If the GOP would respect nature's laws (Trump ran on an anti-EPA platform) and Democrats would respect criminal laws (vs. race-based crime denial), the choice of who to support would become more nuanced.
Glenn wrote: "how much more thought, how much more deliberation is required"...? That is a very right wing thing to say. In contrast, the left would probably say things are subtle and need analysis. Thinking things are simple, not subtle is characteristically on the political and cultural "right." /// So having read a little more: This is quite a good article, as it shows two different and contrasting (comparable) persons. These are two attitudes, both of which must be considered by thoughtul persons . And aren't persons of today expected to be more, not less, thoughtful? I have seen what goes on with these police. I favor the McWhorter view!
A disembodied voice from a year ago, Mr Van Winkle. I’ve scrolled but can’t find my comment you are tardily responding to so, I’ll be flying blind.
The Southern Strategy as I now know may not have been a comprehensive singular wedge attempt to take advantage of ever increasing civil rights animus. The zeitgeist of the era and perceptions took on a life of its own and made for great political fodder for both parties. This so called “strategy” may not have been consciously intentional but it did inform or hinder Nixon’s politics in the South. I give you credit for my new found enlightenment on the subject.
As for black Democratic control of large urban areas, I’m not sure of your point vis a vis a Southeastern Strategy other than Blacks, with obvious good reasons, came to believe that the Republicans were not their preferred benefactors.
Political corruption and ineptitude in dysfunctional large inner city demographics is a unique complex sociological problem that begs a more sophisticated formula than Reps good, Dems bad.
For numerous reasons I didn’t and don’t consider the answer to any of America’s woes, Trump. He only adds to them.
What about the rolling back of press freedoms Glenn? Chipping away at some pretty fundamental liberties seems to be a stacked on the Republican side of the agenda. Sure, we democrats may be a little too self-obsessed with the less meaningful parts of the equity and POC rights, but I'd rather err there for now vs. the clear race-based power grabs on the other side are. I think a good portion, if not majority of left-leaning folks are fighting for basic fairness at the local and institutional level and are not anarchists or self-serving whiners.
I am a Democratic who lives in Seattle, Washington. Over the past few years I have become very disillusioned with the Democrat’s agenda and way of governing in our state and nationally. The Pandemic response, especially around education, and the riots of 2020 in Seattle and Portland were the final straw, I was ready to look at Republicans.
And what do you have to offer? People like Donald Trump, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Dr. oz and Herschel Walker. There aren’t any reasonable, moderate Republicans in your party because most Republicans stood silent while Trump and his sycophants destroyed them, derided them and belittled them. You stood silent because you were afraid of incurring the wrath of Trump, so now your party is bereft of reasonable people with reasonable ideas.
And now you are incredulous towards John and other Democrats like myself?In Washington State the person running against the Democratic incumbent in my district said he most aligned with MTG and her faction and still thought the election was stolen from Trump. So my vote for the Democratic was not so much really about her but to stop another “crazy” from going to Washington D.C.
When moderate, reasonable Republicans with good ideas around immigration, crime, education and economics are once again a part of the Republican Party I will vote for them, but first the current Republican Party needs to stop crying about Democrats and bending over for Trump and start putting forth people that aren’t fucking crazy and actually have intelligent, reasonable and thoughtful ideas about how to govern this country.
Remember, the rise of the radical left was in large part a reaction to Trump's outrageous tactics. The one thing we can all hope for is him never holding office again.
The Constitution was designed to prevent radicals from wielding too much power, but it didn't account for the instant spread of bad information on the Internet, or the rise of opinionated TV news vs. the days of Walter Cronkite (just as it didn't account for deadlier modern gun designs). I think the Internet has done major harm to good knowledge sources.
The Constitution needs some sort of "stability amendment," and no loopholes for even petty criminals to become President should be a big part of it.
When I look at Republicans today I always end up seeing someone who is poorly behaved, and so forth. They do not have the qualities needed. What a fiasco it will be if they get back into the White Hse!
Am actually happy the respective wins were so close. We, the people, have not had representation for many years. This means neither side can railroad the country into the extreme desires of either side. They literally now have to debate and actually REPRESENT the people! And, let’s please stop making everythying about Trump! He was the biggest chancre sore we’ve ever had, and I’m conservative-leaning Constitutionalist. We don’t have anything going that suits me from today’s parties.
The fact that I value the right to keep and bear arms has rendered me forced to vote R almost exclusively. There are many like me, I have little doubt. Though I value environmental protections, the rolling back the War on Drugs, and at least the posture of not being in the pocket of the uber wealthy, I cannot vote for someone who wishes to disarm the people; it's an absolute non-starter.
Why keep pushing the fallacy of them taking ALL our guns?
Spend a lot of time studying the Stephen Paddock 2017 Las Vegas shooting. That case was a perfect example of why certain weapon types should be restricted in a revised 2nd Amendment. You can't just draw the line at someone owning a howitzer or a tank.
One of the chronic lies of 2A zealots is to simply ignore the "well regulated militia" part, or invent endless vague interpretations of what they meant a "militia" to be. Gun ownership has gone too far and criminals get most of their guns from theft or straw purchases, so the sheer volume of once-legal guns IS the problem.
The line isn't drawn at howitzers and tanks... one can legally own those.
I would refer you to a relatively mask off moment from Diane Feinstein in '95, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out right ban, picking up every one of them....Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in. I would have done it..." I don't take this to be a throw away line, this is a thoroughly entrenched legacy senator giving voice to a line of thinking I believe to be very real in American politics today.
It's also important to consider the original meaning of "well regulated militia." The use of the word "regulated" doesn't necessarily map on to our contemporary understanding it as implying of some kind of oversight from an authority. There are quite a few constitutional scholars who assert the meaning of "well regulated" at the time was more akin to "well functioning."
I would posit the logical conclusion of the banning of certain kinds of firearms will lead to the banning of most any firearm; the direction Canada is going is actually a super good example. Here is my reasoning, semi-automatic rifles chambered in intermediate calibers make up something like 3% of the total number of homicides in any given year. Sure, the instances in which they are used (like what that worthless fuck did in Las Vegas) are emotionally impactful, but the the reduction in deaths would be totally negligible. Handguns make up the overwhelming majority of gun homicides, so I could easily see a ban on "assault weapons" paving the way to a ban on handguns; the justification being their prevalence in the commission of crime, particularly murder. And later down the line people are using pumps and lever actions... so we have to ban those. And then bolt actions, etc. etc. Where will it end?
And to go further, it's not as though violence can be stopped by somehow whisking away all ~400M firearms in the country, violent men will use knives and clubs instead, or will build bombs and incendiary devices.
To address your last point, yes, one can frame the volume of firearms as the problem, but a more accurate assessment of the problem would be that there is a non-negligible number of people out there that find it perfectly reasonable to use or threaten the use of violence against innocents. Those people disgust me and I want nothing more than for them to be rendered utterly incapable of evil, whether it be by arrest and imprisonment or by judicious marksmanship.
It is dishonest of you to believe that Democrats want to disarm people. Democrats want to solve the problem of rampant gun violence in our country. When one Republican produces a single better solution, Democrats will gladly support any solution to the problem that works. Instead, out of a fear that is unfounded and irrational, you vote against your best interests without offering a solution. In short, you will be left clutching your precious guns when the earth is no longer hospitable to life; when the war on Drugs allows the government to throw you in jail for having too many bottles of prescription drugs (they'll take your guns when you get thrown in jail), and meanwhile, the uber-wealthy who funded this dystopia and could care less about your guns just tosses them in the pile for use by their militia, ironically in concert with the real second amendment. The NRA has endeavored to get you to fear Democrats taking your guns. We own guns too. That is absolutely not the goal of Democrats, but it is one possible (and possibly stupid) way to effect some change in a country that has more guns than people. If there is a better solution, we would gladly support it. Nobody WANTS to take your guns, that's Russian-supported NRA propaganda.
The biggest "gun violence" problem on a daily basis is coming from the same race that "justice activists" misidentify as having a police problem, rather than a culture problem. Cops are already operating at the limits of human patience with daily risks to their lives. You can't keep asking them to be "accountable" for their own human nature.
BLM's victimhood/Marxist narrative keeps telling blacks it's OK to be criminals and use guns because racism made 'em do it, but it fails to admit they mostly shoot each other! See Taleeb Starkes' definition of "qualified victims" (black lives only matter if taken by cops or whites).
Calling it "thug violence" rather than "gun violence" would be an honest conversation. The classic "mass shooting" by a lone psycho is evil, but racks up far fewer annual casualties than gang warfare.
Democrats make endless excuses for black crime (Loury talks at length about this) while NRA types make endless excuses for ease of access to overkill-weapons. That deadly combination of narrow ideologies needs to end, not just the NRA's side.
I disagree with quite a bit of what you said, but I appreciate the engagement. Frankly I wish we never even got to sharpened rocks as a species, but we’re now and it sucks; I gotta have whatever the next guy has, whether he be a violent criminal or an agent of the state. Also insufferable gun people like myself don’t really care for the NRA, nor do we take them all that seriously.
I’m scared of violence, and the conclusion I’ve arrived at is that right-minded members of our society have a right, and, in some sense, a duty to have the ability to engage with and neutralize violent people. I’m also quite hard headed and feel drawn towards the things the Man says are bad.
While I appreciate the civil discussion, I can't help but wonder why your side hasn't come up with a solution? Do you enjoy the fact that we have normalized mass shootings in America? I doubt that you do, yet you feel no obligation to champion a solution? For gun owners in America that have assault rifles, why not spend as much energy coming up with a solution to the violence started by people with these guns, a solution that protects our children and our citizens while letting you keep your fetish rather than just opposing anything that anyone tries to do that might inconvenience you? I mean seriously, licensing or competency-testing for owning a weapon capable of killing a lot of people in a short period of time is that much of a personal violation that you would rather people get killed than go out of your way?
And what are you going to do when people stop using guns and result to bombs. Your own logic dictates you will feel obligated to build bombs. How is this escalation for you and those like you ever going to end? When you all have your own nuclear weapon in the basement of your homes?
If anyone knows about guns, it would be gun owners, so why aren't gun owners expressing any dismay over the normalization of gun violence? And though this statement is sarcastic, it almost seems like gun owners are looking forward to their supposed fears being realized so they can actually use these guns that they are fighting for. I mean as America gets more and more violent, the chances you will be right and need your guns increase, so why not sit on your hands (gun in hand) and just wait .... a ... little...longer. I'm reminded of the phrase: You can't simultaneously prepare for and prevent war. You are prepared, how about you help with some prevention?
If you are honestly scared, doing nothing or opposing everything is making things worse and increasing the chances your fears will be realized. If you really wanna get rid of your fear, come up with a solution to gun violence in America that works. Do something besides cowering in your bunker with your guns lusting after the next weapon in the endless escalation of violence in our country.
Nobody is coming to take your guns.
P.S. I am a gun owner and my father was a career police officer and president of the FOP. I have military training and can operate a range of rifles, handguns, and other equipment and I own a handgun. I still support gun restrictions in major metropolitan areas and feel that assault rifles have no place in congested cities. I vote Democrat despite the misdirection about racial politics and their uninformed attempts to do SOMETHING, ANYTHING really to stop gun violence that is rampant in our cities.
P.P.S. Please don't be offended by my emotional language. I mean no disrespect and though I feel passionately about the need to do something, I don't mean to take it out on you. These characterizations surely don't fit you, but accurately express the dismay my side feels about your side's refusal to participate in mitigating gun violence in America. Thanks for this discussion.
Yo I’m on some psycho shit I guess, but for some reason I feel compelled to write something back after 5 months. I suppose this is more for me than it is you, the things you say are worth engaging with so I can better understand my own rationale.
I’ll address your points in no particular order, but will try not to ramble. I think I miscommunicated when I said I want to have whatever the next guy has… I mean that really only in terms of firearms. As you know, firearms are by their nature precision weapons and explosives, like the bomb you recommend I build, are not. One can use a firearms with far more discretion than any explosive. I wish to have the means to extinguish individual acts of violence, and the gun is really the best tool for that.
And when I express a concern about violence, the fear is so much broader than just of people shooting each other. Violence, in one form or another, cannot be excised from the fabric of reality itself. Hell, I’m more concerned about somebody’s shitty, poorly trained large dog than I am a person. And while yes, it would be quite the rude reaction to shoot someone’s dog upon it turning violent, it still beats the danger of grievous bodily harm on myself, or someone worth protecting. You see, the reason people like myself are so hard headed about this is because the stakes are so high, life and limb.
You act as though people care so little about presenting a solution, and while there are many callous retards who own firearms, those of us who think carefully about these things do care deeply, but are unable to see how giving authority to some higher body of ostensible wisdom could possibly solve the problem. This way of viewing the ineffectual nature of the state is almost inextricably tied to the commonly held sensibility that bearing arms can be appropriate in certain circumstances, and the right to do so is of grave importance.
The arbiters of our communities’ wellbeing are us, not some bureaucratic institution. You ask how I think this issue can be solved? Dude I’m trying to live it, that’s all there is to be done. This problem exists on an individual by individual basis. Love and support those special people that exist in the world, raise children well, contribute to the community, shun and shame hatred and debasement, and, in my opinion, be ready and able to stand up for the best interests and safety of those around you.
I am not cowering in any corner clutching my weapon, and there are many others who aren’t either. We’re simply trying to live our lives in a way that is ordered and benevolent.
You can see my response to the No Thugs fella if you’d like, as I addressed some other important components of this conversation there, especially in regards to actual threats of forced disarmament. “They’re gunna take muh guns.” Feinstein talked about her desire to do this shit in the 90s, and it seems an “assault weapon” is whatever someone wants it to be at any given moment; that demented goon of a president said 9mm can blow organs out of the human chest cavity! I guess all semi-autos are a no-no? We can’t have 9s?! Jeez man…
Now allow me to close out with a real schizoid take and offer what might count as a justification for the whole “owning firearms so the state can’t violate my rights” thing, which I know is one of the hardest things for gun control proponents to understand and see as anything other than sheer lunacy. Yes, I kind of think organized resistance of the government is basically impossible at this point because of the degree to which channels of communication are monitored and controlled, but the beauty (or horror, depending on how you look at it) of a 2A society is this: agents of the state who forcibly drag people out of their houses because they posted an edgy, but overall innocuous meme on their social media, or because they violated some bull shit, unscientific pandemic measure, like they’ve done in the UK, or Germany, or Australia, or China, should be shot at. This is some shit that’ll get me on a list, but I will not be goaded into thinking being constantly scrutinized by the Man is anything other than evil. One might hope men acting on behalf of the state would be less inclined to enforce vulgar infringements on people’s rights if there were the possibility of immediate and deadly consequences. Do I think the world would be a better place if these people started getting shot and killed? Not really. But oppression is real, exists on interpersonal as well as on societal levels, and people have every right to resist it. Even if that involves violence.
The fictional "29th Scroll, 6th Verse" is an all-too-accurate representation of violent apes with efficient weapons. The endless need for revenge drives all sorts of madness.
The left still won't talk about it in terms of total black deaths, since police are a much easier scapegoat. Watch any number of documentaries on Chicago's black street warfare (one of many cities where police save far more blacks than they kill, if allowed to make arrests).
The NRA feeds off public fear of that crime problem. but dumbly makes guns easier for criminals to get!
Glenn can you get John to do his homework before you have these discussions with him. He comes across as a low information voter just regurgitating his party's talking points. I find nothing thoughtful about his comments. Before John dismisses me as a red rural not thinker I am an registered independent and mathematician with a little training in critical thinking.
" I don't wanna have to explain why I'm voting for the party of Trump, even to myself."
For a man who is supposedly a deep thinker, that is an incredibly shallow comment. Crime, the border, and the rest have nothing to do with Donald Trump. The carnage sweeping through the nation's inner cities, the teachers' unions given primacy over the education of students, and our headlong plunge into WWIII are happening while Orange McBadman holds no office. But that's okay. Addictions can often blind people to reality and perpetual partisanship is an addiction.
We've done this election dance for a long time. If we are debating products, we tend to look at performance - which one works better or which one is the better value. But that goes out the window with party where emotion and habit color everything. "I've always voted Dem." And you have always gotten a particular set of results, especially in large cities. We even have a word for doing the same thing repeatedly but expecting different results.
I guess people have to see the results for themselves. They have to be confronted personally by the consequences they made possible, which is not a pleasant thought as it implies some negative outcome occurring. I don't want to see that but when persuasion and evidence do not work, there is not very left but for the partisan addict to hit his/her version of rock bottom. Only then will introspection occur, followed by possible change.
The modern Republican Party isn’t much of a choice. Their exist solely to give voters the false belief that they have a choice. They want unlimited war, unlimited illegal immigration, uncontrolled ballot harvesting and ballot box stuffing, etc just like the DNC. Both parties exist to serve the same corporate and foreign interests, and to keep the establishment in power. Everything they do benefits China and corporate donors. Need proof? Watch Mike Pence interview with David Muir. A Hollywood production where Pence endorses the fantasy narrative promoted by Liz Cheney and the DNC. There is ample evidence it is pure fantasy (for anyone interested) but fantasy is better than reality when it results in book deals and the media fawning over you. The media exists to attack anyone who resists the fake two-party system. The choice is not between parties, it is between reality or fantasy. If you choose reality you will be relentlessly attacked. If you choose fantasy you will be celebrated but our country will be destroyed.
I'd vote if either party was antiwar, but they aren't.
I'd vote if either party was against Citizens United and corporate cash, but they aren't.
I'd vote if either party was for dismantling the entire surveillance state, but they aren't.
I'd vote if either party was for banning Big Tech from gathering and profiting off of the sale of our personal data, but they aren't.
I'd vote if either party was for repealing the changes to bankruptcy laws that make it nearly impossible for normal people to discharge their debts, including student loans, and make a fresh start, but they aren't.
I'd vote if either party was committed to preventing Wall Street from buying up single family homes and multi-family apartments, creating artificially high prices for rent, leading to increased homelessness, but they aren't.
I'd vote if either party was for breaking up the media monopoly, and restoring the "fairness doctrine" but they aren't.
I'd vote if either party was for banning Big Pharma from TV advertising and building a solid wall between Big Pharma and the FDA/CDC, but they aren't.
I'd vote if either party was for holding Big Pharma directly responsible for injuries caused by their "vaccines", but they aren't.
I'd vote if either party was for banning voting machines with codes controlled by private corporations, but they aren't.
I'd vote if either party was for banning politicians from profiting from their office, not only during their term but after their term, but they aren't.
It's not enough for the Dems to be "not Trump".
It's not enough for the Reps to be "not woke".
The parties must give me something to vote FOR, or they're just two sides of the same coin, serving the same corporate masters, while merely paying lip service to "the people" they supposedly represent.
That’s a cute, tidy, little explanation for him admittedly voting against his own declared interests ‘cause I’ve been a Democrat my whole life’.
His gutless fealty to his party DESPITE their policies repeatedly posing an existential threat to the life of him, his family and America writ large is shameful and exactly why our country is fucked 6 ways to Sunday!
Perhaps you didn’t catch the burial he’s received here on this very topic….
I grew up in VA in the 60's and our history texts (which you can find online) said that slaves were treated well and were satisfied with their lot! In 2016, I became interested in black history which I had never learned after the book "Hidden Figures" by Margot Lee Shetterly came out because my parents both worked at NACA (later NASA), Langley Field in the 40s. My father spent his career there and my mother started as a "Computer" in 1939 like the black women in the book, but I had NEVER heard of a separate group of black "Computers." My parents are gone, so I can't ask them. I started carefully observing how racism manifested itself in the Trump administration. and reading right wing sites such as Fox to understand what the right thinks. I read an article about the Obamas on "Blaze" and was HORRIFIED to see all the ugly racist comments about them, and I started copying them and keeping them in a file. Then I discovered that most articles about blacks are followed by comments comments comparing them to subhuman primates and suggesting they return to Africa. I continued copying some of them in my file so I have 6 years worth now. Fox LOVES to rile up their readers by printing numerous articles about crimes committed by blacks complete with mug shots or surveillance video. Articles about white criminals are rare and many Fox readers don't believe that ANY crimes are committed by whites, and of course, these stories don't draw readers and make money. I have always been mystified by the right claiming that Democrats are racists (such as Loury's comment: "if they [Democrats] get serious about tamping down racial demagoguery in their party") when it seems to me that OLD FASHIONED, OVERT RACISM has a home on the right!
Republicans can hear the comments of Tennessee Republicans and still maintain that racism is not a problem. Tucker Carlson gains viewers by making racist comments and lying to viewers about Trump so Fox doesn’t lose audience share.
Republicans are the lunatics, really?? That is what Hillary Clinton would say. Its the direct opposite of the truth. They are the ones promoting common sense policies. The Left is constantly destroying cities. They're like locusts. How can John not see this?
Since the passage of the XV Amendment, the Black community has debated whether to give their loyalty to one party or to have the political parties compete for their votes. The latter has usually been a minority position. John's position is the former. Even though he knows the Democrats generally ignore the real needs of the Black community, he continues to favor hope over experience. Glenn's support for Republicans is a variant of the later. Its strategic: he hopes that Republicans will do more the compete for the Black vote by treating them as true equals, not dependents. So Republicans, reach out to the Black community and listen to their pleas and their ideas for for real reform and progress. We are all Americans. Glenn is waiting and John is persuadable.
If the GOP would respect nature's laws (Trump ran on an anti-EPA platform) and Democrats would respect criminal laws (vs. race-based crime denial), the choice of who to support would become more nuanced.
Glenn wrote: "how much more thought, how much more deliberation is required"...? That is a very right wing thing to say. In contrast, the left would probably say things are subtle and need analysis. Thinking things are simple, not subtle is characteristically on the political and cultural "right." /// So having read a little more: This is quite a good article, as it shows two different and contrasting (comparable) persons. These are two attitudes, both of which must be considered by thoughtul persons . And aren't persons of today expected to be more, not less, thoughtful? I have seen what goes on with these police. I favor the McWhorter view!
A disembodied voice from a year ago, Mr Van Winkle. I’ve scrolled but can’t find my comment you are tardily responding to so, I’ll be flying blind.
The Southern Strategy as I now know may not have been a comprehensive singular wedge attempt to take advantage of ever increasing civil rights animus. The zeitgeist of the era and perceptions took on a life of its own and made for great political fodder for both parties. This so called “strategy” may not have been consciously intentional but it did inform or hinder Nixon’s politics in the South. I give you credit for my new found enlightenment on the subject.
As for black Democratic control of large urban areas, I’m not sure of your point vis a vis a Southeastern Strategy other than Blacks, with obvious good reasons, came to believe that the Republicans were not their preferred benefactors.
Political corruption and ineptitude in dysfunctional large inner city demographics is a unique complex sociological problem that begs a more sophisticated formula than Reps good, Dems bad.
For numerous reasons I didn’t and don’t consider the answer to any of America’s woes, Trump. He only adds to them.
What about the rolling back of press freedoms Glenn? Chipping away at some pretty fundamental liberties seems to be a stacked on the Republican side of the agenda. Sure, we democrats may be a little too self-obsessed with the less meaningful parts of the equity and POC rights, but I'd rather err there for now vs. the clear race-based power grabs on the other side are. I think a good portion, if not majority of left-leaning folks are fighting for basic fairness at the local and institutional level and are not anarchists or self-serving whiners.
MDS
I am a Democratic who lives in Seattle, Washington. Over the past few years I have become very disillusioned with the Democrat’s agenda and way of governing in our state and nationally. The Pandemic response, especially around education, and the riots of 2020 in Seattle and Portland were the final straw, I was ready to look at Republicans.
And what do you have to offer? People like Donald Trump, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Dr. oz and Herschel Walker. There aren’t any reasonable, moderate Republicans in your party because most Republicans stood silent while Trump and his sycophants destroyed them, derided them and belittled them. You stood silent because you were afraid of incurring the wrath of Trump, so now your party is bereft of reasonable people with reasonable ideas.
And now you are incredulous towards John and other Democrats like myself?In Washington State the person running against the Democratic incumbent in my district said he most aligned with MTG and her faction and still thought the election was stolen from Trump. So my vote for the Democratic was not so much really about her but to stop another “crazy” from going to Washington D.C.
When moderate, reasonable Republicans with good ideas around immigration, crime, education and economics are once again a part of the Republican Party I will vote for them, but first the current Republican Party needs to stop crying about Democrats and bending over for Trump and start putting forth people that aren’t fucking crazy and actually have intelligent, reasonable and thoughtful ideas about how to govern this country.
Remember, the rise of the radical left was in large part a reaction to Trump's outrageous tactics. The one thing we can all hope for is him never holding office again.
The Constitution was designed to prevent radicals from wielding too much power, but it didn't account for the instant spread of bad information on the Internet, or the rise of opinionated TV news vs. the days of Walter Cronkite (just as it didn't account for deadlier modern gun designs). I think the Internet has done major harm to good knowledge sources.
The Constitution needs some sort of "stability amendment," and no loopholes for even petty criminals to become President should be a big part of it.
When I look at Republicans today I always end up seeing someone who is poorly behaved, and so forth. They do not have the qualities needed. What a fiasco it will be if they get back into the White Hse!
Am actually happy the respective wins were so close. We, the people, have not had representation for many years. This means neither side can railroad the country into the extreme desires of either side. They literally now have to debate and actually REPRESENT the people! And, let’s please stop making everythying about Trump! He was the biggest chancre sore we’ve ever had, and I’m conservative-leaning Constitutionalist. We don’t have anything going that suits me from today’s parties.
The fact that I value the right to keep and bear arms has rendered me forced to vote R almost exclusively. There are many like me, I have little doubt. Though I value environmental protections, the rolling back the War on Drugs, and at least the posture of not being in the pocket of the uber wealthy, I cannot vote for someone who wishes to disarm the people; it's an absolute non-starter.
Why keep pushing the fallacy of them taking ALL our guns?
Spend a lot of time studying the Stephen Paddock 2017 Las Vegas shooting. That case was a perfect example of why certain weapon types should be restricted in a revised 2nd Amendment. You can't just draw the line at someone owning a howitzer or a tank.
One of the chronic lies of 2A zealots is to simply ignore the "well regulated militia" part, or invent endless vague interpretations of what they meant a "militia" to be. Gun ownership has gone too far and criminals get most of their guns from theft or straw purchases, so the sheer volume of once-legal guns IS the problem.
The line isn't drawn at howitzers and tanks... one can legally own those.
I would refer you to a relatively mask off moment from Diane Feinstein in '95, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out right ban, picking up every one of them....Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in. I would have done it..." I don't take this to be a throw away line, this is a thoroughly entrenched legacy senator giving voice to a line of thinking I believe to be very real in American politics today.
It's also important to consider the original meaning of "well regulated militia." The use of the word "regulated" doesn't necessarily map on to our contemporary understanding it as implying of some kind of oversight from an authority. There are quite a few constitutional scholars who assert the meaning of "well regulated" at the time was more akin to "well functioning."
I would posit the logical conclusion of the banning of certain kinds of firearms will lead to the banning of most any firearm; the direction Canada is going is actually a super good example. Here is my reasoning, semi-automatic rifles chambered in intermediate calibers make up something like 3% of the total number of homicides in any given year. Sure, the instances in which they are used (like what that worthless fuck did in Las Vegas) are emotionally impactful, but the the reduction in deaths would be totally negligible. Handguns make up the overwhelming majority of gun homicides, so I could easily see a ban on "assault weapons" paving the way to a ban on handguns; the justification being their prevalence in the commission of crime, particularly murder. And later down the line people are using pumps and lever actions... so we have to ban those. And then bolt actions, etc. etc. Where will it end?
And to go further, it's not as though violence can be stopped by somehow whisking away all ~400M firearms in the country, violent men will use knives and clubs instead, or will build bombs and incendiary devices.
To address your last point, yes, one can frame the volume of firearms as the problem, but a more accurate assessment of the problem would be that there is a non-negligible number of people out there that find it perfectly reasonable to use or threaten the use of violence against innocents. Those people disgust me and I want nothing more than for them to be rendered utterly incapable of evil, whether it be by arrest and imprisonment or by judicious marksmanship.
It is dishonest of you to believe that Democrats want to disarm people. Democrats want to solve the problem of rampant gun violence in our country. When one Republican produces a single better solution, Democrats will gladly support any solution to the problem that works. Instead, out of a fear that is unfounded and irrational, you vote against your best interests without offering a solution. In short, you will be left clutching your precious guns when the earth is no longer hospitable to life; when the war on Drugs allows the government to throw you in jail for having too many bottles of prescription drugs (they'll take your guns when you get thrown in jail), and meanwhile, the uber-wealthy who funded this dystopia and could care less about your guns just tosses them in the pile for use by their militia, ironically in concert with the real second amendment. The NRA has endeavored to get you to fear Democrats taking your guns. We own guns too. That is absolutely not the goal of Democrats, but it is one possible (and possibly stupid) way to effect some change in a country that has more guns than people. If there is a better solution, we would gladly support it. Nobody WANTS to take your guns, that's Russian-supported NRA propaganda.
The biggest "gun violence" problem on a daily basis is coming from the same race that "justice activists" misidentify as having a police problem, rather than a culture problem. Cops are already operating at the limits of human patience with daily risks to their lives. You can't keep asking them to be "accountable" for their own human nature.
BLM's victimhood/Marxist narrative keeps telling blacks it's OK to be criminals and use guns because racism made 'em do it, but it fails to admit they mostly shoot each other! See Taleeb Starkes' definition of "qualified victims" (black lives only matter if taken by cops or whites).
Calling it "thug violence" rather than "gun violence" would be an honest conversation. The classic "mass shooting" by a lone psycho is evil, but racks up far fewer annual casualties than gang warfare.
Democrats make endless excuses for black crime (Loury talks at length about this) while NRA types make endless excuses for ease of access to overkill-weapons. That deadly combination of narrow ideologies needs to end, not just the NRA's side.
I disagree with quite a bit of what you said, but I appreciate the engagement. Frankly I wish we never even got to sharpened rocks as a species, but we’re now and it sucks; I gotta have whatever the next guy has, whether he be a violent criminal or an agent of the state. Also insufferable gun people like myself don’t really care for the NRA, nor do we take them all that seriously.
I’m scared of violence, and the conclusion I’ve arrived at is that right-minded members of our society have a right, and, in some sense, a duty to have the ability to engage with and neutralize violent people. I’m also quite hard headed and feel drawn towards the things the Man says are bad.
While I appreciate the civil discussion, I can't help but wonder why your side hasn't come up with a solution? Do you enjoy the fact that we have normalized mass shootings in America? I doubt that you do, yet you feel no obligation to champion a solution? For gun owners in America that have assault rifles, why not spend as much energy coming up with a solution to the violence started by people with these guns, a solution that protects our children and our citizens while letting you keep your fetish rather than just opposing anything that anyone tries to do that might inconvenience you? I mean seriously, licensing or competency-testing for owning a weapon capable of killing a lot of people in a short period of time is that much of a personal violation that you would rather people get killed than go out of your way?
And what are you going to do when people stop using guns and result to bombs. Your own logic dictates you will feel obligated to build bombs. How is this escalation for you and those like you ever going to end? When you all have your own nuclear weapon in the basement of your homes?
If anyone knows about guns, it would be gun owners, so why aren't gun owners expressing any dismay over the normalization of gun violence? And though this statement is sarcastic, it almost seems like gun owners are looking forward to their supposed fears being realized so they can actually use these guns that they are fighting for. I mean as America gets more and more violent, the chances you will be right and need your guns increase, so why not sit on your hands (gun in hand) and just wait .... a ... little...longer. I'm reminded of the phrase: You can't simultaneously prepare for and prevent war. You are prepared, how about you help with some prevention?
If you are honestly scared, doing nothing or opposing everything is making things worse and increasing the chances your fears will be realized. If you really wanna get rid of your fear, come up with a solution to gun violence in America that works. Do something besides cowering in your bunker with your guns lusting after the next weapon in the endless escalation of violence in our country.
Nobody is coming to take your guns.
P.S. I am a gun owner and my father was a career police officer and president of the FOP. I have military training and can operate a range of rifles, handguns, and other equipment and I own a handgun. I still support gun restrictions in major metropolitan areas and feel that assault rifles have no place in congested cities. I vote Democrat despite the misdirection about racial politics and their uninformed attempts to do SOMETHING, ANYTHING really to stop gun violence that is rampant in our cities.
P.P.S. Please don't be offended by my emotional language. I mean no disrespect and though I feel passionately about the need to do something, I don't mean to take it out on you. These characterizations surely don't fit you, but accurately express the dismay my side feels about your side's refusal to participate in mitigating gun violence in America. Thanks for this discussion.
Yo I’m on some psycho shit I guess, but for some reason I feel compelled to write something back after 5 months. I suppose this is more for me than it is you, the things you say are worth engaging with so I can better understand my own rationale.
I’ll address your points in no particular order, but will try not to ramble. I think I miscommunicated when I said I want to have whatever the next guy has… I mean that really only in terms of firearms. As you know, firearms are by their nature precision weapons and explosives, like the bomb you recommend I build, are not. One can use a firearms with far more discretion than any explosive. I wish to have the means to extinguish individual acts of violence, and the gun is really the best tool for that.
And when I express a concern about violence, the fear is so much broader than just of people shooting each other. Violence, in one form or another, cannot be excised from the fabric of reality itself. Hell, I’m more concerned about somebody’s shitty, poorly trained large dog than I am a person. And while yes, it would be quite the rude reaction to shoot someone’s dog upon it turning violent, it still beats the danger of grievous bodily harm on myself, or someone worth protecting. You see, the reason people like myself are so hard headed about this is because the stakes are so high, life and limb.
You act as though people care so little about presenting a solution, and while there are many callous retards who own firearms, those of us who think carefully about these things do care deeply, but are unable to see how giving authority to some higher body of ostensible wisdom could possibly solve the problem. This way of viewing the ineffectual nature of the state is almost inextricably tied to the commonly held sensibility that bearing arms can be appropriate in certain circumstances, and the right to do so is of grave importance.
The arbiters of our communities’ wellbeing are us, not some bureaucratic institution. You ask how I think this issue can be solved? Dude I’m trying to live it, that’s all there is to be done. This problem exists on an individual by individual basis. Love and support those special people that exist in the world, raise children well, contribute to the community, shun and shame hatred and debasement, and, in my opinion, be ready and able to stand up for the best interests and safety of those around you.
I am not cowering in any corner clutching my weapon, and there are many others who aren’t either. We’re simply trying to live our lives in a way that is ordered and benevolent.
You can see my response to the No Thugs fella if you’d like, as I addressed some other important components of this conversation there, especially in regards to actual threats of forced disarmament. “They’re gunna take muh guns.” Feinstein talked about her desire to do this shit in the 90s, and it seems an “assault weapon” is whatever someone wants it to be at any given moment; that demented goon of a president said 9mm can blow organs out of the human chest cavity! I guess all semi-autos are a no-no? We can’t have 9s?! Jeez man…
Now allow me to close out with a real schizoid take and offer what might count as a justification for the whole “owning firearms so the state can’t violate my rights” thing, which I know is one of the hardest things for gun control proponents to understand and see as anything other than sheer lunacy. Yes, I kind of think organized resistance of the government is basically impossible at this point because of the degree to which channels of communication are monitored and controlled, but the beauty (or horror, depending on how you look at it) of a 2A society is this: agents of the state who forcibly drag people out of their houses because they posted an edgy, but overall innocuous meme on their social media, or because they violated some bull shit, unscientific pandemic measure, like they’ve done in the UK, or Germany, or Australia, or China, should be shot at. This is some shit that’ll get me on a list, but I will not be goaded into thinking being constantly scrutinized by the Man is anything other than evil. One might hope men acting on behalf of the state would be less inclined to enforce vulgar infringements on people’s rights if there were the possibility of immediate and deadly consequences. Do I think the world would be a better place if these people started getting shot and killed? Not really. But oppression is real, exists on interpersonal as well as on societal levels, and people have every right to resist it. Even if that involves violence.
P.S. No offense taken :)
The fictional "29th Scroll, 6th Verse" is an all-too-accurate representation of violent apes with efficient weapons. The endless need for revenge drives all sorts of madness.
The left still won't talk about it in terms of total black deaths, since police are a much easier scapegoat. Watch any number of documentaries on Chicago's black street warfare (one of many cities where police save far more blacks than they kill, if allowed to make arrests).
The NRA feeds off public fear of that crime problem. but dumbly makes guns easier for criminals to get!
Glenn can you get John to do his homework before you have these discussions with him. He comes across as a low information voter just regurgitating his party's talking points. I find nothing thoughtful about his comments. Before John dismisses me as a red rural not thinker I am an registered independent and mathematician with a little training in critical thinking.
" I don't wanna have to explain why I'm voting for the party of Trump, even to myself."
For a man who is supposedly a deep thinker, that is an incredibly shallow comment. Crime, the border, and the rest have nothing to do with Donald Trump. The carnage sweeping through the nation's inner cities, the teachers' unions given primacy over the education of students, and our headlong plunge into WWIII are happening while Orange McBadman holds no office. But that's okay. Addictions can often blind people to reality and perpetual partisanship is an addiction.
We've done this election dance for a long time. If we are debating products, we tend to look at performance - which one works better or which one is the better value. But that goes out the window with party where emotion and habit color everything. "I've always voted Dem." And you have always gotten a particular set of results, especially in large cities. We even have a word for doing the same thing repeatedly but expecting different results.
I guess people have to see the results for themselves. They have to be confronted personally by the consequences they made possible, which is not a pleasant thought as it implies some negative outcome occurring. I don't want to see that but when persuasion and evidence do not work, there is not very left but for the partisan addict to hit his/her version of rock bottom. Only then will introspection occur, followed by possible change.
The modern Republican Party isn’t much of a choice. Their exist solely to give voters the false belief that they have a choice. They want unlimited war, unlimited illegal immigration, uncontrolled ballot harvesting and ballot box stuffing, etc just like the DNC. Both parties exist to serve the same corporate and foreign interests, and to keep the establishment in power. Everything they do benefits China and corporate donors. Need proof? Watch Mike Pence interview with David Muir. A Hollywood production where Pence endorses the fantasy narrative promoted by Liz Cheney and the DNC. There is ample evidence it is pure fantasy (for anyone interested) but fantasy is better than reality when it results in book deals and the media fawning over you. The media exists to attack anyone who resists the fake two-party system. The choice is not between parties, it is between reality or fantasy. If you choose reality you will be relentlessly attacked. If you choose fantasy you will be celebrated but our country will be destroyed.
Not a single word in your conversation between the two of you about immigration. You still don't get it.
I'd vote if either party was antiwar, but they aren't.
I'd vote if either party was against Citizens United and corporate cash, but they aren't.
I'd vote if either party was for dismantling the entire surveillance state, but they aren't.
I'd vote if either party was for banning Big Tech from gathering and profiting off of the sale of our personal data, but they aren't.
I'd vote if either party was for repealing the changes to bankruptcy laws that make it nearly impossible for normal people to discharge their debts, including student loans, and make a fresh start, but they aren't.
I'd vote if either party was committed to preventing Wall Street from buying up single family homes and multi-family apartments, creating artificially high prices for rent, leading to increased homelessness, but they aren't.
I'd vote if either party was for breaking up the media monopoly, and restoring the "fairness doctrine" but they aren't.
I'd vote if either party was for banning Big Pharma from TV advertising and building a solid wall between Big Pharma and the FDA/CDC, but they aren't.
I'd vote if either party was for holding Big Pharma directly responsible for injuries caused by their "vaccines", but they aren't.
I'd vote if either party was for banning voting machines with codes controlled by private corporations, but they aren't.
I'd vote if either party was for banning politicians from profiting from their office, not only during their term but after their term, but they aren't.
It's not enough for the Dems to be "not Trump".
It's not enough for the Reps to be "not woke".
The parties must give me something to vote FOR, or they're just two sides of the same coin, serving the same corporate masters, while merely paying lip service to "the people" they supposedly represent.
That’s a cute, tidy, little explanation for him admittedly voting against his own declared interests ‘cause I’ve been a Democrat my whole life’.
His gutless fealty to his party DESPITE their policies repeatedly posing an existential threat to the life of him, his family and America writ large is shameful and exactly why our country is fucked 6 ways to Sunday!
Perhaps you didn’t catch the burial he’s received here on this very topic….
See my further comment below….
I grew up in VA in the 60's and our history texts (which you can find online) said that slaves were treated well and were satisfied with their lot! In 2016, I became interested in black history which I had never learned after the book "Hidden Figures" by Margot Lee Shetterly came out because my parents both worked at NACA (later NASA), Langley Field in the 40s. My father spent his career there and my mother started as a "Computer" in 1939 like the black women in the book, but I had NEVER heard of a separate group of black "Computers." My parents are gone, so I can't ask them. I started carefully observing how racism manifested itself in the Trump administration. and reading right wing sites such as Fox to understand what the right thinks. I read an article about the Obamas on "Blaze" and was HORRIFIED to see all the ugly racist comments about them, and I started copying them and keeping them in a file. Then I discovered that most articles about blacks are followed by comments comments comparing them to subhuman primates and suggesting they return to Africa. I continued copying some of them in my file so I have 6 years worth now. Fox LOVES to rile up their readers by printing numerous articles about crimes committed by blacks complete with mug shots or surveillance video. Articles about white criminals are rare and many Fox readers don't believe that ANY crimes are committed by whites, and of course, these stories don't draw readers and make money. I have always been mystified by the right claiming that Democrats are racists (such as Loury's comment: "if they [Democrats] get serious about tamping down racial demagoguery in their party") when it seems to me that OLD FASHIONED, OVERT RACISM has a home on the right!
Thanks for this.
Republicans can hear the comments of Tennessee Republicans and still maintain that racism is not a problem. Tucker Carlson gains viewers by making racist comments and lying to viewers about Trump so Fox doesn’t lose audience share.
Republicans are the lunatics, really?? That is what Hillary Clinton would say. Its the direct opposite of the truth. They are the ones promoting common sense policies. The Left is constantly destroying cities. They're like locusts. How can John not see this?
When Obama was elected, Republicans said they had a better health care plan.
The country is still wailing.
Since the passage of the XV Amendment, the Black community has debated whether to give their loyalty to one party or to have the political parties compete for their votes. The latter has usually been a minority position. John's position is the former. Even though he knows the Democrats generally ignore the real needs of the Black community, he continues to favor hope over experience. Glenn's support for Republicans is a variant of the later. Its strategic: he hopes that Republicans will do more the compete for the Black vote by treating them as true equals, not dependents. So Republicans, reach out to the Black community and listen to their pleas and their ideas for for real reform and progress. We are all Americans. Glenn is waiting and John is persuadable.