an interesting correlation

[Metric]

Does it strike anyone else as important that the latest gun control push, including discussions of repealing the 2nd amendment, nationwide "mandatory buybacks" etc. comes at the same time as talk of packing the supreme court, the "green new deal," etc?

The implication seems so obvious that no one should need anyone to connect the dots, once the basic observation is made. But I never hear anyone point this out. Is it just me? And is this as useful a point as I think it should be?

[Pahoo]

The implication seems so obvious that no one should need anyone to connect the dots, once the basic observation is made. But I never hear anyone point this out. Is it just me? And is this as useful a point as I think it should be?

Note that I am a Midwest "Deplorable" and need a little assist on connecting the dots. There is so many things happening and we have not reached to point of where it gets turned around. Can you expound on your post. …..

Be Safe !!!

[Metric]

Originally Posted by Pahoo

Note that I am a Midwest "Deplorable" and need a little assist on connecting the dots. There is so many things happening and we have not reached to point of where it gets turned around. Can you expound on your post. …..

Be Safe !!!

Okay, this might mean I'm out in left field, but anyway...

The point is that enacting something like the "green new deal" would be absolutely catastrophic for a lot of people. Banning cattle, fossil fuels, and enacting a socialist wish list (e.g. government paychecks for anyone unwilling to work) would have major, major consequences.

The fallout of this kind of policy is pretty predictable. People tend not to like major political reductions to their standard of living, forced dietary changes, banning of entire industries, etc. There would be an excellent chance of people saying "no" en masse.

The left may be crazy, but not stupid. They simply must take any chance of an effective "no" off the table, and it has to happen before they get serious about making their fevered dreams a reality.

To me, this seems fairly obvious by asking something like "Gosh, why do these pushes for nationwide citizen disarmament come right alongside the introduction of ideas like the green new deal? Maybe just a coincidence?" But I'm much more suspicious than average.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Metric

Does it strike anyone else as important that the latest gun control push, including discussions of repealing the 2nd amendment, nationwide "mandatory buybacks" etc. comes at the same time as talk of packing the supreme court, the "green new deal," etc?

I don't think you're out in left field at all, there is certainly and obviously a correlation. I don't think it's related to the "green new deal," though, and I think the order in which you name the various initiatives needs to be revised.

The anti-gun forces know they have the Second Amendment to deal with. The reality, however, is that the Constitution doesn't say what it says unless and until a majority of the justices on the Supreme Court rule on what it says. Look at the Heller decision -- it was decided on a 5-4 vote. Trump has now named another [allegedly] conservative justice, replacing a reliable liberal voice on the SCOTUS. There is a good possibility that Trump may get to name another justice, and we hope that he would name another reliable conservative if given the opportunity. The anti-gun side knows this, and they fear this. Consequently, their response is to consider moving the goalposts -- if they can't make their case well enough to convince a majority of nine justices, then the obvious "solution" is to add more justices until they've added enough justices who support their views to shift the balance of the court.

[zukiphile]

There is a general correlation between the increase in powers claimed by the state and the necessary reduction in rights retained by individuals and traditional social structures.

If you think that someone wants your rifle specifically because you might use it if they try to take your burger, then that's a bit out there.

Originally Posted by Metric

The point is that enacting something like the "green new deal" would be absolutely catastrophic for a lot of people. Banning cattle, fossil fuels, and enacting a socialist wish list (e.g. government paychecks for anyone unwilling to work) would have major, major consequences.

It's been having major consequences for most of a century. Why link it to gun restrictions in this election cycle?

No party is going to ban cattle and fossil fuels; socialists like beef and jets too. They may cynically appeal to school kids who believe a lot of nonsense and think they'll never be old with a job and a mortgage, but there has always been that sort of young person. Media give that sort too much good press and they over represent them, imo.

An illustration of the distance between what people say and what they do can be observed in the faction in the House who call publicly for impeachment and can't stop talking to cameras about the grounds for impeachment, yet refuse to actually begin the process of impeachment. They know there is a market for rash rhetoric amongst those who woke up on November 9, 2016 and felt robbed of a sure victory.

I would guess that most of the force behind greater gun restrictions comes from voters who aren't familiar with guns, don't like hearing about problems, and don't care about you, what you like or your rights. For them, their own half-baked whim is reason enough to leave you less free.

[P5 Guy]

https://medium.com/handwaving-freako...t-ac13b21ff3f9

Handwringing over an epidemic that isn't.

[USNRet93]

including discussions of repealing the 2nd amendment, nationwide "mandatory buybacks"

I get a kick out of those 'repeal the second amendment' crowd..maybe a quick refresher on the process to do that..'2/3' and '3/4' are important numbers.

No party is going to ban cattle and fossil fuels

Nor are they going to 'cancel' the 2nd amendment. In spite of what is said these days about an 'executive order'...silly

'mandatory buybacks' for those 357million or so guns in the US? Registration? None right now..UBC with registration? Unlikely plus probably not grand fathered..

An illustration of the distance between what people say and what they do

I wouldn't put too much stock in the 'talking points of the day' from either side of the isle..talk is cheap.

They know there is a market for rash rhetoric amongst those

ON BOTH sides...just do a quick google search...

[MarkA]

https://medium.com/handwaving-freako...t-ac13b21ff3f9

Handwringing over an epidemic that isn't.

Holy smokes.. look at all those facts nobody on the left cares to read.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by USNRet93

Nor are they going to 'cancel' the 2nd amendment. In spite of what is said these days about an 'executive order'...silly

'mandatory buybacks' for those 357million or so guns in the US? Registration? None right now..UBC with registration? Unlikely plus probably not grand fathered..

I agree that formal cancellation of the 2d Am. is unlikely. The more likely course is simply and completely ignoring the substance of the right. The precedent for that would be the commerce clause.

Originally Posted by USNRet93

from either side of the isle..talk is cheap.
***

ON BOTH sides...just do a quick google search...

There can be a faux sophistication in attributing the same vice in the same measure to two opponents.

What specific circumstance do you have in mind with this observation? I think it is out of the ordinary that a political response to an election would be to make years of unsubstantiated allegations designed to lead to impeachment, have the force of the allegations fizzle, but have a congressional faction who want that to be the daily news topic while actively resisting any actual impeachment efforts. Nadler is knows the allegations were a bust and that there is a market for continuing them.

It's fair to note the exec's style as part of the rash rhetoric problem, but other repub's largely view that as a problem to be controlled. It may just be the parts of the elephant with which I'm familiar, but I don't see DJT's style as a response to a hunger for that style. I think his communication style is a large part of why an assertion of support for him often involves a "but".

[USNRet93]

I think it is out of the ordinary that a political response to an election would be to make years of unsubstantiated allegations designed to lead to impeachment, have the force of the allegations fizzle, but have a congressional faction who want that to be the daily news topic while actively resisting any actual impeachment efforts.

Until you mentioned Nadler you could have been talking about Clinton OR Nixon..

It's fair to note the exec's style as part of the rash rhetoric problem, but other repub's largely view that as a problem to be controlled.

Hasn't happened nor will it happen.

I think his communication style is a large part of why an assertion of support for him often involves a "but".

No doubt..his popularity would skyrocket if he would just be quiet.

This is turning into a not allowed political discussion so I'll tap out

[sundog]

How about no 2A and open (no) borders? It's all part of 'the agenda'.

I cannot even begin to imagine the chaos.

[Al Norris]

USNRet93, not turning into, but turned into a political discussion almost from the start.

Closed.