Question for Anti-Trump Democrats

[Revoltingest]

That's usually how it ends with gun proponents as they highlight the second amendment as being the law of the land. I don't deny that but I've made many comments to help suggest that the second amendment is flawed so it being law might not really be helping us.

So back to square one.

We don't just "say" it's the law of the land, it is.
It's the very 2nd item in the Constitution's Bill Of Rights.
You oppose it.
I like it.

 

[suncowiam]

We don't just "say" it's the law of the land, it is.
It's the very 2nd item in the Constitution's Bill Of Rights.
You oppose it.
I like it.

Yes, it always boils down to proponents asserting it as a law. Because beyond all the statistics and other logical points, they always have that to fall back on.

 

[Stanyon]

That's usually how it ends with gun proponents as they highlight the second amendment as being the law of the land. I don't deny that but I've made many comments to help suggest that the second amendment is flawed so it being law might not really be helping us.
So back to square one.

O.K.

What flaws do you see with the second amendment?

Do you think more gun laws will reduce crime?

Would you favour confiscation, if so how would you implement it?

If you favour confiscation do you think that criminals who already have guns illegally will turn in their guns because ownership was made more illegal?

Who is responsible for the most gun crime, Legal owners or non-legal owners?

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, it always boils down to proponents asserting it as a law. Because beyond all the statistics and other logical points, they always have that to fall back on.

Same goes for the other amendments, eg, freedom of speech & religion.
We fall back upon constitutional protection whenever rights are threatened.

 

[suncowiam]

Same goes for the other amendments, eg, freedom of speech & religion.
We fall back upon constitutional protection whenever rights are threatened.

You're falling back to a technical argument, which I'm not denying.

You're correct for asserting the technical argument. If we lived in the 18th century, you can make a technical argument that slavery is legal and is allowed.

I took it beyond this technical argument and brought in statistics and other logical points. I've done so, many many times. I've presented data done by many organizations and countries showing a similar correlation.

So back to my thesis being that the second amendment does more harm than good. If it truly does more harm than good, than wouldn't it be prudent to change it?

 

[Revoltingest]

You're falling back to a technical argument, which I'm not denying.

I'm not falling back on it.
Tis no excuse or rationalization.
It's codification of an important right.

You're correct for asserting the technical argument. If we lived in the 18th century, you can make a technical argument that slavery is legal and is allowed.

Slavery & gun ownership....a silly analogy that is.
You could do the same with slavery & free speech...
....& freedom of religion....& the right to a jury trial.
But you don't. Why is that?

I took it beyond this technical argument and brought in statistics and other logical points. I've done so, many many times. I've presented data done by many organizations and countries showing a similar correlation.

So back to my thesis being that the second amendment does more harm than good. If it truly does more harm than good, than wouldn't it be prudent to change it?

You're not the only who has made arguments for your side.
So have I. It's a matter of differing preferences & values.

 

[dianaiad]

Your "NO liberal ... accounts cancelled (sic)" comment is obviously untrue. It took less than a minute to find...

my emphasis

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/12/17848026/facebook-thinkprogress-weekly-standard

Last week, the liberal publication ThinkProgress published a piece on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing with the headline “Brett Kavanaugh said he would kill Roe v. Wade and almost no one noticed.” The fact-checker for the Weekly Standard ruled it was false. Facebook’s punishment mechanism kicked in, and the ThinkProgress article was cut off from being seen by about 80 percent of its potential Facebook audience.

On Tuesday, the author of the ThinkProgress piece — editor Ian Millhiser — publicly defended the thesis of his piece and accused Facebook of “pandering to the right” by allowing a conservative magazine to block liberal articles.

​

On the other side...Please list a couple and let's see why they were canceled.

Shadow bans and post removals are included here, as well as outright bans...from Facebook and Twitter:

Diamond and Silk
Elizabeth Johnston
Prager University
Dr. Robert Gagnon
Alex Jones
Craig Brittain (Republican US Senate Candidate...suspended before the election. He's suing)
Donald Trump (from twitter, actually, in November of 2017)
Candace Owens
Dan Scavino (President Trump's social media director)
Michael Bronspigal (shadow banned)
"Redneck Logic" (shadow banned...he went from 8,000,000 followers to nearly none)

Well, that's a list of people who have been either temporarily banned, 'shadow banned,' or outright permanently banned from either Facebook or Twitter. Some of them (Alex Jones?) are real nutcases.

Most of them are just....conservatives whose political opinions annoyed the people who make the decisions. Facebook and Twitter have had to apologize to some of the above people because of the bans.

(shrug)

It is what it is.

 

[dianaiad]

The Women's Marches are organized by private parties. They get the funding and pay for, among other things, transportation.

I glanced through a few articles about the marches. Conservatives were not "banned", the only people specifically omitted were the anti-abortionists.


Nevertheless, why would you be upset that a private organization would restrict transportation to people who are in agreement with their goals?

I don't see the Right-To-Life busses carrying people with Pro-Choice signs.

The Women's March was SUPPOSED to be for all women, of all political views. Would you like to tell me why it was permissible to ban those who were 'pro-life' when it is a legitimate political view? That it was more important to be pro-abortion than it was to be liberal?

...and I'm not denying that private organizations have the right to deny transportation to anybody they want to. However, that does not mean that their doing so isn't 'banning,' or being discriminated against. In fact, are you not attempting to deny MY freedom of speech by saying that I have no right to point out discrimination and bias by private organizations? After all, Facebook and Twitter are both 'private' (that is, not government funded) organizations. Are we only allowed to point out discrimination when it is against the left?

 

[dianaiad]

Anecdotal evidence is so wonderful, isn't it? In addition, we are just supposed to believe you about why "All his gigs dried up and flew away"?

Many Country Music stars are outspoken conservatives. Rockers like Kid Rock, Lynyrd Skynyrd, and Ted Nugent haven't been banned.

There are many conservative TV and movie actors doing very well. Look here...
Republicans in Hollywood: Republican Celebrities List

What was your opening comment - oh yeah, disconnect.

I take it you haven't actually LOOKED at this list.

Now subtract everybody who isn't dead of old age and/or who were conservatives when it was OK to be conservative.

Bam. That takes care of about 20% of that list.

Now subtract everybody who isn't actually a "Hollywood Celebrity," that is, someone who makes his/her living by acting on stage or film or TV, but who are 'celebrities' because they are conservative talk show hosts or conservative political news opinion personalities.

Bam. That takes care of about fifty percent of the rest.

Now subtract everybody who no longer works very much....

That takes care of the rest of 'em.

I think it leaves, well....Pat Sajack.

I mean, really.....that list includes GINGER ROGERS?

 

[Milton Platt]

This is mainly directed at democrats who have the anti-Trump, "anyone but Trump", "any Blue will do" mentality.

Replacing Trump with any of these establishment, moderate, centrist type Democrats running for 2020 (like Kamala Harris, Robert O'Rourke, Joe Biden, Amy Klobuchar, Cory Booker, and I would even add Elizabeth Warren) what exactly is it do you think will change?

The rich will continue to get richer. The poor will continue to get poorer. People will still live paycheck to paycheck. Minimum wage will still be well below a living wage. Millions will still be medically under-insured or not insured. Thousands a year will continue to die because they cannot afford their medications. Oil companies will continue to drill and pollute. Our homeless population will continue to increase. Our criminal justice system will continue to create criminals for profit. We will still wage regime change wars. Money will still control politicians. And on and on.

All Donald Trump did was put an ugly face to these problems. He's the symptom, not the problem. Voting in a centrist Democrat who promises to maintain the status quo will solve what exactly? Saying "anyone but Trump" is just saying (IMO) put in someone who can make me forget that these problems exist.

A centrist democrat will only offer incremental changes to distract you while politicians help big pharma, big oil, Wall Street, big banks, private prisons, the military industrial complex, and all other corporate billionaires make even more money.

I agree. But the knife cuts both ways. Neither party is interested in anything but staying in office and avoiding the big issues while handing out favors to special interests.

 

[ecco]

We don't just "say" it's the law of the land, it is.
It's the very 2nd item in the Constitution's Bill Of Rights.
You oppose it.
I like it.

Yes, it is the law of the land by a 5-4 Scotus decision.

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

 

[ecco]

What flaws do you see with the second amendment?

The biggest flaw is that the wording is vague and is open to multiple interpretations.

Do you think more gun laws will reduce crime?

Fewer guns would reduce deaths by gun.

Would you favour confiscation, if so how would you implement it?

Yes, following a six month grace period for people to turn in their guns. Then severe penalties for people still possessing illegal guns

If you favour confiscation do you think that criminals who already have guns illegally will turn in their guns because ownership was made more illegal?

No. However, the severe penalties for possession might.

Who is responsible for the most gun crime, Legal owners or non-legal owners?

I believe that in all of the mass shootings like Las Vegas, Columbine, and Sandy Hook, the guns were legally obtained. I believe that most of the shootings where the killer is known, spousal, relatives, etc. the guns are legally obtained. If there are fewer guns, there will be fewer guns illegally possessed.

 

[ecco]

Shadow bans and post removals are included here, as well as outright bans...from Facebook and Twitter:

Diamond and Silk
Elizabeth Johnston
Prager University
Dr. Robert Gagnon
Alex Jones
Craig Brittain (Republican US Senate Candidate...suspended before the election. He's suing)
Donald Trump (from twitter, actually, in November of 2017)
Candace Owens
Dan Scavino (President Trump's social media director)
Michael Bronspigal (shadow banned)
"Redneck Logic" (shadow banned...he went from 8,000,000 followers to nearly none)

Well, that's a list of people who have been either temporarily banned, 'shadow banned,' or outright permanently banned from either Facebook or Twitter. Some of them (Alex Jones?) are real nutcases.

Most of them are just....conservatives whose political opinions annoyed the people who make the decisions. Facebook and Twitter have had to apologize to some of the above people because of the bans.

You stated that no liberal accounts were cancelled. I showed that was untrue. Since liberals are also banned there must be some reason other than political outlook for bannings.

Now you want to talk about "Shadow bans and post removals" whatever those are.

You listed some names but you didn't give any information about who banned them and why. So, let's take just one example.
Who or what is Diamond and Silk?
Who or what banned Diamond and Silk?
Why was Diamond and Silk banned?

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, it is the law of the land by a 5-4 Scotus decision.

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

Should'a been 9 to 0.
But 5 to 4 works.

 

[esmith]

The biggest flaw is that the wording is vague and is open to multiple interpretations.

Nope. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Fewer guns would reduce deaths by gun..

Got facts or are you just expressing an opinion.

Yes, following a six month grace period for people to turn in their guns. Then severe penalties for people still possessing illegal guns.

First what do you consider an illegal gun?
Second, when pigs fly.

I believe that in all of the mass shootings like Las Vegas, Columbine, and Sandy Hook, the guns were legally obtained. I believe that most of the shootings where the killer is known, spousal, relatives, etc. the guns are legally obtained. If there are fewer guns, there will be fewer guns illegally possessed.

Got facts or are you just expressing an opinion.

 

[ecco]

The Women's March was SUPPOSED to be for all women, of all political views. Would you like to tell me why it was permissible to ban those who were 'pro-life' when it is a legitimate political view? That it was more important to be pro-abortion than it was to be liberal?

I'll not attempt to explain why the organizers banned anti-abortionists.

However, if I were an organizer, I would have banned them because they stand against one of the most basic rights that women have - the right to make decisions about their own bodies and lives.

There is no sentiment on the part of the organizers or me forcing women to have abortions. There is complete commitment on the part of anti-abortionists to prevent all women from having any abortions. You do see the difference, don't you?

... After all, Facebook and Twitter are both 'private' (that is, not government funded) organizations. Are we only allowed to point out discrimination when it is against the left?

Actually, some people believe those avenues of discrimination are only against the Right.

 

[ecco]

I take it you haven't actually LOOKED at this list.

Now subtract everybody who isn't dead of old age and/or who were conservatives when it was OK to be conservative.

Bam. That takes care of about 20% of that list.

Now subtract everybody who isn't actually a "Hollywood Celebrity," that is, someone who makes his/her living by acting on stage or film or TV, but who are 'celebrities' because they are conservative talk show hosts or conservative political news opinion personalities.

Bam. That takes care of about fifty percent of the rest.

Now subtract everybody who no longer works very much....

That takes care of the rest of 'em.

I think it leaves, well....Pat Sajack.

I mean, really.....that list includes GINGER ROGERS?

That was the first list I came across. Here are 50 more Newsmax's 50 Most Influential Hollywood Conservatives
...and here 13 celebrities who are outspoken Republicans
...and here Who Are Some Hollywood Celebrities?

And I'll acknowledge that there are dupes in the lists.



You failed to respond to:
Anecdotal evidence is so wonderful, isn't it? In addition, we are just supposed to believe you about why "All his gigs dried up and flew away"?


You failed to respond to:
Many Country Music stars are outspoken conservatives. Rockers like Kid Rock, Lynyrd Skynyrd, and Ted Nugent haven't been banned.

You've shown nothing to support your allegation that conservatives are blacklisted.

More probably, (GENERALLY SPEAKING) people with a liberal mindset are more drawn to the arts than conservative minded people. Also, birds of a feather tend to want to flock together.

FWIW...
The only time I can remember of people actually being blacklisted was during the McCarthy Hearings. The was the Conservative Right blacklisting the Left. That actually ruined many careers.

 

[ecco]

The biggest flaw is that the wording is vague and is open to multiple interpretations.

Nope. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Why are you being intentionally deceitful?

You well know that that is not the entire 2nd Amendment. You well know that there is the matter of a "militia".

I know I don't need to refresh your memory, but for the edification of possible foreign lurkers...

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.​

If you don't want to believe that the 5-4 decision came down to the linguistic vagaries of the Amendment, then it can only be because you haven't taken the time to read the majority and dissenting opinions. Or, perhaps, you don't understand them.

 

[esmith]

Why are you being intentionally deceitful?

You well know that that is not the entire 2nd Amendment. You well know that there is the matter of a "militia".

I know I don't need to refresh your memory, but for the edification of possible foreign lurkers...

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.​

If you don't want to believe that the 5-4 decision came down to the linguistic vagaries of the Amendment, then it can only be because you haven't taken the time to read the majority and dissenting opinions. Or, perhaps, you don't understand them.

And in your opinion is it necessary to have a well regulated militia in order that the the right of citizens to keep and bear arms not be infringed?
My opinion is no. That is why I left it out.
However I know that there are those of you who think otherwise, along with the ridiculous idea that the founding fathers only knew about muskets therefore modern weapons are not covered under the 2nd Amendment.

 

[dianaiad]

You stated that no liberal accounts were cancelled. I showed that was untrue. Since liberals are also banned there must be some reason other than political outlook for bannings.

I was wrong. Liberals have also been banished/banned, when they break other rules. So have conservatives been banned for what I consider to be justifiable reasons.

However, when you look at the number of liberals vs. conservatives who have been, er, 'disciplined,' you will find that the ratio is weighed heavily against conservatives. As in... considerably more conservatives get clobbered than liberals do.

I didn't have any problems at all, please notice, in giving you a list of conservatives who have had problems with Facebook and Twitter. You, I notice, have had a great deal of difficulty finding liberals who have had to deal with this. The bias is real. As private companies, Facebook and Twitter have the right to do that. I also have the right to point it out.

Now you want to talk about "Shadow bans and post removals" whatever those are.

What, you have a problem with the conception of 'post removal?" I think that's pretty clear. "Shadow bans' happen when the account is not actually banned, but rather that it becomes very difficult for followers to find it.

this is what happened to "Redneck Logic," which went from eight million followers to almost none, due to Facebook's manipulation of how people find things.

You listed some names but you didn't give any information about who banned them and why. So, let's take just one example.
Who or what is Diamond and Silk?
Who or what banned Diamond and Silk?
Why was Diamond and Silk banned?

SERIOUSLY?

You need to get out more. You need to read about the 'other side,' and what someone who doesn't agree with you actually has to say, not simply what those who do agree with you claim they have to say.

"Diamond and Silk" are two very conservative African American women who had a Facebook site...and Facebook banned them. Since Facebook has since apologized to them, several times, for doing so unjustly, I think that we can simply acknowledge that the ban was unjust. ....and the apologies made clear that it was their politics that caused the problem.

They are quite well known conservative 'bloggers.' Rather famous, actually.

Oh, their Facebook page is back, if you want to see what they actually do have to say.