Politics

Come here to talk about topics that are not related to development, or even Kansas City.
User avatar
Major KC Fan
Pad site
Pad site
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 2:20 pm

Re: Politics

Post by Major KC Fan »

Trump has had lots of visible, loud supporters during the last 4 years and continues to draw the faithful. However, beyond the cult followers that would still support him if he shot someone on 5th Ave there are overwhelming signs of majority support for Biden/Harris. And I do emphasize Harris, who brought a large number of supporters to the ticket. Even right leaning polls show an advantage for the Democratic ticket, including many battleground and even previously red states (Arizona). Anecdotally, my job entails driving in both Johnson County and SE KS, in many historically red areas and I’ve never seen more blue yard signs in these areas, and not just for the top of the ticket. Expect a respectable blue showing in KS, though the inbred red tilt will still control most offices.

earthling
One Park Place
One Park Place
Posts: 6186
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:27 pm

Re: Politics

Post by earthling »

^This round many establishment/moderate GOP who voted Trump in 2016 now promoting/voting Biden, black turnout very high in several southern states already, fewer % of suburban white women likely to go for Trump this round. Trump's core and ideology types (like anti-abortion voters) will show up but there are many who reluctantly voted for Trump last time that are less likely to this time. I know of a few. I don't know anyone who voted Hilary who are considering Trump. Trump could still win it but will be surprising. Though he may have gained more supremacy types who didn't vote at all last round and plan to this round.

MO still seems likely to go Trump even if a landslide for Biden. Partly because outside the cities, it's relatively high evangelical and/or white Baptist, closer to smaller southern states than rest of Midwest.

User avatar
Highlander
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9297
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 1:40 pm
Location: Houston

Re: Politics

Post by Highlander »

earthling wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 12:26 pm
^This round many establishment/moderate GOP who voted Trump in 2016 now promoting/voting Biden, black turnout very high in several southern states already, fewer % of suburban white women likely to go for Trump this round. Trump's core and ideology types (like anti-abortion voters) will show up but there are many who reluctantly voted for Trump last time that are less likely to this time. I know of a few. I don't know anyone who voted Hilary who are considering Trump. Trump could still win it but will be surprising. Though he may have gained more supremacy types who didn't vote at all last round and plan to this round.

MO still seems likely to go Trump even if a landslide for Biden. Partly because outside the cities, it's relatively high evangelical and/or white Baptist, closer to smaller southern states than rest of Midwest.
I don't like to make predictions because I was convinced think Trump would lose in 2016. I was more ambivalent then, and ended up not voting as I did not favor either candidate but figured Trump would at least be practical as he lacked the ideological fervor of a Ted Cruz type. Four years later, I am extremely motivated to vote, not so much because I like Biden but because I can't imagine another four years of a POS like Trump occupying the oval office. I think I'm not alone in that regard.

I could foresee a way in which Trump still wins the electoral college but slaughtered in the popular vote. Then we need to have a collective discussion whether or not this is the country we want to be where the will of the people is subverted by an archaic election process (a discussion we should have had after Gore/Bush). I also expect a petulant Trump to claim voter fraud if he loses.

User avatar
Anthony_Hugo98
Strip mall
Strip mall
Posts: 197
Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2019 10:50 pm
Location: Vicenza, IT

Re: Politics

Post by Anthony_Hugo98 »

Highlander wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 2:28 pm
earthling wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 12:26 pm
^This round many establishment/moderate GOP who voted Trump in 2016 now promoting/voting Biden, black turnout very high in several southern states already, fewer % of suburban white women likely to go for Trump this round. Trump's core and ideology types (like anti-abortion voters) will show up but there are many who reluctantly voted for Trump last time that are less likely to this time. I know of a few. I don't know anyone who voted Hilary who are considering Trump. Trump could still win it but will be surprising. Though he may have gained more supremacy types who didn't vote at all last round and plan to this round.

MO still seems likely to go Trump even if a landslide for Biden. Partly because outside the cities, it's relatively high evangelical and/or white Baptist, closer to smaller southern states than rest of Midwest.
I don't like to make predictions because I was convinced think Trump would lose in 2016. I was more ambivalent then, and ended up not voting as I did not favor either candidate but figured Trump would at least be practical as he lacked the ideological fervor of a Ted Cruz type. Four years later, I am extremely motivated to vote, not so much because I like Biden but because I can't imagine another four years of a POS like Trump occupying the oval office. I think I'm not alone in that regard.

I could foresee a way in which Trump still wins the electoral college but slaughtered in the popular vote. Then we need to have a collective discussion whether or not this is the country we want to be where the will of the people is subverted by an archaic election process (a discussion we should have had after Gore/Bush). I also expect a petulant Trump to claim voter fraud if he loses.
The electoral college is incredibly necessary. Pure democracy is mob rule.
For all my military brothers and sisters out there, thanks for paving the way, ill do my best! AIRBORNE!

mean
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 10976
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 9:00 am
Location: Historic Northeast

Re: Politics

Post by mean »

DColeKC wrote:
Fri Oct 16, 2020 11:04 pm
mean wrote:
Fri Oct 16, 2020 6:17 pm
The perception of being a red state isn't the problem. Red states have values. The problem is being perceived as a gullible bunch of dupes who fall for the cult leader's pussy-grabbing, value-free bullshit.
Interesting. Still hung up on the fact he said he “could” grab a pussy but never has been proven to just randomly grab pussies. You ever play sports? I can’t Believe comments like that are new information to some people.
I don't give two shits about what he said. He's a bloviating idiot, nothing he says is shocking. But I do care quite a bit that the same people who are going to vote for him would have collectively shit their beds in furious rage if Obama had said such a thing, and called in to Rush Limbaugh to talk about how disgusting Obama was, etc etc.

And actually no, I was actively disinterested in sports until well into adulthood. I snobbily thought sports were for people too dumb to do other, more interesting things, like write D&D adventures and computer programs. I did eventually realize in my late 20s that I was actually the one being dumb, and not only are sports cool, but the people who play them are not dumb. Of course, I could have just dug in my heels, confirmed my biases, and doubled down on my dumb opinion. But that's not my style. I leave that to others.

User avatar
grovester
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 4131
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:30 pm
Location: KC Metro

Re: Politics

Post by grovester »

DColeKC wrote:
Fri Oct 16, 2020 11:04 pm
mean wrote:
Fri Oct 16, 2020 6:17 pm
The perception of being a red state isn't the problem. Red states have values. The problem is being perceived as a gullible bunch of dupes who fall for the cult leader's pussy-grabbing, value-free bullshit.
Interesting. Still hung up on the fact he said he “could” grab a pussy but never has been proven to just randomly grab pussies. You ever play sports? I can’t Believe comments like that are new information to some people.
Interesting. Still apologizing for that POS.

User avatar
grovester
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 4131
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:30 pm
Location: KC Metro

Re: Politics

Post by grovester »

Anthony_Hugo98 wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 2:35 pm
Highlander wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 2:28 pm
earthling wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 12:26 pm
^This round many establishment/moderate GOP who voted Trump in 2016 now promoting/voting Biden, black turnout very high in several southern states already, fewer % of suburban white women likely to go for Trump this round. Trump's core and ideology types (like anti-abortion voters) will show up but there are many who reluctantly voted for Trump last time that are less likely to this time. I know of a few. I don't know anyone who voted Hilary who are considering Trump. Trump could still win it but will be surprising. Though he may have gained more supremacy types who didn't vote at all last round and plan to this round.

MO still seems likely to go Trump even if a landslide for Biden. Partly because outside the cities, it's relatively high evangelical and/or white Baptist, closer to smaller southern states than rest of Midwest.
I don't like to make predictions because I was convinced think Trump would lose in 2016. I was more ambivalent then, and ended up not voting as I did not favor either candidate but figured Trump would at least be practical as he lacked the ideological fervor of a Ted Cruz type. Four years later, I am extremely motivated to vote, not so much because I like Biden but because I can't imagine another four years of a POS like Trump occupying the oval office. I think I'm not alone in that regard.

I could foresee a way in which Trump still wins the electoral college but slaughtered in the popular vote. Then we need to have a collective discussion whether or not this is the country we want to be where the will of the people is subverted by an archaic election process (a discussion we should have had after Gore/Bush). I also expect a petulant Trump to claim voter fraud if he loses.
The electoral college is incredibly necessary. Pure democracy is mob rule.
Your statement suggests that the electoral college prevents extremism, when actually the opposite has happened. It has produced a the most extreme version of the minority party.

phuqueue
Penntower
Penntower
Posts: 2434
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: Politics

Post by phuqueue »

earthling wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 11:30 am
phuqueue wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 11:18 am
MO is already viewed the way that you fear it will be
Yes, I spend more time outside MO than in now and see it (mostly living in FL/NYC/LA now, though still based out of KC and voting there). If MO is one of largest remaining red states, could draw more right ideology purists frustrated from new blue states and lose more locals on hard left. Not saying it will happen but plausible. Less likely to happen if many other large states go Trump and not a landslide.
I think the number of people who are going to move based on the election results in their home state is negligible. Most people either outright can't afford to move, or at least would not weigh the cost/benefit analysis in favor of moving, over something as frivolous as which way their state voted in a presidential election.
Anthony_Hugo98 wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 2:35 pm
Highlander wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 2:28 pm
earthling wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 12:26 pm
^This round many establishment/moderate GOP who voted Trump in 2016 now promoting/voting Biden, black turnout very high in several southern states already, fewer % of suburban white women likely to go for Trump this round. Trump's core and ideology types (like anti-abortion voters) will show up but there are many who reluctantly voted for Trump last time that are less likely to this time. I know of a few. I don't know anyone who voted Hilary who are considering Trump. Trump could still win it but will be surprising. Though he may have gained more supremacy types who didn't vote at all last round and plan to this round.

MO still seems likely to go Trump even if a landslide for Biden. Partly because outside the cities, it's relatively high evangelical and/or white Baptist, closer to smaller southern states than rest of Midwest.
I don't like to make predictions because I was convinced think Trump would lose in 2016. I was more ambivalent then, and ended up not voting as I did not favor either candidate but figured Trump would at least be practical as he lacked the ideological fervor of a Ted Cruz type. Four years later, I am extremely motivated to vote, not so much because I like Biden but because I can't imagine another four years of a POS like Trump occupying the oval office. I think I'm not alone in that regard.

I could foresee a way in which Trump still wins the electoral college but slaughtered in the popular vote. Then we need to have a collective discussion whether or not this is the country we want to be where the will of the people is subverted by an archaic election process (a discussion we should have had after Gore/Bush). I also expect a petulant Trump to claim voter fraud if he loses.
The electoral college is incredibly necessary. Pure democracy is mob rule.
What, specifically, are the problems with "mob rule" that the electoral college solves?

earthling
One Park Place
One Park Place
Posts: 6186
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:27 pm

Re: Politics

Post by earthling »

phuqueue wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 8:28 pm
earthling wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 11:30 am
phuqueue wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 11:18 am
MO is already viewed the way that you fear it will be
Yes, I spend more time outside MO than in now and see it (mostly living in FL/NYC/LA now, though still based out of KC and voting there). If MO is one of largest remaining red states, could draw more right ideology purists frustrated from new blue states and lose more locals on hard left. Not saying it will happen but plausible. Less likely to happen if many other large states go Trump and not a landslide.
I think the number of people who are going to move based on the election results in their home state is negligible. Most people either outright can't afford to move, or at least would not weigh the cost/benefit analysis in favor of moving, over something as frivolous as which way their state voted in a presidential election.
Agree it's a frivolous decision but am talking about ideology types who do think this way. I've run across several hard conservatives in MO who would never live in a heavy blue state. And lefties in NYC/LA who would never live in a heavy red state. It's not most people but when someone is moving for other reasons, hard line ideology types are more likely to consider that as a factor. There's a book somewhat related to this called The Big Sort, which studied how many moving people will select a neighborhood/county that leans towards their social/political disposition with other followup studies that alludes to harder line ideology types may factor decision at a state level if the state has a heavy leaning political identity.

User avatar
im2kull
Hotel President
Hotel President
Posts: 3330
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 4:33 pm
Location: KCMO

Re: Politics

Post by im2kull »

Major KC Fan wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 12:01 pm
...there are overwhelming signs of majority support for Biden/Harris. And I do emphasize Harris, who brought a large number of supporters to the ticket.
Where? I see no sort of "overwhelming sign of majority support" anywhere in the US or abroad. In fact, I barely see any actual, visible sign of support for that combo at all.

Also, having Harris on the ticket LOST a large number of supporters as well. I for one will not be voting for that pandering idiot. Nor will I vote for anyone as unethical and unfit to serve as Biden.

phuqueue
Penntower
Penntower
Posts: 2434
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: Politics

Post by phuqueue »

earthling wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 9:03 pm
phuqueue wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 8:28 pm
earthling wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 11:30 am


Yes, I spend more time outside MO than in now and see it (mostly living in FL/NYC/LA now, though still based out of KC and voting there). If MO is one of largest remaining red states, could draw more right ideology purists frustrated from new blue states and lose more locals on hard left. Not saying it will happen but plausible. Less likely to happen if many other large states go Trump and not a landslide.
I think the number of people who are going to move based on the election results in their home state is negligible. Most people either outright can't afford to move, or at least would not weigh the cost/benefit analysis in favor of moving, over something as frivolous as which way their state voted in a presidential election.
Agree it's a frivolous decision but am talking about ideology types who do think this way. I've run across several hard conservatives in MO who would never live in a heavy blue state. And lefties in NYC/LA who would never live in a heavy red state. It's not most people but when someone is moving for other reasons, hard line ideology types are more likely to consider that as a factor. There's a book somewhat related to this called The Big Sort, which studied how many moving people will select a neighborhood/county that leans towards their social/political disposition with other followup studies that alludes to harder line ideology types may factor decision at a state level if the state has a heavy leaning political identity.
It's easy to say you would never live in a red state or a blue state and much harder to actually move if the state that you currently live in suddenly meets that criterion. There are 330 million people in this country, so I'm not gonna sit here and tell you that nobody ever moved because they didn't want to be in a state that went for whichever presidential candidate, but the number of people who have done or will do this is not statistically significant. The GOP trifecta in Jefferson City is a much bigger problem for KC than whatever reputational damage it will suffer for being in a state that goes to Trump. That's already priced into whatever anybody thinks about KC or MO anyway.

User avatar
Anthony_Hugo98
Strip mall
Strip mall
Posts: 197
Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2019 10:50 pm
Location: Vicenza, IT

Re: Politics

Post by Anthony_Hugo98 »

phuqueue wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 8:28 pm
What, specifically, are the problems with "mob rule" that the electoral college solves?
Without the electoral college, much of the center of the United States would be disregarded, as all candidates would have to do is pander to the large metropolitan areas on the coast, as they could easily win with just the areas of New York, L.A., S.F., And Miami. As many people living in a confined metro area are going to generally have similar viewpoints, elected officials would be voted for based on how they’d address those areas needs, and not nearly as much in regard to the nations needs. While I understand that woefully under explains the complexity of that issue, that’s what it is in effect. That, and pure democracy can easily lead to the rights of the minority being easily taken.
For all my military brothers and sisters out there, thanks for paving the way, ill do my best! AIRBORNE!

User avatar
grovester
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 4131
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:30 pm
Location: KC Metro

Re: Politics

Post by grovester »

Anthony_Hugo98 wrote:
Sun Oct 18, 2020 12:13 pm
phuqueue wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 8:28 pm
What, specifically, are the problems with "mob rule" that the electoral college solves?
Without the electoral college, much of the center of the United States would be disregarded, as all candidates would have to do is pander to the large metropolitan areas on the coast, as they could easily win with just the areas of New York, L.A., S.F., And Miami. As many people living in a confined metro area are going to generally have similar viewpoints, elected officials would be voted for based on how they’d address those areas needs, and not nearly as much in regard to the nations needs. While I understand that woefully under explains the complexity of that issue, that’s what it is in effect. That, and pure democracy can easily lead to the rights of the minority being easily taken.
Yep, wouldn't want this to happen.

https://i.imgur.com/XOweXhP.png

Image

Riverite
Western Auto Lofts
Western Auto Lofts
Posts: 540
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2017 5:49 pm

Re: Politics

Post by Riverite »

phuqueue wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 10:40 pm
earthling wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 9:03 pm
phuqueue wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 8:28 pm

I think the number of people who are going to move based on the election results in their home state is negligible. Most people either outright can't afford to move, or at least would not weigh the cost/benefit analysis in favor of moving, over something as frivolous as which way their state voted in a presidential election.
Agree it's a frivolous decision but am talking about ideology types who do think this way. I've run across several hard conservatives in MO who would never live in a heavy blue state. And lefties in NYC/LA who would never live in a heavy red state. It's not most people but when someone is moving for other reasons, hard line ideology types are more likely to consider that as a factor. There's a book somewhat related to this called The Big Sort, which studied how many moving people will select a neighborhood/county that leans towards their social/political disposition with other followup studies that alludes to harder line ideology types may factor decision at a state level if the state has a heavy leaning political identity.
It's easy to say you would never live in a red state or a blue state and much harder to actually move if the state that you currently live in suddenly meets that criterion. There are 330 million people in this country, so I'm not gonna sit here and tell you that nobody ever moved because they didn't want to be in a state that went for whichever presidential candidate, but the number of people who have done or will do this is not statistically significant. The GOP trifecta in Jefferson City is a much bigger problem for KC than whatever reputational damage it will suffer for being in a state that goes to Trump. That's already priced into whatever anybody thinks about KC or MO anyway.
People do move, more than you think. I’ve personally heard a number of people tell me that they would flat out refuse a job in a red state. If youre a straight white man it probably isn’t that important where you live, but I can promise you people will find a way if their rights are on the line

phuqueue
Penntower
Penntower
Posts: 2434
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: Politics

Post by phuqueue »

Anthony_Hugo98 wrote:
Sun Oct 18, 2020 12:13 pm
phuqueue wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 8:28 pm
What, specifically, are the problems with "mob rule" that the electoral college solves?
Without the electoral college, much of the center of the United States would be disregarded, as all candidates would have to do is pander to the large metropolitan areas on the coast, as they could easily win with just the areas of New York, L.A., S.F., And Miami. As many people living in a confined metro area are going to generally have similar viewpoints, elected officials would be voted for based on how they’d address those areas needs, and not nearly as much in regard to the nations needs. While I understand that woefully under explains the complexity of that issue, that’s what it is in effect. That, and pure democracy can easily lead to the rights of the minority being easily taken.
Every form of government "can easily lead to the rights of the minority being easily taken." We've had an electoral college for 230 years and have never respected the rights of minorities. The electoral college doesn't "protect" "minority" "rights," it grants a "minority" disproportionate power to override majority will. The "minority" in question isn't an oppressed ethnic or religious group, as we are meant to infer whenever anybody invokes "tyranny of the majority" as a defense of antidemocratic institutions, it's not even people at all, it's just the states that have a lower population than other states. If you do actually think about where people fit into this, it quickly becomes apparent that the electoral college itself takes away the rights of minorities -- the racial and other minorities who tend to congregate in the cities/states where votes are devalued, and also the political minorities whose votes are made not to count at all when the majority in their state votes the other way (what is even the point of voting Republican for president in California? or Democrat in Mississippi?).

This idea that only big cities would matter without the electoral college is often parroted and seemingly never interrogated. You ascribe this imagined power to cities because you are still mapping electoral college dynamics (in which atomized majorities within individual jurisdictions determine where the jurisdiction's entire voting power goes) onto a popular vote election. Without the electoral college, every person's vote would count equally, which would incentivize politicians to try to reach voters wherever they could instead of those concentrated in a handful of "swing states" (as grovester already pointed out). No voter can be "disregarded" when every vote is weighted the same. But even if your fear that cities would run roughshod over the rest of the country were realized, it's not self-evident to me that this is per se bad. If most people live in or around cities, why shouldn't their interests influence federal policy accordingly? What is the specific argument that justifies rural interests dominating policy in an urbanized country?
Riverite wrote:
Sun Oct 18, 2020 4:02 pm
People do move, more than you think. I’ve personally heard a number of people tell me that they would flat out refuse a job in a red state. If youre a straight white man it probably isn’t that important where you live, but I can promise you people will find a way if their rights are on the line
Refusing to move to a red (or blue) state (which costs you nothing except the marginal improvement of the opportunity you passed up) is not the same thing as moving out of a red (or blue) state (which costs a lot, in dollar terms and otherwise). As far as rights being on the line, the original post in this line of discussion was expressing concern about the reputational damage to MO of going for Trump in an election in which he loses by a landslide nationally, and that's what I am responding to. A state going for Trump is basically symbolic and will, again, spur at most a statistically negligible number of relocations. On the other hand, whether your rights are on the line is a state government issue that has been years in the making and, even in most of the red states that could flip blue for this election, will probably continue for years to come. That is a more complex issue and may influence some people to move states, although I'd still point out that, by and large, the people whose rights will be most on the line will be the people who can least afford to move, no matter how much they might want to.

User avatar
Anthony_Hugo98
Strip mall
Strip mall
Posts: 197
Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2019 10:50 pm
Location: Vicenza, IT

Re: Politics

Post by Anthony_Hugo98 »

phuqueue wrote:
Sun Oct 18, 2020 11:43 pm
What is the specific argument that justifies rural interests dominating policy in an urbanized country?
A specific issue I could recognize is practically any firearm legislation. Most all legislation passed in an effort to restrict access to firearms comes from politicians coming from largely urban areas. Firearms are a necessary tool in rural areas, as well as a constitutional right. This is one of the only issues I hold politically that is a non-negotiable for me, if you need context on it.
For all my military brothers and sisters out there, thanks for paving the way, ill do my best! AIRBORNE!

flyingember
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 8486
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: Politics

Post by flyingember »

Anthony_Hugo98 wrote:
Mon Oct 19, 2020 12:04 am
phuqueue wrote:
Sun Oct 18, 2020 11:43 pm
What is the specific argument that justifies rural interests dominating policy in an urbanized country?
A specific issue I could recognize is practically any firearm legislation. Most all legislation passed in an effort to restrict access to firearms comes from politicians coming from largely urban areas. Firearms are a necessary tool in rural areas, as well as a constitutional right. This is one of the only issues I hold politically that is a non-negotiable for me, if you need context on it.
Disclosure: I have no problem with guns, I take groups with kids as young as Kindergartners to events where they do gun shooting to learn to respect guns.


Focus on the tool-toy-weapon description trio.

A toy should never be confused for a gun and toy guns should be banned. As a dangerous tool they need to be treated as such, and making them into toys means people connect guns with something mundane and safe. I really doubt any guns in 1870s were toys, they were tools in the hands of children who were taught respect.

A gun as a tool should never be connected to guns as a weapon. A hunter that needs even a ten round magazine and a sight with a laser and wind adjustment needs to go practice at the range more. Any tool is dangerous in trained hands. Any weapon is dangerous in the hands of the untrained.

Guns with lockout mechanisms and gun safes and all that don't reduce the value of a tool, they reduce the value of a weapon.

Gun form factors and legal carrying methods need to enable tools and not enable weapons. You don't conceal a tool so concealed carry should be banned and visible carry legalized on public property

In terms of legality to carry a weapon, it should be like bringing in a chain saw into a store. Both are deadly and both should be disallowed on private property as picked by the business.

For example, you can bring a chain saw to a big box store but why would you bring one into a clothing store? This the "well regulated" part of the 2nd amendment where because it's a tool you take it where use of that tool would be reasonable. This enables a place to decide for themselves. There was the church shooting where a member shot an intruder. That church should have the right to allow certain people to carry guns if they feel the need for it.

And I could legally carry a chain saw down my street, so I can legally carry a gun down my street.
Last edited by flyingember on Mon Oct 19, 2020 9:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Anthony_Hugo98
Strip mall
Strip mall
Posts: 197
Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2019 10:50 pm
Location: Vicenza, IT

Re: Politics

Post by Anthony_Hugo98 »

flyingember wrote:
Mon Oct 19, 2020 9:27 am
Anthony_Hugo98 wrote:
Mon Oct 19, 2020 12:04 am
phuqueue wrote:
Sun Oct 18, 2020 11:43 pm
What is the specific argument that justifies rural interests dominating policy in an urbanized country?
A specific issue I could recognize is practically any firearm legislation. Most all legislation passed in an effort to restrict access to firearms comes from politicians coming from largely urban areas. Firearms are a necessary tool in rural areas, as well as a constitutional right. This is one of the only issues I hold politically that is a non-negotiable for me, if you need context on it.
Disclosure: I have no problem with guns, I take groups with kids as young as Kindergartners to events where they do gun shooting to learn to respect guns.


Focus on the tool-toy-weapon description trio.

A toy should never be confused for a gun and toy guns should be banned. As a dangerous tool they need to be treated as such, and making them into toys means people connect guns with something mundane and safe. I really doubt any guns in 1870s were toys, they were tools in the hands of children who were taught respect.

A gun as a tool should never be connected to guns as a weapon. A hunter that needs even a ten round magazine and a sight with a laser and wind adjustment needs to go practice at the range more. Any tool is dangerous in trained hands. Any weapon is dangerous in the hands of the untrained.

Guns with lockout mechanisms and gun safes and all that don't reduce the value of a tool, they reduce the value of a weapon.

Gun form factors need to enable tools and not enable weapons.
Concealed carry needs to go away, it enables weapons. You don't conceal a tool.
Agree with all points except the last one, as I feel concealing a firearm gives much more protection to the user of the firearm, as in any situation where the individual needs to use the weapon, they aren’t the direct target with a glaring obvious weapon on their hip. Other than that, all the points you made were solid.
For all my military brothers and sisters out there, thanks for paving the way, ill do my best! AIRBORNE!

flyingember
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 8486
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: Politics

Post by flyingember »

Anthony_Hugo98 wrote:
Mon Oct 19, 2020 9:36 am
Agree with all points except the last one, as I feel concealing a firearm gives much more protection to the user of the firearm, as in any situation where the individual needs to use the weapon, they aren’t the direct target with a glaring obvious weapon on their hip. Other than that, all the points you made were solid.
Sorry, I kept editing it.

No, it doesn't.

The police would carry their guns concealed if it gives more protection. Don't think uniformed cops, think detectives.

If someone is actually in a situation where a gun would be useful a bad person will assume everyone has a gun. If you move your hand under your jacket that's a gun and you can be shot.

But if they can see guns they know who has them and all movements aren't suspicious.


Concealed carry only benefits someone who has the initiative to try and shoot first where they don't know if the other person has a gun they could point quicker. It's the equivalent to hiding around a corner with a pipe.

phuqueue
Penntower
Penntower
Posts: 2434
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: Politics

Post by phuqueue »

Anthony_Hugo98 wrote:
Mon Oct 19, 2020 12:04 am
phuqueue wrote:
Sun Oct 18, 2020 11:43 pm
What is the specific argument that justifies rural interests dominating policy in an urbanized country?
A specific issue I could recognize is practically any firearm legislation. Most all legislation passed in an effort to restrict access to firearms comes from politicians coming from largely urban areas. Firearms are a necessary tool in rural areas, as well as a constitutional right. This is one of the only issues I hold politically that is a non-negotiable for me, if you need context on it.
You're just begging the question here. What I asked is, with the implicit assumption that rural interests are not compatible with urban interests (where they are compatible, there's no conflict, so who cares), what is the argument that justifies privileging the rural interests over the urban interests in an urbanized country? Your response here doesn't actually answer that question, you're just highlighting a specific policy area where rural and urban interests conflict and you're assuming that the rural interests must prevail. That "firearms are a necessary tool in rural areas" explains why the rurals want them, but it doesn't explain why this should necessarily outweigh the urbans' interest in restricting or banning them. That they are "a constitutional right" only helps to explain why the rurals are currently prevailing, it doesn't answer why they should prevail. Moreover, even assuming that the rurals are right about guns, that would fall far short of explaining why the entire electoral system should be slanted to systematically privilege their voices. Because they're right about guns, they should also be empowered to disproportionately influence foreign policy? or fiscal policy? or abortion rights? or etc etc etc?

And just to be clear, I'm not really interested in having the gun argument again right now and am not going to follow you down a tangent that is specifically about guns. Maybe another time.

Post Reply