Political Posts

[73 Reds]

9 hours ago, Parsad said:

 

Nope!  The left is just trying to stop the senseless killings and injuries incurred by the liberal use of guns that permeate the U.S.  Cheers!

Your political bias is clear.  Do you really think that the Right wants senseless killings?  C'mon Man.

[cwericb]

"Also the founding fathers couldn’t have foreseen some distant world of high powered rifles, recurrent mass shooting, social media radicalization, etc. "

 

Correct. And that is why changes must be made to gun ownership rights.

[cwericb]

1 minute ago, 73 Reds said:

Your political bias is clear.  Do you really think that the Right wants senseless killings?  C'mon Man.

 

No. But the gun lobby/Right stands by and lets it happen and fights to keep it that way. 

[73 Reds]

5 minutes ago, cwericb said:

 

No. But the gun lobby/Right stands by and lets it happen and fights to keep it that way. 

That is because they are fighting against abolishing guns altogether.  They are not standing by; just like many political issues of the day the two sides can't figure out a way to reach a compromise. Welcome to today's US politics.

Edited September 23, 2025 by 73 Reds
spelling

[Spekulatius]

29 minutes ago, whiskybravo said:

We have 18th century men laying out rights for the citizens of their new country.  Every one of them owned a gun.  It wouldn’t seem necessary to formalize the right to gun ownership.  So there motivation was, given their recent revolutionary experience, to resist any potential threat of tyranny.  Otherwise the second amendment would have simply read:  The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

Why include the clause a well regulated militia?The people organized in militias by states (not federal standing armies), would be capable of resisting tyranny and defending the country. It’s civic, not personal. It’s collective liberty, not individual protection.

 

Then no standing army.  Defense of tyranny from well armed state militias.  Today we have the largest and most advanced military in the world.  State militias cannot meaningfully resist the federal military in any modern sense. And if the tyranny threat is external, that’s for the federal army to address, not state militias.

 

Also the founding fathers couldn’t have foreseen some distant world of high powered rifles, recurrent mass shooting, social media radicalization, etc.  Interesting to consider what would the Founders have written if they magically could imagine the world we live in.

Very well said. Laws are a product of their time and often need to be adapted.

 

Where does the right to self defense against government tyranny stop? The military now has missiles, fighter planes, tanks, drones, satellites etc.

 

Does the right of defense against tyranny include anti satellite missiles to defend  against government spying on me, stinger missiles to defend against fighter planes, ATGM against tank and a large caliber machine  gun on a truck to defend against amassing infantry ? Most people would say this makes no sense.

 

For home defense a handgun and/or shotgun will do fine.

Edited September 23, 2025 by Spekulatius

[Castanza]

8 hours ago, cwericb said:

Your posts raise some interesting questions............... 

 

Strict gun laws seem to work right next door in Canada as well as in many other countries around the world.

 

Why is that? CULTURE, DRUGS, HEALTHCARE, and HISTORY

 

Chicago is nearly as large as Toronto and only 500 miles away. Yet the smaller city, Chicago, has 18.3 murders per 100.000 residents while Toronto has only 2.3 murders per 100,000 population. 

 

Why is that? CULTURE, DRUGS, HEALTHCARE, and HISTORY

 

Further, the gun violence death rate in the US is SEVEN times that of Canada.

 

Why is that? CULTURE, DRUGS, HEALTHCARE, and HISTORY

 

We keep hearing the excuse: "It's not a gun problem, it is a mental illness problem." 

 

Are you therefore suggesting that there is a very much higher higher percentage of the US population that are mentally ill than most other developed  countries?

 

Why would that be? CULTURE, DRUGS, HEALTHCARE, and HISTORY but also the US does have a higher level of mental and depression issues than other developed nations. lack of healthcare leads to under diagnosis and many untreated individuals. 

 

PS.

If there is such a high level of mentally ill people running around the United States, is it wise to make guns so easily available to them? After all, even marijuana is illegal in most US states, yet guns are not. Could you explain that? Do you have this statement backwards? As mentioned before (which you clearly did not read) Mental health treatment has declined rapidly in the US....I'm not going to repeat myself if you aren't even going to read through the post. I also already mentioned how background checks work and that you are not allowed to purchase a firearm if you have been clinically diagnosed or committed with a mental illness. 

 

When trying to solve a problem should you not look at the issue and see what's changed? Firearms have existed in great quantities in the US and most developed nations for a hundred years. Yet in the US we only really see an uptick starting in the 90s with issues like School Shootings. So what changed? I can tell you it's not the access to firearms. So where has the US lagged? Healthcare, Culture  and Drugs. 

 

As I said, I am not against stricter laws for access (or at least consolidating laws to avoid suspected gaps which may or may not actually be there). I just think you're not actually addressing the root of the issue. Access to firearms absolutely raises the base case for usage I am not disputing that at all. 

 

 

[Gregmal]

Republicans approach the gun issue like Democrats argue drug legalization. Common sense says the easier something is to access, the harder it is to contain.

[changegonnacome]

1 hour ago, Spekulatius said:

The result is a remarkable increase in domestic gun violence in Israel, since October 6

 

Very interesting......and somewhat unsurprising........

 

Kirk was right of course - it is not a sustainable position to argue that incremental gun violence is not driven by increased gun availability the question is whether its a reasonable trade off.....like automobile deaths are relative to the returns to society & the economy.

 

Up thread i think @Castanza was specifically referencing kind of mass shooting events which the US is now famous for....while a small percentage of these are as per the above.....motive meeting frictionless means......I think the FBI report is getting at something else that nobody really wants to talk about re:USA....that the cracks in our society are so wide and so deep that we have seemingly unique ability to manufacture (in greater numbers than anywhere else in the developed world) the type of nihilistic sociopathic misfits that do these heinous acts of mass violence. Which is much more of a sociological political-economy question i think that doesn't fit neatly into the left-right narrative of gun availability.

[Castanza]

26 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

Very well said. Laws are a product of their time and often need to be adapted.

Murder rates were 5x in the 1800's than what they are now...I think the founding fathers were well aware of issues of their day. Yet they did not run to ban firearms...

 

Where does the right to self defense against government tyranny stop? The military now has missiles, fighter planes, tanks, drones, satellites etc. So explain Vietnam and how the US with all it's might was held off by rice farmers with AK-47s? How about the GWOT? How about 1776 when a bunch of unorganized farmers held off the best military in the world? Blatantly ignoring history. 

 

Does the right of defense against tyranny include anti satellite missiles to defend  against government spying on me, stinger missiles to defend against fighter planes, ATGM against tank and a large caliber machine  gun on a truck to defend against amassing infantry ? Most people would say this makes no sense.

You can own many of these things in the US. A $150 tax stamp is all that stops you from purchasing a fully automatic heavy machinegun. I hear your point on this, just pointing out that many people own these things in quantity. How many people have private pilots licenses yet don't fly them into buildings? I think a reasonable approach is civilians should be able to own the base case on par with military personnel. Military uses M4 which is fully automatic. 

 

For home defense a handgun and/or shotgun will do fine.

A handgun and a shotgun are not good home defense choices. Especially a shotgun...very indiscriminate in nature and very likely to injure others in the house. Handguns are also extremely difficult to use effectively and accurately. Most handguns and shotguns are also semi automatic EXACTLY like AR platform firearms. AR9 (9mm with hollow-points) platform is easily the best home defense weapon and safest to use in your house. But the AR platform is what the left attacks because they simply don't understand firearms or listen to firearm experts. Nobody but the extreme is out here advocating for. Also please remind me which firearm type is the most used for homicide, suicide, and mass shootings? It's handguns....

 

55 minutes ago, whiskybravo said:

We have 18th century men laying out rights for the citizens of their new country.  Every one of them owned a gun.  It wouldn’t seem necessary to formalize the right to gun ownership.  So there motivation was, given their recent revolutionary experience, to resist any potential threat of tyranny.  Otherwise the second amendment would have simply read:  The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

Why include the clause a well regulated militia?The people organized in militias by states (not federal standing armies), would be capable of resisting tyranny and defending the country. It’s civic, not personal. It’s collective liberty, not individual protection.

 

Then no standing army.  Defense of tyranny from well armed state militias.  Today we have the largest and most advanced military in the world.  State militias cannot meaningfully resist the federal military in any modern sense. And if the tyranny threat is external, that’s for the federal army to address, not state militias.

 

Also the founding fathers couldn’t have foreseen some distant world of high powered rifles, recurrent mass shooting, social media radicalization, etc.  Interesting to consider what would the Founders have written if they magically could imagine the world we live in.

This is all just nonsensical conjecture....None of this is even factual and has been debunked by constitutional scholars for a long time. 

 

Edited September 23, 2025 by Castanza

[Castanza]

2 minutes ago, changegonnacome said:

 

Very interesting......and somewhat unsurprising........

 

Kirk was right of course - it is not a sustainable position to argue that incremental gun violence is not driven by increased gun availability the question is whether its a reasonable trade off.....like automobile deaths are relative to the returns to society & the economy.

 

Up thread i think @Castanza was specifically referencing kind of mass shooting events which the US is now famous for....while a small percentage of these are as per the above.....motive meeting frictionless means......I think the FBI report is getting at something else that nobody really wants to talk about re:USA....that the cracks in our society are so wide and so deep that we have seemingly unique ability to manufacture (in greater numbers than anywhere else in the developed world) the type of nihilistic sociopathic misfits that do these heinous acts of mass violence. Which is much more of a sociological political-economy question i think that doesn't fit neatly into the left-right narrative of gun availability.

Bingo....as I said, I'm not against a different legal approach or background check consolidation etc. I'm simply pointing out that the current laws are not well enforced and in most cases even if enforced wouldn't have stopped any of the mass shootings. You cannot legislate away irrational people because only rational people look at laws and go "yeah maybe I want to rethink this." 

 

The kid in Washington State (extremely strict gun laws)was 13 and managed to get 23 firearms under his parents nose all while 3d printing some? 

- Where does he get the money and resources?

- How did his parents not know? 

 

There are extremely alarming factors here at play like 1. parents radicalizing their kids? 2. Online radicalization? 

 

It's time to start throwing the book at these families. If you're a parent and your kid becomes a mass shooter or acquires firearms like this then you should be thrown in prison for life as well because you're not doing your basic job. 

[dealraker]

28 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

Your political bias is clear.  Do you really think that the Right wants senseless killings?  C'mon Man.

I'm not sure Right vs Left is a good starting point for gun discussion.

 

Maybe like Covid as to right/left?  A 40's man is in his own mind generally macho invincible, Covid was and is to him chicken shit fake news.  A 70's man has got multiple health issues, right/left at least here they tend to take the Covid vaccines in my area as per the stats...80% Trump land.  

 

Does, for instance, where you live mean something as to guns?

[Castanza]

3 hours ago, cwericb said:

 

Yes, but it is not just Chicago. The overall rate in the US is still 7 times that of Canada. Does that suggest that there is that much more mental illness in the US than in Canada and other developed countries?

Or, is the root of the problem the easy access to guns?  

 

 

Guns have always been accessible in the US....400m+ and 99.9% of firearms that exist in the US are not used for crime or suicide...more are used for stopping crime than committing crime every year. 

 

Edit: For the record I would gladly turn in all of my firearms IF I could have a high degree of confidence that they were all removed from criminals. But I do not see how you remove 400m firearms from this country without disadvantaging law abiding citizens to a large degree.

 

1. It takes police anywhere from 10 - 15 minutes to get to my house. I don't have the luxury of time to say "hang on Mr. Robber...please hold on until the police arrive. Not to mention the police officer is likely less competent than myself (and I'm not bragging about that...it's simply a fact our police force is poorly trained.)

 

2. I spend quite a bit of time hunting, fishing and backpacking. I have had 2 occasions (once in Ohio and once in PA) where I have had to inform said individuals who approached and cornered me that I was armed and if they choose to approach me further, assault me or rob me they will not leave unscathed. Both times, fly fishing in decently remote locations. Idk if it's because the US is massive and there is a lot of open remote space that criminals feel more emboldened or what, but I suspect a fly fisherman in the UK does not ever have this issue. Canadians and Europeans have a friendlier culture. And I realize my situation is probably an outlier...but it happened non-the less. So to the fellow outdoorsmen on this forum....beware of people in sporting locations who are not engaging in sporting activities... 

Edited September 23, 2025 by Castanza

[whiskybravo]

41 minutes ago, Castanza said:

 

This is all just nonsensical conjecture....None of this is even factual and has been debunked by constitutional scholars for a long time. 

 

Hey @Castanza.  I appreciate your knowledge about guns.  I learn reading your posts.  I am ok with people owning guns, was raised in a gun owning family.  I don’t have the answer to this issue, not even close.  I try to analyze and perhaps contribute something to the discussion.

 

Yes the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms for self-defense, even outside militia service.  But the Court explicitly acknowledged there were other, historically supported interpretations and those are still intellectually and historically valid, even if they’re not the law of the land.

 

 

 

[Castanza]

25 minutes ago, whiskybravo said:

Hey @Castanza.  I appreciate your knowledge about guns.  I learn reading your posts.  I am ok with people owning guns, was raised in a gun owning family.  I don’t have the answer to this issue, not even close.  I try to analyze and perhaps contribute something to the discussion.

 

Yes the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms for self-defense, even outside militia service.  But the Court explicitly acknowledged there were other, historically supported interpretations and those are still intellectually and historically valid, even if they’re not the law of the land.

 

 

 

 

Yeah I'm not disagreeing with that; just taking issue with how you chose to word your previous post and not distinguish the difference or distinction in the court made. No harm no foul. 

 

My issue with the entirety of this broader topic is nobody has the balls politically to address the root of the issues and come up with actual solution for long-term success. @changegonnacome laid it out perfectly:

 

1 hour ago, changegonnacome said:

I think the FBI report is getting at something else that nobody really wants to talk about re:USA....that the cracks in our society are so wide and so deep that we have seemingly unique ability to manufacture (in greater numbers than anywhere else in the developed world) the type of nihilistic sociopathic misfits that do these heinous acts of mass violence. Which is much more of a sociological political-economy question i think that doesn't fit neatly into the left-right narrative of gun availability.

 

The US has issues. We are an extremely unhealthy nation both mentally and physically. You cannot have a society built on "rugged individualism" if your individuals are in a severe state of disrepair. This is a recipe for disaster....This same societal brain rot that compels individuals to shoot up schools is not much different than the mindset that we find polarizing every high level societal topic from here to Timbuktu...The more time we spend addressing outcomes instead of driving factors the longer these issues persist, and the worse they become.

 

Trump and politicians like him should be considered co-morbidities not panaceas 

Edited September 23, 2025 by Castanza

[whiskybravo]

23 minutes ago, Castanza said:

 

Yeah I'm not disagreeing with that; just taking issue with how you chose to word your previous post and not distinguish the difference or distinction in the court made. No harm no foul. 

 

My issue with the entirety of this broader topic is nobody has the balls politically to address the root of the issues and come up with actual solution for long-term success. @changegonnacome laid it out perfectly:

 

 

The US has issues. We are an extremely unhealthy nation both mentally and physically. You cannot have a society built on "rugged individualism" if your individuals are in a severe state of disrepair. This is a recipe for disaster....This same societal brain rot that compels individuals to shoot up schools is not much different than the mindset that we find polarizing every high level societal topic from here to Timbuktu...The more time we spend addressing outcomes instead of driving factors the longer these issues persist, and the worse they become.

 

Trump and politicians like him should be considered co-morbidities not panaceas 

There’s definitely something to this. My wife and I are in Italy right now, and we’ve talked a lot about the same dynamic. It’s hard to put your finger on exactly why, but people here generally seem more polite, calmer, more grounded.

 

It shows up in little things: people say buongiorno when you walk into a shop. They say thank you when you leave. Simple gestures, but they seem to reflect a kind of everyday civility that feels less common back home.  There’s less rage, less anxiety in public life. That contrast really stands out, especially on our first days back.

[changegonnacome]

2 hours ago, whiskybravo said:

reflect a kind of everyday civility that feels less common back home.  There’s less rage, less anxiety in public life. That contrast really stands out, especially on our first days back.

 

Yeah - a mass shooter is someone who has become uniquely untethered from the society and community in which they live.....there is something about American society or lack thereof that produces these monsters more than any other country on earth.....its a deeply unpleasant reality to sit with......so we fight about the 2nd amendment instead.

 

Edited September 23, 2025 by changegonnacome

[73 Reds]

4 hours ago, dealraker said:

I'm not sure Right vs Left is a good starting point for gun discussion.

 

Maybe like Covid as to right/left?  A 40's man is in his own mind generally macho invincible, Covid was and is to him chicken shit fake news.  A 70's man has got multiple health issues, right/left at least here they tend to take the Covid vaccines in my area as per the stats...80% Trump land.  

 

Does, for instance, where you live mean something as to guns?

Sure; where you live makes a lot of difference.  The issue though is regulation.  Unfortunately only two parties implement laws and regulations so the rules governing guns ultimately remains a right vs. left issue even though no one on either side wants guns in the hands of crazy people.

[dealraker]

4 hours ago, Castanza said:

 

Guns have always been accessible in the US....400m+ and 99.9% of firearms that exist in the US are not used for crime or suicide...more are used for stopping crime than committing crime every year. 

 

Edit: For the record I would gladly turn in all of my firearms IF I could have a high degree of confidence that they were all removed from criminals. But I do not see how you remove 400m firearms from this country without disadvantaging law abiding citizens to a large degree.

 

1. It takes police anywhere from 10 - 15 minutes to get to my house. I don't have the luxury of time to say "hang on Mr. Robber...please hold on until the police arrive. Not to mention the police officer is likely less competent than myself (and I'm not bragging about that...it's simply a fact our police force is poorly trained.)

 

2. I spend quite a bit of time hunting, fishing and backpacking. I have had 2 occasions (once in Ohio and once in PA) where I have had to inform said individuals who approached and cornered me that I was armed and if they choose to approach me further, assault me or rob me they will not leave unscathed. Both times, fly fishing in decently remote locations. Idk if it's because the US is massive and there is a lot of open remote space that criminals feel more emboldened or what, but I suspect a fly fisherman in the UK does not ever have this issue. Canadians and Europeans have a friendlier culture. And I realize my situation is probably an outlier...but it happened non-the less. So to the fellow outdoorsmen on this forum....beware of people in sporting locations who are not engaging in sporting activities... 

I've had similar situations in the outdoors where I spend a lot of time.  

[RichardGibbons]

5 hours ago, Gregmal said:

Republicans approach the gun issue like Democrats argue drug legalization. Common sense says the easier something is to access, the harder it is to contain.

 

I love the accuracy of this observation and the way you expressed it so concisely.

[LC]

6 hours ago, Gregmal said:

Republicans approach the gun issue like Democrats argue drug legalization. Common sense says the easier something is to access, the harder it is to contain.

 

Guns don't kill people, cocaine kills people!

[Castanza]

11 minutes ago, RichardGibbons said:

 

I love the accuracy of this observation and the way you expressed it so concisely.

 

Eloquent regarding the mental approach yet lacking context to the individual situations. But I get the point...

 

As much as I'd like to, I'm not handing the guy who breaks into my house a blunt....

 

 

[Castanza]

46 minutes ago, dealraker said:

I've had similar situations in the outdoors where I spend a lot of time.  

Not fun for sure...

[Spekulatius]

As usual Lutnick has no idea what he is talking about. Said it was an annual fee, now it’s a one time one. I also think lobbying will excempt some companies.

Then we get a short commercial about the Trump Gold card in the Oval Office. Even some banana republics have more class.

Edited September 24, 2025 by Spekulatius

[cwericb]

13 hours ago, Spekulatius said:

As usual Lutnick has no idea what he is talking about. Said it was an annual fee, now it’s a one time one. I also think lobbying will excempt some companies.

Then we get a short commercial about the Trump Gold card in the Oval Office. Even some banana republics have more class.

 

Didn't the United States fancy itself one time as a "classless society"?

Seems the country has certainly achieved that.

But just not in the way that was intended with the Pres hawking everything from Bibles to Teslas.

 

[Sweet]

15 hours ago, Spekulatius said:

As usual Lutnick has no idea what he is talking about. Said it was an annual fee, now it’s a one time one. I also think lobbying will excempt some companies.

Then we get a short commercial about the Trump Gold card in the Oval Office. Even some banana republics have more class.

The boss is sitting there listening and didn’t correct him.  I feel Lutnick is the guy they get to say things and then they adjust based on the reaction to that.  Leaves everybody thinking - Lutnick doesn’t know shit.