thing is that the gun lobby uses Democratic gun control language to spur sales, so we are accomplishing nothing except increasing the number of guns out there.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXV: Fin

BassAle said:
Most people don't want to go any further than universal background checks and an assault weapons ban.
Click to expand...

Forgive me, but "assault weapons" is just another talisman.

Just because something looks scarier doesn't make it more dangerous. I'd prefer to be shot by neither :) but given an absolute choice, I'd much rather be hit at 150 yards by an AR-15 used by the average sporting shooter than a .308 used by the average deer hunter.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXV: Fin

Scarlet said:
I agree with this. The more I'm reading about who didn't vote, it gets me angrier. Why didn't these people vote? I liken it to, say, getting a penalty in OT and the other team scores a PPG to win. You don't want that to happen? Kill the penalty.

I would also be able to stomach this new administration if it hadn't unleashed the scary and dangerous gloating. Someone earlier posted that link to Shaun King's twitter. I was reading some of those on the subway on the way in and almost started to cry. Saw a different tweet posted by a friend on Facebook that said some African American got on her school bus and white teenage girls said, starting today, shouldn't you be sitting in the back of the bus? Like, WHAT? There was another instance of these ********* student at Babson that drove around campus yelling and screaming with a Trump flag and stopped at Black fraternity and yelled "Time to go back to Africa" and when a female student called them on it they spit in her face. THAT is what Trump is making acceptable. THAT is why people took to the streets yesterday. I heard his acceptance speech talking about unity and rolled my eyes. Oh sure. OK. I want to make a GIF of that so I can post it on Facebook every time something like this happens (BTW - can anyone help me with that?)
Click to expand...

Why didn't some people vote? I think it can be boiled down to the fact that Hillary didn't energize certain factions of people in the same way that Obama did during the last 2 elections. Obama was/is very charismatic, he has a great ability to get people to follow him. Hillary just didn't tap into that like Obama did. Many, many people in this country are simply apathetic, they just don't really care, because they don't think 1)Their vote actually matters or 2)That it matters who actually wins.

As for the terrible people you mention, they've been here all along, now they're emboldened. We can identify them easier now. They're scum. Just because the new president either explicitly, or implicitly encourages this garbage, doesn't mean the rest of us have to put up with it. Call people out, if they're kids, or teens, try to use it as an educational moment, and support the people that are victims. At least that would be a good start, after that, who knows.
 
ScoobyDoo said:
How are we wrong on guns exactly? Please argue with Tim Kaine's position. Cause his position is the main Democratic position on the issue.
Click to expand...

I didn't realize Tim Kaine represented the main position when it came to guns. I honestly don't even know what his position is. Whether you like it or not gun owners think Bloomberg and his extreme positions when it comes to gun control. Lot of dems accepting money from him too. It might be perception more than reality, but perception is reality for most.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXV: Fin

Kepler said:
A decade ago I said we should trade guns for gays. We got gays so we should pick something else now.
Click to expand...

You're being logical, rational, and are looking for solutions. ... That'll never work! :D

More seriously, you did get "gays" (not that there's anything wrong with that :D ) for nothing. With that experience there's a segment of the Left that won't do a bargain or deal, trading X for Y.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXV: Fin

Drew S. said:
If question 3 passed in Maine you would have gone to jail if you borrowed a gun from someone or let someone borrow a gun and didn't spend money for background checks. How passing this would have been in the interests of gun owners is completely beyond me. I doubt in 100 years this would have saved one life too.
Click to expand...

I guess I don't have a problem with Q3. I'm a gun owner and would never lend my gun to anyone who couldn't pass a background check. The big question I would have is what constitutes lending your gun? If you're at a trap range and you shoot each others' shotgun would that be a violation?
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXV: Fin

Kepler said:
I completely agree with you.

A decade ago I said we should trade guns for gays. We got gays so we should pick something else now. Trade guns for Single Payer. Or a 100% estate tax above $5M. Or both.

The other thing is that the gun lobby uses Democratic gun control language to spur sales, so we are accomplishing nothing except increasing the number of guns out there.
Click to expand...


I'm willing to let guns go, but I'd really rather compromise on universal background checks and be done with it. Let the NRA go back to advocating gun safety. That isn't too much to ask.

I think the obsession some people have for guns is pathetic (to the point of voting for a complete piece of **** because he pledged to end gun free zones in schools and because the NRA told you to), but that toothpaste isn't going back into the tube.
 
Kepler said:
I completely agree with you.

A decade ago I said we should trade guns for gays. We got gays so we should pick something else now. Trade guns for Single Payer. Or a 100% estate tax above $5M. Or both.

The other thing is that the gun lobby uses Democratic gun control language to spur sales, so we are accomplishing nothing except increasing the number of guns out there.
Click to expand...

08: Obama is gonna take our guns!
12: Ok, now that Obama doesn't have to try to get reelected he's going to take our guns!
16: Well Obama didn't do it but Hillary will!
 
dxmnkd316 said:
I guess I don't have a problem with Q3. I'm a gun owner and would never lend my gun to anyone who couldn't pass a background check. The big question I would have is what constitutes lending your gun? If you're at a trap range and you shoot each others' shotgun would that be a violation?
Click to expand...

I think you would be fine, but if you went to the bathroom or to your car who knows. That is part of what was wrong with the law. As for the first part of your post, you could let someone 100% legal borrow your gun but if you didn't do the background checks you still would both go to jail.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXV: Fin

The Sicatoka said:
*My personality profile (silly "work styles" crap, <-- there's the spoiler) consistently puts me in the Myers-Briggs ISTJ category.
Click to expand...

Missed it by this much. INTJs rule.

(with our door closed, via terse, grammatically correct project plans)

The INTJ's interest in dealing with the world is to make decisions, express judgments, and put everything that they encounter into an understandable and rational system. Consequently, they are quick to express judgments. Often they have very evolved intuitions, and are convinced that they are right about things. Unless they complement their intuitive understanding with a well-developed ability to express their insights, they may find themselves frequently misunderstood. In these cases, INTJs tend to blame misunderstandings on the limitations of the other party, rather than on their own difficulty in expressing themselves. This tendency may cause the INTJ to dismiss others input too quickly, and to become generally arrogant and elitist.
Click to expand...

My takeaway from that paragraph is others' is missing an apostrophe in the final sentence.
 
Last edited:
BassAle said:
I'm willing to let guns go, but I'd really rather compromise on universal background checks and be done with it. Let the NRA go back to advocating gun safety. That isn't too much to ask.

I think the obsession some people have for guns is pathetic (to the point of voting for a complete piece of **** because he pledged to end gun free zones in schools and because the NRA told you to), but that toothpaste isn't going back into the tube.
Click to expand...

I think most gun owners would take that deal too (as I would). People blame the NRA for being to extreme but the other side is just as bad if not worse.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXV: Fin

dxmnkd316 said:
I guess I don't have a problem with Q3. I'm a gun owner and would never lend my gun to anyone who couldn't pass a background check. The big question I would have is what constitutes lending your gun? If you're at a trap range and you shoot each others' shotgun would that be a violation?
Click to expand...

no. The way it was written if you are there, you can lend the gun without it being considered a transfer. You can go hunting with a buddy and lend him a gun, or go target shooting with a friend and it isn't considered a transfer for the purpose of this law. But if you lend him a gun to take on a hunting trip and you aren't going to be there then that is a transfer and would require a background check.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXV: Fin

ScoobyDoo said:
This is what's most disturbing to me. To think that I have to live in an anti-science culture for the rest of my life is depressing as hell.
Click to expand...

You don't have to. Every serious intellectual enclave in this country is pro-reason, pro-science. If you live in an anti-science culture move and/or change your job.

The A students are by definition a minority, and we are not everywhere, but we dominate almost every college town and major city in this country. And our women use birth control. Join us.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top