[Lord Dave]

There are alot of reports, but they don't get national attention because they're borderline innocent or just not innocent at all. Local new, however, reports on them.  If only briefly.

That being said, its about optics.  Banning the guns that make national news makes gun violence seem less (if it does lessen it) and thus, less of an issue to be fixed.  Which means it's fixed (to the general population).  The rest?

Out of sight, out of mind.

[honk]

Politicians have been campaigning on offering solutions to problems that sound simple and punchy but are ultimately ineffective since the dawn of civilization. It's far more likely that that's what this is rather than any kind of insidious scheme to disarm the American public. In fact, I'm pretty sure that nobody in the government is trying to "disarm" the public in that sense, because they know that the population is not going to rise up against them en masse, regardless of whether or not they have their rifles. Regardless of what incredibly shitty and unpopular laws are passed, 99.9% of Americans will continue to follow the laws and remain more or less conforming members of society. They're not going to quit their jobs and say goodbye to their families so they can become revolutionaries. It's not going to happen.

[Lord Dave]

Not without some major shift in the government's behavior,  like nuking a city (in America) or something.

[Pete Svarrior]

A Chicago-style handgun ban would be more effective regarding violent crime yet major candidates never bring it up. Why?

Playing devil's advocate: they probably think it's easier to ban the big, scary gun and appear like they're doing something.

That said:

Gun violence with AR-15s is so rare that this turns into a more comical analogy of "ban cars to stop drunk drivers".

Banning cars is also an amazing idea, and if we need to say we're doing it to stop drunk drivers to achieve it, so be it.

[DuncanDoenitz]

You can take my car when you prise my cold, dead corpse out of it. 

[Rushy]

There are alot of reports, but they don't get national attention because they're borderline innocent or just not innocent at all. Local new, however, reports on them.  If only briefly.

That being said, its about optics.  Banning the guns that make national news makes gun violence seem less (if it does lessen it) and thus, less of an issue to be fixed.  Which means it's fixed (to the general population).  The rest?

Out of sight, out of mind.

Politicians have been campaigning on offering solutions to problems that sound simple and punchy but are ultimately ineffective since the dawn of civilization. It's far more likely that that's what this is rather than any kind of insidious scheme to disarm the American public. Im fact, I'm pretty sure that nobody in the government is trying to "disarm" the public in that sense, because they know that the population is not going to rise up against them en masse, regardless of whether or not they have their rifles. Regardless of what incredibly shitty and unpopular laws are passed, 99.9% of Americans will continue to follow the laws and remain more or less conforming members of society. They're not going to quit their jobs and say goodbye to their families so they can become revolutionaries. It's not going to happen.

Playing devil's advocate: they probably think it's easier to ban the big, scary gun and appear like they're doing something.

So, we're going with "incompetence" for this one, it seems.

That said:

Why not both?

I believe it should be neither, but I don't want this thread devolving into a gun law meme again. This is specifically about policies in America with respect to the current candidates; I don't want to generalize the thread into being about the 2nd amendment. I already made a thread for that.

Banning cars is also an amazing idea, and if we need to say we're doing it to stop drunk drivers to achieve it, so be it.

This is what urban nightmare dwellers really believe.


I want to further iterate that my problem is with Harris somehow trying to simultaneously hold the position of "I support the second amendment" and "I want to ban assault weapons". It's a have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too position and it's not even a good one. Out of the possible options to "improve" gun safety in the US, she seems to have managed to pick all of the least effective yet the most strenuous options. It's sort of like telling people you really want to halt climate change, so you mandate that coal plants should be 3% more efficient instead of building nuclear plants instead. It feels like needless lip service.

[Pete Svarrior]

So, we're going with "incompetence" for this one, it seems.

Well, yeah. This is a thread about America.

[Tom Bishop]

It's odd how we never hear anything like this about the Harris family, Biden family, or lifetime politicians in general.

https://twitter.com/CitizenFreePres/status/1837219541178605744

[Rushy]

Poll update:

National: Harris +2.4 -- This Day In History: September 24, 2020: Biden +6.9 | September 24, 2016: Clinton +3.0
Arizona: Trump +2.2
Nevada: Harris +0.4
Wisconsin: Harris +1.0
Michigan: Harris +1.8
Pennsylvania: Harris +0.6
North Carolina: Trump +0.5
Georgia: Trump +2.1

Neither Trump nor Harris have made themselves a clear winner, as the numbers in each state are still too close.

[Shane]

It's odd how we never hear anything like this about the Harris family, Biden family, or lifetime politicians in general.

https://twitter.com/CitizenFreePres/status/1837219541178605744

Kamala Harris's cousin gave my uncle 500k for cancer treatment. great family!

[markjo]

And the criminal charges keep piling up.

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — The leader of a nonprofit representing the Haitian community invoked a private-citizen right to file charges Tuesday against former President Donald Trump and his running mate, JD Vance, over the chaos and threats experienced by Springfield, Ohio, since Trump first spread false claims about legal immigrants there during a presidential debate.

[honk]

So, we're going with "incompetence" for this one, it seems.

No, just standard politicking. No more necessarily incompetent than any other politician who does this kind of thing, which is all of them.

And the criminal charges keep piling up.

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — The leader of a nonprofit representing the Haitian community invoked a private-citizen right to file charges Tuesday against former President Donald Trump and his running mate, JD Vance, over the chaos and threats experienced by Springfield, Ohio, since Trump first spread false claims about legal immigrants there during a presidential debate.

There is zero chance of this even making it past a prosecutor's desk, let alone holding up in court. Everything Trump and Vance have said is one hundred percent protected by the First Amendment.

[Lord Dave]

So, we're going with "incompetence" for this one, it seems.

No, just standard politicking. No more necessarily incompetent than any other politician who does this kind of thing, which is all of them.

And the criminal charges keep piling up.

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — The leader of a nonprofit representing the Haitian community invoked a private-citizen right to file charges Tuesday against former President Donald Trump and his running mate, JD Vance, over the chaos and threats experienced by Springfield, Ohio, since Trump first spread false claims about legal immigrants there during a presidential debate.

There is zero chance of this even making it past a prosecutor's desk, let alone holding up in court. Everything Trump and Vance have said is one hundred percent protected by the First Amendment.

Even tho it caused bomb threats?
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/bomb-threats-force-second-consecutive-day-school-closures-springfield-rcna171043

[markjo]

There is zero chance of this even making it past a prosecutor's desk, let alone holding up in court. Everything Trump and Vance have said is one hundred percent protected by the First Amendment.

Defamation is not protected speech.

[Rushy]

There is zero chance of this even making it past a prosecutor's desk, let alone holding up in court. Everything Trump and Vance have said is one hundred percent protected by the First Amendment.

Defamation is not protected speech.

Did you even read the article?

The Haitian Bridge Alliance made the move after inaction by the local prosecutor

The local prosecutor told them what Trump did isn't against the law. They're spending their own money and time bringing pointless charges, probably in the hopes that it will bring in donations from morons. They already know they're not going to win and it'll be thrown out of court before going to trial.

[markjo]

Did you even read the article?

The Haitian Bridge Alliance made the move after inaction by the local prosecutor

The local prosecutor told them what Trump did isn't against the law.

I did read the article and I didn't see where the local prosecutor said anything of the sort.  Just because there was no action doesn't mean that Trump and Vance didn't do anything wrong. 

[Rushy]

I did read the article and I didn't see where the local prosecutor said anything of the sort.  Just because there was no action doesn't mean that Trump and Vance didn't do anything wrong.

Gee, markjo, I didn't realize you're unable to analyze a situation unless someone tells you word-for-word what happened like you're a toddler. I think it can be inferred that the prosecutor told them to get bent and they decided to scam gullible people like yourself into thinking they have a case when they obviously do not. You should not be cheering on attempts to waste justice system resources in the pursuit of personal profit just because you don't like Trump.

[markjo]

I think it can be inferred that the prosecutor told them to get bent and they decided to scam gullible people like yourself into thinking they have a case when they obviously do not.

Take another look at the aftermath of them doubling and tripling down on their lies and tell me that they didn’t do anything wrong.

You should not be cheering on attempts to waste justice system resources in the pursuit of personal profit just because you don't like Trump.

What personal profit?  It’s a criminal case being filed, not a civil one.

[honk]

Even tho it caused bomb threats?
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/bomb-threats-force-second-consecutive-day-school-closures-springfield-rcna171043

Yes.

Defamation is not protected speech.

Nor is it a crime. In any case, defamation has nothing to do with this particular case, as they're trying to hit Trump and Vance with criminal charges that I'm pretty sure took some creativity to dream up. I'm not going to spend time looking at the relevant statutes, but looking at "making false alarms" as an example - come on, that's meant to be for actual, literal alarms, like pulling a fire alarm as a prank, or causing a disturbance by yelling about a fire or a mass shooter or whatever in a public place. It doesn't mean that someone says something false and someone else hundreds of miles away feels "alarmed" by it. That's just wordplay.

[markjo]

According to the article I linked…

Trump and Vance, a U.S. senator from Ohio, are charged with disrupting public services, making false alarms, telecommunications harassment, aggravated menacing and complicity.

Yes, it’s doubtful that the case will go anywhere, but it’s yet another example of the number of fucks that Trump gives about the truth and the potential consequences of his words and actions.