The Political Quinceañera Thread

[Guard Dog]

On a different subject why is everyone infusing politics, and worse, racial politics in the new Black Panther movie? Nothing I've heard about it varies wildly from the source material. So what is the beef? If it sucks, and from everything I've read it does not, then let it suck. If it's great then enjoy it on it's own merits. Can't we have just one thing, just ONE that is not infected with this political disease?

[BruceVC]

On a different subject why is everyone infusing politics, and worse, racial politics in the new Black Panther movie? Nothing I've heard about it varies wildly from the source material. So what is the beef? If it sucks, and from everything I've read it does not, then let it suck. If it's great then enjoy it on it's own merits. Can't we have just one thing, just ONE that is not infected with this political disease?

 

 

The reviews seem okay :  https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/06/movies/black-panther-review-movie.html

 

GD as much as your post has relevance in the USA you dont understand racial politics or debates around racism until you have lived in SA. But we get use to it ...check this out, our president was forced to resign and a brilliant new guy has become our new president. The new SA president is an amazing businessman and billionaire and respects traditional corporate etiquette and the importance of the private sector so Im very happy  

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/14/world/africa/jacob-zuma-resigns-south-africa.html

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/15/world/africa/south-africa-cyril-ramaphosa.html

Edited February 17, 2018 by BruceVC

[Hurlshort]

 

The same reason some ppl infused refugee crisis with Warcraft movie.

 

 

To be fair, the refugee plot was more coherent and plausible than the real plot.

[HoonDing]

Edited February 17, 2018 by HoonDing

[Volourn]

"I dont particularly like Trump but its not fair he is getting told " how dare he comes to visit Florida by angry  parents "

 

Of course, they'd also complain if he didn't go to Florida. BNesdies, didn't Florida vote for him? No take backs.

[Raithe]

I think some of the complaints are that he visited on the way to his vacation home in Mar-a-lago, and spent about 6 minutes with the actual victims, so that after being able to say to the press "yes I have met some of the victims" he got back in the motorcade and was off.

 

I believe the timing i saw was motorcade arrived at 18:55, Trump entered.  19:15 The motorcade was pulling away and heading off.

In between, he walked from the entrance up to the victims, praised the first responders, smiled, gave a thumbs up, had a small press conference, took pictures, gave more thumbs up, then moved onto the sherriffs.

[Valsuelm]

Gun control is all about, and only about seizing the private property of people who have done no wrong, committed no crime. And there is no such thing as "limited" restrictions.Each restriction is a segue into another, and another, and another. And the people who advocate most strongly for it don't have to worry about being the victim of a crime. Or the forbearance of wildlife. And they don't lose a moment of sleep over the deaths of children that are not theirs except in how they can be exploited. It's not about saving lives, it's about controlling the livestock. And they will never have complete control over an armed population. My firearms killed no one yesterday. And absent some attack on y home or person never, ever will. no one has any standing to demand I give them up. Or any other thing I own. Not my home, my dog, my computer, book, none of it. The rights of the citizen are no subordinate to the will of the state. They day they are we no longer live in a free country. If they want them, they will have to come and take them.

 

Excellent argument if it was still the early 20th century.

 

If you haven't noticed, the rights of the citizens are very often subordinate to the will of the state. You haven't lived in a truly free country for one day in your entire life.

 

[Valsuelm]

@smjames. The second amendment has two clauses:

1. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, this is called a prefatory clause. They are used four other times in the Constitution. The purpose it to explain what follows
2. the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall no be infringed. That is the operative clause

The Constitution uses the words The People a number of times. In the first amendment:

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

The 4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

9th amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

In no other case is the use of the words The People presumed to mean anything other than an individual right. Yet somehow they tell us in the 2nd Amendment it does not. It is completely clear, the right to keep and bear arms IS and individual right. Now... what KIND of arms is up to debate.

 

You stepped on the slippery slope and fell.

 

No, it's very clear that what kind of arms is not up to debate.

 

[Valsuelm]

 

 

After a 30 minute perusal of the nations top newspapers and media outlets it seems gun control is the only solution everyone is talking about. Ironically had he rammed a car into 17 kids at a bus stop not one would be talking about banning cars... but whatever. In light of the turn in the conversation here is what everyone who wants that needs to do to make their "dream" a reality:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnoFKskvSq4

 

Is a gun a privilege or a right?

 

 

According to the Constitution, it's a right.

 

 

According to the Constitution, there are no 'privileges' in the sense some here are using the word. Only rights.

 

And the idea that your local motor vehicle department is keeping your roads safe by requiring people get licenses to drive cars is as laughable as fishing licenses keeping your waterways safe.

 

Even the most federalist minded of those who fought for and founded the U.S. would balk at the idea that driving is a 'privilege' or that the government can grant such to individuals. Such folks who think so, are slaves.

 

The most powerful shackles of all, are those placed upon minds.

 

 

'None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.' - J WvG

 

'None but ourselves can free our minds.' - B M

Edited February 18, 2018 by Valsuelm

[ShadySands]

I don't know about other states but they don't even pretend here, the DMV is directly under the Department of Revenue. That said, you still have to pass a written and driving exams so it's not just money for license.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/20/politics/donald-trump-bump-stocks/index.html

So much for small government.

[Bartimaeus]

Shouldn't Congress be the one considering that?

[HoonDing]

Ban bump stocks in exchange for wall

[Gfted1]

I cant remember, was Congress involved during the whole "magazines cant hold more than x rounds" laws? Maybe "accessories" don't rise to that level of action?

[ShadySands]

I don't know what it is exactly but there's something about the way they refer to guns in most news articles that I find off-putting 

 

 

I cant remember, was Congress involved during the whole "magazines cant hold more than x rounds" laws? Maybe "accessories" don't rise to that level of action?

 

I don't think that went anywhere at the national level but several states and local governments have banned them

Edited February 20, 2018 by ShadySands

[Agiel]

Trump moves to ban 'bump stocks' 4 months after Las Vegas shooting

 

If the most ardent defenders of the 2nd Amendment were expecting consistency or loyalty from Trump then they've missed three decades of signs to the contrary.

[Valsuelm]

I don't know what it is exactly ...

 

 

Whatever you think of them, banning bump stocks will be even less effective than banning cocaine has been in regards to public safety.

Edited February 20, 2018 by Valsuelm

[smjjames]

I've also heard that bump stocks are considered anathema to serious gun enthuanists or at least disapprove of their use, though I don't know how common that sentiment actually is among gun owners.

 

Still, banning bump stocks is about the narrowest, thinnest, most focused thing you could possibly do with guns and wouldn't do anything with the problem in general. It's just something that politicians can (try to) tout as having done something.

[ShadySands]

I know what bump stocks are, I hit the range pretty regularly, I meant the tone of the articles or specifically how they refer to guns. 

 

I don't really care about bump stocks in particular 

[smjjames]

Which articles are you referring to? Don't know what you're referring to as far as tone.

[ShadySands]

Honestly, I think it's the military style, assault style, assault weapon descriptors that don't really mean anything but are always included anyway. I never realized how much it bothers me until now.

[Valsuelm]

Honestly, I think it's the military style, assault style, assault weapon descriptors that don't really mean anything but are always included anyway. I never realized how much it bothers me until now.

 

Dishonest propaganda bothers me too.

 

*hug*

[smjjames]

If they're talking about the specific gun type, AR-15 (or the style), then it'd be accurate.

[Gromnir]

Honestly, I think it's the military style, assault style, assault weapon descriptors that don't really mean anything but are always included anyway. I never realized how much it bothers me until now.

 

always bothers us.  send folks links to ruger mini-14 and explain how it is, from a performance pov, virtual identical to an ar-15.  we typical spend +20 minutes explaining what is semi-automatic and why the "ar" in ar-15 doesn't stand for assault rifle 'fore we can even get to Heller.  etc.

 

...

 

the thing is, Gromnir ain't any kinda a pro-gun advocate, but the oft repeated "military style" nonsense drives us up the wall. every time there is a mass shooting with an ar-15 we brace our self for the predictable p00p storm o' misunderstanding and misrepresentations.

 

am not like gd.  we believe the US could benefit from additional gun regulations (preferable at the local level) and we ain't afeared o' the ridiculous scenario whereby if today we allow the State to increase background checks for gun purchases, then tomorrow the newly formed national police will be breaking down doors in the heartland and forcibly emptying citizen gun cabinets. even so, the right to bear arms is in the Constitution, so is a far more significant freedom than is drinking coffee while driving or smoking in restaurants. many liberals wanna pretend as if every dead school child in a mass shooting makes radical changes to gun ownership a forgone conclusion, and we do not share such a perspective even if we ain't pro-gun.   

 

regardless, is impossible to have intelligent conversations 'bout gun control when politicians and media is indulging in hyperbole with the "powerful military style" nonsense. is exhausting.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited February 21, 2018 by Gromnir

[Malcador]

They should make all semi-auto rifles come mandated to have pink spray jobs.