Fresh8686

http://www.euronews.com/2018/02/28/norway-to-ban-semi-automatic-weapons-from-2021 From this article, it also mentions "The ban, which has been proposed by the country’s centre-right government, also seeks to limit the number of firearms people can own." So people can't necessarily stock-up, however the bigger question I have, is will people have to give back any restricted guns once that 2021 deadline arrives? It seems they will have special dispensations for sport shooting, but what about for people outside that allowance?

Maybe we need a 21 jump street division across the nation. I could seriously see Trump using that idea if someone put it on his tv. Baby faced cops, going undercover... what could go wrong?

I think a lot of people need sex training

I wonder if Kushner ends up being indicted soon. There is weird kind of stalemate going on regarding his security clearance and Trump pushing Kelly to give it to him without specifically ordering it. Kelly isn't giving it to him, but he isn't resigning either. I wouldn't be surprised if a move made either way would trigger Mueller to go ahead and ring Kush up, although I bet if he does all or most of the indictment will be sealed.

What would you like to see happen? I'm thinking a three prong approach, but I'd be open to adding to it. -Ban weapons that exceed certain thresholds of muzzle velocity, rate of fire, and magazine capacity. -Universal Background Checks across all modes of sale. -Dynamic restrictions or restraints on weapons when there are mental health issues present that deal specifically with violent ideations, impulse control, isolation/weak social bonds, and anger (including domestic abuse).

The below link gave me a range between 22-25% https://qz.com/1095899/gun-ownership-in-america-in-three-charts/ And your last part isn't really surprising, given gun culture and the empowerment people seem to feel by owning a weapon. Most people don't want to give up tools that afford them power, especially when they might feel powerless without them (motivation comes from both sides, the empowerment and the fear of losing it).

http://wlos.com/news/local/reports-brevard-college-on-lockdown-due-to-credible-threat

I mentioned this in another thread, but what makes you think it will take 2 years or longer for another assault weapons ban? Gun owners are only like 25% of the voting population at best. They have mobilization and organization working for them, rather than numbers, and that gap is closing quite rapidly now that gun control has become a part of the decency or so-called blue wave that is spreading across the country. If that wave flips the house and can sustain the social pressure it's putting on gun reform, things will change regardless of what some gun owners might want and it doesn't need a change to the 2nd amendment to bring that about. Secondly, regarding your stuff in parenthesis, how does that jive with the medical opinion of doctors treating wounds from high muzzle velocity weapons like the AR-15? According to them, those bullets destroy everything in and around it's path, traveling 3 times the speed of a 9mm round and imparting more than 3 times the destructive energy when it explodes into a person. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/what-i-saw-treating-the-victims-from-parkland-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/ Ugh, just got a text from my wife saying that her god-daughter is locked in her dorm room at Brevard College. There is a shooter on campus and police are looking for him. This **** isn't going away, it's not going to fade into the background, and consequently people will mobilize in response. It's just too much for people to be apathetic about anymore. Edit: It might be more than one shooter.

I don't have gun rights, so I'm not too up on the ins and outs of things and what's been discussed in this thread. So um, bear with me, but I got a couple questions, if people don't mind answering. Guns give people leverage to kill things, and high capacity, high rate of fire, high muzzle velocity guns give people even greater leverage to kill and to kill at a greater likelihood with each individual round. Would people say that's true? If yes, then would it be reasonable to reduce that leverage for civilians to the degree necessary for them to still hunt and protect themselves, while still restricting that upper echelon of killing capability? Based on my understanding of the 2nd amendment and SCOTUS rulings this is currently allowable. is it possible to write legislation that bans guns and modifications based on specs like rate of fire per second, muzzle velocity, and magazine capacity? Would that be something that is harder to circumvent when also paired with an effective background check that is enforced across all types of gun sales? When it comes to the mental health prong of this issue shouldn't the focus be on destructive ideations, anger and impulse control, and isolation? I haven't heard any specifics on what symptoms people are looking at to judge fitness. Ive read where the population of US gun owners is around 22-25% of the adult voting population. If that's true, isn't it a question of motivation and mobilization, when it comes to over-riding their control of policy on these issues in the long term? If so, how does everybody feel about gun control mobilization now that it seems to have attached itself to the progressive wave? People call it a blue wave, but it's not truly in my opinion. Democrats are just in a position to take advantage of it because they still have some small semblance of decency and institutional loyalty. Also, shouldn't there be a kind of order of operations when it comes to prioritizing the discussion of gun control measures and public safety? Arming teachers should be pretty damn low on that list and actually isn't gun control at all. Should it even be discussed in this thread?

@stevemcqueen1 awesome post, thanks for the re-frame and expanded context. I appreciate it.

I was surprised how much BP, affected me. I teared up to see a socially and technologically advanced African society. I didn't know how much it hurt, that that wasn't a reality, and how I've been avoiding taking on the pain and responsibility for my mother's homeland and the state it's in. We can't turn our back on our brothers and sisters across the world. I loved the themes of the movie, and how the ones you leave behind, are mistakes that eventually come home to roost. We are all one people, and the purpose of a sanctuary isn't to hide from the world and build walls to keep people out, but to provide a place from which to build a bridge, so others can have a home and sanctuary as well. The end result is to have the whole world become a sanctuary, rather than turn it into a war-zone.

Well, since I got it back, it would be taking it away, but whatever that's besides the point. I don't mind having to prove my ability to make informed and healthy choices, in order to vote. As long as an avenue exists where I can do so, that isn't behind some pay wall, but based on merit and consistent good behavior. In fact, I think more effort should go into tests and standards that protect nuanced decision making from ignorance and extremism during the voting process... but the right way to apply that wish would be tricky of course. Not just equitably and ethically, but doing so in a way that doesn't dramatically depress participation.

As a former felon whose had his voting rights restored, I'd like to know the reason why you want to take that away from me.

Thought this was interesting from the title, but haven't watched it yet and judged it's merits. Found it in a Vox article https://www.vox.com/2015/10/3/9444417/gun-violence-united-states-america

How likely do y'all think the possibility would be, that a lobbying group or coalition of people impacted by gun violence and school shootings could grow to over time rival the political power of the NRA? Maybe even get some cross-synergy with the women's movement or cross sections of MAAD. It shouldn't need to take 40 years to develop like the NRA did, and with the more school shootings you have, the more of a passionate and active (and LOUD) base of voters, they'd be able to harness. I've seen some stats where like 36% of the US Population owns guns, and I can't help but think people should be able to mobilize a larger majority than that to pressure politicians into line. Would you build off existing groups like the below? Or would we need something completely new? https://everytown.org/ https://giffords.org/

Has anybody watched Fear(Less) with Tim Ferriss? I'm really enjoying the ones I've seen so far, especially the episode with sports psychologist for the Seahawks Michael Gervais.

There is nothing wrong with openness, as long as you have a rigorous standard to test what comes through that openness, before you accept it

Well, the party is not a monolith. Do some believe? Probably. But, how valid is that belief? Is it blind? How well tested is it? Are there other's who don't believe? Definitely. What is their motivation? Is it possible that they are using and abusing the trust of the people who have chosen their party to further their own ends, whether or not it brings detriment to those around them? Then there is the question of institutional loyalty. For someone who believes and practices such loyalty, they would instead say that HOW you achieve certain goals is not worth the damage that would be done to the institution even if such a position causes them to lose. Winning by any means is a weak position for a person to take, because it means that who they are and become (and everyone influenced by the event) is secondary to winning itself, secondary to power itself. Which of course is a weakness that opens the possibility of destroying the game, to win the game. Which defeats and loses the point of the game in the first place. Especially, when it's not a game at all, but a stewardship for steering the direction of human life (within the bounds of a specific region of course). I'd rather lose in the right way now and win the right way later, rather than win the wrong way now and destroy the opportunity for a chance to win the right way later. Everything has an affect on the shape of who you are, and the shape of what our country is. That's why you have so many people no longer identifying as Republican, even though they "won". It's because those people don't want to be a part of party that has the current shape of the GOP. Healthy people reject unhealthy or corrupt forms. They only accept them through corruption of that health, pressure or duress, manipulation, or blindness.

Yup, you can't build much with anger. It can mobilize, but at the end of the day it's reactionary and doesn't do well with the nuance and complexity required to draft and pass sustainable legislation. It's lower order thought and emotion, in that it resides more in the fight/flight zone than the communication and consensus zone, which requires a degree of calm, so you can have a degree of coherency, and the opportunity to find a build a middle ground between seemingly disparate ideologies.

Yea but power for its own sake is stupid, plus this "power" is really a trust given to them by those who elect them. They are supposed to use the power given to them to lead and build our society so it is better than before. Not break the country and cheat it so they can have "power". Power for its own sake is short-term thinking. And will lead to people taking back that power when the trust that truly underlies that power is violated.

Read the memo, it gets a meh from me.

Well, y'all might want to keep in mind, that not only did they plagiarize, but they did so instead of using the actual list, created by actual experts.

Agreed, you have to be strong enough to deal with the blowback of people who don't like the truth. Democrats have some semblance of integrity, but it wilts under pressure. People say perception is reality, but that's a myopic statement. Perception only catches some of the context, and it's up to people with a larger grasp of the context of a situation to speak up and enhance the narrative, when it has blind spots. Even if people cling hard and fight for their conclusions with their limited perspectives. Because if you don't check on your blind spots and fill them in, eventually you'll crash. It's just like changing lanes while driving, just because you think a car isn't there, won't stop you from getting jacked up when you hit it.

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/955814356306026497 Stupid embed... Breaking News: Attorney General Jeff Sessions was questioned for several hours last week by the special counsel's office investigating Russian meddling

How about we all agree to the obvious, but nuanced truth that the GOP is indeed worse, But it is not totally their fault. And your point about the left not dealing with it has a small bit of truth, but on the whole doesn't carry enough water. Obama spent most of his political capital on the ACA, but unlike the GOP he did try to many times to pass immigration reform. Pressure from his base made sure of that, just like pressure from Trumps racist ass base is fueling the opposition. "Time and again, the Obama administration has stepped forward with a new initiative on immigration. Time and again, those efforts have encountered difficulty, and time and again the White House has thrown up its hands, said it has done all it can, and tried to move on. And each time, immigration advocates have reacted furiously, successfully pressuring the administration to take back up the banner. That recurring pattern has led to major shifts in immigration policy over the last three years. When the DREAM Act died in Congress, President Obama instituted a policy—Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA—that achieved many of the same goals. When immigration reform foundered in Congress, Obama unveiled an executive action that expanded DACA. (Actually, he promised to do so before the 2014 midterm elections, then flinched, then issued the rule after the election.)" https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/394388/