The Joe Biden 2020 tracker thread (2 Viewers)

[Intensesaint]

A place for all the gaffs, slip-ups and overall outlandish things Democratic candidates will say or do in lead up to the 2020 Election.

 

[Beach Friends]

I love how she continues to pretend people at the table care, much like she is doing with her campaign.

 

[brandon]

I wasn't the one who brought it up - just using it after VChip used it.

Sure. The suggestion in the analogy is that new gun restrictions would be tantamount to restricting all drinkers to a single drink per day. It's extreme hyperbole and thus not analogous to the myriad gun control options that could lower gun deaths while continuing to protect the rights of gun owners.

 

[JimEverett]

Sure. The suggestion in the analogy is that new gun restrictions would be tantamount to restricting all drinkers to a single drink per day. It's extreme hyperbole and thus not analogous to the myriad gun control options that could lower gun deaths while continuing to protect the rights of gun owners.

The specifics don't matter to my argument. Pick any new regulation you want in the drunk driving example. It still works. It could be something as nonsensical as all alcohol drinks must be served in a copper mug. The point is about opposing the regulations - whatever they are.

 

[Beach Friends]

As far as gun control goes, I think in the context of this thread the issue is that the positions Democratic candidates are taking are losers among the voters.

I would not be surprised if the VA legislation results in the state going red in the 2020 presidential election.

 

[brandon]

The specifics don't matter to my argument. Pick any new regulation you want in the drunk driving example. It still works. It could be something as nonsensical as all alcohol drinks must be served in a copper mug. The point is about opposing the regulations - whatever they are.

The specifics do matter in that they are nonsensical. My point is that most gun control advocates are not advocating nonsensical gun restrictions.

There are actually common sense restrictions that can prevent drunk driving deaths, such as seat belt laws.

There are actually common sense restrictions that can prevent gun deaths.

 

[JimEverett]

The specifics do matter in that they are nonsensical. My point is that most gun control advocates are not advocating nonsensical gun restrictions.

There are actually common sense restrictions that can prevent drunk driving deaths, such as seat belt laws.

There are actually common sense restrictions that can prevent gun deaths.

You clearly do not understand what we are talking about.

 

[brandon]

You clearly do not understand what we are talking about.

I fully understand, though I think the conversation has drifted a bit.

"Bad guys gonna get guns no matter what laws we make" is basically saying: any restriction is useless. That's a ridiculous argument.

This is the crux of the argument. Your obfuscations notwithstanding, there are common sense gun restrictions that are, in fact, not useless.

 

[wardorican]

Going back to the drunk driving example - if there is a measure to restrict bars and restaurants to a 1 drink maximum per custtomer and another for convenience stores and grocery stores only to be able to sell single beers to one person per day and another allowing liquor stores only to sell 1 ounce bottles of liquor or 5 oz bottles of wine to one person per day, all in an effort to curb drunk driving - and someone opposes all of them by arguing, in part, look - people will still find a way to drink and drive so why make all these NEW onerous restrictions on responsible consumers of alcoholic beverages?
In such a situation it would be a caricature to claim that an argument against such new restrictions is like saying we shouldn't have any laws for criminal activity.

There are various state laws that regulate over serving alcohol. There is subjectiveness to it, but it is on the books.

NY has a law saying you cant serve alcohol to a pregnant woman.

We have various levels of licenses for selling alcohol, such as beer/wine, vs hard liquor. For some states, either the sale or distribution of hard liquor is controlled/run by the state.

If you get a DUI, even if no accident, you can lose your license, be jailed, have a breathalyzer installed in your car.

Perhaps to avoid theft/criminal use, we get biometric readers on firearms. (Kind of a futurist view... not there yet).

We could regulate the sale of certain firearms to only state run (or specialty licensed locations) that have tougher restrictions on sales.

Tougher restrictions on the use by a minor.

We also regulate the speed of a vehicle. By limits, but "governors" can be installed. Loke they sometimes do on school busses...
Others are self limited, usually well beyond a posted speed limit.

So, while there are silly comparisons, there are others that aren't silly.

 

[JimEverett]

There are various state laws that regulate over serving alcohol. There is subjectiveness to it, but it is on the books.

NY has a law saying you cant serve alcohol to a pregnant woman.

We have various levels of licenses for selling alcohol, such as beer/wine, vs hard liquor. For some states, either the sale or distribution of hard liquor is controlled/run by the state.

If you get a DUI, even if no accident, you can lose your license, be jailed, have a breathalyzer installed in your car.

Perhaps to avoid theft/criminal use, we get biometric readers on firearms. (Kind of a futurist view... not there yet).

We could regulate the sale of certain firearms to only state run (or specialty licensed locations) that have tougher restrictions on sales.

Tougher restrictions on the use by a minor.

We also regulate the speed of a vehicle. By limits, but "governors" can be installed. Loke they sometimes do on school busses...
Others are self limited, usually well beyond a posted speed limit.

So, while there are silly comparisons, there are others that aren't silly.

And opposition to any new proposed regulations on the basis that people are still going to drink and drive (with or without the proposed regulation) does not mean and is not the same as saying there should be no laws for criminal activity "becasue people will still break the law."

 

[Beach Friends]

The specifics do matter in that they are nonsensical. My point is that most gun control advocates are not advocating nonsensical gun restrictions.

There are actually common sense restrictions that can prevent drunk driving deaths, such as seat belt laws.

There are actually common sense restrictions that can prevent gun deaths.

There is nothing common sense about prohibiting guns that can accept magazines with a capacity of greater than 10 rounds.

There is nothing common sense about requiring all people to keep their weapons unloaded, locked in a safe and in a location seperate from the ammo.

Ther is nothing common sense about people who don't hunt declaring that the AR-15 platform is not a reasonable choice for hunting.

Same with telling people that they must use FMJ ammo.

Or, restricting people from practicing in an indoor range.
I could go on, but the point is that it is obvious to those of us who have grown up around guns that the people who want to regulate guns really don't understand them. They are too frequently just "doing something" even though they don't know what they are doing.

 

[brandon]

And opposition to any new proposed regulations on the basis that people are still going to drink and drive (with or without the proposed regulation) does not mean and is not the same as saying there should be no laws for criminal activity "becasue people will still break the law."

"Opposition to [new laws] on the basis that people are still going to [break laws] is not the same as saying there should be [no] laws for [breaking laws]."

Once again, your whole argument is that current laws are sufficient. They are not.

 

[brandon]

There is nothing common sense about prohibiting guns that can accept magazines with a capacity of greater than 10 rounds.

There is nothing common sense about requiring all people to keep their weapons unloaded, locked in a safe and in a location seperate from the ammo.

Ther is nothing common sense about people who don't hunt declaring that the AR-15 platform is not a reasonable choice for hunting.

Same with telling people that they must use FMJ ammo.

Or, restricting people from practicing in an indoor range.
I could go on, but the point is that it is obvious to those of us who have grown up around guns that the people who want to regulate guns really don't understand them. They are too frequently just "doing something" even though they don't know what they are doing.

Educate us. What should they do? Just shrug and enjoy their bullet-ridden schools?

 

[Beach Friends]

Educate us. What should they do? Just shrug and enjoy their bullet-ridden schools?

I just did educate you. The gun control measures being proposed by the Democratic candidates will not go over well in the 2020 election. That's what this thread is about - the Dem candidates.

The VA Democrats went crazy immediately upon taking control and 2d Amendment advocates across the nation took notice.

 

[V Chip]

The point is that VChip was making a certain argument a caricature of what it actually was.

Pointing out a ridiculous, illogical "talking point" argument is not *me* making it a caricature -- it already was one.

 

[Dadsdream]

Pointing out a ridiculous, illogical "talking point" argument is not *me* making it a caricature -- it already was one.

Caricature, is after all, in the eye of the beholder.

 

[V Chip]

an argument against such new restrictions is like saying we shouldn't have any laws for criminal activity.

LOL.

The argument absolutely did NOT say nor imply it was against NEW restrictions. It stated, simply, "bad guys are gonna get guns no matter what laws we make." That's the same argument made by a lot of people, and it's a ridiculous one. Maybe you're saying they don't know any better that the words they are literally using are not the words they mean; that point would be questionable but fine. But to say I'm twisting something when I'm quoting verbatim and addressing the illogical aspect of such a statement is ignoring the reality.

You're attempting to make the statement seem nuanced when there is nothing nuanced about it. If he or others were to state "I think most new regulations don't make sense, but I'm willing to discuss regulations that might help the situation as long as they don't infringe upon our 2nd Amendment Rights" there is no way I would have replied. That's sensible, logical, (responsible, practical). That's not even in the same neighborhood, much less the same ballpark as what was actually said.

 

[Joe Okc]

Educate us. What should they do? Just shrug and enjoy their bullet-ridden schools?

What about the people being bullet ridden every day in Chicago, Baltimore and baton rouge? Or the old people getting robbed as gunpoint?

Why is the ar15 only on your radar?

I proposed the each person must have a gun license to buy sell or have a gun. Your own liberal co host was the one saying criminals will find ways around that. Using the same argument as conservatives.

My point was proven by the fact you only think gun violence is limited to at ar15s, when you 14 and 15 years old packing heat and they are not even old enough to buy a pack of cigarettes...

Why make gun laws harder for legal citizens? When you need to worrying about enforcing the laws being broken.

 

[JimEverett]

LOL.

The argument absolutely did NOT say nor imply it was against NEW restrictions. It stated, simply, "bad guys are gonna get guns no matter what laws we make." That's the same argument made by a lot of people, and it's a ridiculous one. Maybe you're saying they don't know any better that the words they are literally using are not the words they mean; that point would be questionable but fine. But to say I'm twisting something when I'm quoting verbatim and addressing the illogical aspect of such a statement is ignoring the reality.

You're attempting to make the statement seem nuanced when there is nothing nuanced about it. If he or others were to state "I think most new regulations don't make sense, but I'm willing to discuss regulations that might help the situation as long as they don't infringe upon our 2nd Amendment Rights" there is no way I would have replied. That's sensible, logical, (responsible, practical). That's not even in the same neighborhood, much less the same ballpark as what was actually said.

LOL is right.
You want a person to restate every part of their argument in every sentence? Look at the post you quoted Joe from - he states as clear as day: "And you guys keep bring up stolen guns etc... right. So no new laws are gonna do anything."