I'm a registered independent, but typically vote for Democrats. However, I disagree with them very strongly on the issue
-
sheetsadam1 — 10 months ago(June 02, 2025 02:06 PM)
As I mentioned, I am a registered independent and I'm open to good ideas from anywhere. I happen to agree with Marx on the gun issue, and probably some others, but he isn't really a key player in my personal ideology. I much prefer Thomas Paine.
Draft Barron Trump -
Phaenon — 10 months ago(June 02, 2025 02:29 PM)
Paine was cool, but more a supportive asset to George Washington, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson in the scheme of establishing the rules of the constitution against George III
An absolutely important person in terms of educating the populous of the time, but short on the political clout to assert his ideas into action. He did inspire many others who followed in his footsteps and that's probably more of a measure of a man's ideas than the personal satisfaction in seeing them realised and then failing
Ding Dong
!
-
sheetsadam1 — 10 months ago(June 02, 2025 03:01 PM)
In general, I find that Marx pushed things too far. I feel that modern social democracies are the ideal and Paine - particularly in his later works such as
Rights of Man
and
Agrarian Justice- was the strongest advocate for that system among the Founding Fathers. To bring it back to present-day politics, I feel that America - under the leadership of both parties - has been on the wrong track since Nixon, with the exception of some tepid moves in the right direction during the Obama administration.
Draft Barron Trump
- was the strongest advocate for that system among the Founding Fathers. To bring it back to present-day politics, I feel that America - under the leadership of both parties - has been on the wrong track since Nixon, with the exception of some tepid moves in the right direction during the Obama administration.
-
Phaenon — 10 months ago(June 02, 2025 03:16 PM)
I'm of the thinking that you should always challenge a leader. That's their primary position of authority.
Never happens though. People always get caught up in the minutia and bicker over things which aren't important while things which are go passed unnoticed.
In every form of governance.
Ding Dong
!
-
sheetsadam1 — 10 months ago(June 02, 2025 03:27 PM)
There was a Republican presidential candidate a little more than a decade ago named Ron Paul, and I found that I agreed with him quite a bit on social issues, but not his economic policies. Anyway, he gave a brilliant answer in a debate one time when asked if he thought Washington could use more bipartisanship. To paraphrase, he said that the "bipartisan" bills often represent the worst thst Washington has to offer, because the establishment wings of both parties largely serve the same interests.
I believe that there is a concerted effort on the part of the donor class - largely coming from the corporate media outlets and institutions they control - to keep people angry at one another. Black vs. white vs. brown. Male vs. female. Gay vs. straight. Religious vs. atheist. Natural born vs. immigrant. And so forth. Because so long as they are all preoccupied with fighting each other they will continue to "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."
Draft Barron Trump -
Phaenon — 10 months ago(June 02, 2025 03:30 PM)
While people bicker over the crumbs those who feast well continue to.
It's old thinking that goes all the way back. It works, it just doesn't seem to think outside of personal gain much which seems rather a waste of existence (In my opinion).
Ding Dong
!
-
StoneColdZombies — 10 months ago(June 02, 2025 02:11 PM)
Wrong, they spanked Trump and got him back in line. Trump is now kissing their ass like an idiot.
Nobody is talking about banishing firearms, but isn’t it funny that we can’t even get a temporary ban on assault weapons? It’s all about money, and they don’t keep us safe. -
sheetsadam1 — 10 months ago(June 02, 2025 02:20 PM)
So-called assault weapons are used in a very tiny percentage of violent crimes. If the goal is to prevent violent crimes, we would start by going after handguns. The rise in mass shootings coincided with Reagan's defunding of mental health services. To be clear, I'm all for criminals and mental patients being denied access to firearms - be it an AR-15 or a BB gun - but not law-abiding citizens.
Draft Barron Trump -
WarrenPeace — 10 months ago(June 02, 2025 03:29 PM)
A lot of law abiding citizens get guns then become criminals with them.
Therefore the only solution is to get rid of the guns.
Period.
Other countries do this and it gets rid of gun crimes.
"Please vote to preserve the unique character of Warren…" - Robert Duvall -
sheetsadam1 — 10 months ago(June 02, 2025 03:39 PM)
America isn't other countries, though. The entire European continent is smaller than Texas, and has a significantly lower population density. It simply isn't something that can be done and would likely lead to open civil unrest.
Edit: The Texas thing is incorrect. I'll own up to not double-checking a dubious source for that.
Draft Barron Trump -
WarrenPeace — 10 months ago(June 02, 2025 07:34 PM)
Right, we are not other countries which is why it’s an asinine argument pro gun nut idiots make when they bring up oppressive dictators who mass slaughtered their own such as Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot etc.
It’s not because the population wasn’t armed.
Hitler took over and beat the militaries of other countries.
It’s because they had governments that were unstable, unlike ours, where we have a system in place to prevent that from happening.
"Please vote to preserve the unique character of Warren…" - Robert Duvall -
sheetsadam1 — 10 months ago(June 02, 2025 08:10 PM)
My reasoning is more practical than political. It's simply not feasible in wide swaths of the country to rely on law enforcement. I once lived in a place that had less 13,000 people in the entire county, most of them spread out on unpaved back roads that are impassable in the winter and not in great condition at any time. The sheriff's department had three part-time employees and, unless called, they largely stayed in the county seat (around 1,700 people). Crime wasn't unheard of, though. When I lived there, drugs were a huge problem. So in an area like that if the person invading your home is armed and you are not, the police are simply showing up to collect your dead body every single time.
And that county isn't particularly special. It was the least populated in my state, but there are plenty of areas out west that are even more sparsely populated. There's one county in Texas that has a population of 64 people spread out over almost 700 square miles. It would be foolish for them to rely solely on law enforcement in a time of crisis and very impractical to enforce any type of gun ban.
Draft Barron Trump -
WarrenPeace — 10 months ago(June 02, 2025 08:51 PM)
I get it.
You’re a typical coward who feels like he needs a gun when you probably really don’t.
Just keep your doors and windows locked even when you are home and you’ll be fine.
"Please vote to preserve the unique character of Warren…" - Robert Duvall -
sheetsadam1 — 10 months ago(June 03, 2025 02:12 AM)
Great question! I do think that something similar to Canada's gun laws would ultimately be the ideal, but I don't think that the U.S. is ready for that at present and ultimately may never be.
In many ways, the U.S. is unique in it's idolization of those who take arms against the forces who govern them, be it the Founding Fathers or the Confederate army (who are, unfortunately, still lionized by many, even far outside of the south). This has manifested itself many times throughout our history, extending from Shays' Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion of the 18th century through to more modern events like Waco, Ruby Ridge, and the Bundy standoff. Such insurrectionists are often considered folk heroes by many on the right.
Now, it goes without saying that these people are as mad as a hatter, but they are also heavily armed and ready to resist any attempt at gun confiscation. Hell, their militia groups have been preparing for just that scenario for decades.
So given the current political realities, my view is that the worst thing the left in the U.S. could do is loudly proclaim that we are opposed to guns, don't own any ourselves and will not, under any circumstances, be putting up any resistance. Instead, I would support groups like the Pink Pistols (who train members of the LGBTQ+ community in firearms safety and capability) or the Socialist Rifle Association to help foster the perception - real or not - that left-wing gatherings are not an easy target for any psychopath with a gun.
Lastly, the U.S. has an asinine electoral college system. While a majority of Americans do indeed support stricter gun laws, that isn't the case in swing states and, for rural voters in those states in particular, it's often their single biggest issue (anectdotally, I've talked to many people who "would be Democrats if it wasn't for guns"). I'm of the belief that the Democratic Party's persistence in talking about this issue is holding us back from implementing a ton of other great policies which would ultimately make Americans happier, healthier and perhaps even more prepared to have this conversation.
Draft Barron Trump