Racism Of Presidential Candidates

[tytlyf]

There's no Southern Democrats that transitioned into the 'new' Republican party.

Did you fail American History? The southern democrats started voting republican when republicans used the "southern strategy" political playbook.
Your logic makes zero sense and it's a RW debunked talking point.

Anyways its still amazing to see those type of denials by which the left accuses the right of racism, yet refuses those same standards by which they accuse others, are soundly denied whenever its directed back at them as if they themselves are immune of being racist themselves.

Ya, the non-diverse republican elected officials don't represent the electorate.

Here's a tip, the south wasn't progressive/liberal in 1860. You're easily tricked.

 

[Revoltingest]

The assault weapons ban did not impose “insignificant restrictions”. If that was true the NRA and GOP wouldn’t care - but they do.

It banned new manufacture and sale of magazines with more than 10 rounds. It banned new manufacture and sale of AR-15s and other models.

The Vegas shooter used AR-15s and killed 60 people.

The Orlando shooter used a 30-round magazine SIG MCX and killed over 40 people.

The Sandy Hook shooter killed nearly 30 people including children with an AR-15 style Bushmaster with a 30 round magazine.

The Sutherland Springs shooter used a Ruger AR 556 and killed nearly 30 people. This weapon has a 30-round magazine and began production in 2014.

None of the 15 deadliest mass shootings in the US occurred during the period the ban was in effect, 1994-2004. Semi-automatic rifles of the kind that were in scope of the ban were used in 6 of the 10 deadliest US shootings. High capacity magazines were used in half of mass shootings.

Again you can dispute terms but - tying this back to the OP - this was part of the Crime Bill, and black Americans overwhelmingly support it. And this is one of many reasons they overwhelmingly support Biden.

Your examples of gun misuse included no assault rifles. Look-alikes
were addressed in the 1994 bill, but without significant restrictions,
hence their use in the crimes cited.
So your post appears to argue for gun control, but not that the 1994
bill actually provided it.

Note that the 30 round magazines were not banned unless made
after 9.13.1994. Manufacturers had advance warning of this provision,
& just produced more to meet the increased current & future demand.
It seems that Biden's baby was a boon to the gun industry, eh.
The bill even lifted this ban thru a sunset provision.

I favor some additional gun regulation, but it should be
based upon getting results (& of course be constitutional).
Biden's bill did nothing useful, but much that was harmful.
This suggests poor judgment, failure to consider foreseeable
consequences, & a lack of understanding of firearms.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Did you fail American History? The southern democrats started voting republican when republicans used the "southern strategy" political playbook.
Your logic makes zero sense and it's a RW debunked talking point.

Ya, the non-diverse republican elected officials don't represent the electorate.

Here's a tip, the south wasn't progressive/liberal in 1860. You're easily tricked.

Looks like I'm not the one who needs a refresher in history.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was just saying that Trump could have helped his case by simply denouncing white supremacy. I also agreed that Biden does not have a squeaky clean record, either.

I hope this helps, I know I mumble sometimes.

That was clear.
It helps that you're posting sober now.

 

[Revoltingest]

Looks like I'm not the one who needs a refresher in history.

It seems that many posters need an education
into gun technology & the history of regulation.
Discussions would be more interesting.

@esmith is most familiar....he should teach a
course to our leftish friends.

 

[tytlyf]

Looks like I'm not the one who needs a refresher in history.

Aren't you asserting the south was progressive in 1860?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Your examples of gun misuse included no assault rifles. Look-alikes
were addressed in the 1994 bill, but without significant restrictions,
hence their use in the crimes cited.
So your post appears to argue for gun control, but not that the 1994
bill actually provided it.

Well, actually you are missing the point. I support the assault weapons ban but that was not what my post was arguing. I am arguing this was an important part of the bipartisan 1994 Crime Bill - not in your opinion, of course, but in the opinion of Biden's supporters. And particularly blacks, 74% of whom support it.

This, combined with the fact that most of the Congressional Black Caucus supported the Crime Bill, explodes your argument in the OP that (a) Biden supporters are ignoring his record because they don't even agree with it themselves, and (b) his record is racist. You won't agree with the reasons Biden supporters approve overall of his record, of course ... because you're a Republican - sorry - Libertarian. Disagreement is natural. But your accusations in the OP ... silly.

That was my point.

I am happy to go further, and defend the assault weapon ban. That is a slightly different topic though.

On that topic, I note you have ignored the fact that the weapons used in recent mass shootings were produced after the ban expired. I.e., they were in the hands of mass shooters because the ban ended, not in spite of its passage.

These were not all 30-year old weapons. You also ignored the fact that existing guns don't last forever and become scarce in a growing population without new manufacture. You also ignore that the alternative to a ban on new manufacture would be confiscation of existing weapons. I find it disingenuous when gun-rights advocates, who constantly warn of government boogeymen taking our guns away, turn around and say the assault weapons ban didn't go far enough because it "only" banned new manufacture. They try to make gun regulation as ineffective as possible ... then turn around and say the regulations should be opposed because they don't do much. Convenient.

Note that the 30 round magazines were not banned unless made
after 9.13.1994.

Yep. And 22 years later, when the Orlando shooter used a 30 round magazine, you think he was using one that was made prior to 1994? Nope. If you want to discharge 200 rounds in less than 5 minutes and kill 50 people, like the Orlando shooter did, and possibly get into a shootout with law enforcement ... you're ideally going to want a gun whose parts are well maintained and not 22 years old and whose model is the latest design and technology. That will give you maximum lethality which is a mass shooters' goal, as well as maximum reliability since a mass shooter - unlike someone doing this as a hobby or for recreation - only gets one chance. A single jam could ruin their plans entirely. The Orlando shooter's gun was manufactured in 2015, about a year prior to his shooting, and he obtained it legally because there was no ban in effect at that time.

Violent people will still find violent means, of course ... but the red carpet would not have been rolled out for him quite so much, if there were no newly manufactured 30-round magazines available less than 22 years old. He would have had a tougher time finding an older weapon, whose price may have been higher due to scarcity value, and which may have been more likely to jam rather than pump out hundreds of rounds flawlessly into a crowd at 3,000 feet per second and a nominal max rate of fire of 900 RPM.

We could confiscate those old 22-year old guns too of course ... that would indeed make the regulation more effective at keeping such weapons out of people's hands. But at the cost of the concept of "grandfathering" in existing weapons and at the cost of people like you clutching their pearls when Big Brother comes to take your guns away. So, compromise is necessary and the risks only partially reduced.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, actually you are missing the point. I support the assault weapons ban but that was not what my post was arguing. I am arguing this was an important part of the bipartisan 1994 Crime Bill - not in your opinion, of course, but in the opinion of Biden's supporters. And particularly blacks, 74% of whom support it.

This, combined with the fact that most of the Congressional Black Caucus supported the Crime Bill, explodes your argument in the OP that (a) Biden supporters are ignoring his record because they don't even agree with it themselves, and (b) his record is racist. You won't agree with the reasons Biden supporters approve overall of his record, of course ... because you're a Republican - sorry - Libertarian. Disagreement is natural. But your accusations in the OP ... silly.

That was my point.

I am happy to go further, and defend the assault weapon ban. That is a slightly different topic though.

On that topic, I note you have ignored the fact that the weapons used in recent mass shootings were produced after the ban expired. I.e., they were in the hands of mass shooters because the ban ended, not in spite of its passage.

These were not all 30-year old weapons. You also ignored the fact that existing guns don't last forever and become scarce in a growing population without new manufacture. You also ignore that the alternative to a ban on new manufacture would be confiscation of existing weapons. I find it disingenuous when gun-rights advocates, who constantly warn of government boogeymen taking our guns away, turn around and say the assault weapons ban didn't go far enough because it "only" banned new manufacture. They try to make gun regulation as ineffective as possible ... then turn around and say the regulations should be opposed because they don't do much. Convenient.

Yep. And 22 years later, when the Orlando shooter used a 30 round magazine, you think he was using one that was made prior to 1994? Nope. If you want to discharge 200 rounds in less than 5 minutes and kill 50 people, like the Orlando shooter did, and possibly get into a shootout with law enforcement ... you're ideally going to want a gun whose parts are well maintained and not 22 years old and whose model is the latest design and technology. That will give you maximum lethality which is a mass shooters' goal, as well as maximum reliability since a mass shooter - unlike someone doing this as a hobby or for recreation - only gets one chance. A single jam could ruin their plans entirely. The Orlando shooter's gun was manufactured in 2015, about a year prior to his shooting, and he obtained it legally because there was no ban in effect at that time.

Violent people will still find violent means, of course ... but the red carpet would not have been rolled out for him quite so much, if there were no newly manufactured 30-round magazines available less than 22 years old. He would have had a tougher time finding an older weapon, whose price may have been higher due to scarcity value, and which may have been more likely to jam rather than pump out hundreds of rounds flawlessly into a crowd at 3,000 feet per second and a nominal max rate of fire of 900 RPM.

We could confiscate those old 22-year old guns too of course ... that would indeed make the regulation more effective at keeping such weapons out of people's hands. But at the cost of the concept of "grandfathering" in existing weapons and at the cost of people like you clutching their pearls when Big Brother comes to take your guns away. So, compromise is necessary and the risks only partially reduced.

Missing the point of the thread by going on about
other things, eh. Well, that's one way to excuse
Biden's record. It appears that we're done.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Missing the point of the thread by going on about
other things, eh. Well, that's one way to excuse
Biden's record. It appears that we're done.

How did I excuse Biden’s record? You brought up the Crime Bill. I brought up facts about the Crime Bill and aspects of it that black Americans predominantly supported at the time, and continue to support today. It’s not racist contrary to the OP - sorry he doesn’t provide the mirror image of Trump you want him to be.

 

[Revoltingest]

How did I excuse Biden’s record? You brought up the Crime Bill. I brought up facts about the Crime Bill and aspects of it that black Americans predominantly supported at the time, and continue to support today. It’s not racist contrary to the OP - sorry he doesn’t provide the mirror image of Trump you want him to be.

Your crime bill "facts" were wrong about the type of guns
regulated, & the effects of the bill.
- It regulated no assault (ie, select fire) weapons, the name notwithstanding.
- It increased production & ownership of the guns & accessories ostensibly
banned.
- It greatly increased incarceration, particularly of blacks.

To say that many others supported Biden's bill is
red herring apologetics, not "serious discussion"
Biden supported the 1994 Crime Bill.
It had the cited foreseeable deleterious effects.
This is his record.
You defended & excused it in your posts.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Your crime bill "facts" were wrong about the type of guns
regulated, & the effects of the bill.
- It regulated no assault (ie, select fire) weapons, the name notwithstanding.

I said it regulated high capacity magazines and AR-15s, among others. These are facts.

- It increased production & ownership of the guns & accessories ostensibly
banned.

Evidence, please.

You already conceded new manufacture of higher than 10-round mags were banned. The Orlando shooter legally purchased a 30-round magazine that was new, because there was no ban. If the ban had still been in effect, he would have had to find one over 20-years old. Or use a smaller magazine.

Again the alternative to banning new manufacture and “grandfather in” existing weapons, would be a more onerous and sweeping weapons ban, and confiscation of existing weapons from citizens who had purchased them legally. Republicans don’t like that idea so much. So there was compromise. That’s why it was bipartisan. It’s disingenuous for gun-rights advocates to suggest the ban should be opposed because it didn’t go far enough.

- It greatly increased incarceration, particularly of blacks.

Yep. A quarter century later, that appears to be a valid criticism. That should be factored into Biden’s record. Along with the assault weapons ban which was part of that bipartisan bill and which the vast majority of black Americans support. Along with the other parts of his record you left out of the OP - like his eight years as VP to our first black president, while Trump was championing birtherism. Like passage of Obamacare, which is very popular among black Americans, while Trump repeatedly tries to kill or weaken it.

To say that many others supported Biden's bill is
red herring apologetics, not "serious discussion"

Huh? I didn’t say “many others”. I said the Congressional Black Caucus. You implied Biden’s support for the bill was racist. The fact that the majority of the Congressional Black Caucus supported it at the time is pertinent.

Biden supported the 1994 Crime Bill.
It had the cited foreseeable deleterious effects.
This is his record.
You defended & excused it in your posts.

Yes it’s part of his record. It’s not “his record” ... though you seem to wish it. “His record”, i.e. his entire record, would need to include, again, not only what he did a quarter century ago, but also what he did just four years ago, when he ended his second term as VP to our first black president. He was literally part of the previous White House before the current orange occupant took residence. It’s extremely odd to leave that out when discussing his record and suggesting he’s racist.

Yes I defended it in my posts. I didn’t ignore it. Thanks for acknowledging that, thus exploding your OP which argued Biden supporters ignore it and won’t defend it because they can’t. Yes We Can.