Trump's Second Term

Safe-Keeper said:
I think the people making that argument has an old-fashioned black-and-white view of humanity where you're either a honest person or an dishonest person, and in their eyes, dishonest people will get their hands on guns anyway, even if they don't have the rights to them.

They don't think about scenarios like a teen stealing his father's glock to shoot up his school, or a person flying into a fit of rage and shooting their partner, or a kid getting their hands on grampa's shotgun and accidentally shooting their brother. Or, for that matter, suicides that might not have happened, or been successful, had the person not at some point earlier purchased a firearm. Or a dozen other scenarios.

Gun regulations don't exist to disarm the population, they exist for the same reason driving a car requires a driver's license: Some people actually shouldn't drive cars.
Click to expand...
Based on what I see on the roads, the number of people who shouldn't drive cars is greater than the number that shouldn't have guns, but it could be observational bias.
 
Andy_Ross said:
Not everyone can see tweets.
I quote and post a link.
In the new forum software the link shows the whole post for some reason.

Should I just post the link and get complaints about that or just Post a quote and get complaints that there's no link?
Click to expand...
Everyone can see the tweets. Post the link, and your own commentary where you have something else to say.
 
Safe-Keeper said:
I think the people making that argument has an old-fashioned black-and-white view of humanity where you're either a honest person or an dishonest person, and in their eyes, dishonest people will get their hands on guns anyway, even if they don't have the rights to them.

They don't think about scenarios like a teen stealing his father's glock to shoot up his school, or a person flying into a fit of rage and shooting their partner, or a kid getting their hands on grampa's shotgun and accidentally shooting their brother. Or, for that matter, suicides that might not have happened, or been successful, had the person not at some point earlier purchased a firearm. Or a dozen other scenarios.

Gun regulations don't exist to disarm the population, they exist for the same reason driving a car requires a driver's license: Some people actually shouldn't drive cars.
Click to expand...
It made a big impression on me when I was a public defender in the 90s, that one of the most prolific crimes was burglary or theft of other people's guns...so that a significant number of guns in the hands of criminals came from stealing others' legally owned weapons. So, more legally owned guns = more guns in the hands of criminals, which of course leads to the public buying more guns to supposedly defend against the criminals...which leads to more guns in the hands of criminals...and so on....
 
Chris_Halkides said:
This is one reason why organization such as FIRE are valuable, and the fact that both liberals and conservatives support them is an asset, not a liability.
Click to expand...
While this is a fair point, it also suggests that you may not be quite understanding the issues that lead to a understandable fundamental distrust of FIRE.

To sum up how "conservative" strategies handle problems far too often -

In the background, they work to remove the safeguards against the problem and shape policy to worsen the factors that actually drive the problems, thus making the problems more likely to happen. The actual goals in play may not be to cause the problems, of course, but collateral damage is still damage.

In the middle ground, they work to shape public opinion about the problems with a bunch of less than candid tactics, often perverting principles in the process as they spin the situation to gain some advantage.

In the foreground, there are big performative actions following up on that, once a critical mass has been reached. Those actions never seem to actually do much to make the problems or the drivers for the problems better, though.

FIRE's reason for actually existing is, in short, to make college faculty and students more "conservative" and to make policy more friendly to "conservative" goals, as part of larger efforts to shape the US. Its mechanism for doing so is to advocate for a right-wing version of "free speech" principles and serve as a beacon to show how much "conservatives" support Free Speech, at the same time as other conservatives, often funded by the same organizations, work to erode Free Speech. We've seen similar in a nutshell with Musk, really brazenly, as he's claimed to advocate for Free Speech while actually seeking to control speech, but much the same seems to be nigh ubiquitous among Republican administrations these days.

To go bit further, at a fundamental level, the value of Free Speech is increased by the positive effects that it produces and decreased by the negative effects produced. The usual right-wing perversion of Free Speech makes Free Speech the end goal, not the positive effects it produces, which then serves as protection against consequences for the lies they push and the harm being caused by them and reduces the value of Free Speech as a whole.

FIRE supporting Harvard and opposing the crap that Gorka spat out is pretty much a no brainer. What Trump's trying to do there (and with pretty much everything else) is horrendous for Free Speech. Both liberals and conservatives should indeed be working together to oppose Trump's assault on Free Speech, because it very much is harmful to all of us. FIRE can indeed serve a valuable role in that. That FIRE and those behind it played a role in bringing us to the point where Trump's even in a position that he can be be doing what he's doing, though, is still an entirely relevant issue to raise and an entirely relevant reason for fundamental distrust.
 
Last edited:
turingtest said:
Of all the lazy-ass defenses for unrestricted gun-rights, this old "guns don't kill people, people do" is the silliest. Has anyone in favor of firearms regulation ever suggested anything other than that they are meant to reduce the number of instances of people using the guns? That the whole point of the push for some common-sense regulation is that, indeed, "the people do," and not that somehow the guns do it on their own? It's a stupid meme that's used to argue against something that nobody is arguing for.
Click to expand...
I agree is an absolutely moronic argument. Then again, look at the morons who trot it out.
 
Andy_Ross said:
Trump: "Oil prices are down, groceries (even eggs!) are down, and the USA is getting RICH ON TARIFFS. Too Late should have lowered Interest Rates, like the ECB, long ago, but he should certainly lower them now."
Click to expand...
As usual, he's lying:

Average grocery prices were about 2.41% higher in March 2025 than they were in March 2024, Consumer Price Index data shows. This was the highest year-over-year grocery inflation rate since August 2023.

And average March 2025 grocery prices were up about 0.49% from February 2025. That was the highest month-to-month grocery inflation rate since October 2022.
It is true that oil prices have gone down since Trump returned to office. But Trump didn’t mention that many analysts say this decline is partly related to concerns that the tariff wars he initiated will slow the global economy and therefore reduce demand for oil.

US retail gas prices have fallen slightly so far this month, per data provided to CNN by AAA, declining from a national average of about $3.20 per gallon on April 1 to about $3.17 per gallon on Thursday. But prices are up slightly since Trump returned to the White House on January 20, when the national average was about $3.12 per gallon.

Retail egg prices have spiked under Trump amid an avian flu outbreak, hitting a new high of about $6.23 per dozen on average in March – about 25.7% higher than the average in January. Wholesale egg prices, however, have declined sharply since late February, so it’s possible egg prices paid by consumers are falling this month, too.
Click to expand...

But, also as usual, his supporters will continue to believe whatever he says despite their money going no farther.
 
Safe-Keeper said:
I think the people making that argument has an old-fashioned black-and-white view of humanity where you're either a honest person or an dishonest person, and in their eyes, dishonest people will get their hands on guns anyway, even if they don't have the rights to them.

They don't think about scenarios like a teen stealing his father's glock to shoot up his school, or a person flying into a fit of rage and shooting their partner, or a kid getting their hands on grampa's shotgun and accidentally shooting their brother. Or, for that matter, suicides that might not have happened, or been successful, had the person not at some point earlier purchased a firearm. Or a dozen other scenarios.

Gun regulations don't exist to disarm the population, they exist for the same reason driving a car requires a driver's license: Some people actually shouldn't drive cars.
Click to expand...
Exactly. My paternal grandmother shot and killed her philandering husband and then herself because she'd been drinking and had a freaking gun in the house. Montana...go figure.
 
The Guardian reported, "A 19-year-old Venezuelan in New York City reportedly was apprehended by Trump administration immigration authorities and deported to El Salvador despite agents’ realizing he was not whom they meant to arrest in a targeted operation....The [Merwil] Gutiérrez family says it has been left without information or answers." Snopes wrote, "We couldn't independently confirm the events that led to Gutierrez's detainment — therefore, we have elected not to provide a truth rating on this story." The situation bears watching.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom