General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 109

Maintaining and updating a system of violence that encodes blind nationalism and ethnocentrism into not only its enlistees but all those in the citizenry.....and literally lobbies the government and generates support through corporate allegiances.....and does so at the expense of the taxpayer and more meritorious public spending....and at the expense of the sovereignty of foreign states and livelihood of foreign citizens.....does not represent an oppressive institution?

Yeah, agree to disagree.

 

The assumption that the spending would be put into more meritorious public spending if it wasn't being spent on military is an incorrect one, though. We'd all like it to be put into other programs that both help the economy more and don't get used in terrible foreign policy decisions, but there's no guarentee that would be the case. Considering half the country is against that kind of spending and is hell bent on austerity, it's far more likely that the money would simply not get spent at all.

And yeah, not all military spending is done or needs to be done "at the expense of sovereignty of foreign states"...you could stop all wars and drone attacks tomorrow and still spend it on "military spending"--a testament to how much gets labeled under 'military spending' that you wouldn't think to immediately label there. You can't, however, make an argument that prison spending goes to anything other than forcefully removing people from participating in the economy in ways that have been shown to be more harmful to the overall economy than any 'boost' garnered from the jobs that are created at prisons.

 

There Are More White Voters Than People Think. That’s Good News for Trump.

 

Okay, so what about the other points?

I'm still not seeing how the MIC isn't an oppressive regime.

 

They are fair but not entirely accurate, in that they're trying to make loose (at best) ties between the way the military is glorified and our policy presented. and the military spending itself that is done, as if the spending is the reason for the former.

Foreign policy is what makes MIC bad. R&D funding in and of itself isn't a bad or evil thing, it's what the tech is used for.

 

Anyone watch W. Kamau Bell's show on CNN? Some interesting stuff. Just weird watching him talk to KKK leaders and former neo-nazi's and shit.

Also...

Democrats will learn all the wrong lessons from Bernie 'scare'

 

Join Hillary supporters in your area

Well, I guess #ImWithHer now.

 

What in the hell?

 

I guess that you can add your own organizing events to her webpage to share with others in your area. And someone took advantage of that.

 

(moving discussion to the general politics thread as to not derail the LGBT thread into a religion and guns debate)

the issue isn't that potential radical terorism suspects should have the right to own assault rifles

the issue is that people shouldn't have the right to own assault rifles

 

Because a large part of this conversation will necessarily devolve into a firearms discussion, I feel the need to express the opinion that the chief issue should not be further narrowing the class of people with access to guns, but instead the class of firearms that are accessible.

I believe that I have already, to some chagrin, expressed my opinion that "felon in possession" laws that bar all convicted felons from ever owning firearms are incredibly discriminatory, have no regard for post-prison life and its many difficulties or the environments that many are thrust back into, and has been used as a de facto weapon of racial profiling. FIP laws are used to jail nonviolent felons for decades just for possessing firearms, even if not evidenced to be in furtherance of further felonious activities.

Limit magazine capacities. Don't allow the full proliferation of guns only to a growingly narrow class of society.

 

yeah the problem isn't who has guns, it's the fact that anyone at all can have these weapons

 

The "assault" designation is so arbitrary and nominal, though.

There needs to be substantive and specific regulations placed. The easiest place to start, in my opinion, is tracking magazines more rigorously, limiting magazine capacities, and harsh regulation on easily detachable/re-attachable magazines.

Fyi, I'm not lecturing. I don't know dick about guns and constantly feel like a moron any time i try to take rigid gun policy stances, but I have tentatively learned the above. For instance, I used to support the ban of hollow point bullets based on the myth that they shattered and shard on contact with a body and are thus more dangerous. As it turns out, they are safer because they lodge in the target and prevent ricochet.

 

I also know very little about guns. But when most of these mass killings are committed with AR-15 variants... I've yet to see a good argument from someone for why those types of gun can be legal

Can you do some sort of regulation on how many shots per minute can be fired? My understanding is that these guns can fire off 40-50 rounds per minute even without any modifications. That just seems unnecessarily excessive

 

I've thought the same thing. I don't know the methods of regulating firing capacities except by limiting magazines. I'm sure there is a way to due to as far as regulating production, but that also would seem to be fairly easy to alter. Who knows. Maybe someone here is a gun enthusiast: it's the one area where I sometimes feel like I can learn from conservatives.

 

I mean, all semi-auto means is one bullet per trigger pull. So If someone can pull the trigger 50 times a minute, they'll get 50 shots off.

smaller magazines means more stopping to reload, which can definitely save some lives as we saw in Sandy Hook....if the person is well trained at all though it could really just be a quick switch.

First of the victims names being released, all seem 'Hispanic'. Will be interesting to see how many of these people end up being undocumented, and how long the anger from the right wing base lasts when it comes out a majority of the victims were gay, hispanic, undocumented, or all 3.

 

No one needs a fucking assault rifle

 

Is it just magazine size that makes the AR-15 variants more popular for mass killings than a semi-automatic handgun? Or does it have other "ability to end human lives as quickly as possible" bonuses as well

 

I assume so. I'm not a big gun guy, but have a lot of friends that are and gleaned most of what I know about guns off of them. But rifles tend to have the capacity for bigger mags and better utility in terms of aiming and what not.

 

fucking loving this discussion

 

ya some of these comments are in poor taste considering a mass shooting just happened. Talking about gun laws is fine, but discussing the most effective way of killing people isn't productive at all.

 

You're right, I apologize. I'll delete it.

 

Kacey Musgraves Draws Criticism For Pro-Gun Tweets Following Orlando Nightclub Massacre


Uhhh. This. Was. Something...

 

I completely disagree.

We're talking about the nuts and bolts of substantive policy and trying to learn what effective preventative legislation would entail. Fostering understanding of legislative efficacy is very productive.

 

"One of those wacky ideas was on display Thursday at a fundraising event at New York’s Four Seasons Hotel. At the event, Trump told donors he planned to target solid Democratic states like California, Maryland and New Jersey, according to multiple media reports. None of these states have been remotely close for Republicans since the 1980s, and all three have extremely expensive media markets that would require redirecting large amounts of resources from states that Trump conceivably could win."

Donald Trump Trails Hillary Clinton Significantly In The Money Race

Brilliant plan right there.