President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

Dick Whitman · Oct 3, 2017

YankeeFan said: ↑

Of course we can "touch" the Second Amendment. The process for how to repeal it is spelled out in the Constitution, and has been used on previous occasions.
Click to expand...

Indeed, time to use it again, as I proposed on the Vegas thread. Repealing and replacing the Second Amendment is an idea that should garner strong support among states' rights conservatives who want to remove gun laws from the tenuous grip of the federal government.

Riptide · Oct 3, 2017

YankeeFan said: ↑

We know eye witness accounts are often wrong, but in this case, in lieu of actual reporting we'll rely on "ear witness" reporting.

By reporting that he had "automatic weapons" there is an implication that he was either able to thwart the laws that tightly control access to such guns, or that Las Vegas/Nevada laws made acquiring such weapons easier. (They don't, because federal law applies.)

As it turns out, he did not have an automatic weapon. He appears to have used a legal device, and made no illegal modifications to the gun(s).

So, as we've seen before, it looks like YankeeFan was correct to doubt the initial reports, but the journalists here are going with the idea that the facts don't matter, the point remains, and YankeeFan is wrong.

So, unless there is some reporting that he did have a fully automatic weapon, or made an illegal modification, folks should stop saying he had one.

I think it was @Inky_Wretch who speculated early on that he may have used a bump stock. Props to him.

I'll bet fewer of our audiophiles here, who insisted it was a fully automatic weapon (or had been illegally modified), were familiar with a bump stock than knew who S.I. Newhouse was.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure all the responding cops who warned each other about automatic gunfire in the midst of dozens of people being shot down and killed didn't pause to have a frantic debate over whether it was an illegal gun or a modified semi-automatic. But you must have your fun with dodgeball semantics.

SnarkShark · Oct 3, 2017

YankeeFan said: ↑

Why don't we just rely on good old reporting?

Did he have a fully automatic weapon, or make an illegal modification or not? This is a simple question.

I don't know why you guys -- journalists after all -- get offended by calls for specificity, and fight on when proven wrong.

Also, while not at all minimizing what happened, many of the injured were not shot. A lot of people were injured in the stamped.

Look at this picture. It's easy to see how he could have shot a lot of people. There was no where to go. They were packed in like sardines, and any attempt by the crowd to flee would certainly result in injuries.

Click to expand...

I'm not calling for anything. It was automatic gunfire. You arguing against it is absurd.

YankeeFan · Oct 3, 2017

tapintoamerica said: ↑

I don't think the bill of rights can be amended.
Click to expand...

Then you should probably bow out of further political discussions until you study up on civics a bit.

Dick Whitman · Oct 3, 2017

tapintoamerica said: ↑

I don't think the bill of rights can be amended.
Click to expand...

It could be replaced in its entirety with the screenplay to "Captain Underpants" today.

TigerVols · Oct 3, 2017

The embarrassing leader of the Republican Party:

President Trump to Puerto Rico ... Thanks for Screwing Up Our Budget

Justin_Rice · Oct 3, 2017

RickStain said: ↑

And that's the ultimate problem. You can't legislate or plan around the will of the people. And the will of a whole lot of the American people is some pretty fucked up shit that the rest of the world wouldn't put up with. Perhaps this is just the inevitable fallout from founding your country with whatever creepy religious kooks were too creepy to keep around 17th century Europe.
Click to expand...

Angelicans, Catholics, Huguenots, Lutherans, the Dutch, Calvinists, that Zwingli fella, the Ottomans .... no side in 16th and 17th century Europe had a shortage of religious kooks.

The Big Ragu · Oct 3, 2017

RickStain said: ↑

One of the most common arguments against universal health coverage is that it is the government forcing people to work for other people, and therefore immoral. Of course that logic applies to emergency services, it is just politically unpalatable to admit it.
Click to expand...

There is a major difference between the two things. One is a private good (health care), the other is a common or public good (emergency services, depending on what you specifically are referring to).

Emergency services are non-excludable and non-rivalrous. The reason governments need to provide for those kinds of things is that there isn't an efficient market mechanism that provides from them. If we decide we want them, the only way to have it is by government coercing everyone to chip and pay for it. By non-excludable and non-rivalrous: If there is a 911 number or a fire department or police, you can't limit it to only people who have paid for it. And one person taking advantage of it doesn't necessarily limit its availability for others. Because of those two qualities, you get what is called a free rider problem. Take a police force that patrols the neighborhood. Nobody has incentive to pay for it, because you will benefit just as equally if everyone else in the neighborhood chips and pays for those things. They can't exclude you from the service.

Health care, on the other hand, is neither non-rivalrous or non-excludable. If I consume a pill or a medical service or get a medical test, it means there is less available of the commodity for the next guy. And if I pay for the good or service, it benefits only me, not a bunch of free riders. It's why there is a private market for health care without government mucking it up.

YankeeFan · Oct 3, 2017

JC said: ↑

This is what is really important here, @YankeeFan feels he was right.

Scoreboard.
Click to expand...

It's not important in the grand scheme of things.

I'm just not sure why folks won't concede the point. Instead, I'm being criticized, scolded, and insulted, by folks who want me to "use my brain" and admit I was wrong.

Cosmo · Oct 3, 2017

"but if you look at a real catastrophe, like Katrina ..."

Trump to Puerto Rico: Your hurricane isn’t a “real catastrophe” like Katrina - Vox

TigerVols · Oct 3, 2017

YankeeFan said: ↑

Of course we can "touch" the Second Amendment. The process for how to repeal it is spelled out in the Constitution, and has been used on previous occasions.
Click to expand...

I was being metaphorical, but I fully understand nuance is not your jam.

RickStain · Oct 3, 2017

The Big Ragu said: ↑

There is a major difference between the two things. One is a private good (health care), the other is a common or public good (emergency services, depending on what you specifically are referring to).

Emergency services are non-excludable and non-rivalrous. The reason governments need to provide for those kinds of things is that there isn't an efficient market mechanism that provides from them. If we decide we want them, the only way to have it is by government coercing everyone to chip and pay for it. By non-excludable and non-rivalrous: If there is a 911 number or a fire department or police, you can't limit it to only people who have paid for it. And one person taking advantage of it doesn't necessarily limit its availability for others. Because of those two qualities, you get what is called a free rider problem. Take a police force that patrols the neighborhood. Nobody has incentive to pay for it, because you will benefit just as equally if everyone else in the neighborhood chips and pays for those things. They can't exclude you from the service.

Health care, on the other hand, is neither non-rivalrous or non-excludable. If I consume a pill or a medical service or get a medical test, it means there is less available of the commodity for the next guy. And if I pay for the good or service, it benefits only me, not a bunch of free riders. It's why there is a market for health care (and one that allocates it more efficiently) without government mucking it up.
Click to expand...

I assumed we were referring to emergency medical care, not emergency response, but I may have jumped in midway and mistook the conversation.

Log in or Sign up

President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

Riptide Well-Known Member

SnarkShark Well-Known Member

YankeeFan Well-Known Member

Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

TigerVols Well-Known Member

Justin_Rice Well-Known Member

The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

YankeeFan Well-Known Member

Cosmo Well-Known Member

TigerVols Well-Known Member

RickStain Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

Riptide Well-Known Member

SnarkShark Well-Known Member

YankeeFan Well-Known Member

Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

TigerVols Well-Known Member

Justin_Rice Well-Known Member

The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

YankeeFan Well-Known Member

Cosmo Well-Known Member

TigerVols Well-Known Member

RickStain Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches