U.S. Politics: Having a Good Time

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

10 minutes ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

Is there harm in carrying a bomb?

No, logic has never been a strong suit for those who support gun control. While you can't entirely remove the blame from guns, to assume that every person with a gun is a likely violent offender is simply ridiculous and illogical, especially given the statistics.

You want people to carry bombs around with them?  Like making it legal to walk the street with live hand grenades?

[Mother Cocanuts]

10 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

You want people to carry bombs around with them?  Like making it legal to walk the street with live hand grenades?

That wasn't my question, Ser Scot A Ellison. I asked, "Is there harm in carrying a bomb?"

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

13 minutes ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

That wasn't my question, Ser Scot A Ellison. I asked, "Is there harm in carrying a bomb?"

Potentially, yes. If Bob decides to roll a grenade into a store he could injury or kill many people.  Hell by this logic there is no "harm" in allowing people to carry suitcase nukes with them because you need to activate it the weapon for it to harm people.  Are you going to advocate for everyone being allowed to carry miniaturized nuclear weapons on their person?  

If someone doesn't have a firearm, or a grenade, or a miniaturized nuclear weapon on their person those are three options for mass violence that are not at that person's literal fingertips.

[polishgenius]

39 minutes ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

to assume that every person with a gun is a likely violent offender is simply ridiculous and illogical, especially given the statistics.

Nobody thinks that though.

[Durckad]

15 minutes ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

That wasn't my question, Ser Scot A Ellison. I asked, "Is there harm in carrying a bomb?"

Considering a bomb, especially a home-made variety, might simply explode randomly due to a malfunction, yes I would say that carrying around a bomb is dangerous.

I mean should people be allowed to carry around weaponized viruses, chemical weapons, and biological agents? As long as they're contained, they're safe, right?

[Mother Cocanuts]

 

19 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Potentially, yes. If Bob decides to roll a grenade into a store he could injury or kill many people.  Hell by this logic there is no "harm" in allowing people to carry suitcase nukes with them because you need to activate it the weapon for it to harm people.  Are you going to advocate for everyone being allowed to carry miniaturized nuclear weapons on their person?

You're digressing from the issue here. It's not about Bob's rolling a grenade into a store. Once again, "is there harm in carrying a bomb?"

19 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

If someone doesn't have a firearm, or a grenade, or a miniaturized nuclear weapon on their person those are three options for mass violence that are not at that person's literal fingertips.

So everyone who has a firearm, grenade, or a miniaturized nuclear weapon on their person is a likely violent offender?

18 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

Nobody thinks that though.

Gun regulations do. And seemingly, Ser Scot A Ellison.

16 minutes ago, Durckad said:

Considering a bomb, especially a home-made variety, might simply explode randomly due to a malfunction, yes I would say that carrying around a bomb is dangerous.

You're not addressing the question. You've correctly argued the harm in a possible malfunction, as Ser Scot A Ellison correctly argued the harm in its possible use. My question, once again, "is there harm in carrying a bomb"?

Quote

I mean should people be allowed to carry around weaponized viruses, chemical weapons, and biological agents? As long as they're contained, they're safe, right?

People are allowed to carry weaponized viruses, chemical weapons, and biological agents. They're called members of the military.

[polishgenius]

Just now, Mother Cocanuts said:

Gun regulations do. And seemingly, Ser Scot A Ellison.

Gun regulations don't assume that everyone with a gun is a threat. They assume that if people can't have guns then the threats will be less able to be threatening.

 

 

1 minute ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

People are allowed to carry weaponized weaponized viruses, chemical weapons, and biological agents. They're called members of the military.

So you're saying only members of the military should be allowed to carry guns? Fair enough.

[Dr. Pepper]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/10/05/trump-suggests-senate-intelligence-committee-investigate-media-companies/?utm_term=.4b725eb264f8

Well, shit.  Now someone on Trump's twitter account (presumably Caddy Dan?) is suggesting an investigation into "fake news".  It would obviously turn up this misinformation agenda, but would be misused by Trump and co as proof that his voters could only trust in him.  

This is scary.  Like so scary I can't breathe. 

Also, am I reading correct in that information about Tillerson's impromptu news conference implies that he may have been forced into do it so as to tell the world that he really does think the president is awesome and smart?  I mean, the man is negotiating with NK and now he's being treated like an NK official.  

[Mother Cocanuts]

4 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

Gun regulations don't assume that everyone with a gun is a threat. They assume that if people can't have guns then the threats will be less able to be threatening.

This makes no sense. Your statement already concedes that everyone is a likely violent offender, only that without guns, they're less of a threat.

4 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

So you're saying only members of the military should be allowed to carry guns? Fair enough.

That's a non sequitur.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

4 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

Gun regulations don't assume that everyone with a gun is a threat. They assume that if people can't have guns then the threats will be less able to be threatening.

 

 

So you're saying only members of the military should be allowed to carry guns? Fair enough.

Bingo.  

Mother Cocanuts,

I don't want to see full on gun bans.  But I do believe in "reasonable" regulation.  What I object to are those who seem to believe that any regulation of weapons possessed by individual is inherently unreasonable.  The SCOTUS specifically held that full on gun bans are unreasonable.  They did not hold that all regulations of firearms are unreasonable.  

One potential regulation is to limit the possession of firearems (and grenades) to trained members of the Military and law enforcement.  

[Week]

Can we move the guns discussion with the troll to another thread? 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

This makes no sense. Your statement already concedes that everyone is a likely violent offender, only that without guns, they're less of a threat.

Is this in dispute?  If the man in Las Vegas hadn't had the weapons he had could he have killed 59 people and wounded 600?

[polishgenius]

1 minute ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

Your statement already concedes that everyone is a likely violent offender,

Only if you're either not trying at all to understand it or trying really hard to misunderstand it.

 

 

2 minutes ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

That's a non sequitur.

Only if you're either not trying at all to understand it or trying really hard to misunderstand it.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, Week said:

Can we move the guns discussion with the troll to another thread? 

Done:
 

 

[Week]

19 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/10/05/trump-suggests-senate-intelligence-committee-investigate-media-companies/?utm_term=.4b725eb264f8

Well, shit.  Now someone on Trump's twitter account (presumably Caddy Dan?) is suggesting an investigation into "fake news".  It would obviously turn up this misinformation agenda, but would be misused by Trump and co as proof that his voters could only trust in him.  

This is scary.  Like so scary I can't breathe. 

Also, am I reading correct in that information about Tillerson's impromptu news conference implies that he may have been forced into do it so as to tell the world that he really does think the president is awesome and smart?  I mean, the man is negotiating with NK and now he's being treated like an NK official.  

Along with the revelation that Dan Scavino is Tweeting on behalf of / impersonating Trump - this is really troubling. Thus far, Twitter has shown no willingness to curb or address this as an ongoing issue. At this point, they are complicit in the misinformation campaign by the WH.

It would be really great if Congress could grow a backbone and rein in some of the chaos in the WH. At this point, only a few senators in side comments (e.g. Bob Corker) are willing to question the president - at least that I've seen. Perhaps the Russia investigation (by the Senate Intelligence committee -- who knows with Mueller) can force the WH to acknowledge the truth.

10 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Done:

Thanks Scot.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

7 hours ago, polishgenius said:

It's funny (and terrifying) how the internet age drops completely surprising challenges that can turn out to be REALLY IMPORTANT out of nowhere. Like, I know it's common practice for celebrities to have their twitter part-run by someone else, until recently I've been operating on the principle that 'I know it's highly unlikely that Guillermo Rigondeaux runs his twitter himself but I'm pretending he does it's real to me dammit!'. And it's like, fun and games, and when someone does something silly like posting a tweet by a footballer who is on the field at the time it's a jolly jape.

But then suddenly this comes up and it's not a jolly jape, it's the future of nations.

Yeah, given the importance of this particular account, you'd think Twitter could implement some sort of policy wherein anything posted that's not from Trump's personal device would be flagged with or framed by a account manager profile. That way the reader could immediately identify whether or not the Tweet came from Trump or not. Seems like a common sense sort of compromise. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 hour ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

That wasn't my question, Ser Scot A Ellison. I asked, "Is there harm in carrying a bomb?"

Is there any good reason to carry a bomb outside of intending to use it? If you're not military personnel transporting it to somewhere it needs to go, why the fuck are you carrying a bomb?

[The guy from the Vale]

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Is there any good reason to carry a bomb outside of intending to use it? If you're not military personnel transporting it to somewhere it needs to go, why the fuck are you carrying a bomb?

 And indeed, it's the same for guns. You want to hunt? Sure, that's a legitimate reason to carry a gun into the forest. You shoot for entertainment? Sure, just store your gun at the shooting range and you're fine. But buying guns to hurt or kill people (aka "self defense") really shouldn't be seen as a legitimate course of action.

But then, that'd imply people obtaining gun licenses, training and only getting their hands on the guns they need for the task they want to do... and you can't have that in the USA, apparently.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

50 minutes ago, Week said:

Can we move the guns discussion with the troll to another thread? 

Have you read his comments in the NBA thread?

[Week]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Have you read his comments in the NBA thread?

No, thankfully. I can only imagine the elevated discussion to be had.