Repeal the Second Amendment

the surprise year was: 1980.

which isn't much of a 'pattern.'

http://www.history.com/images/media/slideshow/george-bush/george-bush-tough.jpg

No, 1988 is right on schedule, as was 1984 and 1992. The sole aberrant outcome is 1980.

One extra 4 year period for the Republicans - and that's it. Enough to freak out Democrats into becoming shadows of themselves, but really. That's it.

Somebody said 1952 was an arbitrary beginning. Well, the Roosevelt-Truman run was historic in its length, so....after that unusual event ends.....we then get 15 out of 16 predictable election results based on R or D.

Clip this Coupon: "Who cares" and "Fuck you" are both appropriate responses to what I've pointed out: this could stop any time, I agree. You're welcome.

"No pattern exists" though? Sorry about that.

whoa wow im woke af now thanks

If enough votes could be mustered to refer the amendment that repealed or modified the 2nd and for state legislatures to pass it, then by definition there would be plenty of political will to implement it, too.

― Aimless, Saturday, 3 October 2015 17:02 (2 hours ago) Permalink

That's it, exactly.

Dems won election in 00 as well, so. It goes.

8
8
8
4
12
12
4
8(+)

Another way of looking at it:
20-32 Reb Dominance
32-52 Dem Dominance
52-68 No dominance
68-92 Rep Dominance (only one loss to Dems)
92-2024 Dem dominance (only one loss to Rebs)

Seeking patterns in so little information is a fools errand. It can always be interpreted differently.

I'm sleepy too. Yet I don't hide behind it when I'm losing an argument.

G'night.

― Vic Perry, Friday, October 2, 2015 10:26 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

uhhh

lol

hahaha

luckily vic perry is never loses arguments so it's not really a problem

for the rest of us, though

http://ak-hdl.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/webdr05/2013/4/7/12/enhanced-buzz-15983-1365353313-1.jpg

whenever i'm winning arguments (which is all the time) i usually just insert extra words and scramble everything up to make it a puzzle

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOLhQ6puoS4

Putting aside the pretense that people vote for parties rather than individuals at the decisive margin, can you all learn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_system#United_States before talking about "Democrats" and "Republicans" over such time scales?

Sorry, first period should have been:
1896-1932: Rep Dominance (Only one Dem win: 1916, in 12 Roosevelt and Taft split the vote, combined they had a majority)

Counterfactual "not stolen election" Gore 00 administration among best ever. I understand in some versions of this one 9/11 didn't even happen, or if it did, the USA acted in this totally rational non-warlike way. Lieberman didn't even become Republican. No really.

Still, it's not as good as the counterfactual "not assassinated RFK 68 administration", nor as longterm useful as "not stolen election" Nixon 60 administration. But it is indeed a real good one.

and now.....back to repealing the 2nd amendment?

fwiw attempting take on the gun companies via the courts a la big tobacco isn't an option thanks to congress passing a law shielding gun companies from any liability lawsuits. guess who wrote that law? i'll give you a hint - he's running for president and he's the leading male candidate for his party's nomination right now.

or back to ending BUSH'S WAR in Afghanistan

(remember, if Hillllary <3 is bombing Doctors Without Borders in 2023, it's still BUSH'S WAR)

Trump wrote a law?

Xp

I know you cant be referring to the PCLAA cuz that was Larry Craig's baby.

One of the debate questions from here on out should be: "how many mass shootings would there have to be in this country before you agreed to pass any new gun control laws? Cite a number."

http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/k_gwwnq-30i8vmypp8fkag.png

I would guess this is due to a. political polarization (you don't get to be a real republican if you support gun control in 2015) and b. crime going down. but unlike gay marriage, pot, there's really no sign that the political support for this is going in the right direction.

do you understand what a trendline is

oh n/m I am apparently terrible at understanding shades of green

but unlike gay marriage, pot, there's really no sign that the political support for this is going in the right direction.

it involves selling fewer things instead of more of them

but unlike gay marriage, pot, there's really no sign that the political support for this is going in the right direction.

that’s my sense too
nb there’s difference here qualitatively, in principle
extending rights vs curtailing rights
the latter will always be more difficult (in this country)

(and tbh-- this issue aside-- generally speaking, good thing too)

have we talked about this?: http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-second-amendment-is-a-gun-control-amendment

argues (as does my S.O.) that it's not about the 2nd amendment but about its interpretation. i'm a little incredulous at the argument that this radical interpretation of the 2nd amendment is a recent phenomenon, since the antipathy to gun control is pointedly /not/ a recent development.

but i'm not a constitutional scholar. (though i'm a little skeptical of anyone who points to a stevens dissent as the best place to find a legitimate constitutional interpretation. i thought his interpretations were generally thought to be fairly flaky.)

thoughts?

― wizzz! (amateurist), Friday, October 2, 2015 7:58 PM (Yesterday)

it absolutely is. if you want a couple of very good, very long papers to give you some good history on the subject, try justice stephens' dissent in DC vs heller or this essay by garry wills in the NYRB

because wow is that ever a fantasy scenario, not to mention a bloody and totalitarian one.

let's have it. All the gun nuts get to live out their fantasies of resistance, the army kills them all. it's a win-win.

― Οὖτις, Friday, October 2, 2015 7:00 PM (Yesterday)

lol shakey i love you

everybody likes fantasies

Vic, your posting style is obnoxious. You wanna start coalitions? Start with this thread.

Alfred, I respect you.

The second amendment never got in the way of towns in the Old West banning guns in the city limits:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/did-the-wild-west-have-mo_b_956035.html
http://www.politico.com/story/2011/01/even-tombstone-had-gun-laws-047366#comments

I'd love to see a city and/or state prohibit guns within it's borders and then stand ground all the way up to the Supreme Court to force the issue.

This is worth reading:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41EVAkSxpdL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

The second amendment never got in the way of towns in the Old West banning guns in the city limits:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/did-the-wild-west-have-mo_b_956035.html
http://www.politico.com/story/2011/01/even-tombstone-had-gun-laws-047366#comments

I'd love to see a city and/or state prohibit guns within it's borders and then stand ground all the way up to the Supreme Court to force the issue.

― Elvis Telecom, Saturday, October 3, 2015 11:49 PM (9 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

hasn't that more or less happened e.g. in chicago... and the result was not what we would have hoped

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/04/us/mass-murderers-fit-profile-as-do-many-others-who-dont-kill.html?ribbon-ad-idx=16&rref=homepage&module=Ribbon&version=origin®ion=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Home%20Page&pgtype=article

I would guess this is due to a. political polarization (you don't get to be a real republican if you support gun control in 2015) and b. crime going down. but unlike gay marriage, pot, there's really no sign that the political support for this is going in the right direction.

― iatee, Saturday, October 3, 2015 8:18 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

the drop from the early to mid-90s is the result of the passage of the brady bill in late 93 and assault weapons ban in mid-late 94. the brief bump back up in 99 was columbine. i'd guess that the decline that begins in about april 2000 was probably related to the Presidential election (and the Federal agent seizure in the Elian affair?) of that year, after which things leveled off and started rising in the wake of the brutality of the Iraq war and as the AWB approached its sunset in mid-late 04. fear of a black president probably drove the decline from 2007 to the present, punctuated only by the huge bump caused by sandy hook.

everybody likes fantasies

― Vic Perry, Saturday, October 3, 2015 11:08 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

You're doing a very good job of talking to yourself

FactCheck on Gun Laws, Deaths and Crime. Won't necessary sway anyone's opinion, but worth a read:
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/gun-laws-deaths-and-crimes/

that factcheck piece proceeds from the possibly willfully stupid standard that gun control laws are only successful to the extent that they reduce gun deaths or violence below the rate extant in places without gun control laws and not, you know, below the rate that would obtain in the very same place in the absence of gun control laws. places with less gun control have less gun violence for the same reason that people who live in them are more accepting of weak gun restrictions - people in those very rural places are much fewer and farther between such that, among other factors, violent gun criminals are far easier to catch and recreational gun use is far less likely to injure or kill bystanders (to ignore suicide rates, accidents among gun users, etc.).

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/05/us/to-curb-gun-violence-hillary-clinton-has-a-plan-for-possible-executive-action.html

xp there's also always the problem of gun flow from neighboring states. E.g. DC, which (at least pre-Heller) had fairly strict gun laws, used to see a lot of guns come in via Virginia, which had very laxed gun laws. One of the biggest myths that I don't think gets challenged often enough is the "illegal guns" myth -- this is basically the flawed thinking behind "if owning a gun is a crime, only criminals will have guns." Illegal guns virtually always start as legal guns, so more barriers to legal access = more barriers to illegal access.

yeah isn't that one of the Mayor of Baltimore's big complaints, that there's a "gun corridor" that flows up and down the east coast, regardless of local gun laws

Alfred tweeted this, obviously for lolz but otm:
https://humanizingthevacuum.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/guns.png

Not saying it's a solution, but as a method to force government action.

Otherwise, we're just going to go through this again and again.

Why don't the families of shooting victims picket gun stores, gun shows, etc.?

photos of dead children on placards while they're at it

Uh yeah far be it from anyone who hasn't had such a tragedy happen to them to tell them what to do. Can imagine some of them do. Can also imagine trying to not allow it to completely dominate their lives. Can also imagine not wanting to be around guns alot when you are kin to victim. Also not everyone is political and/or extroverted. There are a bunch of reasons. A better question is why aren't the people supposedly in charge (politicians) doing anything?

Why don't the families of shooting victims picket gun stores, gun shows, etc.?

because they might get shot?

just guessin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8MyMKkjEaw